I think I would stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by bounty
You are taken back in time to Ancient Rome and have the opportunity to attend the Gladiatorial games. Would you go and watch?
Printable View
I think I would stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by bounty
You are taken back in time to Ancient Rome and have the opportunity to attend the Gladiatorial games. Would you go and watch?
actually dark muse, ive got a variant of that question i'll pose right after I answer yours!
I would not go watch. there's actually a legendary story about a traveler to rome who found himself caught up in the throngs heading to the games at the coliseum, and when he realized what he was viewing, he got up and walked out...and one by one, people followed him.
so my variant---
if you actually found yourself in the games, down on the coliseum floor that is, would you fight in an effort to save your life, or would you just be killed?
Heck yeah I am fighting. Coming from Celtic stock, all the better if my opponent happens to be a Roman.
You attend a medium who can channel one individual from history for you to converse with, who would you choose?
back to 'would you'..
Would you own a medical marijuana business- albeit liberally prescribed(lets face that fact?
back to 'would you'..
Would you own a medical marijuana business- albeit liberally prescribed?
tony, personally I interpret the "would you" as a kind of moral dilemma question...but I don't hold the market on that. so I don't view muse's question as any less than such that we have to say "back to 'would you'"
muse, can I change your question a little? id never go to a medium, but if we had time travel and I could go back to one place in time and talk with someone...hmmm....its fun to think about how maybe bringing present knowledge into the past could alter the future. I know this doesn't occur in your version of the question, but since it does in mine...smiles...I wonder about going back to meet adolf hitler as a boy or young man...or maybe his parents even...boy either way, its just a tough question. I think id go with one of the founding fathers of America---Madison, Franklin, Jefferson---that sort of thing. itd be meaningful to talk with them about what life is like today, compared to what they envisioned it might be when they were making the constitution.
tony---nope, I wouldn't. way too much fuzzy recreational abuse in the prescribed/medical marijuana industry. I see the drug as being overall harmful to society.
if you are male, would you give up your seat in a life boat on a sinking ship? if you are a female, would you accept that offer from the man?
Give it up to a woman just for being a woman? Uhm, no, why would I ever be expected to do that?
Would you rather be able to read twice as fast with the same comprehension and enjoyment you have at your current rate or grow muscle mass/lose weight and gain strength at twice your current rate?
Well, neither really. I love reading slowly and comprehend just fine either way. But okay, I'll take the muscle. I just returned from a week in the Nevada desert and I kept thinking how great it would be to be young and strong again. Can I be 21, too? I'd read real slow for that.
You are hiking in the wilderness and come upon a small trove of ancient native artifacts. They are only made of stone, and if you went through a lot of trouble, you might get $1000 for the whole thing. On the other hand there are federal laws against selling or even taking them. The laws are enforced and the punishments rather excessive. But the artifacts are really cool. Do you take them, and of so, do you sell or keep them?
I would dig them up and try to sell them.
Would you take being 21 if you also became permanently illiterate (you remember all the books you've read already as well as you normally would, the memories will fade) and selectively deaf and blind to audiobooks and other didactic material?
No. Books are more important, and I want to keep reading until I die.
Would you rather be married to the love of your life and never sleep with another woman (or man) or be married to a fair minded, plain, but filthy rich woman (or man), and have a life-long affair with your true love (which your spouse tolerates)?
The first one of course; who needs all that stress? Besides I would want to have children with the love of my life.
Would you rather be born in pre Christian Scandinavia, Rome circa AD 1-10 or South America/North America at any point before the arrival of Europeans?
That's a toughie. Any Scandinavian period would probably be too cold, and the pre-European New World period I'd be most interested in would be the Clovis arrival, which would have been even colder (terminal Ice Age), so I'd probably go with first century Rome, which would be an historically interesting time as well.
If you could travel in time, but only in one direction, would you go into the past or the future?
Do I get younger when I go back in time? If so and I keep my memory then send me back eighteen years so I can have a do over (and invest in Apple and Bitcoin), otherwise I'm going back to a week ago with a couple winning lottery tickets. If this ruins the spirit of the question then I would go into the future but I would want to go incrementally and skip any big wars.
Would you rather always be too hot or always be too cold (you can still freeze to death if you pick too hot).
No, you would stay the same age, but you could run into your younger self if and provide any advice you chose--including about investments (whether you would take your own advice is, of course, an open question). And no cheating on future wars. You get what you get, and tomorrow never knows.
Generally speaking, I would rather be cool than warm; but even so, I'd rather be too hot than too cold.
If you saw a vision of Jesus fighting the devil in the sky, would you seek psychiatric help?
i wouldn't, but even if i were Christian or not, id certainly want to talk with someone about what i saw---it just wouldn't be a psychiatrist. although, given that i am Christian, its tough to know what id do/how id think if i weren't. hmmm....
would you kill another person in defense of your own life? if not, would you do so in order to protect the life of your spouse or children?
Yes to all of those, especially family. I would also kill (offensively or defensively) in a just war.
Would you lie to save yourself from getting fired (you have a wife and new born child depending on your paycheck)?
I like to think I wouldn't...and I hope I wouldn't. there are other jobs to be had, and family and friends to help and the moral cost isn't worth the gain.
but in the classic "are you hiding jews in your attic" being asked by a Nazi during WWII, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment.
in sophie's choice: "the little boy or the little girl, or both if you do not chose"---would you chose or not? and if not, what would you do?
I haven't seen it but I suppose I would flip a coin if i'm choosing what I think I am.
Would you have an abortion or encourage your wife to have an abortion if you discovered the child would be born with downs syndrome or some other severe mental handicap like autism?
I know this will be an unpopular answer but being that I staunchly don't want kids if I somehow became pregnant I would have an abortion period.
If your spouse wanted to apply to be one of the possible colonoists on mars (which is a one way ticket) would you support him/her and give him/her your blessing?
Well sure, but I won't remain faithful. I get to spend her astronaut salary too right? What does she need it for on Mars?
Given the choice would you hunt down and kill Joseph Mengele, Idi Amin Dada, or Joseph Kony (or none of the above)? And why?
To answer the abortion question, I am certain that my wife, as a devout (and non-Western) Buddhist would never chose to have an abortion. I don't think autism can be predicted in utero (can it?), but Down Syndrome can, and in that event I would respect and support her wishes. If her life were threatened by any pregnancy, however, I would insist on an abortion.
As to hunting down and killing bad men, Mengele and Amin are already dead, so God can sort 'em out. That leaves Kony (and a host of others who don't get as much media attention), any of whom richly deserve to be hunted down and killed. But I'm getting a little old for that sort of thing. Maybe you could check with Manichaean. He likes to stay active.
Would you say that Joshua Milton Blahyi (nom de guerre: General Butt Naked), a genocidal Liberian warlord whose troops killed at least 20,000 in atrocities (including the human sacrifice of a child before each battle), but who converted to Christianity after purportedly having a vision in which Jesus told him that he would die if he did not stop, and who has since involved himself in an evangelical Christian ministry, should be tried and executed for his (fully confessed) war crimes?
Of course he should be tried and executed. And it was human sacrifice often derived from babies/children as I recall.
Assuming there existed a machine which would cause a criminal to never commit a crime again, with absolutely zero chance of failure; would you administer this treatment to a known murderer and torturer of over four hundred children, or would you have him executed?
Interesting question. My opinion is that the killer, if found guilty, should be executed as a matter of justice rather than a question of recidivism. It would be for a court to determine, of course, but if I were a governor in such a case, I would not issue a pardon.
Would you hire a less qualified minority member over a more qualified non-minority? How about a less qualified combat veteran over a more qualified non-veteran?
I agree with you on the execution being a matter of justice.
In theory I would never hire the less qualified minority for any position over the more qualified white guy (I'm assuming we're in Europe/North America). In practice, however, if I had a business to run I would hire whoever is more likely to make me my money. If people are going to boycott my news organization for its over representation of white males then I would selectively hire to retain ratings, though I would prefer not to. Assuming no such issues are relevant or important I would hire the most qualified candidate over any consideration of 'social justice' or diversity. As for the veteran I don't really care. I don't think a just war has been waged in awhile and it's not my problem if you voluntarily went to Iraq and got your arm shot off.
Edit: Whoops... Would you rather have free massages for life from a very qualified masseuse who would be available anytime at all hours (just massages), or free meals for life from very qualified chef (you still have to buy all of the ingredients)?
Fair enough. What's the next question?
Editeeeed. Sorry, I couldn't think of a good moral quandary so fast.
Meals by a damn site. Anyone with a normally healthy sex life has no need of massages.
Would you choose the life of an epicure who dies at 65 or a stoic who dies at 95?
Stoic even if we live to the same age, and assuming healthy years. I really can't stand (full fledged) epicureans.
Would you rig an election if you were entirely certain that the candidate you wanted to win would be much better for your nation than the alternative? (your candidate has almost no chance of winning a fair election)
No, there are all kinds of reasons not to do that. You couldn't do it alone, for one thing, and once you break the law in the company of others, they have a life-long hold on you. It's also not how a democratic society is supposed to work--sometimes you have to work for changes that will not come in your lifetime. And even if you did it, the truth could (and probably would) come out eventually, with the potential to destroy everything you have been trying to achieve. Bad idea.
You have a close friend for many years--a one time roommate. You lose touch for about 10 years, but eventually you run into each other again by chance. Your friend is now a reformed alcoholic, and on a "sexual predator" list due to a statutory rape charge during his drunken days. You are a rising professional with a spouse and three young children. Your friend says that he can't wait to get to know them all and starts to cry. Do you invite him over and keep in touch?
If I still liked him and was not running for political office then yes.
Would you pay $10,000 for a very detailed account of the lives of your ancestors going back thirty generations?
I think if I were a millionaire yes...maybe even a half-millionaire. it wouldn't even have to be "very detailed", id be happy with the main and interesting stories.
if you knew some particular team was being paid to throw a game or series, would you get in on the action in betting?
No, I'd pay $9.99 for the ebook and not a piaster more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
No, just make money honestly over time. Gambling and cheating isn't necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by bounty
If you went fishing and caught a big fish (just hooked through the lip) would you let it go because, you know, nice fish, why kill it?
im a vegetarian so I wouldn't be fishing anyways, but in case I was fishing, im a vegetarian so id let the fellow go for sure.
"if it has eyes or tries to get away, I wont eat it." one of the Kelloggs (the cereal guys) said that.
which is a nice inspiration to my question:
if you had to personally kill all the animals from which you eat meat, would you continue to eat meat?
Yes, and I would feel less guilty than I do now. I would know the animal lived a good life and died a natural death at the hands of a natural predator. I actually plan to start hunting in the future when I have a more stable life and can learn how to shoot (which I've never done). The meat would be much healthier as well.
I wouldn't let the fish go either. I would eat it.
Would you attempt to live off the grid somewhere if you had all the supplies and thought you could make a serious go of it?
I am very attracted to the idea of that...but probably wouldn't want to go it alone. even then, I think I'd opt for more semi off the grid as opposed to completely off. I already use a firewood for a lot of heating, keep a small garden, ride my bike lots, and I have a small stream running through the property that id love to get electricity from.
you are an amateur athlete on the local level and have the opportunity to rise to the next level through the use of performance enhancing drugs that contain some risk to your health, and are also illegal according to rules. would you take them?
Definitely. I've long been considering personal steroid use and I think I'll dip into them once I naturally reach my weight/strength goals, though I don't compete at any sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by bounty
Same question.
No, and I would turn in all I knew of who were doping so I wouldn't have to compete against them.
If you had a serious neurological condition (say, multiple sclerosis), would you take a drug that would relieve you of about half of your symptoms but would also put you at a significantly elevated risk of developing liver cancer?
Yes considering my life today, maybe not if I had children or dependents, etc.
Would you be capable of eating an entire extra large pizza in one sitting?
Not unless it included bacon.
Would you rather go to a banjo concert or an accordion concert? (No fair saying neither).
A...accordion.
Would you rather go to the moon for one hour (rocket time not counting), or have a free trip around the world for one year?