Random stranger Life or Death
 

I attach metal bear claw nails to my fists and in-between them I put razors.

I begin to slash wildly at my body in front of you, I become mangled and mutilated and I'm bleeding and for some odd reason, it's slightly more painful than I had imagined or bargained for.

You always carry a gun and you know how to use it, I ask you, won't you put me out of my misery?

What ensues is a matter of what's inside you as a human being and how you follow through with choices.

un-purposeful cruelty choices:
-You can be reverse logical, in that if, you won't kill me because you're not a murderer. Would you hand me the gun? If you don't, you're cruelly leaving me there to die painfully. If you do give me the gun, you would have killed me.
-you leave me there, saying I've done it to myself and you'll have no part of it, this is logical, unless you're trying to teach me some sort of lesson before I die, as if I'd need it. I die painfully and with a distinct dislike of the person who wouldn't kill my suffering.

What would you do, when I mutilate and tear myself to shreds as if attacked by an animal and not myself? Become a murderer, teach me a lesson, abandon me, or do none of the above and simply pity me?

I pray you choose the last one. We don't need any emotionally scarred people running around.

*prepares bear claw*



Continuation of scenario:

The true answer to this is "I'd just kill you and feel better about myself because I did the right thing in saving you pain and suffering"

On my part, your reasoning would be flawed because I simply wasn't expecting the amount of pain. You saved me some trouble, but not the pain and suffering, in other words, you just killed me with fake justification and there's probably no one left to tell you otherwise.

well im goin to bed lads g'night

i'd shoot you in the face as soon as you pulled them nails out yo got damn pockets...

hahaaaaaaa word. but that wasnt the situation was it :(

nah i wouldnt kill you...

id say... you inflicted this on yourself... now you must live with your decisions...

Id call 911 and save you... sounds better to me =P..

I'd trade tha gun fo tha kool bear claw thangs :cool: werd

edit:

then after you killed yoself i'd come back and take tha gun back and have both :/ werd

Pistol whip you unconscious so you bleed out slower, call 911, check your pockets and bounce

^dude has a point...i'd do the same,...well except for robbing you while you KO'd lool

u only had the choices at hand but because it was fantasizing, then you can fantasize all u want too

pistol whip me and call 911.. lmao

Wrong, I'm a lvl 12 Paladin and I duel-weild shortswords.

this is a stupid question...simply because it doesn't prove anything about anything. a better question would be, what could be said about a person, for choosing one, rather then other.

what would it say about a specific human being who, through much analyzation of the situation, has decided which decision benefits all parties concerned

that's something you don't have an answer to.

what do you mean by this?

besides in this situation a lot of people would already be running away screaming as soon as the self slashing started to happen...

obviously...this is all hypothetical though...so...nobody is running away screaming..

but what i mean is....say someone in this situation, gives the person a gun to do the job themselves...what would this act say about that individual as a human being? are they selfish? scared? compassionate? understanding? angry? peoples actions all have motives behind them...what kind of motives would someone need to have to commit any one of the listed actions? and what would those motives mean about them mentally

a systematical understanding of the emotions at hand due to the situation at hand wouldn't prove a thing unless you understood the systematical switching of the emotions of the person..

in other words YES this hypothetical situation is subjective but it's more or less a lesson about ethics rather than one about diagnosis.

So it is with this that I fully conclude that with the systematization of this hypothetical situation concept, I would only like to keep you with this final opinion on it: a hypothetical situation in part with a characterization of a probable person's attitude is flawed unless there is also prior characterization of what is to be expected of said person; Some people would be happy to have this hypothetical situation happen to them, because they might have something else in mind.

So understanding the emotional basis of a certain few amount of actions isn't doing the complete job (by still leaving out emotions like Happiness) and furthermore understanding the basis of a storyline hypothesis only leads to further hypothesis.

:)

so simple brother goodbye now

you're not understanding the question...it's not about proving anything..i won't go further into detail, because..i can already see where this is going...but..just know..you contradicted your original conclusion with this post...happy thinking.

I didn't contradict a thing.

LOL even on here.

yes, yes you did.

it's cool though..i can understand why you'd be too ashamed to admit that your irrelevant babble about idiotic scenarios brought you to a spontaneous conclusion that you didn't ponder enough to actually agree with.

it was a single scenario, I am not ashamed of a thing, whether or not it's idiotic I don't care, and I could not possibly disagree with something hypothetical.

the hypothetical brought you to a specific conclusion....you didn't contradict the hypothetical...you contradicted the conclusion the hypothetical brought you to


every post is steadily chipping away at the idea of you understanding

"the hypothetical brought you to a specific conclusion....you didn't contradict the hypothetical...you contradicted the conclusion the hypothetical brought you to"

the hypothetical never brought me to a fucking conclusion, show where it did? Show my contradictions?

Prove that you have any understanding at all before you say that I'm simply not understanding you........

What would you do, when I mutilate and tear myself to shreds as if attacked by an animal and not myself? Become a murderer, teach me a lesson, abandon me, or do none of the above and simply pity me?

I pray you choose the last one. We don't need any emotionally scarred people running around.

this right here, is the beginning of your conclusion, in providing ample evidence that in your mind, one option holds precedence over the others.

Continuation of scenario:

The true answer to this is "I'd just kill you and feel better about myself because I did the right thing in saving you pain and suffering"

first off...the true answer to what? this is doing 1..of 2 things..1.displaying the idea that you believe there is one and only one solution to this issue..aka..a conclusion....or....possibly and...2..it's also displaying the idea that you can come to a conclusion about the motive behind one specific action....either way..you are drawing conclusions about something

On my part, your reasoning would be flawed because I simply wasn't expecting the amount of pain. You saved me some trouble, but not the pain and suffering, in other words, you just killed me with fake justification and there's probably no one left to tell you otherwise.


drawing the conclusion that someones reasoning is flawed, simply because they didn't make a specific decision. Also supporting the idea that you came to a conclusion of having a specific solid solution to this hypothetical scenario.


you can shut the fuck up now..thankyou.

Great! That's all I needed to know that you can't comprehend what you read. lol

"on my part"

"continuation of this SCENARIO"

and even when I did say "the true answer" that only means that I believe that there is a certain method of approach to the scenario that is best.

So YOU can shut the fuck up buddy.

i can't comprehend? no..no no no....see..reasons why i hate arguing with you are as follows..

1...you rarely have anything interesting or profound to say in the first place.
2..90% of the shit you have to say is garbage...it's like...you want to write about something..so you just start writing...and as you go along..you find ways to make what you're talking about relevant...so it doesn't come off as incoherrent babble to the average human being.
3...the above creates a problem for you...it puts you in a position where, you don't really agree with what it is you're saying in the first place...because when you started writing...you wern't really saying anything specific..just putting words into sentences...much of them used out of context or innaprorpiately....and as time goes on...as i stated...you try your damndest to link everything together...to make it sound like it's all one thought..when really, it's a bunch of random, nonsensical ideas, jumbled together....what does this mean for you? 1...you're a fool...2...when someone points out the flaws...you are able to counter by saying..."you don't understand"...which...isn't true by any means...if anything...it's you who doesn't understand...because you made some stupid shit up to make yourself appear intelligent...it's sort of like playing devils advocate..accept for you don't really have a specific stance before you start.

all this, means its impossible to argue with you...not because you're right..not because you're wrong...but because you didn't understand the concept well enough in the first place, to represent a certain angle of the topic...making it impossible for you to argue one side..or the other...hence the contradiction....had you have had a decent knowledge of what it was you wanted to say...instead of having no idea what you wanted to say and just started talking....it's almost like..you're arguing with me..and yourself at the same time...it's crazy to watch.


oh..and this...

that only means that I believe that there is a certain method of approach to the scenario that is best.


that right there...you wern't born thinking that...that isn't hereditary thought....it's a conclusion you came to, through the hypothetical scenario.

2. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4. final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5. a reasoned deduction or inference

so..in your OPINION...there is a certain method of approach to the scenario that is best...that is your fucking conclusion from the hypothetical.

seriously..shut the fuck up

lol, you did nothing there but prove that your method of representation always ends with a conclusion. So basically even though I read all the nonsense you bothered to type, I can still mainly respond to your conclusion.

My response: Old

Read the post above it for the conclusion WITHOUT your useless annoying bullshit added on

and stop telling me to shut the fuck up lmaoooo, I'll stop telling you too

lord knows you won't.. but you should just stop because of multiple reasons including you look more and more stupid each time

here...no "useless" annoying bullshit.

you came to a conclusion(s)..hence, one of a few contradictions.

bottom line.

now, shut the fuck up.

This is flawed. I wouldn't of killed you by handing you the gun. You'd kill yourself. If I give you a cup of ice cream and you eat it, did I just force-feed you ice cream? No. You ate the ice cream on your own.

Anyway I'd leave you alone to your business because if you want to cut yourself apart then go ahead. I'm not teaching you a lesson or anything, I just don't care. That's your decision.

Well I guess but when you give a child a gun and he goes on a shooting rampage - logically speaking point B wouldn't exist without point A.

So no you didn't force the kid to go to point B, you just gave him point A, paving the path to an eligible point B.

thats when we get into the ethics of "enabling"...