This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
HYPERtheticals - Questions for Insane Conversations (27 of 50)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
asakawa
Alice in Chains eh? A surprising choice. They were reasonably big in rock/grunge circles in the early 90s but I didn't know they'd entered the collective concious enough to be included as the example in a hypothetical like this. I used to really like them back then and they hold up surprisingly well today. Better than a lot of other guitar-based stuff from the time.
Well, I don't believe in soul mates but I love my wife and nobody is gonna break her collar bone if I have a say in it. I'd take the stupid pill (if, you know, police and lawyers couldn't stop the GBH from being inflicted).
Post by
Interest
I'd give up my sense of hearing and swallow the pill. Ha!
Touche.
Welp. Someone got owned by the last two Hypertheticals =D.
Post by
lonewolfe31705
Hell yeah I would swallow the pill. Then I could jam out all the time. Love me some Alice in Chains.
Now, if you said something like Beiber or Rebecca Black, I would just have to watch as someone beat my soulmate with a socket wrench.
Post by
Sas148
Hell yeah I would swallow the pill. Then I could jam out all the time. Love me some Alice in Chains.
Now, if you said something like Beiber or Rebecca Black, I would just have to watch as someone beat my soulmate with a socket wrench.
Anything heard all the time, day in and day out, for the rest of your life -- regardless of what/who -- would become pretty dang awful after a relatively short amount of time. I imagine anyhow.
Post by
Sas148
The Unknown Companion
At the age of 30, you suffer a blow to the skull. The head trauma leaves you with a rare form of partial amnesia -- though you are otherwise fine, you're completely missing five years from your life. You have no memory of anything that happened between the ages of 23 and 28. That period of your life is completely gone.
You are told by friends and family that -- when you were 25 -- you (supposedly) became close friends with someone you met on the street. You possess numerous photos of you and this person, and everyone in your life insists that this individual was your best friend for more than two years. You were (allegedly) inseparable. In fact, you find several old letters and e-mails from this person that vaguely indicate that you may have even shared a brief romantic relationship. But something happened between you and this individual when you were 27, and the friendship abruptly ended (and - apparently -- you never told anyone what caused this schism, so it remains a mystery to all). The friend moved away soon after the incident, wholly disappearing from your day-to-day life. But you have no memory of
any
of this. Within the context of your own mind, this person never even existed. There is tangible proof that you deeply loved this friend, but -- whenever you look at his/her photograph -- all you see is a stranger.
Six weeks after your accident, you are informed that this person has suddenly died.
How sad do you feel? Why?
(##RESPBREAK##)12##DELIM##Sas148##DELIM##
Post by
Squishalot
Well, if they're a stranger, presumably I don't feel anything about it, though I suppose that I would try to act suitably and respectably aggrieved to make the people in my life feel a bit better.
Post by
asakawa
Well, if they're a stranger, presumably I don't feel anything about it, though I suppose that I would try to act suitably and respectably aggrieved to make the people in my life feel a bit better.
Yeah, this.
I wouldn't "feel" anything, other than perhaps a lost opportunity to find out more about the memories I'd lost from someone who knew a lot about it. I'm a pretty curious fellow so, honestly, I
would
have contacted them within those six weeks.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I'd feel pretty scared. Perhaps we were members of an underground cell of some sort and the "friend" was uncovered, while that was also the reason for my amnesia?
Post by
lonewolfe31705
I think I would be more pissed off than sad. I would have wanted to track the person down to find out about the missing years, and what happened to cause a rift to form between us.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't think I'd be majorly torn up, but I think I'd feel a sense of loss of the opportunity to find out what happened, and that would be somewhat sad. I'd probably wonder about it for a long while afterward.
Post by
Sas148
Worldwide Perfection
Scientists build a massive space station that allows mankind to control the worldwide weather. As a result, there are no more weather emergencies. There are no more droughts or floods or tornadoes, and global warming has been eliminated. However, there is an immediate demand for "perfect" days. Because the weather can be controlled, many people want the weather to be nicer and more predictable. A large segment of the populace wants there to be two specified dates -- April 22 and October 22 -- where every place on Earth would simultaneously experience ideal weather conditions for 24 hours. These two days would become worldwide holidays (ideal for weddings, reunions, outdoor sporting events, and any tourism or traveling that demands meteorological perfection). Every community on Earth would have perfect weather on these two designated days. However, the environmental community claims that this might be risky. There is no precedent for "worldwide perfection," and environmental leaders fear that this could create problems we cannot foresee. "It can't be nice everywhere," says universal weather czar Al Gore. "At any given moment, at least one-third of the planet needs to be dealing with semi-crappy weather." However, no one can specifically prove why this alleged perfection would be dangerous (because it's never happened before).
Where would you stand on this issue? Would you want the perfect (although potentially harmful) days?
Post by
asakawa
I would read the studies done on the subject. If it really was inconclusive then more research would be required. It would be too early to make the decision.
Post by
Interest
14. I'd probably feel sad that they died, but on the other hand since I don't exactly hold strong relationships at all...
15. Let people suffer from crap weather, obviously. It's obvious the Earth was made that way and we shouldn't ^&*! with that, right?
Post by
asakawa
15. Let people suffer from crap weather, obviously. It's obvious the Earth was made that way and we shouldn't ^&*! with that, right?
That's a naturalistic fallacy.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't think that there's enough information given in the question to form an answer. There's nothing as to what they are worried about, and whether or not there are any studies done that show that 1/3 of the surface is covered in storms at any time. That something hasn't happened before isn't a reason to fear it in and of itself. Before they invented various medicines, a cure never existed for those diseases. Before they were able to purify water, no one could ever drink the water of that river.
It's the equivalent of a question that asks "Joe says you should take Mary's side, and John says you should take Sue's. Who's right?"(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
lonewolfe31705
Due to the rotation of the earth, and how the time zones work, of course you can have the perfect "day" everywhere on those dates. As you cross the time zones, one area will move from their perfect day to a crappy day and visa versa so there wouldn't be a real issue.
Now, if you take that out of account, and say that for a 24 hour period, the entire planet will have perfect weather..i would want to read the studies, have them rechecked by independent researches, and then reverified.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Interest
15. Let people suffer from crap weather, obviously. It's obvious the Earth was made that way and we shouldn't ^&*! with that, right?
That's a naturalistic fallacy.
Actually...
The naturalistic fallacy is close to but not identical with the fallacious appeal to nature, the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong. The fallacious appeal to nature would be the reverse of a moralistic fallacy: that what is good or right is thus natural.
I'm not implying towards this at all (I was being sarcastic). Besides, I still answered in context of the question (/lol)
Edit: Know what? I guess I'll give a serious answer. I'm against the whole idea of pursuing perfection. While it might not be as slippery of a slope as some may claim, starting with "perfect weather" could lead to...other things. Are these necessarily bad? Not...necessarily...but I have a feeling it *could* lead to massive stagnation in progression, if you know what I mean.
Edit2: Probably committed a logical fallacy there too, lawl.
Post by
asakawa
Didn't catch the sarcasm bud, sorry. People who know your style better probably did so, my bad.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.