Discussion

Alright, errm... back... heh, I'm like a switch, on and off, on and off, on and off... bleck... anyhow I'm back. I've come up with an idea for a topic, I really haven't seen this around and I am quite surprised no one has thought about it yet. This perhaps should be a game, but... nah... it'd be kind of confusing as a game. Anyhow... here you just discuss ideas, like opinions and stuff, things that would be given in an english assignment. Kind of like a debate topic or something. Basically... someone brings up a topic, and we all discuss it. Alright, here's the first topic, actually sort of an english assignment, but I think it'd be interesting to start off. Here's my English assignment:

"It is still impossible for man to organize his social life without repressions, and the balance has yet to be struck between order and freedom." - Arthur Miller, The Crucible

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock, Star Trek

"It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." - Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Choose any one of the above quotes to respond to in a minimum 3-paragraph essay (err... yeah, you guys have to do that... for some reason I just feel like putting this part up >.>)

Do you agree or disagree with the statement you have chosen? What evidence in your reading, personal experience, and study supports your point of view?

ok, so it's sort of 3 topics, but bleck. All you basically have to do is discuss your opinions and stuff on them.

Anyone who would like to add another topic may feel free to do so. Let's just make sure that not too many topics are added because then it would get confusing... so... a minimum of 4 topics I guess... we have 3 so far, so we have space for 1 more. On tuesday I'll put up another topic, even though next week on wednesday I'll be going somewhere so someone will have to take over.

Didn't Kirk Contradict Spock in the next film? 'The need of the one outhweight the need of the many? About his 'heroic' rescue of Spock from the genesis planet, and the klingons?

Anyway, not much able to have a discussion now, will come back to it later, when I have my thoughts somewhat organized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AimusSage

Didn't Kirk Contradict Spock in the next film? 'The need of the one outhweight the need of the many? About his 'heroic' rescue of Spock from the genesis planet, and the klingons?

Anyway, not much able to have a discussion now, will come back to it later, when I have my thoughts somewhat organized.

---

well... that's what this discussion is about... whether you agree with Spock or not... I personally am quite unsure... so for now I take neither side.

Quote:

---

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock, Star Trek

---

isnt that the argument for killing a child to save the world?
hrumph. Logically of course the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, the few need more food than the few for example.
But then again I dont belive the need of the Few outweigh those of the many either I mean look where that gets you,--actually better not to follow that train of thought it is both liklly to offend some on in our enoroumus socity and is political.
Ok another example prereveloutionary france. If that wasnt an examplefor what happends when the few outweight the many I dont know what is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

isnt that the argument for killing a child to save the world?
hrumph. Logically of course the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, the few need more food than the few for example.
But then again I dont belive the need of the Few outweigh those of the many either I mean look where that gets you,--actually better not to follow that train of thought it is both liklly to offend some on in our enoroumus socity and is political.
Ok another example prereveloutionary france. If that wasnt an examplefor what happends when the few outweight the many I dont know what is

---

Eh? well... not really familiar with Prereveloutionary France... err... >.> can you please explain that?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock, Star Trek

I disagree with this statement. To me, to agree with it is the same as saying that the few have not hearts and feelings, desires, fears etc. I say that the needs of all are important and man IS his brother's keeper and must strive to find a way to meet the needs of all. We were once given the question in collgege, you probably were as well but pretend you weren't. We had to pick three of the others in class and plus ourselves get into an imaginary boat and get sucked out to sea. The boat starts to leak and it is ruled that there is one person too many, the opinion of the captain and that person must be cast overboard to save the others. It was horrifying and scarey to listen to the arguments being passed by and forth as to who should live, who should die, why those three , the majority should enjoy the use of the canoe longer while the unfortunate ONE had to forfeit his or her life for the 'greater cause'. I couldn't stop thinking about it for days. unlike the biblical story of Jonah and the whale. When the captain and crew decided thru superstition that it was he who was the cause of their nearly capsizing as well as the horrid storm itself Jonah Offered himself to be cast over board to save them. Now that is more like it, he had a choice. As a matter of actual fact my friend's brother, a missionary did just that, a boat he was in was being weighed down far from shore so he slipped out and told the others to row,,,fast and they made it and they drowned. But again that was the choice of the'few'.
And that is it and that is all I have to offer.

Hmm... I actually ended up agreeing to this... here's what I wrote ^^' for the exam:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Spock, Star Trek

This is one of the few quotes in which it is hard to decide whether to agree with it or disagree with it because if you agree with it'd be like saying you'd choose the world over your friend but if you disagree with it, it'd be like saying you'd rather let the human race become extinct (Neo's dilemma in The Matrix). In most cases, this is the argument used for killing a child to save the world (which is just immoral), but nevertheless I agree with this quote and yet disagree with killing a child to save the world at the same time, which seems rather contradicting. The quote says that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and this is true, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. A starving country is definitely in need of food more than a starving person, and even though it may seem like the same problem (starving [country] = starving [person]) it's different because it's much easier for the starving person to find food than a starving country, and no matter how you set up "the equation" you'll always find that a country in trouble needs more help than a person in trouble. Thus, people are always thinking about the country before a person (unless the person is in trouble, as it's easier to help the person).

It's pretty easy to see why people disagree with the quote though. Imagine a boat slowly sinking because of the number of people in it. The captain decides that in order to prevent the boat from sinking he has to throw some people overboard. This is another classic situation used for the quote, and people would most likely disagree with throwing people overboard (and most definitely if it had to be a loved one). Then there's also once again the child dilemma in which 99% of the population would probably disagree to and it's these situations that always have people picking the other option, and makes this quote seem kind of infamous. I though, as stated before, agree with the quote, unlike the others.

So, considering the fact that I agree with the quote, would I kill a child to save the world (which I can't believe I'm saying/writing/asking)? The thing is... that the statement is only talking about needs and not decisions. Even though the needs of the world may be greater, the decision is up to me as to whether I should "save the world" or not, therefore it ends up not even being a paradox because the quote and case talk about two different things. Therefore, the question for the situation is rather "Are you willing to sacrifice the few to save the many?". To answer that question, from my point of view, no, simply because sacrificing just isn't my thing. In the end, I will always be choosing a friend/relative over the world because well, they're my friend/relative, and even though I'll do that, I'll also, ironically, always be agreeing with the quote.

awesome Dig, really great. I respectfully say though that in fact the decision is there, just couched in the other words. It implies to me a decision already made by its' very wording.
I give you an A+.

^^' Thanks Rache

you are so welcome dearest. Oh by the way, some of your kin visited me today and sent their deepest love and regards.

Hey I was quoted in an exam!! cool Im quotable!!:cool:

:banana:
RE: pre evloutionary france... the quintessential example of the major differance between the very very privalaged and the ahhh not so much .
What I meant was when the balance is tipped too much in favour of one side it is after all a balance so the other side is servelly deprived. SO by putting a few above the many basically you woukd d be creating a class differance even if we are talking among a group of children causing resnet ment hatred eventually... to continue the emlodraatic tone ... WAR.
soo next topic do we choose another one from up top?

I think it needs a new post :D

Oh right, new topic... alright I've thinking about this for a while... and even thought of making a poem for it, one that involves a butterfly (which eventually dies but... bleck). Ok, the next topic involves free will, and I've actually brought it up in a thread on this forum (Atheists). The poem talks (or will/might talk about [as I'm uncertain if I'll even make it]) about a butterfly which encounters many experiences but due to its nature it has a way of being cautious after each experience and avoids situations which may result in a repetition of a previous ugly experience. Eventually this fear of reliving experiences leads it to its death (well, if you think about it, you can pretty much see how it'll die, it'll end up not even able to move a muscle or run, easy prey), but now here's the question, who killed the butterfly? Fate or the butterfly itself? Due to its nature it can't really think any other way, so that would be fate, it was fated to do that, but, then again, it was possible for the butterfly to think differently... or was it?

We do the same to... we learn from past experiences... but the experiences are completely random, and those experiences and the way we learn about them and how we deal with them (our nature), along with how we compare them with other experiences and deal with them (our nurture), it makes us who we are, right? So... do we really truly have free will to think? We can't change our past and even that concept makes us who we are, and our next move will always depend on how we think... but then it'll always end up as fate. The classic free will vs fate.

Oh pretty Night did you only just realize you are cool? That is sad. You are the coolest of cool lady of the smilies.

That was beautiful Dig......sigh........makes me want to watch Romeo and Juliette for some reason. Okay,,,,,,,lets' debate. This thread is sweet.

:) well, you already know my side of the story...