# Question for ppl living in USA, UK, EU, Canada & Australasia.....



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Please try to answer the following hypothetical question as best you can, thanks 

___________________________

*One night when you are asleep in bed you are visited by a mystical creature who comes to you in your dreams. This creature tells you that he has the power to take human life by simply wishing it so, and that tomorrow he will take somebody in your neighbourhood.

The next day a neighbour dies. You didn't know them so aren't grieving yourself, but you are nonetheless convinced of this creatures power.

That night you sleep and the creature visits you again. This time, he tells you that in exactly 7 days he will take the life of another person unless you do something. He assures you that whomever it is will not be a resident or citizen of your own country. And he says the only way to stop him is to get rid of every last bit of your money and assets before the 7 days is up. You need to have absolutely nothing to your name except the clothes you're wearing.
*
______________________________________

OK, in this hypothetical we are going to work with some premises:
1) The creature does not lie
2) The creature will honour his word and nobody will be killed in that person's place
3) If you have dependents, the question still applies. Any legal property of yours must go; except one set of clothes per family member.
4) The practicalities of selling all assets in less than 7 days are all assured.

_If you have any more questions please ask before voting in the poll._

______________________________________

*QUESTION:* Would you do it?


----------



## LexiFlame (Aug 9, 2012)

Absolutely not. If I were to see such a malicious creature, I wouldn't do a single thing it tells me to, and I'd do my best to completely ignore it. What this creature does isn't my fault, and I wouldn't take the responsibility onto my shoulders to pretty much ruin my life, to save some random other person who is supposedly going to die. I feel somewhat guilty for thinking that way, but I do.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

LexiFlame said:


> Absolutely not. If I were to see such a malicious creature, I wouldn't do a single thing it tells me to, and I'd do my best to completely ignore it. What this creature does isn't my fault, and I wouldn't take the responsibility onto my shoulders to pretty much ruin my life, to save some random other person who is supposedly going to die. I feel somewhat guilty for thinking that way, but I do.


So am I right here... you are saying the ethics of the decision is in part influenced by the presence of the creature?

I admire the answer but ask what if I were to remove the third party from the question? What then? If we cannot externalise the issue; if we are forced with the same decision without the creature (btw I did not actually the say the creature is malevolent)?


----------



## LexiFlame (Aug 9, 2012)

Barcelonic said:


> So am I right here... you are saying the ethics of the decision is in part influenced by the presence of the creature?
> 
> I admire the answer but ask what if I were to remove the third party from the question? What then? If we cannot externalise the issue; if we are forced with the same decision without the creature (btw I did not actually the say the creature is malevolent)?


Yes, the creature does affect it. Say the situation was something like, a person I don't know needs a 100% life-saving surgery to not go through a slow horrible death, and the only way I could pay for it would be to sell everything I own like you described. Before giving my money, I would probably try to launch a charity, and get the word out, or sell everything and try to make it a national story for a better chance of making some sort of living. If all charity related ideas were impossible, maybe if charity like that were illegal and pretty much impossible to organize, I believe I would do it and save them. Of course that's easy to say now when not really faced with the decision, but I think I would. 

A creature that kills without mercy unless an outside party sacrifices for their victim, is malevolent in my eyes. Unless there is some other force causing it to do this, which is still nothing I want to be involved in.

This is a really good question by the way.


----------



## Monsieur Melancholy (Nov 16, 2012)

A firm no from me. Why would I abdicate everything to my name just to save some random person in another country? Many people die all over the world everyday.

Then, what would you say to people who ask you why you did something so irrational? Would you tell them it was to save someone in another country because some magical creature flew in through your window and told you to do so? You'd be a laughing stock and thrown in the loony bin.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

LexiFlame said:


> Yes, the creature does affect it. Say the situation was something like, a person I don't know needs a 100% life-saving surgery to not go through a slow horrible death, and the only way I could pay for it would be to sell everything I own like you described. Before giving my money, I would probably try to launch a charity, and get the word out, or sell everything and try to make it a national story for a better chance of making some sort of living. If all charity related ideas were impossible, maybe if charity like that were illegal and pretty much impossible to organize, I believe I would do it and save them. Of course that's easy to say now when not really faced with the decision, but I think I would.
> 
> A creature that kills without mercy unless an outside party sacrifices for their victim, is malevolent in my eyes. Unless there is some other force causing it to do this, which is still nothing I want to be involved in.
> 
> This is a really good question by the way.


Charity isn't an option in this though; it's either all your money or a 'no'. Can't ask for help.

And let's put the creature aside for now. I hadn't wanted to include too many nonsequiturs because as you so avidly pointed out, they rarely are nonsequiturs at all lol.
That said though, bacteria kill without mercy and so do viruses. Being incapable of mercy I kind of see dying from a virus about the same as a bear falling off a cliff and crushing me, in terms of culpability. 
But ye, creature aside from now methinks lol 



Monsieur Melancholy said:


> Then, what would you say to people who ask you why you did something so irrational? Would you tell them it was to save someone in another country because some magical creature flew in through your window and told you to do so? You'd be a laughing stock and thrown in the loony bin.


Just to be clear, which is the predominant reason for you? ..... 
A) Humiliation at having to tell the story
B) Being a laughing stock
C) Being thrown in a loony bin

Just so I know which of the three you feel is preferable to allowing an innocent, 11-yr old Japanese girl to be fatally wounded in a road accident (or whomever and however it may be).


----------



## Monsieur Melancholy (Nov 16, 2012)

Barcelonic said:


> Just to be clear, which is the predominant reason for you? .....
> A) Humiliation at having to tell the story
> B) Being a laughing stock
> C) Being thrown in a loony bin
> ...


None of the above. I stated my predominant reasoning first. That being the fact that many people die all over the world every single day, and to give away everything I own in order to have the power to stop just one of those deaths from happening is ridiculously irrational.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Monsieur Melancholy said:


> None of the above. I stated my predominant reasoning first. That being the fact that many people die all over the world every single day, and to give away everything I own in order to have the power to stop just one of those deaths from happening is ridiculously irrational.


Apologies for missing that in my list. Thatnks.

Just one more question if its ok...

At which point would your decision here change...

A) If the creature had said it would be somebody from within your country but not your region
B) If the creature had said it would be somebody from within your region but not your town
C) If the creature had said it would be somebody from within your town but not your district
D) If the creature had said it would be somebody from within your district but not your neighbourhood
E) If the creature had said it would be somebody from within your neighbourhood but not your family
F) If the creature had said it would be somebody from within your family but not immediate family
G) If the creature had said it would be somebody from within your immediate family but not you

Thanks again


----------



## Monsieur Melancholy (Nov 16, 2012)

It would have to go all the way to point G for me to change my mind. Even then, it would be pretty hard to explain to people why you gave up all your assets.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Monsieur Melancholy said:


> It would have to go all the way to point G for me to change my mind. Even then, it would be pretty hard to explain to people why you gave up all your assets.


Firstly - G? Wow but ok. 

Your second sentence just reminds me of my previous list with A, B & C. In truth it does seem to me as though one or more of those three factors may be significantly supplementing your predominant view (which regrettably i left off the list so let's call that 'X')

I hope you don't mind answering that again with some specifics: in percentage, how much would you say your decision is influenced by these factors...

A) Humiliation at having to tell the story
B) Being a laughing stock
C) Being thrown in a loony bin
X) "There are lots of people who die every day"

Eg. A= xx%, B= xx% etc...

X is the predominant reason but the second sentence of your last post does seem to suggest that one or more of the others may factor in to some degree. Is that a fair assessment on my part?

Thanks again


----------



## Hurricane Matthew (Nov 9, 2012)

Why this is aimed at specific geographic regions? Why can't someone in Africa, South America, Oceana or Antarctica answer this?

I don't think I'd be convinced of a creature's power if I saw it in my dream and a neighbor's death would seem like a coincidence to me. I get enough weird dreams that one like that wouldn't affect me much and I'd probably just ignore it, so an indirect "firm no" from me.

If a real strange creature came into my house, I wouldn't care what it wants and just blast it with a shotgun since I don't need weird freaky creatures saying weird things in my house -.-; then sell the body to a museum. Maybe I'd get famous for finding Bigfoot. Or an alien. Or whatever it's supposed to be.


----------



## quixoticcrush (Mar 15, 2013)

Question. Do pets that you think of as family members count as property? I would not give up my pets but other material, non-living things I won't have a problem because I don't own much to begin with and material possession are not that important to me. Saving just one life is a good enough reason. Life is precious.


----------



## quixoticcrush (Mar 15, 2013)

Matthew Nisshoku said:


> Why this is aimed at specific geographic regions? Why can't someone in Africa, South America, Oceana or Antarctica answer this?


I'm guessing that the people in the particular geographic regions requested are more materialistic than people in third world countries.


----------



## Monsieur Melancholy (Nov 16, 2012)

I just don't think it's rational to do away with everything to your name and possibly end up being institutionalized (I use that reasoning very loosely because you don't necessarily have to give your actual reasoning for doing it) just to save the life of a stranger who you'll probably never have any dealings with, and someone who would probably not do the same for you if roles were reversed.

The only way I'd do it is if I knew specifically who was going to die, not this "someone in your region, someone in your family but not immediate family" crap. I would need a name. If it were someone I deeply cared about, I would do it. I'd go out of my way to save another human being's life if I could. I'd haul them out of a brook or out of a burning building if I knew the risk wasn't too severe. I'm not going to cripple myself financially on the advice of some mythical creature flying in through my window at night.


----------



## quixoticcrush (Mar 15, 2013)

What about people who give up everything they own and join the Peace Corps or some other volunteering organization that saves lives? Should they be institutionalized?


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

quixoticcrush said:


> Question. Do pets that you think of as family members count as property? I would not give up my pets but other material, non-living things I won't have a problem because I don't own much to begin with and material possession are not that important to me. Saving just one life is a good enough reason. Life is precious.


Thats affirmative lol - i myself do not consider animals as property nor am i too keen on those that do. 
Keep your pets, for as you said they are your family 


EDIT:
@*Monsieur Melancholy *
I think you've made your position clear. Thanks.
I don't think it's necessary to knock the process though. I thought we were getting somewhere, and as uncomfortable as it can sometimes be, I had hoped you would answer that "crap".

Thanks for your contributions tho


----------



## Monsieur Melancholy (Nov 16, 2012)

quixoticcrush said:


> What about people who give up everything they own and join the Peace Corps or some other volunteering organization that saves lives? Should they be institutionalized?


No, because their reasoning is justifiable and realistically understandable.

A fairy flying in through your window at night and telling you to sell all your stuff to save someone's life? Don't know if that's in the same category. If we lived in a world where that wouldn't be considered out of the usual, then I'd differ.


----------



## quixoticcrush (Mar 15, 2013)

Monsieur Melancholy said:


> No, because their reasoning is justifiable and realistically understandable.
> 
> A fairy flying in through your window at night and telling you to sell all your stuff to save someone's life? Don't know if that's in the same category. If we lived in a world where that wouldn't be considered out of the usual, then I'd differ.


I think you are focusing too much on the details of the situation and not enough on the underlying issue of forgoing material possessions for human life.


----------



## Hurricane Matthew (Nov 9, 2012)

quixoticcrush said:


> I'm guessing that the people in the particular geographic regions requested are more materialistic than people in third world countries.


Argentina and Brazil are third world countries? What...


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

OK, so, if I don't get rid of all of my money and assets, someone dies? 
Hmmm... I'll convert everything into cash and throw the hugest party ever, complete with live band and open bar. Everyone will have a great time and the assets and money will be spent.
Life saved... and I won't care that the money and assets are gone. I'll probably still be drunk...


----------



## Monsieur Melancholy (Nov 16, 2012)

Barcelonic said:


> No but if you dig it up post link here


http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/144726-world-sixteen-countires.html


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

Is there a reason why Asia, Africa and SAmerica weren't included here? IT's not like this is a question specific to.. I don't know, only residents of one particular country. Last I checked, people in the excluded continents had: a) loved ones, b) possessions and c) the ability to make choices about giving away said possessions.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

caramel_choctop said:


> Is there a reason why Asia, Africa and SAmerica weren't included here? IT's not like this is a question specific to.. I don't know, only residents of one particular country. Last I checked, people in the excluded continents had: a) loved ones, b) possessions and c) the ability to make choices about giving away said possessions.


ye i've already explained that


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

Barcelonic said:


> ye i've already explained that


Um, not as far as I can see. You said upthread:
_
Lol ye there are others but the thread title can only be so big and i listed the* Western countries i figured most perC members would be from, and which had the most Westernised culture*s._ [emphasis mine]

But it doesn't matter where they're from. Why did you have to specify countries? You could've just said "Would you do X?" The question isn't at all specific to Western countries. There are a lot of users here living in Asia, Africa and South America. And let me tell you - Singapore and Japan (to name a few) are not poor by any stretch of the imagination. I'm guessing you just thought people from Western countries were more likely to be wealthier, or something.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

caramel_choctop said:


> Um, not as far as I can see. You said upthread:
> _
> Lol ye there are others but the thread title can only be so big and i listed the* Western countries i figured most perC members would be from, and which had the most Westernised culture*s._ [emphasis mine]
> 
> But it doesn't matter where they're from. Why did you have to specify countries? You could've just said "Would you do X?" The question isn't at all specific to Western countries. There are a lot of users here living in Asia, Africa and South America. And let me tell you - Singapore and Japan (to name a few) are not poor by any stretch of the imagination. I'm guessing you just thought people from Western countries were more likely to be wealthier, or something.


With respect, you guess wrong.

I am guessing you have an idea of how long that list would be if I tried to list all Western countries, and that it couldn't fit in the title bar. Also, I'm willing to bet you're smart enough to realise I've been on the forum long enough to notice a lack of Japanese folk.

As for the wealthy side of it (first world, second world, third world) - you are right. That was my intention. In this poll I am not interested in the opinions of a starving Kenyan, were one here to being with. Is it this you take issue with?


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

Barcelonic said:


> With respect, you guess wrong.
> 
> I am guessing you have an idea of how long that list would be if I tried to list all Western countries, and that it couldn't fit in the title bar. Also, I'm willing to bet you're smart enough to realise I've been on the forum long enough to notice a lack of Japanese folk.
> 
> As for the wealthy side of it (first world, second world, third world) - you are right. That was my intention. In this poll I am not interested in the opinions of a starving Kenyan, were one here to being with. Is it this you take issue with?


Ah. But that wasn't the point I was driving at. If, say, I moved to Singapore next month, and I stayed with my parents, who just at the moment are paying some forty thousand AUD a year to send my sister to an international school - would my opinion not be valid then, because I live in Singapore? What about if I went down to the local Centrelink (employment agency) and asked this question to some poor soul who was genuinely struggling to meet ends meet? Would you accept their answer just because they live in Australia?

My point, in a nutshell, is that there was no need to specify countries to begin with. By singling out countries, you are not only: a) assuming that such a basic question needs stacks and stacks of money, but b) also that somehow, wealthy people from India or South Africa or Mozambique or (indeed) Kenya aren't entitled to answer a question about basic morality - about whether their life is more important than anyone else's.

Yes, I know many people here are from the above countries, but you have no way of knowing who lives where. Basically, to be blunt, you're assuming things and insulting a rather large number of people by doing so.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

caramel_choctop said:


> Ah. But that wasn't the point I was driving at. If, say, I moved to Singapore next month, and I stayed with my parents, who just at the moment are paying some forty thousand AUD a year to send my sister to an international school - would my opinion not be valid then, because I live in Singapore? What about if I went down to the local Centrelink (employment agency) and asked this question to some poor soul who was genuinely struggling to meet ends meet? Would you accept their answer just because they live in Australia?
> 
> My point, in a nutshell, is that there was no need to specify countries to begin with. By singling out countries, you are not only: a) assuming that such a basic question needs stacks and stacks of money, but b) also that somehow, wealthy people from India or South Africa or Mozambique or (indeed) Kenya aren't entitled to answer a question about basic morality - about whether their life is more important than anyone else's.
> 
> Yes, I know many people here are from the above countries, but you have no way of knowing who lives where. Basically, to be blunt, you're assuming things and insulting a rather large number of people by doing so.


Apart from the bit about me insulting third world residents, I agree with all of that. If you move to Singapore, then for the purposes of this online poll I created then you would not be eligible.

You may well think these things but this wouldn't change the poll at all. I wanted people from the West only and hopefully that is what I got.

Do i think the results would be different outside of Western nations - yes! And I'm sorry but if you think that is wrong/racist/whatever I can't help you; I don't know what to say - this is how sociological studies are often conducted. Would you not agree that values vary from culture to culture?

PS. The poverty of the third world is a factor in this, yes, but is not the only reason I believe the third world would vote differently.
The most important thing here to me is that you seem to think, were I to extend such a poll across the country and make it a national issue of some kind I would keep to the same Draconian strictness - I wouldn't. There is only so much time in the day and I feel a heck of a lot better about there being some ineligible perC members than having to check everyone's cultural background prior to them voting. If phased out wider and/or an important sociological study, the controls would indeed be very different and more time and care taken with the scientific method.


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

Barcelonic said:


> Apart from the bit about me insulting third world residents, I agree with all of that. If you move to Singapore, then for the purposes of this online poll I created then you would not be eligible.
> 
> You may well think these things but this wouldn't change the poll at all. I wanted people from the West only and hopefully that is what I got.
> 
> ...


Out of interest, in what way do you think the results would change if you allowed everyone to answer? Including the fact that the vast majority of people on PerC are from the countries specified anyway, and only a tiny proportion of new votes would be added if you included all countries.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Watch Key Phone said:


> Out of interest, in what way do you think the results would change if you allowed everyone to answer? Including the fact that the vast majority of people on PerC are from the countries specified anyway, and only a tiny proportion of new votes would be added if you included all countries.


I underlined the above to illustrate my point that the scientific method should apply irrespective of the scale of the study. 
My hypothesis may be wrong and perhaps the people in the third world would vote differently. But something unproven does not require disproving, so if you provide something to suggest the results wouldn't be different and then maybe I'll think about my reasoning for you and create a discussion thread. 

You know if you were to check my posts through my member page you'll see that each and every time i've posted a poll I've eventually (usually around page 5 or so lol) found myself having to explain every inch of my idea and why I posted it. But typically the criticism is empty and comes with no evidence to suggest I've got the fundamentals wrong, so I'm a little tired trying to explain myself tbh. I'm sure you can appreciate that.


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

Barcelonic said:


> I underlined the above to illustrate my point that the scientific method should apply irrespective of the scale of the study.
> My hypothesis may be wrong and perhaps the people in the third world would vote differently. But something unproven does not require disproving, so if you provide something to suggest the results wouldn't be different and then maybe I'll think about my reasoning for you and create a discussion thread.
> 
> You know if you were to check my posts through my member page you'll see that each and every time i've posted a poll I've eventually (usually around page 5 or so lol) found myself having to explain every inch of my idea and why I posted it. But typically the criticism is empty and comes with no evidence to suggest I've got the fundamentals wrong, so I'm a little tired trying to explain myself tbh. I'm sure you can appreciate that.


You've misinterpreted my question. I'm not telling you to justify your criteria (after all, I suppose you have every right to make your poll as specific as you wish). I'm asking what difference you think it would make if all countries _were_ included. How would the results differ?


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Watch Key Phone said:


> You've misinterpreted my question. I'm not telling you to justify your criteria (after all, I suppose you have every right to make your poll as specific as you wish). I'm asking what difference you think it would make if all countries _were_ included. How would the results differ?


I hadn't misinterpreted it. 

My reply was simply a polite way of saying that besides not wanting to go into all that, I don't feel I need to defend the premise unless there is actual reason to reexamine it.

An OTT example I know, but it can be likened to asking someone who talks about the Sun to share their reasoning why they believe the Sun is very hot. If one had something which suggested otherwise I'd expect an answer, but the reality in this particular situation is that there are many repliers for a thread creator to contend with and so it's rarely wise to begin a potentially long discussion whenever prompted.

Again, I'm sure you'll understand.


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

Barcelonic said:


> I hadn't misinterpreted it.
> 
> My reply was simply a polite way of saying that besides not wanting to go into all that, I don't feel I need to defend the premise unless there is actual reason to reexamine it.
> 
> ...


How are we to know whether there's a reason to re-examine it unless you disclose your reasons for the original criteria? If you believe that people in a different part of the world will be (for example) less selfish because they have less material possessions - then there is definitely a reason to re-examine the criteria because there isn't any evidence for that assertion. But because we don't know what exactly your assertion is, we have no way of making a rational decision about whether it is valid or not.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

I say no quite firmly.

I wouldn't give up my possessions to save a random life. In the scheme of things I can make more of a difference without giving up my possessions. For starters how does my lack of resource actually enrich them. 

Those who mention the Peace Corps. No where does the Peace Corps make anybody give up their possessions. Plenty of peace corps volunteers are wealthy. So they haven't actually made the kind of sacrifice this creature is asking.

So whereas I would try to save a life if I can, no way I'm going to give away all my stuff to do it. It's just not logical.

And with regards to naming countries, I call bullshit on you dancing around the reason for not just making it an open question.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

twoofthree said:


> I say no quite firmly.
> 
> I wouldn't give up my possessions to save a random life. In the scheme of things I can make more of a difference without giving up my possessions. For starters how does my lack of resource actually enrich them.
> 
> ...


Excellent point from a brutish individual.

As for the last sentence, I'm curious as to whether you've even heard of sociology or anthropology? If you think there is absolutely no ethical differences between different societies, then you're ignorance does not forgive your primitive behaviour.




Watch Key Phone said:


> How are we to know whether there's a reason to re-examine it unless you disclose your reasons for the original criteria? If you believe that people in a different part of the world will be (for example) less selfish because they have less material possessions - then there is definitely a reason to re-examine the criteria because there isn't any evidence for that assertion. But because we don't know what exactly your assertion is, we have no way of making a rational decision about whether it is valid or not.


This is exactly what I'm on about; let me simplify it a little...
It is like, "I asked first so.." "No but you asnwer first" "No you go first" ad infinitum....

My first point is that I'm not obligated to explain my reasoning as this is a poll not a debate thread and I'm not trying to posit anything.

My second point is that you seem to made a presumption about my reasoning which you will not reveal and wish me to explain my reasoning so that you can know if you're presumption is correct.

I would recommend not to presume but who am I kidding - we all do this. So instead I've merely asked you to come out with a single reason why you think people in the third world countries would vote differently, and if it's reasonable I'm happy to debate that issue with you, as I've said.

But I believe the idea that the third world would vote the same is a minority position. I may be right _or_ wrong but for as long as I continue to believe this I see no obligation to explain why, just as I have no reason to explain why I think the Sun is hot.

Now do you wish to continue debating semantics and stretching this poll thread out, or would you prefer to make your presumptions known and/or tell me how _you_ feel about my premise so that we might agree or debate the issue?


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

Barcelonic said:


> Excellent point from a brutish individual.
> 
> As for the last sentence, I'm curious as to whether you've even heard of sociology or anthropology? If you think there is absolutely no ethical differences between different societies, then you're ignorance does not forgive your primitive behaviour.
> 
> ...


I apologise if I hadn't made it clear enough. I believe that there will be little notable difference in the answers given by people in developed vs less developed countries. I also believe that there are few enough people who aren't from your group of Western countries on PerC that, even if they do vote differently, it will have no overall effect on the result of the poll. All in all, I think your distinction is unnecessarily specific, to the point that I wonder if there's some kind of harmful or negative stereotype behind your reason for imposing the distinction - but of course I don't know that for sure.


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

@ Barcelonic If this were a *real* sociological study, I suspect it would need to have some reason for choosing only participants from those countries - something, as I've said, specifically relevant to those countries. Otherwise it would need to have a larger sample space and, as far as possible, a stratified one. 

Now, if we are talking about a question on a forum you can do whatever you like, sure, but then leave this "sociological study11!1!1" BS put of it. I'm bowing out here, because I've explained myself & you're still being wilfully obtuse.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Watch Key Phone said:


> I apologise if I hadn't made it clear enough. I believe that there will be little notable difference in the answers given by people in developed vs less developed countries. I also believe that there are few enough people who aren't from your group of Western countries on PerC that, even if they do vote differently, it will have no overall effect on the result of the poll. All in all, I think your distinction is unnecessarily specific, to the point that I wonder if there's some kind of harmful or negative stereotype behind your reason for imposing the distinction - but of course I don't know that for sure.


Exactly my point. You had a presumption which was both negative and false, just as I suspected. 

Now that you have expressed what I believe is a minority position, do you mind saying why that is? Or am I to presume also?

And you can be assured I am a man of information & statistics; not stereotypes.




caramel_choctop said:


> @ Barcelonic If this were a *real* sociological study, I suspect it would need to have some reason for choosing only participants from those countries - something, as I've said, specifically relevant to those countries. Otherwise it would need to have a larger sample space and, as far as possible, a stratified one.
> 
> Now, if we are talking about a question on a forum you can do whatever you like, sure, but then leave this "sociological study11!1!1" BS put of it. I'm bowing out here, because I've explained myself & you're still being wilfully obtuse.


I apologise I cannot cater to your idiocy. I've stated everything clear as day so if you are incapable of correctly reading my posts and understanding that I never once purported this to be a sociological study - in fact, you are proving my point which was that the criteria would be changed WERE IT a sociological study.

*CAN YOU NOT READ OR ARE YOU CHOOSING TO TROLL? >>*


Barcelonic said:


> The poverty of the third world is a factor in this, yes, but is not the only reason I believe the third world would vote differently.
> The most important thing here to me is that you seem to think, were I to extend such a poll across the country and make it a national issue of some kind I would keep to the same Draconian strictness - I wouldn't. There is only so much time in the day and I feel a heck of a lot better about there being some ineligible perC members than having to check everyone's cultural background prior to them voting. If phased out wider and/or an important sociological study, the controls would indeed be very different and more time and care taken with the scientific method.



If you were a little bit smarter you'd have noticed that I haven't used direct insults against you until this post. Despite some morons here I have tried my best to remain civil and polite while people use profanity instead of meaningful words.
But then, if you were a little bit smarter you we wouldn't be having this conversation because you would be able to see when your position is a minority position and what that means; precisely, that the onus is on you to suggest why third world countries would vote differently if that's what you are saying?

Otherwise, what are you saying?!? That the scientific method as used in sociology shouldn't be adhered to when it's informal and small scale? Or that sociology should do away with the method itself?

Look again at the first sentence of your last post and if you haven't already, read through the thread before you got here. Now tell me you seriously want to ask that question when I've gone on at length about how these countries representing the political "West"

Yes, as much as I'll miss your presumptions, you'll be better off finding another thread to troll in the hope of expressing your superiority, which is really what this is all about, right? Because from where I am sitting it really looks as though it's clear who here is being obtuse.

There is no place for cowardice here; if you have made negative presumptions you won't be allowed to spend pages & pages trying to coax it out of people. Make it known! If you are making stereotypical assumptions about issues with which you've little experience, shut up & keep quiet is the best advice I can give you.

Fare well you ugly human being :frustrating:


----------



## Turioba (May 4, 2013)

I honestly have no idea how I'd react. With decisions like these- erm, vaguely like these- I tend to push myself into doing what seems morally right even if it sucks and I really don't want to. I'm usually a little irritated about it, but I remember my religion and treat these issues like there's really no choice.

Those issues are small, though. Here you're choosing between everything you own and a stranger's life. Naturally I'd be more inclined to try and keep what I've worked for, but at the same time the guilt would draw me towards the other option..

In the end, I'd probably give everything up and be really upset for a really long time. :\


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

I'd ponder it a bit, then go with no.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

QrivaN said:


> I'd ponder it a bit, then go with no.


Same here methinks 

Although one can always hope lol


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

Barcelonic said:


> Exactly my point. You had a presumption which was both negative and false, just as I suspected.
> 
> Now that you have expressed what I believe is a minority position, do you mind saying why that is? Or am I to presume also?
> 
> And you can be assured I am a man of information & statistics; not stereotypes.


You really seem to have lost the point of both the thread itself, and this particular discussion. You asked a direct question about why I pursuing the point - I gave you a direct answer and requested the same in return. Instead, you've tried to avoid the point by claiming that I'm still the one who's failing to be direct.

Let me repeat the questions I have been trying to ask since I came to this thread: Why did you choose to exclude a very small minority of people from participating in this poll when they are likely to have very little impact on the results anyway? In what way do you believe the results would be different had they been skewed by including the countries which you ruled out?


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

caramel_choctop said:


> @ Barcelonic If this were a *real* sociological study, I suspect it would need to have some reason for choosing only participants from those countries - something, as I've said, specifically relevant to those countries. Otherwise it would need to have a larger sample space and, as far as possible, a stratified one.
> 
> Now, if we are talking about a question on a forum you can do whatever you like, sure, but then leave this "sociological study11!1!1" BS put of it. I'm bowing out here, because I've explained myself & you're still being wilfully obtuse.





Barcelonic said:


> Exactly my point. You had a presumption which was both negative and false, just as I suspected.
> 
> Now that you have expressed what I believe is a minority position, do you mind saying why that is? Or am I to presume also?
> 
> ...


Fine, I take your point on the sociological study thing; I failed to read your post properly. 

You ask me to explain my reasoning? Fine. Here goes.

Your whole argument seems to be, "I shouldn't have to explain my reasoning for choosing ONLY Western countries over anyone else." It. is. not. a. question. of. countries.
It's a question of moral dilemmas. People in non-W countries are not all beggars living in abject poverty. They are not aliens. It is a question of THEIR LIFE over A STRANGER'S LIFE. There is no reason for those "non-Westerners", for lack of a better word, who are living in comfortable situations to be fundamentally unable to answer the question.

WHY SPECIFY WESTERN COUNTRIES IN THE FIRST PLACE? is my question. You don't seem to be able to answer that with anything except "herp derp it's my opinion", which doesn't really give a reason. And by the way, I've every right to use mild profanity: this is a public internet forum, not a convent.


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

Watch Key Phone said:


> You really seem to have lost the point of both the thread itself, and this particular discussion. You asked a direct question about why I pursuing the point - I gave you a direct answer and requested the same in return. Instead, you've tried to avoid the point by claiming that I'm still the one who's failing to be direct.
> 
> Let me repeat the questions I have been trying to ask since I came to this thread: Why did you choose to exclude a very small minority of people from participating in this poll when they are likely to have very little impact on the results anyway? In what way do you believe the results would be different had they been skewed by including the countries which you ruled out?


THANK you. I'm glad someone's talking sense.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

caramel_choctop said:


> WHY SPECIFY WESTERN COUNTRIES IN THE FIRST PLACE? is my question. You don't seem to be able to answer that with anything except "herp derp it's my opinion", which doesn't really give a reason. And by the way, I've every right to use mild profanity: this is a public internet forum, not a convent.



You are so refined I'm so gutted I don't know you IRL. My translation of the underlined would be "Why not?" and with the onus being on you how can you POSSIBLY suggest I am any more reluctant than you to say what you think. After all, this is where YOU want this to go, not me and you have already refused my offer of a discussion thread so I think you know precisely what it is you are doing.

Put it this way - and this is the GENUINE reason I began with before you two came and began questioning my motives....
It would be the most idiotic thing ever to begin any sociological study, whether real or a simple online poll, to begin with the ENTIRE WORLD!!
To be frank I'm baffled I should need to explain this to either of you. Do you not think anthropologists, for example, study men and women in any given society separately? How in the world can they do their job and find differences between things if they include EVERYONE in their research?!?

Were this a real study I would certainly have a list of first world, second world and third world countries. I would collate data from the UN, CIA Factbook and other sources to make the lists. BUT I WOULD NEVER include them all in one study!! I would run three separate studies and the reason isn't because I have some preconceived idea of how the results will turn out. All I would be able to do is speculate, which is all I can do now. But the ENTIRE REASON for the study would be to FIND OUT!
Hence the difference between philosophy and science: speculation.




Watch Key Phone said:


> You really seem to have lost the point of both the thread itself, and this particular discussion. You asked a direct question about why I pursuing the point - I gave you a direct answer and requested the same in return. Instead, you've tried to avoid the point by claiming that I'm still the one who's failing to be direct.
> 
> Let me repeat the questions I have been trying to ask since I came to this thread: Why did you choose to exclude a very small minority of people from participating in this poll when they are likely to have very little impact on the results anyway? In what way do you believe the results would be different had they been skewed by including the countries which you ruled out?


WKP I really don't see the need for hostility here so I'm just going to explain it for you; a summation as i see it, if you will:

I believe the majority of people would say agree with me that third world results would be different.
And so I see you as a minority position in thinking otherwise.
Eg... I am an atheist. If a nutty creationist _demands_ I debate with them about the existence of God, I do not have to simply because they want me to. 
You too I'm sure would agree with this logic yes? The literalist is the minority position and the onus is on them to say WHY they think what they think. If the reasoning is sound only then does the onus switch. Right?

So I repeat from several pages back.... this is like saying "You go first", "No you go first" etc... only you don't want to speak your mind before I've spoken mine.

So now this is like the literalist who comes to me and says: "I DEMAND a debate with you about the existence of God. You MUST comply AND....... YOU must begin the debate!"

That line above is exactly what this issue is to me. Now tell me you don't understand why the incessant need of one or two presumptuous repliers (whose presumptions thus far _are indeed_ false), without the courage to simply 'go first' and speak their minds fully, would lure me into a debate I do not even wish to have, let alone think it worthwhile.
Don't you think if I wanted to discuss anything to do with what you are trying to talk about I would have made a thread for the sake of discussing it? What you don't seem to understand is that it is precisely because the third world IS the third world that we have here only one poll thread. If I had access to the third world version of perC do you not think I would use such a resource, get two polls out and look at the results?

In the melodic words of John Mayer.... "Say what you need to say!"


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

Barcelonic said:


> You are so refined I'm so gutted I don't know you IRL. My translation of the underlined would be "Why not?" and with the onus being on you how can you POSSIBLY suggest I am any more reluctant than you to say what you think. After all, this is where YOU want this to go, not me and you have already refused my offer of a discussion thread so I think you know precisely what it is you are doing.
> 
> Put it this way - and this is the GENUINE reason I began with before you two came and began questioning my motives....
> It would be the most idiotic thing ever to begin any sociological study, whether real or a simple online poll, to begin with the ENTIRE WORLD!!
> ...


I really don't understand what it is that you think I'm still withholding from you. I've told you my opinion, several times already. Here, I'll sum up:

_In my opinion, the results gained from this poll would be close to identical if you included all countries, as if you included only your listed countries. Therefore, I believe there is no logical reason to impose these criteria on a minor and small-scale internet poll. It seems possible that your have some other motivation for limiting the criteria in this way, but I honestly have no idea what reasons you might have.
_
That is my entire opinion. I'm not hiding anything. I'm not withholding my 'presumptions'. I've said my piece. It is now your turn. 

*In what way do you think the results would differ if you included all countries, instead of only the countries you listed? Would more people say 'yes'? Or would more people say 'no'?
*


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

WKP either you are very clever or very, very stupid. I've tried about a million ways to explain it to you and you come back as though you've taken some in and not quite grasped it. Am i really that bad at explaining or does it not sit well with you to concede a misunderstanding?

Few people would agree with you and so your opinion is not worth commenting on unless you can tell me (and seriously, now for the last time!) WHY YOU THINK THAT!!! 

THE ONUS IS ON YOU!!!

How can you possibly not get this?!? Seriously? 

YOU have reason to think there would be no difference in the vote results. Great for you, but that is YOU. Do you not understand that just as MOST people ('majority position') don't believe in the existence of the god Tiki, neither do MOST people (IMO as stated several times) would think what you just said is preposterous - the phrase "Why dignify that with a response?" comes to mind.

If YOU have this belief that somehow the whole world would vote similarly then why are so annoyingly persistent about NOT telling me why that is? I mean for goodness sake the way you put that last post down made me wonder whether you are toying with me and are very good at it, and that's disconcerting.

TKP, the one thing I can assure you (to the point where I swear on the life of my entire family and everybody i care about!) - _*the following is 100% true*:_
This thread and this poll would NOT exist if I had ANY preconceptions whatsopever about the results given by ANY population. This is why I have on several occasions made note of the fact that this is only gathering first world opinions because I don't have access to third world opinions.
If I had ANY preconceptions or motivation I would find absolutely NO REASON to post the poll. 

_Truth cont...d:_

Behind this poll was an interest to see how people who may give to charities would feel about one of the most extreme possible forms of charity. Most of these third world charities conduct their business in the affluent West. It makes perfect sense to start with the West. Admittedly there was never any intention to do another poll for other places because I wouldn't get a single vote if the options were Angola, DR Congo, Cambodia etc... I did not think there are perC members from any one of these places and so no future poll was, or is, planned.

Finally, do you want to discuss this with me in a thread because you have trolled us to page 7 and its getting ridiculous. 
If so, state your case and let us begin. Stating you disagree with a premise without saying why is a copout and you know it. Grow a pair and speak your mind, or at the very least stop attacking me for having the stones to say I don't want to speak mine.


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

I'm bowing out. You're going round in circles so we clearly aren't going to get anywhere.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Unfortunately I live in neither of those...
So I will just add my 3500 post here for kicks... XD


----------



## ManWithoutHats (Jun 2, 2012)

Honestly, I would probably allow myself to think I was having a psychotic break. Rather than sell my stuff I would check into an institute and they'd tell me I was crazy and I would subconsciously use this as justification to deny my feelings of guilt. I hate to say that, but that is the way my mind predicted my actions. I would just go into denial– wouldn't take any responsibility. 

But, I'd like to think I would sell all of my stuff.. of course, this scenario is so hard to imagine. I can't fully imagine believing this creature's real, which makes it seem like it would be easy to go into denial, especially considering the human psyche's talent for denying things.

I guess before I vote I'd have to ask how certain we feel in this hypothetical. Is it just up to us to determine based on the circumstances, or are we just supposed to assume that there is no denying the validity of the experience? Or something else?

Edit: btw, as far as the whole 'why these countries' thing (which I have to admit I don't quite understand why these only but I don't really care at all), you do realize this poll is fundamentally unscientific and not reliable in countless ways– regardless of the countries selected your sample is still limited to people on this forum who care enough to answer this– 70+% INxx types (12% in the gen. pop.), predominantly male and with a disproportionately higher rate of mental illness than the general population.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Watch Key Phone said:


> I'm bowing out. You're going round in circles so we clearly aren't going to get anywhere.


Oh thank goodness. Today is a new day; my blood's no longer boiling and I wasn't planning on continuing with this silliness anyway.

Fare well troll


----------



## b90 (Aug 15, 2011)

LexiFlame said:


> Yes, the creature does affect it. Say the situation was something like, a person I don't know needs a 100% life-saving surgery to not go through a slow horrible death, and the only way I could pay for it would be to sell everything I own like you described. Before giving my money, I would probably try to launch a charity, and get the word out, or sell everything and try to make it a national story for a better chance of making some sort of living. If all charity related ideas were impossible, maybe if charity like that were illegal and pretty much impossible to organize, I believe I would do it and save them. Of course that's easy to say now when not really faced with the decision, but I think I would.
> 
> A creature that kills without mercy unless an outside party sacrifices for their victim, is malevolent in my eyes. Unless there is some other force causing it to do this, which is still nothing I want to be involved in.
> 
> This is a really good question by the way.


Remove the creature from the equation and multiply it by tens of thousand, and you have the real world. If we disregard the logistics of it for a moment here, you could do this right now and save a lot more than just the life on one random human being. So, if you're inclined to follow this scenario if there is no malevolent monster, why aren't you on the street already?


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

ManWithoutHats said:


> I guess before I vote I'd have to ask how certain we feel in this hypothetical. Is it just up to us to determine based on the circumstances, or are we just supposed to assume that there is no denying the validity of the experience? Or something else?
> 
> Edit: btw, as far as the whole 'why these countries' thing (which I have to admit I don't quite understand why these only but I don't really care at all), you do realize this poll is fundamentally unscientific and not reliable in countless ways– regardless of the countries selected your sample is still limited to people on this forum who care enough to answer this– 70+% INxx types (12% in the gen. pop.), predominantly male and with a disproportionately higher rate of mental illness than the general population.


Seriously man thank you!! Sincerely. It is so refreshing to witness the first person actually ask before assuming the nature of the creature and so forth...
I think you already have it right my friend - the seemingly trivial details are indeed trivial.

As for your edit, once more thanks for getting it and being the first to do so! A few posters here had got it in their heads I had an agenda based on stereotypes (yes i know, right? Absolutely nothing i've said in this thread to suggest such a thing).

The truth is I have maintained throughout that this is simply a perC poll and not indicative in any way of how I would run it as a wider, legitimate study. People have given a lot of stick over choosing inclusion/exclusion, despite it being standard when one wishes to learn something through polling (and adhering to the scientific method - which btw, is only logic and nothing more).

In clear answer to your question.... Yes; there is supposed to be no denying the validity of the experience (the only reason I 'offed' the neighbour was to try to illustrate this - i thought about 3 consecutives but figured 1 would do the job).


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

b90 said:


> Remove the creature from the equation and multiply it by tens of thousand, and you have the real world. If we disregard the logistics of it for a moment here, you could do this right now and save a lot more than just the life on one random human being. So, if you're inclined to follow this scenario if there is no malevolent monster, why aren't you on the street already?


Well said. There are at least 5 ppl here who could be doing this right now! 

I'm not as brave as that myself, although I like to think I would be if I had my health (which is sadly very poor).


----------



## b90 (Aug 15, 2011)

Barcelonic said:


> Well said. There are at least 5 ppl here who could be doing this right now!
> 
> I'm not as brave as that myself, although I like to think I would be if I had my health (which is sadly very poor).


I'm not endorsing that anyone actually do this. Putting yourself at risk to change something that is entirely out of your control, and is merely a factor of environment is silly at best. Not that it isn't noble, it is, to an extreme degree, and I can say that I honestly admire anyone who would do it, but I'll also admit to thinking the person is an idiot. (Albeit a good willed one.)

In regards to your health, I sincerely hope you get better.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

b90 said:


> I'm not endorsing that anyone actually do this. Putting yourself at risk to change something that is entirely out of your control, and is merely a factor of environment is silly at best. Not that it isn't noble, it is, to an extreme degree, and I can say that I honestly admire anyone who would do it, but I'll also admit to thinking the person is an idiot. (Albeit a good willed one.)
> 
> In regards to your health, I sincerely hope you get better.


Thanks, and i agree with what you say. 

I wouldn't call them an idiot, but would certainly call it extreme and your admiration would be shared


----------



## LexiFlame (Aug 9, 2012)

b90 said:


> Remove the creature from the equation and multiply it by tens of thousand, and you have the real world. If we disregard the logistics of it for a moment here, you could do this right now and save a lot more than just the life on one random human being. So, if you're inclined to follow this scenario if there is no malevolent monster, why aren't you on the street already?


The same reason I would never give to any big name charities like or Christian Children's Fund. Nobody is presenting me with an actual, real person that needs help. Like they actually said in a commercial, I put these things on a "nice-to-do list" and never get around to it because, I don't trust the companies, someone else calling in will or already has helped these people, the kids in the videos are now several years older or maybe even dead, and I don't feel the tangible need to help someone. But if someone's situation was brought to my attention, like how the creature seeks you out to tell you that you're the only one that can stop it, there's no way I could let that go. A few years ago, I saw this teenage guy picking through the garbage in Toronto and sleeping on cardboard on the street. I bought him coffee and a bagel a couple days in a row, trying to think of how I could help him. Once when I gave him coffee, he told me he was trying to get a job, but his clothes were all ripped and gross, and he had to buy food with whatever money he got since he never had more than 10$ at once. So I sold my Super Nintendo and gave him the money (at the time, all I had that was really worth something) to go buy some clothes, get a haircut and find a job. I saw him twice more, looking much better with some new clothes, so I assume he did use it for what I gave it for, and I never saw him on the street again, so either he got some place to live, or moved to another part of the city, and hopefully he's doing better. And if I saw someone like that again (that isn't an obvious druggie, or there by choice) I would do the same.


----------



## b90 (Aug 15, 2011)

LexiFlame said:


> The same reason I would never give to any big name charities like or Christian Children's Fund. Nobody is presenting me with an actual, real person that needs help. Like they actually said in a commercial, I put these things on a "nice-to-do list" and never get around to it because, I don't trust the companies, someone else calling in will or already has helped these people, the kids in the videos are now several years older or maybe even dead, and I don't feel the tangible need to help someone. But if someone's situation was brought to my attention, like how the creature seeks you out to tell you that you're the only one that can stop it, there's no way I could let that go. A few years ago, I saw this teenage guy picking through the garbage in Toronto and sleeping on cardboard on the street. I bought him coffee and a bagel a couple days in a row, trying to think of how I could help him. Once when I gave him coffee, he told me he was trying to get a job, but his clothes were all ripped and gross, and he had to buy food with whatever money he got since he never had more than 10$ at once. So I sold my Super Nintendo and gave him the money (at the time, all I had that was really worth something) to go buy some clothes, get a haircut and find a job. I saw him twice more, looking much better with some new clothes, so I assume he did use it for what I gave it for, and I never saw him on the street again, so either he got some place to live, or moved to another part of the city, and hopefully he's doing better. And if I saw someone like that again (that isn't an obvious druggie, or there by choice) I would do the same.


I can understand that!  And if you haven't already seen this page: http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp? go=gift&&section=10389 I think you might like it. I'm not familiar with this specific organisation, I'm afraid, but there was one similar to this in Norway which was very good. Basically, instead of sending money to government branches of the country you'd like to help, they use the money to buy and make sure that families in poor conditions can have a goat, or some ducks, perhaps even a Deep Well.

We did this for christmas one year. I can't say that everyone shared the sentiment, but using your money to potentially change the life of a family for the better, instead of buying a senseless gift for someone who already have pretty much everything they need, is a way of running a charity I can get behind.


----------



## LexiFlame (Aug 9, 2012)

b90 said:


> I can understand that!  And if you haven't already seen this page: http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp? go=gift&&section=10389 I think you might like it. I'm not familiar with this specific organisation, I'm afraid, but there was one similar to this in Norway which was very good. Basically, instead of sending money to government branches of the country you'd like to help, they use the money to buy and make sure that families in poor conditions can have a goat, or some ducks, perhaps even a Deep Well.
> 
> We did this for christmas one year. I can't say that everyone shared the sentiment, but using your money to potentially change the life of a family for the better, instead of buying a senseless gift for someone who already have pretty much everything they need, is a way of running a charity I can get behind.


I know a person that works in World Vision and she told me that they really do their best to get the money there, and a lot of the time they succeed. There are even a few spokespeople that used to be children in underprivileged countries, and are now adults that had a good education, now have good jobs, and have been able to even visit the family that sponsored them. It's heartwarming really. But she told me that often they send shipments of over $10,000 there, and since some of the countries are so war ridden, dangerous gangs raid it. 

And I do really like that idea! It seems like there's less of a chance of someone interfering there. They probably wouldn't raid goats, chickens, or well building material, and that seems like it would really help some people.


----------



## b90 (Aug 15, 2011)

LexiFlame said:


> And I do really like that idea! It seems like there's less of a chance of someone interfering there. They probably wouldn't raid goats, chickens, or well building material, and that seems like it would really help some people.


My thoughts exactly!


----------



## Scootaloo (Mar 18, 2013)

A cruel, killing creature is not reliable. I could never reason with one. A definite no from me.


----------



## Pom87 (Apr 7, 2012)

No, I do not like being ordered and bullied around for no apparent reason.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Kyora said:


> I answered firm no before thinking ^^' I wouldn't be able to give up everything since evreything is full of memories for me ^^' but then I thought wait I have friends that live in other countries ^^' So I think I would ask that malevolent creature where he plans to go and if I know the person he plans to kill. And if I know the person then I would give up everything


Its OK your vote is safe i think lol 

The creature would always take a stranger


----------



## Hruberen (Jan 2, 2012)

Firm no, so long as it isn't someone I know an care for, i'll have to think about it then.

I wish he didn't do it randomly though and got rid of people who aren't contributing to the advancement of the human race, ala the darwinism awards.

Overpopulation is a problem, far as I see it, that stranger dieing could have a positive effect on my progeny.


----------

