You must choise one:

A. You die. Future of USA proceeds as normal.

B. You choose to live. Our government and country dissolves, the people live though.

Id choose B. I care more about me. Remember, if you DONT DIE, our state and gov. ENDS and iits gararnteed that your death saves it.

10/14/2006 12:22:24 AM

that's a false dilema that you are presenting. Personally, I don't care if I die. death isn't something to be feared.

10/14/2006 12:39:11 AM

Quote :

"that's a false dilema"

no, its POSSIBLE this situation could come up. its a hypothetical dilema.

many people dont aviod things simple becuase they dont fear them. thats a bad reason to do something.

[Edited on October 14, 2006 at 12:43 AM. Reason : 5]

10/14/2006 12:42:01 AM

what a terrible terrible thread

10/14/2006 12:52:41 AM

oh, oh I got one.

What if you had to have sex with your mother to save your father.

10/14/2006 1:16:20 AM

Quote :

"nutsmackr: death isn't something to be feared."

Agreed.

But to answer the question of the thread, I'd choose B myself as well. America is, at its root, a philosophy enshrined on a piece of parchment -- it's redevelopment would be inevitable. It's the fundamental nature of mankind.

10/14/2006 1:21:37 AM

i'd live and it doesnt even matter anyway.

its kind of oxymoron because if the people live america lives plain and simple.

10/14/2006 1:27:55 AM

I would. But is that any big surprise? These questions and answers are, however, meaningless in the abstract.

And before you immediately dismiss my answer, know this: It is a subject that I have given a significant amount of thought to--prior to your posing the question. I currently hold no religious beliefs that I would die for. But, if necessary, I would make the ultimate sacrifice for our Constitution and the United States of America--as an artificial construct and an actuality.

When I think of the Americans I might save with the type of sacrifice you described, I am not embarrassed to tell you that my eyes well. Yes, I would die so that others might live.

Duty, honor, country: These words mean everything to me. Believe it. AMERICA!

10/14/2006 5:29:19 AM

of course i would die for our nation

i would die for less than that too, I would probably die to preserve the life of the sitting president.

10/14/2006 6:42:45 AM

Sorry, I couldn't see doing that. It was my understanding that people only volunteered for guaranteed die such that others were guaranteed life, this scenario does not have that. All I would do for an idea such as this country is Risk my life, which I would do mightily. I would probably go for long odds too (charge a machine gun), but never certain death.

Although, yea, as the question is layed out it doesn't make sense, if the people live then so does the country.

10/14/2006 9:10:40 AM

A.

10/14/2006 9:55:26 AM

B
mostly just because this country could use a good revolution every now and again.

10/14/2006 10:04:57 AM

I would love to die to protect the rich white man's economic interests.

B

10/14/2006 10:27:23 AM

I would love to die to protect the rich white man's economic interests.

10/14/2006 10:27:45 AM

Quote :

"I would love to die to protect the rich white man's economic interests."

Cever... but you are already letting the country die to protect the poor man's economic interests.

10/14/2006 10:49:33 AM

How so?

10/14/2006 11:43:55 AM

ahh the youth of America...so ignorant

ask the same people the same thing in 20 years and see what they say...once they have worked and saved money, have their own families, their own (gasp) responsibilities.........

Quote :

"I would love to die to protect the rich white man's economic interests."

Guess what....you ARE rich compared to the rest of the world. You, a college educated American, have the opprotunity to do whatever you want to do with your life.....if you end up at the bottom, its your own damn fault.

10/14/2006 11:59:32 AM

End up on the bottom in what way? This is the problem with Capitalist societies, in my opinion... there's one metric of success.

10/14/2006 12:16:57 PM

but then you turn around and realize that its a free country and you can define success however the fuck you want to define it.

don't blame the nation because you're susceptible to peer pressure.

10/14/2006 1:13:17 PM

Calling darwin

10/14/2006 1:34:43 PM

^^^^ you're 23 stfu

oh and fight the power

[Edited on October 14, 2006 at 2:32 PM. Reason : and my responsibilities is fightin the state! woopa]

10/14/2006 2:31:27 PM

A.

Order is preferable to chaos, national unity is preferable to national dissolution, the Constitution is preferable to whatever today's pack of idiots would come up with if they managed to reform the government.

10/14/2006 2:40:48 PM

intellectuals today are too self-centered and egotistical

at least our founding fathers had some humility

contrast our constitution with EU constitution.

pwn

10/14/2006 2:50:53 PM

^ It took us awhile to get it the way it is so maybe the EU will stop sucking and get it together.

but I cant promise anything.

10/14/2006 2:57:22 PM

Quote :

"Future of USA proceeds as normal"

how is that different then B?

10/14/2006 2:59:54 PM

B muthafucka

10/14/2006 3:25:41 PM

Quote :

"no, its POSSIBLE this situation could come up. its a hypothetical dilema."

Well yes it's possible for pigs to grow wings to and fly, it doesn't mean were going to be able to stop this.

10/14/2006 3:28:48 PM

To bous: Are you referring to social Darwinism?

10/14/2006 5:00:19 PM

Quote :

"End up on the bottom in what way? This is the problem with Capitalist societies, in my opinion... there's one metric of success."

I disagree completely. Our capitalist society was founded on the precept of "The Pursuit of Happiness", which does not necessarily mean material wealth. If you want to work a job that doesn't pay well but gives you plenty of time off to raise your kids and you call that success, you are free to do that in a free society. But you must accept that others value other ideals and may wish to be filthy rich compared to you. As such, we don't mind wide income gaps because you are free to set your own priorities throughout your life.

It struck me that it was the socialist/communist societies that were obsessed with material wealth because they were the ones always obsessed with income inequality. I'd tell them to shut up; what business of everyone else is the fact that I might have chosen to drop out of high-school and wash cars all my life?

In Soviet Russia, idleness was a crime punishable by exile to Siberia. In capitalist America, idleness is punishable with free healthcare and housing subsidies.

10/14/2006 5:00:28 PM

^ I concur.

10/14/2006 5:51:24 PM

^^

Uh well first of all, people with a strong will do come up with their own definitions of success. I clearly have, and I accept the consequences of that definition.

I'm not going to let you pin the other arguments on me. My only argument here is that material wealth is the measuring stick of our society. What people do to earn their wage becomes their identity. How often do you hear "What do you do?" as a question posed when getting to know somebody at a social event? This is just another way of asking "who are you?" in our country.

10/14/2006 6:14:12 PM

I would love to send other people to die to protect the rich white man's economic interests.

10/14/2006 6:16:38 PM

^^ Sure, your job is what you spend a lot of your life doing. People are not asking you that question in order to judge your relative success, they are usually just making conversation and that is a question everyone already has an answer for. If you answer "struggling artist" people will often be even happier for you (depends on the person).

Also, it kind of does make sense. What you choose to do with your time is, in a sense, you. If you answer "Engineer" you must be educated. If you answer Foreign Affairs Journalist, etc. Honestly, what question would you prefer people ask? "Who are you?" "A human being, trying to discover my way towards happiness." It should be the same for everyone, so asking that question is pointless, where-as asking what you do for a living is a window upon your soul. Like I said before, did you take a low paying job so you can stay home with your children?

I suggest that you think "material wealth is the measuring stick of our society" because it is your measuring stick. While I'm sure most Americans recognize material wealth as an important component to their happiness, I suspect most do not list it as supremely important (Polls suggest Love and Family rank higher than wealth).

[Edited on October 14, 2006 at 7:22 PM. Reason : .,./]

10/14/2006 7:19:09 PM

Quote :

"I suggest that you think "material wealth is the measuring stick of our society" because it is your measuring stick. "

Not really.

Quote :

"If you answer "struggling artist" people will often be even happier for you (depends on the person). "

Very few people, I'd say, place much importance on this. Most people laugh at the idea of a struggling artist or writer, staying at home and trying to work at his trade. Most people consider this a "bum."

10/14/2006 8:34:37 PM

^ That doesn't sound right, but since we are both trying to speak for others I guess the only solution is to call for a show of hands.

How many people would be happy for an individual that doesn't earn a lot but gets both enjoyment and fulfillment from the work?

10/15/2006 12:01:45 AM

Quote :

"How often do you hear "What do you do?" as a question posed when getting to know somebody at a social event? This is just another way of asking "who are you?" in our country."

thats because our country is fucking free you goddamned idiot. in a communist state like soviet russia it wouldn't be such a hot question since the government had a significant say-so in your job choice. Here in the "LAND OF THE FREE" you've got much more self-determination, hence the question "what do you do" reveals a lot about the person

10/15/2006 12:14:13 AM

it's kind of pathetic when i see someone who can't make any conversation with new people except for asking about where they work. and i've seen it often. such little cattle so many people become.

10/15/2006 12:15:49 AM

Quote :

" How many people would be happy for an individual that doesn't earn a lot but gets both enjoyment and fulfillment from the work?"

i'd probably envy them. money isn't everything.

10/15/2006 12:28:19 AM

^the real question is: how many would even give that guy the time of day?

10/15/2006 12:34:16 AM

i would.

10/15/2006 12:35:16 AM

i would die for a good gyro right about now.

10/15/2006 12:42:02 AM

^x7 I would.

10/15/2006 4:28:21 AM

^^^^ I would.

now, I realize TWW is a poor place to take a poll, but would anyone here not give him the time of day?

Because I don't buy the theory that most people are that shallow. Hell, I suspect most would be jealous, as said above, because most people cannot figure out how to make any money doing what they love to do, much less enough to survive on.

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 9:39 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/15/2006 9:38:59 AM

Quote :

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his"

10/15/2006 12:22:23 PM

10/15/2006 12:46:58 PM

this is a false dilema, and "normal" can mean a lot of things

but if forced to answer given what i know and believe

A

10/15/2006 3:07:49 PM

I know exactly where this thread is going. It is simply bait from another stupid liberal so that they can scream "WHY DONT YOU ENLIST?" at the patriotic conservatives. I love this country and would live nowhere else, and would fight to drive it away from being taken over by your types. does that answer the question?

10/15/2006 3:52:30 PM

last time i checked, liberals weren't the ones itching to take places over.

and you wonder why the iraqis fight back.

10/15/2006 4:07:20 PM

^^Most people would gladly fight to preserve the U.S.

The difference between you and I is that you believe Iraq has something to do with preserving the U.S.; I do not. Therefore,

http://www.army.com/enlist/

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2006 4:13:39 PM

the current fight against terrorists does, are you that dumb?

what will it take to convince you that saddam was a threat as well? planned assassinations? uranium stockpiles? invasions of other countries? buried chemical weapons of mass destruction? saddam's own officers saying that YES, he was pursuing WMDs.

you dont like crime do you? why dont you join the police force?

10/15/2006 4:19:02 PM