• Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Would You Pull The Trigger?

Would you Pull The Trigger

  • Yes, 500,000 people will be saved

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • No, millions will be saved from cancer

    Votes: 20 58.8%
  • IDK ( I Don't Know)

    Votes: 8 23.5%

  • Total voters
    34
No, definitly no.

In the long run, it would save more lives. It might depend on the people he killed, though.

Let's say, perhaps, he killed a person that also discovered all those cures, and maybe even more? Than that would alter my decision and I might pull the trigger.
 
Last edited:
No... not only for the fact that I'd never be able to live with myself, but I'd be saving more lives in the long run.
 
Um..no. I wouldn't kill anyone *Before* they committed a crime in any case xD

You know who claimed to have killed people before they "comitted crimes?" Charles Manson. You don't want to be like Charles Manson now, do you? >_>

xD Plus so many more people die of cancer that after a while, that cure would have saved more lives than the 500,000 lost for it =/
 
I'm not a kind of person who would live my life knowing I killed someone...I'd beat the living tar out of the guy and force him to give me the cures! Or else I will find someone with the courage to kill!
 
I'll put the gun to his head and tell him to write the fricking cure, then when he does, shoot him anyway and claim fame.

No, I wouldn't shoot him. Mostly becasue I very much loathe guns and I want to blow them up or something. Guns--I would never use one unless I would die otherwise.
(I know it's a little selfcih to think that way, vbut everyone has at least one selfich thought)
 
I agree with the fact that i'd kill somebody even if he is evil. The only person i'd kill without a doubt is Osama Bin Laden.

Anyway:

You kill him, you save 500,000, and you run the risk of the cure for cancer not being found for 70 years. and since about 7million people die from cancer every year, that's 490 MILLION people you're condemning..........jeez. It's really hard to say to be honest.

All in all, personally i don't think it's a fair question, but it's just me.
 
It seems the only one changing the subject is you. That was completely unnecessary and disrespectful to religious people (like me). Could you please edit that post to make it a little nicer or on topic?

From what I read, he merely stated that beliefs in gods and difference in religion has caused years for a LONG time.
And that is a fact. I doubt he was bashing you in anyways, or at least on purpose. You merely looked at it the wrong way, so please think things through from different sides before ordering someone else who is YOUR EQUAL what to do (in reference when you told him to edit his post) as his was relevant and not needing of change. He stated his opinion and some facts to back it up, so don't go telling him what to do.

I am not saying I disagree with religion in this case, however, mentioning religion DID seem to me to change the subject because this was on the belief if you thinking 7 billion lives is better than 500 thousand lives. If you say "every human is equal" that is a lie, you and everyone else knows it for a fact. Everyone merely says it to act like a 'good person'. Look at the world around you, hey, you don't even have to do that: Look at what you yourself have done in the past; or your friends, or anyone you know in real life. Mainly things are discriminated, and it is nearly impossible to stop treating humans as unequals to other humans. Why? Because everyone has certain opinions, beliefs, morals and views on other people. If someone believes different things as you, has a lower IQ, isn't "nice looking", isn't strong etc, you think more lowly of them. Its human nature to do these thigns, and we ARE humans, so you or anyone else can't change that.

Another key inequality, with rising feminism occuring, the idea behind it is to make men and woman equal. Well thats failing, in both ways, IMO. In some cases, woman are treated higher than men, as from so many people's views, the men have to act nice to the woman, open doors first for them and let them walk through etc etc etc. I could really go on, but I don't feel like it. Then theres the otherside where men are treated higher than woman. For example, if you teenage girl goes around having sex with so many guys around the school, everyone labels her as a 'slut' and a 'whore' but if a guy goes around and has sex with many girls around the school, people call him "King" and "Stud" (yeah, oldie terms, ftw).
Oh, and sorry for the strong language and cheezy examples, but it is true and I had no current ideas on other ways to word it, mon apologies. D;



ON TO MY OPINION, I say let more people die. Mainly based off my personal beliefs. The way I see the world, humans are merely killing this place off with our ideals and consiouses. If less humans existed here, the more blissful this planet would be. Plus, I'm a sucker for violence. :3

However, I feel it necessary to go on to the view of "all humans are equal". if so.. then 1 human = 1 human. Simple math right there. Lets take it a step further:
What happens if there are two humans to one?
well if 1 = 1
Then doesn't 2 > 1? Seems quite simple and obvious to me?
Now, lets put it in terms of the numbers stated earlier in this thread.
500 000 people to 7 000 000 000 people.
Last time I checked, similar to how 2>1: 7 000 000 000> 500 000 and by quite a darn bit. So being equal, the 7 billion is a much better result than 500 000. Again, quite simple math.



And as a footnote (I guess? DX ), I am again sorry if I bashed anyone here (well, maybe I'm sorry, as I don't see why I should be x: ), however I am truely sorry about the language I used, I hope it is accepted, because I have no other idea how to reword those .. 'naughty' words. x:
 
but by the times 70 years pass, mankind, as we are, would probably find something to compensate and find an alternative to dying to disease. How stupid is it that we are the most advanced species on the planet and we are still susceptible to sickness? Before the end of the first half of the next century, we would most probably find a cure, so kill this clown now. It's not like you stop him and he finds the materials for experimenting the cure in jail or even find a job in medical science after having a criminal record. I say he dies the instant I see him.
 
but by the times 70 years pass, mankind, as we are, would probably find something to compensate and find an alternative to dying to disease. How stupid is it that we are the most advanced species on the planet and we are still susceptible to sickness? Before the end of the first half of the next century, we would most probably find a cure, so kill this clown now. It's not like you stop him and he finds the materials for experimenting the cure in jail or even find a job in medical science after having a criminal record. I say he dies the instant I see him.

Its not stupid-just tremendously ironic.
 
Most people would choose an answer that would save the most people, but shooting someone doesn't always mean that they die on the spot (Unless it's to the heart >> ) I'd most likely shoot him, but in the arms or some place where he wouldn't be able to cause any more harm. Then again, without arms how do you do research o.o;; Um, well I guess the only thing to do would be to inform the police and get him sent to jail, then once he's learned his lesson ( If he did) he can start his research. Sure it'd add a few years but it's better than killing so many people.
 
I wouldn't pull the trigger, obviously. Why? Because if I allow this kind of 'preemptive strike' policy (I.e. dealing out the punishment before the crime has been committed) I'd be sticking my nose into some seriously shady ethics. If we want to maintain any kind of sanity in the justice system then crimes must be committed before anyone can be punished for them. O= I'm opposed to the number justification since that opens up another can of worms (Such as the classic transplant case, but that should really be a poll of its own so I won't get into detail about it here).
 
I wouldn't pull the trigger, obviously. Why? Because if I allow this kind of 'preemptive strike' policy (I.e. dealing out the punishment before the crime has been committed) I'd be sticking my nose into some seriously shady ethics. If we want to maintain any kind of sanity in the justice system then crimes must be committed before anyone can be punished for them. O=

the justice system... in some countries, are anything but squeaky clean. lol.
 
the justice system... in some countries, are anything but squeaky clean. lol.

And where precisely did I say that they were 'squeaky clean' as you put it? Kindly refrain from sticking words into my mouth. <.< Allowing this kind of practice would result in a 'Wonderland court' (That is, one where it's 'off with your head' before you've even done anything wrong.); at least with the current system they have to build up a case (fictive or otherwise) based on things that have already happened in order for a verdict to be passed in an even halfway functioning court. Besides, this is a hypothetical question so whether or not real world courts live up to their claimed goals is completely irrelevant. =P
 
Well, first of all, I'd want to find out if he definately will kill people. My being there in the past could cause a chain reaction of events leading to him NOT killing 500,000 people. But if it seems like he's going to do it, if I'm sure, which would probably for me have to be so sure that he's seconds away from doing it, then I'd shoot him.

A cure for 3 cancers of a high mortality rate would lead to overpopulation.

Cancer is not pretty, but neither is global poverty.
 
Actually, if you do kill him then he won't kill those people (Unless he comes back to haunt them from beyond the grave or something silly like that), which means that you've shot an innocent person who would have found a cure for cancer. Another reason for the 'don't do it' option, I guess. x3
 
Back
Top