This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
QOTD Thread #332- Do you think that people should keep cats outdoors?
Return to board index
Post by
Interest
Would've chosen a different major, or refuse to declare
Post by
ElhonnaDS
#224- If you could save every country but one, which one would you let be destroyed? And why?
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
#224- If you could save every country but one, which one would you let be destroyed? And why?
Wow, that's cruel.
Well, I'm going to pick the most uninteresting reason there is - I would leave the country with the fewest inhabitants in the entire world. I'll go as far as to say that human lives (especially when they number in the thousands or tens of thousands) are more important than whatever the heck might be in said country.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
#224- If you could save every country but one, which one would you let be destroyed? And why?
Wow, that's cruel.
Well, I'm going to pick the most uninteresting reason there is - I would leave the country with the fewest inhabitants in the entire world. I'll go as far as to say that human lives (especially when they number in the thousands or tens of thousands) are more important than whatever the heck might be in said country.
I'd say this would be the most logical answer. But then....... technically speaking, the smallest country in the world, with the fewest inhabitants, is the Vatican City.
Lawl.
Post by
Adamsm
#224- If you could save every country but one, which one would you let be destroyed? And why?
Probably a portion of
Antarctica
; low population, and destroying it wouldn't cause as much waves as anywhere else.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
#224- If you could save every country but one, which one would you let be destroyed? And why?
Wow, that's cruel.
Well, I'm going to pick the most uninteresting reason there is - I would leave the country with the fewest inhabitants in the entire world. I'll go as far as to say that human lives (especially when they number in the thousands or tens of thousands) are more important than whatever the heck might be in said country.
I'd say this would be the most logical answer. But then....... technically speaking, the smallest country in the world, with the fewest inhabitants, is the Vatican City.
Lawl.
Sure. The Vatican State goes, then. Sentimental and religious value or no, I still value the lives "saved" a lot higher
^^
Post by
Interest
#224- If you could save every country but one, which one would you let be destroyed? And why?
Wow, that's cruel.
Well, I'm going to pick the most uninteresting reason there is - I would leave the country with the fewest inhabitants in the entire world. I'll go as far as to say that human lives (especially when they number in the thousands or tens of thousands) are more important than whatever the heck might be in said country.
I'd say this would be the most logical answer. But then....... technically speaking, the smallest country in the world, with the fewest inhabitants, is the Vatican City.
Lawl.
Given that logic, I wouldn't have an issue with that.
But in all seriousness, I think I'd let Antarctica be destroyed.
Post by
Magician22773
Tough question, with really, no "right" answer.
IMHO, there are so many countries that threaten to destabilize what little "peace" we have in the world, deciding on which to destroy for that reason is too difficult. Eliminating Iran, or N. Korea would be high on my list, but there are several other countries that are just as radical, just not quite as "active" in their pursuit of the destruction of the world.
After really thinking it over, I cant narrow it down to one specific "country", but I narrow it down to 1 "region".....Africa.
My reasoning is, that region has a severe overpopulation problem, that is growing exponentially due to many reasons. It has (I believe) the highest mortality rate from starvation and disease in the world.
Obviously, I would not actually wish the destruction of an entire continent on anyone, but....you asked the question. I would choose this region just because the vast majority of the population is suffering, due to the lack of resources in their land, and their population exploding. I think a quick destruction is more humane than a slow death from starvation, AIDS, or malaria.
Post by
HiVolt
USA. You know why? Because every apocalypse hits US first all the time, all aliens invade USA first, zombies are born in American labs. Ya, this is the root of all problems.
/sarcasm
Fictionally speaking, this is the correct choice. Japan in a close second. I mean, come on! How many giant radioactive monsters need to destroy Tokyo before you ask, "So does anybody else think that we should just move?"
Post by
Morec0
Switzerland; just to wipe that smug smile off of their neutral, passifist faces.
*smirk*
Post by
HiVolt
Switzerland; just to wipe that smug smile off of their neutral, passifist faces.
*smirk*
It sickens me.
Post by
gamerunknown
Marshall Islands. No global war after the Vatican is destroyed, one fewer vote against international interests and it'll be underwater in a few years anyway.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
#225- Why is morality important? Is it just for logistical reasons- to make society function better and assure safety through cooperation? Or is it something more?
Post by
Adamsm
Because without it, we would be nothing but chaos and anarchy, with a little bit of pure madness thrown in for the 'fun' of it.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Interest
#225- Why is morality important? Is it just for logistical reasons- to make society function better and assure safety through cooperation? Or is it something more?
I would say it puts the "limits" on what individuals and humanity itself are allowed to do. While some such "limits" may be a bit over the top, others prevent us all from being devolved primitive brutes.
Post by
MyTie
It depends what definition you give "morality". The morality involving doing as little harm as possible, I fully accept. Religious overtones, or condemnation of people for behaving in ways which don't breach the above, NO.
Wouldn't this be a condemnation of people for behaving in ways which don't breach the above?
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.