Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2008-09-26 07:34 pm
l33tminion) wrote2008-09-26 07:34 pm
Entry tags:
And How Would You Answer?
Courtesy of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
realcdaae comes this survey of controversial questions. May be disturbing:
[1] Under what circumstances would you be willing to attempt to assassinate the political leader of your country?
Probably none. Even in circumstances that might make me want to do so, I'd be an incompetent assassin, and I'm generally not willing to die pointlessly.
[2] Who do you think would make a better US president: Hitler or Stalin? (You can't say neither... in this world it's illegal for you to not vote)
Well, in that case I'd go to jail for not voting. If I had to answer the question, though, I'd go with Stalin. My family is Jewish, for one thing...
[3] If you had to bomb one city, anywhere in the world, which would you pick? (Picking none is not an option for this question.)
At first I thought I'd choose whichever city is smallest, say Maza, North Dakota. But maybe that's not large enough to really be a "city" and regardless, that's not in keeping with the spirit of the question. So I'd go with LA. It's overdue for a city-destroying disaster anyways, and it would benefit significantly from being rebuilt.
[4] Is there ever a good reason for terrorism?
If you justify breaking the war convention by dehumanizing your opponent, you're in the wrong. If you justify it out of necessity, you may be right, but probably not. If you don't have the force to fight an outright rebellion, it's probably because most people don't agree that your cause is so important. Of course, government may still call rebels who do follow the war convention "terrorists", that's not what I'm talking about.
[5] If there existed an infallible robot of super-human intelligence, would you vote for it as president of the world?
Depends on what its priorities are.
[6] Under what circumstances would you agree to have your country's army disbanded?
Any in which that would be a reasonably safe course of action.
[7] When cloning technology is perfected, do you think war should be fought with clones?
No, clones have feelings. War should be fought with robots, obviously.
[8] What's more immoral, stealing to feed your children or working for an arms manufacturer?
Depends on what the alternatives are. If those are being presented as alternatives to one another (with no other alternatives), then of course you should take the job. Someone will make the weapons either way, and ending up in jail won't do much to support your children. (I assume that in any situation where people steal to feed their children, things are bad enough that they can't reasonably assume they can get away with stealing, for whatever reason.)
[9] Should there be shame in being on welfare or other forms of state benefits?
No.
[10] If you were homeless and could get no help from government, would it be wrong to set up a home (tent/house/whatever) on land protected for environmental reasons? If you did, who would be culpable, you or government?
Probably not, so the second question doesn't apply.
[11] Should people need a license to have children?
No. Reproductive freedom is a vital freedom. Some people will do stupid things with freedom, but that's life.
[12] Should anyone ever be forced to have an abortion, and under what circumstances?
No, see above.
[13] Do you think it's fair that rent can be upped if you have pets but not if you have children?
Not totally, but I can understand why laws preventing the latter were passed.
[14] Should corporal punishment, with parental permission, be reintroduced in schools?
No.
[15] Given that fast food is more harmful to your health than marijuana, should it be banned?
No, but they should be required to label things accurately. People don't expect stuff like this.
[16] Do you think it's okay for companies to run drug tests for jobs which don't involve operating heavy or dangerous machinery?
I don't think it's right for companies to run drug tests. They can't ask personal questions in an interview but they can require your precious bodily fluids? Ridiculous.
[17] Are people who say they love animals but eat factory farmed meat hypocrites?
Yes. I like animals. I like some of them because they're tasty.
[18] Under what circumstances would you be willing to consume human flesh?
Willingly? If it was acceptable (totally uncoerced) to the person whose body I was eating, acceptable to the culture I was in, and reasonably safe I might consider it.
[19] Are all (post-natal) human lives equal in value/worth?
Depends on how you define it, but probably not. The law should certainly treat them as such to whatever extent is possible, though.
[20] If communication was developed with an animal sufficient that they could communicate consent, would it be wrong to have consensual sex with the animal?
Only if it was informed consent, which is the standard for sexual consent. Simple consent is not sufficient.
[21] What do you think the age of sexual consent should be?
Reasonably, somewhere between 16 and 18. In an ideal world, you wouldn't need such a thing, but informed consent is a complex issue and drawing hard lines is sometimes necessary to protect vulnerable people.
[22] Do you think porn that contains hyper-realistic depictions of children (modelled, painted, etc) should be legally regarded as the same as real-child porn?
No. What makes child pornography horrible is primarily that children are abused. That the people who watch it are perverts is a minor concern in comparison.
[23] If you had to burn one book, what book would you pick?
Any flimsy trade paperback would do... I guess a copy of Dianetics might make a good statement and it would annoy Scientologists, so I'll go with that. This isn't much a question, though. Burning one book doesn't nearly begin to reflect the horrors that the phrase "book burning" evokes. There's a big difference between one person burning a book and a mob emptying libraries filled with self-righteous fury, hoping to wipe "wrong" thoughts off the face of the earth, working themselves up to greater and more personal acts of violence.
[24] Would you burn a cross whilst dressed in white robes for a million dollars?
If no one would be able to convince people that I did it for some other reason. I wouldn't take a million to convince people that I did support the KKK, though.
[25] Should time travel, if it ever becomes a reality, be legal given all the risks it poses to life as we know it?
That's begging the question. Who knows what the risks of time travel are or if time travel is even possible? Once those are known, I could maybe give a reasonable answer. I will say that the "we could cause a paradox and destroy the universe" theory seems implausible, if only because any scenario in which destroying the universe is easy sounds absurd.
[26] If you had an envelope containing absolute proof of the existence or non-existence of any deity of your choice, would you open it?
Of course.
[27] Should suicide be legal/acceptable for long-term debilitating / emotionally painful incurable mental illnesses? Does your answer to this differ from your answer to the same question with regards to painful, debilitating physical illnesses?
Tricky question. I feel that people should have some choice over how to end their own lives, but suicide affects other people, too, and it's the wrong choice in almost every situation. Informed consent is absolutely necessary (to the extreme, not even a hint of coercion is acceptable), it should only be acceptable if the person's quality of life is unbearable and will never be tolerable again, and all other options should be exhausted first.
realcdaae comes this survey of controversial questions. May be disturbing:[1] Under what circumstances would you be willing to attempt to assassinate the political leader of your country?
Probably none. Even in circumstances that might make me want to do so, I'd be an incompetent assassin, and I'm generally not willing to die pointlessly.
[2] Who do you think would make a better US president: Hitler or Stalin? (You can't say neither... in this world it's illegal for you to not vote)
Well, in that case I'd go to jail for not voting. If I had to answer the question, though, I'd go with Stalin. My family is Jewish, for one thing...
[3] If you had to bomb one city, anywhere in the world, which would you pick? (Picking none is not an option for this question.)
At first I thought I'd choose whichever city is smallest, say Maza, North Dakota. But maybe that's not large enough to really be a "city" and regardless, that's not in keeping with the spirit of the question. So I'd go with LA. It's overdue for a city-destroying disaster anyways, and it would benefit significantly from being rebuilt.
[4] Is there ever a good reason for terrorism?
If you justify breaking the war convention by dehumanizing your opponent, you're in the wrong. If you justify it out of necessity, you may be right, but probably not. If you don't have the force to fight an outright rebellion, it's probably because most people don't agree that your cause is so important. Of course, government may still call rebels who do follow the war convention "terrorists", that's not what I'm talking about.
[5] If there existed an infallible robot of super-human intelligence, would you vote for it as president of the world?
Depends on what its priorities are.
[6] Under what circumstances would you agree to have your country's army disbanded?
Any in which that would be a reasonably safe course of action.
[7] When cloning technology is perfected, do you think war should be fought with clones?
No, clones have feelings. War should be fought with robots, obviously.
[8] What's more immoral, stealing to feed your children or working for an arms manufacturer?
Depends on what the alternatives are. If those are being presented as alternatives to one another (with no other alternatives), then of course you should take the job. Someone will make the weapons either way, and ending up in jail won't do much to support your children. (I assume that in any situation where people steal to feed their children, things are bad enough that they can't reasonably assume they can get away with stealing, for whatever reason.)
[9] Should there be shame in being on welfare or other forms of state benefits?
No.
[10] If you were homeless and could get no help from government, would it be wrong to set up a home (tent/house/whatever) on land protected for environmental reasons? If you did, who would be culpable, you or government?
Probably not, so the second question doesn't apply.
[11] Should people need a license to have children?
No. Reproductive freedom is a vital freedom. Some people will do stupid things with freedom, but that's life.
[12] Should anyone ever be forced to have an abortion, and under what circumstances?
No, see above.
[13] Do you think it's fair that rent can be upped if you have pets but not if you have children?
Not totally, but I can understand why laws preventing the latter were passed.
[14] Should corporal punishment, with parental permission, be reintroduced in schools?
No.
[15] Given that fast food is more harmful to your health than marijuana, should it be banned?
No, but they should be required to label things accurately. People don't expect stuff like this.
[16] Do you think it's okay for companies to run drug tests for jobs which don't involve operating heavy or dangerous machinery?
I don't think it's right for companies to run drug tests. They can't ask personal questions in an interview but they can require your precious bodily fluids? Ridiculous.
[17] Are people who say they love animals but eat factory farmed meat hypocrites?
Yes. I like animals. I like some of them because they're tasty.
[18] Under what circumstances would you be willing to consume human flesh?
Willingly? If it was acceptable (totally uncoerced) to the person whose body I was eating, acceptable to the culture I was in, and reasonably safe I might consider it.
[19] Are all (post-natal) human lives equal in value/worth?
Depends on how you define it, but probably not. The law should certainly treat them as such to whatever extent is possible, though.
[20] If communication was developed with an animal sufficient that they could communicate consent, would it be wrong to have consensual sex with the animal?
Only if it was informed consent, which is the standard for sexual consent. Simple consent is not sufficient.
[21] What do you think the age of sexual consent should be?
Reasonably, somewhere between 16 and 18. In an ideal world, you wouldn't need such a thing, but informed consent is a complex issue and drawing hard lines is sometimes necessary to protect vulnerable people.
[22] Do you think porn that contains hyper-realistic depictions of children (modelled, painted, etc) should be legally regarded as the same as real-child porn?
No. What makes child pornography horrible is primarily that children are abused. That the people who watch it are perverts is a minor concern in comparison.
[23] If you had to burn one book, what book would you pick?
Any flimsy trade paperback would do... I guess a copy of Dianetics might make a good statement and it would annoy Scientologists, so I'll go with that. This isn't much a question, though. Burning one book doesn't nearly begin to reflect the horrors that the phrase "book burning" evokes. There's a big difference between one person burning a book and a mob emptying libraries filled with self-righteous fury, hoping to wipe "wrong" thoughts off the face of the earth, working themselves up to greater and more personal acts of violence.
[24] Would you burn a cross whilst dressed in white robes for a million dollars?
If no one would be able to convince people that I did it for some other reason. I wouldn't take a million to convince people that I did support the KKK, though.
[25] Should time travel, if it ever becomes a reality, be legal given all the risks it poses to life as we know it?
That's begging the question. Who knows what the risks of time travel are or if time travel is even possible? Once those are known, I could maybe give a reasonable answer. I will say that the "we could cause a paradox and destroy the universe" theory seems implausible, if only because any scenario in which destroying the universe is easy sounds absurd.
[26] If you had an envelope containing absolute proof of the existence or non-existence of any deity of your choice, would you open it?
Of course.
[27] Should suicide be legal/acceptable for long-term debilitating / emotionally painful incurable mental illnesses? Does your answer to this differ from your answer to the same question with regards to painful, debilitating physical illnesses?
Tricky question. I feel that people should have some choice over how to end their own lives, but suicide affects other people, too, and it's the wrong choice in almost every situation. Informed consent is absolutely necessary (to the extreme, not even a hint of coercion is acceptable), it should only be acceptable if the person's quality of life is unbearable and will never be tolerable again, and all other options should be exhausted first.