Ravi
Diamond Member
Tough one.
What if the child was Hitler?
Or xsited1?
That would certainly change my answer.
What if the child was Hitler?
Or xsited1?
That would certainly change my answer.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This thought experiment conjures up images of people performing human sacrifices to appease some volcano God.
the child in the closet represents 50 million abortions so liberals can feel good about themselves
Fat-ality thanked fitnah. The muslims stick together. What are you guys plotting to blow up next?
You don't need companies to pay people more or give them more time off. You just need to make the time. Usually, the busiest people volunteer the most. They just make it a priority.
There will always be kids that fall through the cracks. You are searching for perfection and that cannot be achieved by human beings. It most certainly cannot be achieved by any government entity.
Oh, xsited, you're such an entrepreneur-worshipper. You're like my brother, in a way, who thinks successful people are somehow better than everyone else in some mysterious way: those busy people are just darn good people - I mean, anyone who works 40 hours, volunteers weekends, works on the house during the evening, helps the spouse clean up after dinner, runs errands, changes the oil in the car, gets to the bank before they close, goes grocery shopping, and somehow has time to spend raising their own children, is just a good person and should be a foster parent too. Hard work WILL achieve everything!
I don't imagine we can achieve perfection, but I think the non-profits don't have the resources to do what they do and take over what the government does as well. What's with you conservatives? You love the police and national security who enforce the laws in threatening and frequently violent ways; but hate those government services designed to help people like social services, medicare, welfare, medicaid, social security (though I can agree on that one since I ain't gonna see any of it when I'm 65), etc. Do you really believe that people give enough in charity to take care of all those less fortunate than ourselves? Do you just hate paying taxes unless you are going to directly benefit from paying those taxes? Sounds like greed to me.
This thought experiment conjures up images of people performing human sacrifices to appease some volcano God.
yeah human sacrifice to the commie death cult to the tune of 50 million dead Americans to satiate their lust for blood.
Some of you may have read "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. LeGuin, and understand the point she was making.
I want to use her story here to see how those of us on USMB respond to it, and perhaps get an idea why.
If you wish to read the whole short story, visit this site: http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt
Here it is in paraphrased summary:
The citizens of the town of Omelas are happy. The fields are fruitful, they're economy productive, and each citizen lives with plenty. They work hard and everyone is responsible only for themselves which works well as everyone has what they need. Life is beautiful for each and every person, but...
The only reason why everything is going so well is because in the cellar of one of the large houses in the town of Omelas is a small storage closet and in this closet is a child. (I know there isn't any logic to that but this is just a thought experiement). The child is kept in the dark, uncomfortable closet, fed enough to survive, is somewhat mistreated, but for the most part ignored and neglected. Everyone in town is aware of the child and its suffering.
So as long as this child is kept in that room the citizens of Omelas live plentiful, productive, happy lives. But, each day one or a few of the citizens of Omelas leave never to return. Now why would that be? Why would they wish to leave what practically equates to a paradise or utopia?
If the vast majority of people in the town live long, peaceful lives without strife or lack of necessity just because one child suffers, isn't it worth it? If all the other children grow up healthy, strong, moral, educated, and happy, doesn't that outweigh the suffering of only one child?
If so, why do you think so?
If not, why do you believe that?
There are two conclusions that can be reached by how one responds to this story. The obvious one has to do with what one perceives as morally right or good, and the other I will reveal later.
Please respond with your opinions.
If the vast majority of people in the town live long, peaceful lives without strife or lack of necessity just because one child suffers, isn't it worth it? If all the other children grow up healthy, strong, moral, educated, and happy, doesn't that outweigh the suffering of only one child?
If so, why do you think so?
If not, why do you believe that?
So as long as this child is kept in that room the citizens of Omelas live plentiful, productive, happy lives. But, each day one or a few of the citizens of Omelas leave never to return. Now why would that be? Why would they wish to leave what practically equates to a paradise or utopia?
This thought experiment conjures up images of people performing human sacrifices to appease some volcano God.
yeah human sacrifice to the commie death cult to the tune of 50 million dead Americans to satiate their lust for blood.
Fixed it for you
Some of you may have read "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. LeGuin, and understand the point she was making.
I want to use her story here to see how those of us on USMB respond to it, and perhaps get an idea why.
If you wish to read the whole short story, visit this site: http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt
Here it is in paraphrased summary:
The citizens of the town of Omelas are happy. The fields are fruitful, they're economy productive, and each citizen lives with plenty. They work hard and everyone is responsible only for themselves which works well as everyone has what they need. Life is beautiful for each and every person, but...
The only reason why everything is going so well is because in the cellar of one of the large houses in the town of Omelas is a small storage closet and in this closet is a child. (I know there isn't any logic to that but this is just a thought experiement). The child is kept in the dark, uncomfortable closet, fed enough to survive, is somewhat mistreated, but for the most part ignored and neglected. Everyone in town is aware of the child and its suffering.
So as long as this child is kept in that room the citizens of Omelas live plentiful, productive, happy lives. But, each day one or a few of the citizens of Omelas leave never to return. Now why would that be? Why would they wish to leave what practically equates to a paradise or utopia?
If the vast majority of people in the town live long, peaceful lives without strife or lack of necessity just because one child suffers, isn't it worth it? If all the other children grow up healthy, strong, moral, educated, and happy, doesn't that outweigh the suffering of only one child?
If so, why do you think so?
If not, why do you believe that?
There are two conclusions that can be reached by how one responds to this story. The obvious one has to do with what one perceives as morally right or good, and the other I will reveal later.
Please respond with your opinions.
the child in the closet represents 50 million abortions so liberals can feel good about themselves
the child in the closet represents 50 million abortions so liberals can feel good about themselves
Actually the child represents your ignorance. The argument you are making is to keep the child in the closet. Suppose I am in kidney failure and you are a perfect match. Does my right to life give me a right to one of your kidneys or does your individual sovereignty give you freedom of choice that supersedes my respective rights? The argument that you are making is that we are not our own sovereigns; that is, my individual rights supersede yours. That being the case, why, for common good, shouldn't the child remain in the closet? Wouldn't it be immoral to let the child out and all of society suffer?
the child in the closet represents 50 million abortions so liberals can feel good about themselves
Actually the child represents your ignorance. The argument you are making is to keep the child in the closet. Suppose I am in kidney failure and you are a perfect match. Does my right to life give me a right to one of your kidneys or does your individual sovereignty give you freedom of choice that supersedes my respective rights? The argument that you are making is that we are not our own sovereigns; that is, my individual rights supersede yours. That being the case, why, for common good, shouldn't the child remain in the closet? Wouldn't it be immoral to let the child out and all of society suffer?
shut the fuck up you idiot, the kid is your dirty little secret, its your imorality, its your shame
i would let the kid out and teach him to wage war on your ass for oppressing him
50 million dead to make fuckers like you feel good