depends on if you consented or not, if it's not, you can charge him with rape
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
A serious question
- Thread starter cookie
- Start date
Wow. Tough cookie.
#2 If he didn't know, I would tell him, but not kill him.
#1 If he knew, I would tell him to use protection.
And I wouldn't do #3 unless he would have forced himself, or if he (stachetory or not) raped minors, but I would rather do my own answer: (I would probably try and "be a witness", and he would be in jail for rape instead of me for murder).
#2 If he didn't know, I would tell him, but not kill him.
#1 If he knew, I would tell him to use protection.
And I wouldn't do #3 unless he would have forced himself, or if he (stachetory or not) raped minors, but I would rather do my own answer: (I would probably try and "be a witness", and he would be in jail for rape instead of me for murder).
This is kind of an ambiguous question. What does it mean that I know he is "going to have sex with others"? Is he going to rape them, or just hit on them and hope they will sleep with him? Because if it is the latter I have no sympathy for anyone he passes the disease to. If you go around screwing anyone higgledy-piggledy without knowing what they're carrying, you're risking AIDS and that's all there is to it.
I suppose if I somehow had a magic crystal ball to tell me he was going to go around raping people I'd choose for him to die, but that would be the case regardless of whether he had AIDS or not.
I suppose if I somehow had a magic crystal ball to tell me he was going to go around raping people I'd choose for him to die, but that would be the case regardless of whether he had AIDS or not.
I would definitely not have the guts to kill anyone and probably not to declare him to get killed if some god asked me to hit him with a thunderbolt or something, BUT if he knew about his disease and is still going to screw around, it would be a very tempting option. I hate dilemma's.
Apparently not...I feel it's wrong to take his life either way and I would never be able to do it, and if I somehow did want to take his life to save the people I don't think it'd matter much to me if he did or didn't know.
A good judge should be able to see why I did it...but if he doesn't AND I could actually get myself to kill the man I probably would go to prison. I mean, it's not like I have a choice - I just murdered somebody. If I don't kill him a lot of other people, perhaps including me, are going to get infected, and I'd feel really bad about it.
It'd be pretty silly if the terrorist was the last person you killed and he's like "NO SOTP I WASNT PLANNING TO DO IT ANYWAY". But on a more serious note...if I will know afterwards that I could have prevented it by killing everyone, I would be more eager to kill the 50 of them. As harsh as it sounds, conscience is a bitch.
You'd think you learn from getting about 20 infractions and being close to banned status but you don't. Why are you making such replies? :/
Crunching numbers makes it easy to pull a trigger.
Of course, reducing human beings to numbers entirely invalidates the concept of human life having value, but I'm a nihilist, so PMS*.
*Pass My Shotgun.
Of course, reducing human beings to numbers entirely invalidates the concept of human life having value, but I'm a nihilist, so PMS*.
*Pass My Shotgun.
I would first talk with him see what kind of human being he is like. If he really is insane and i can't reach him at all then i'd gather other people to know about it. If that wasn't possible and i realised he was seriously wacked out then yes.. in order to save the majority i would kill him. Of course that choice would also be influence by whether or not i care about the people he is affecting.
Altmer: "a human life with HIV is a human life and taking his life without consent therefore equals murder in my opinion"
So you have no consideration for the majority of other human lives at risk?
IMO If you don't kill him (which was the only option). Then you are displaying a nonchalant attitude to other lives at stake. How would your sweet conscience handle that?
Altmer: "a human life with HIV is a human life and taking his life without consent therefore equals murder in my opinion"
So you have no consideration for the majority of other human lives at risk?
IMO If you don't kill him (which was the only option). Then you are displaying a nonchalant attitude to other lives at stake. How would your sweet conscience handle that?