h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

what exactly have Governments and leaders of men, been able to get away with throughout history.

i personally am happy to kill a man if i think it would save a million.
but what have world leaders been able to justify?

I d'know, I doubt I'd be able to kill on the strength of a thought. I'd have to *know* it would save a million, directly, and to do that I'd either have to be a right Cassandra or have a prediction machine of some sort.

if you want to take it to the extreme. wouldn't killing 1 to save to be enough?
at what point can we put a number on values.

i mean 1 to save 2

The problem comes when you have to decide if one of "us" is worth more that one of "them".

that is the dilema isnt it.
if a person did have to make a choice though, using pure numbers is probably the most ethical way.

just because you dont like someone, doesnt mean thae cant be better than you.

Unfortunately, for the US, for example, it seems to be ok to have 1028 allied military deaths in Iraq compared with between 11,252 and 13,253 Iraqi civilian deaths.

1 in 10, military to civilians, liberators to liberated.

Sounds about right to me.

When you say is the life of 1 American soldier worth the life of 10 Iraqi civilians you start treading very very difficult grounds.

Ben

(Sources: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ and http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx )

i would never assume labels like AMERICAN or IRQI

more like bush or saddam.

soldiers in general just do what they are told(apart from allowing the government to relieve them of conccience)
its the leaders that are the problem.
bush killes x iraqie and x usa
sadam kills x iraqie and x usa (x being a number obviously)
i would kill the two of them.
no citezens at all.
but i think that the citizens of them nations should make restituion through civilian law, because they allowed people like that in office.
and even then they allowedd them to stay in office and do more harm.

i would be fine with bush if he had made it his mission to kill sadam, NOT to atack the poor iraqy people and armies.
they are still human.
obviously if it is proved in civiliancourt that the civilions of that(ANY) nation could do nothing to stop their leader then they would be cleared of al;l charges.

I dont know about you lot out there but I think this 'Gigabane' person is as mad as a box of frogs. Do I get a Hear Hear?

hear hear.

the new british empire will declare war on the unjust. anyone that resists will be killed. how convinient that the land then becomes vacant. How can people moan if they are all dead? and anyway bodies make great fertiliser. would solve barren land problems with bonemeal.

this guy wants to let people live! CRAZY.

churchills_ghost, I am sorry, but I am sure what you say is a wind-up, and I just will not take you seriously!

>> how convinient that the land then becomes vacant. How can people moan if they are all dead?

Well, it worked in Tasmania. And the Carribean, for that matter.

B

Hmmm. Well. If you killed Saddam and Bush then 2 people die. Then there supporters will go 'it was the americans who killed our beloved leader' or the americans will go 'it was the iraqi's who killed our beloved leader' or both will go 'it was some H2G2 Researcher who killed our beloved leaders' and will then proceed to assault the perceived aggressor with knowledge that not only is their cause right and just, but also that they are exacting revenge, ie they are 'one down' and therefore can do anything up to and equal to (if not beyond) the original act in order to get even. That way you end up with an even bloodier war with very little chance of stopping it since nothing can bring back the dead.

As for numbers being ethical, well, I'd disagree. Would you kill 1 innocent to save the lives of 10 convicted murderers ('scuse the irony)? Personally, my problem with such arguments is that there is always a third option in the real world. You just have to look damn hard for it sometimes.

<< is that there is always a third option in the real world. You just have to look damn hard for it sometimes.>>

And may we always *keep* looking!

erhem. *clears throat*
the point WAS to kill sadam. That's for you, giggy.
And what about the QUAALITY of the death?
Is it Ok to kill three men with a shot to the head to prevent 2 men from being put through a meat grinder feet first (alive)?

the three men are Uday Quesy and Sadaam, though I beleive it was actually an industrial sized paper shredder...

dang. I didn't realize it had veered away from the politics. Sorry for starting up again. Amen to peace in the world, and the Third Way.

Well, you are cordially invited to review the first part of my essay which is comfortably residing in my journal section.

Disclaimer: this is not an invitation to kick around Americans.
It is an invitation to help a fellow human being who hasn't got time to really polish it up alone finish off an essay.

What I'm looking for is advice on grammatical, structural, etc things, as well as general suggestions on accuracy,
and to be told if anything comes across as too overbearing, pushy, or superior, which I would like to avoid.

Also, do I need to be PC and say "he or she" or can I slip by with a 'he'?

And any other random advice.

Thanks for your help.
(and I'm not submitting this for peer review bec. its not for the guide and I figured all those ranting people who helped me gather the info could help me shape it.)

I for one, will take a look, Leo-Alpha. (My advice re she or he, is to alternate, or pluralise wherever you can.. But that's just my advice..)

Posted By: Adelaide the Cat Woman: "The Story of the Dirty-Dancing Spiders"
You are replying to this message: Jump To Reply Field


<< is that there is always a third option in the real world. You just have to look damn hard for it sometimes.>>

And may we always *keep* looking!


This from the woman who jumped to the conclusion I had hacked her thread with *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*

Then when I suggested she question the *real culprit* she issued a death threat.

When she finally found out who the real culprit she did not retract the accusation but reiterated that is was the kind othing Id do so it was OK to publicly condemn me for something I had never done.

Della I suggest you take your own advice and keep looking for that third way, hope yours turns out to be better than Blairs.

one love