By the way if you save the billion dollars it's yours. Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

2,523 hits 3.0 (1 vote) Share Favorite | Flag 18 years ago by wolf_boy

A billion dollars and a baby are about to fall into a volcano. You can only save one of them. Which do you save?
By the way if you save the billion dollars it`s yours.


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next (showing 76-100 of 221)

Bottom Last Post

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:52:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
Naw I disagree. Even with what little money I have now I have trouble holding on to it cause I'm always helping others with it.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:55:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
i hope and pray that a lottery win comes your way my friend! i want to see some good people do good things with such an evil tool, Mark..
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:57:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
Hmmm yeah, maybe I should actually play the lottery, AND actually check to see if I won...

I rarely play and the few times I have I only checked to see if I won once...

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:31:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
What about if the scenario was different?

What if there is a nuclear bomb about to go off in central New York, there is a remote that can stop it, but it is about to fall into a volcano, but oh oh, there is also a baby falling into the volcano in the other direction, you can save one but not both... what do you do?

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:34:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
That's probably a better question.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:39:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
well as i dont live in new york.....see now whatever i put i will get hammered by you lot for it. i'm on a loser either way! M
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:42:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
In that case I believe, there is a much clearer choice between 1 life and millions of lives. The billion dollars is a bit to abstract.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:46:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
yes, however the million dollars creates different dilemas to it that yours does not.

It also has an angle to it that yours does not. In that even if you take the money for greed, what makes you different than those who spent most of their lives pleasuring themselves and ignoring the plight of others they could save by pleasuring themselves less.

In yours there is no such connection.

My question may be too abstract in that it has several different angles...

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:47:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
yes hopefully we find lives easier to choose over materialistic items. but if you were to save millions of lives and let poor baby fry, would you be haunted by the thought and could you live with your choice? M
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:48:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
There is also the wisdom of:"You can give a homeless man warm soup, and he will be warm for an hour, or you can set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life"

But seriously, there is a difference between saving lives, and making lives sustainable. A billion dollars could go a long way towards making some third world countries more livable, but there is still the problem of tyrants just trying to put it in their own pockets.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:52:13 PM EST (GMT-5)
Andrew: Why do you assume I'm putting money where tyrants can get it, or simply sending them food?

You can do more than just throwing money at the problem blindly. Think outseide the bun... *ehem* I mean box.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:53:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'm not assuming you would, I'm just saying that the problem is largely that it is extremely hard to get around it. (I read a fascinating article about this in the Economist the other day)
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 4:57:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
yes throwing money at third world states does nothing is that not why they have such massive national debts and starving people? but hey they have lots of shiney new weapons...wonder who they bought them off, the lenders maybe? such utter corruption and it will never stop. sad
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:04:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't believe in giving money to third government entities, that's just stupid.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:07:13 PM EST (GMT-5)
correct WAHEEEEY WE AGREED!!! regards M (the assh*le)
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:08:56 PM EST (GMT-5)
i would probably take the billion dollars
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:11:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
I would save the baby, no brainer.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:11:41 PM EST (GMT-5)
destiny all i will say is....are you sure? and if you are then i respect your opinion M..
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:38:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
As usual, you are full of sh*t, wolf_boy. You can't couch this as logic, either. There is nothing logical about allowing a life you could save to die. By your logic, it would also make more sense to invest the billion dollars and let it gain interest and gain interest and gain interest so that you could save more lives. That's f*cked.
You are a total fool to suggest that there is any logic at all to it, and you're bordering on downright evil to claim, as you did on the last page, that seeking to save the baby is pathetic.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:41:10 PM EST (GMT-5)
I think you are misunderstanding Wolf Boy a bit, he has said, like us, that he would pick the baby, but that he would still feel bad over all the good he could have done with the money.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:43:07 PM EST (GMT-5)
No I claimed that the double standard of denouning the guy who does not save the baby to get the money to help others, from people who live there lives everyday enjoyin luxury after luxury bought with money that could be better used to save lives. When you start denouncing yourself for doingh the same thing, then you'll no longer be a hypocrit and will have a leg to stand on.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:43:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
^ to Uncle
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:45:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
I was disgusted by are double standards of judging others when it's convenient for us, but not ourselves when it's unconvenient.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:50:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
Well, you can't really judge a person for wanting to live their own life as well as they can, as long as they try to do good when they can also. As long as people are reasonable, honorable and try to be a good person in daily life, they are a part of the solution, not the problem.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:53:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
I agree, the problem here is, is a person not more of a solution if they do more to improve life overall than someone who does not?

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next (showing 76-100 of 221)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Pixies or Sonic Youth?

2 What is the most times you`ve seen the same movie in a theatre: more or less than 5 times?

3 Will you play a game of spades with me, please?

4 Would you like to be able to own a star?

5 When the aliens come to rescue us from the pole shift on December 21st, will they only take world leaders and their families?

6 Do you prefer plain or peanut M&M`s?

7 Do you have a NalgeneĀ® bottle?

8 Which is harder, waking up in the morning or going to sleep at night?

9 Are sexually transmitted diseases a turn-off?

10 Would you volunteer to be hypnotized on TV?

More Questions
 
Edit