I think your hitting on something there gold eagle. :pQuote:
Perhaps the WTO approval process has been, dare we suggest, impressed upon by the business elite?
I like the way you phrase your questions, it gets these threads churning again. :D
Printable View
I think your hitting on something there gold eagle. :pQuote:
Perhaps the WTO approval process has been, dare we suggest, impressed upon by the business elite?
I like the way you phrase your questions, it gets these threads churning again. :D
thks. Some churn is needed here in Cosmos, maybe because of the other threads are a bit boring.
This reminds me of the Sheriff's Dilemma...
There's an uprise in a town... the sheriff arrests someone (probably an innocent bystander) to please the crowd... The people want to lynch the arrestant... The sheriff should defend his office... What should he do?
He could give the arrestant to the crowd. Result: one innocent dead.
Or he could defend the innocent arrestant, causing 100's of deads in the following uprise...
I guess it's all about whether you are willing to sacrifice an innocent for the bigger interest or not...
I highly doubt that a doctor knowingly spreading a very serious disease is innocent no matter how jaded your viewpoint.
It's the equivalent of having AIDS and knowing it, but then turning right around and becoming the town whore.
The logic seems a bit off.
Quote:
I highly doubt that a doctor knowingly spreading a very serious disease is innocent no matter how jaded your viewpoint.
It's the equivalent of having AIDS and knowing it, but then turning right around and becoming the town whore.
The logic seems a bit off.
You got that right! If someone is knowingly spreading SARS, then their "innocence" has gone straight out the window. I'm gonna change my mind slightly on that one and possibly lean twoard the death penalty in this case.
This actually sounds similar to those who were knowingly spreading aids to others without disclosing they had it. Selfish? Obviously. Murder? Think so.
The other side of the dilema came up when a schizophrenic went round wielding a samauri sword and tried to charge into a crowded pub with it. The police tried to calm him down, but when he started smashing against the doors they had to shoot him to protect themselves and the people inside the pub (he had already swung for some police officers).
Were the police right to shoot him? The guy's mother doesn't think so, and wants a full investigation. Personally, I agree with the decision of the police - if it really was impossible to disarm him safely and shooting him was the only way to save everyone else, then so be it.
In his own mind, the guy was innocent (it's not like he intended to hurt anyone), but the police had to put the safety of the majority first.
So in a way this is like what the Chinese government are doing - let one person escape and possibly spread SARS, or shoot them to prevent the spread of the virus? I don't agree with the way they go about things (in the schizophrenic scenario the police were put in an unexpected situation and had to make a split second decision for which they would have been criticised no matter how they reacted) though.
It's always that way. The a**holes who robbed a Bank oof America in L.A. in full body armor have a few lawsuits in their name from thier parents. It'll fall flat on it;s face just like that lawsuit.And from the limited amount of info you provide about the story it seems to me that people who wish to do no harm don't arm themselves and smash things. Hey wait that must be my head on backwards. *turns head completeley around* Nope, it still looks the same like this. Go figure.
kd - like your new burnin heart.
Thanks. I thought it was fitting. ;)