for those of you who think of yourself as non-judgmental

[atlantabiolab]

i know this has been going around the internet for a few days but it's definitely worth the read IMHO.

TWO TOUGH QUESTIONS

Question 1:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

Read the next question before looking at the answer for this one.

Question 2:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only Your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading Candidates. Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults With astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day. Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening. Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.













Candidate A is Franklin D Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

And, by the way, the answer to the abortion question: If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.

Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before judging someone. Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit 3 have done time for assault 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges 8 have been arrested for shoplifting 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

 

[Rex]

1) Wouldn't recommend an abortion. I'd recommend that she put the dick down.

2) I'm sure a lot of answers would've been different had candidate C's description including "ordered the death of over 6 million Jews". And I wouldn't have picked C anyway. Something about a vegetarian I just don't trust.

 

[gonelifting]

If my vote was the deciding vote? Do they still count votes any more?

people use odds knowingly or unkowingly on a daily basis to make decisions in their lives. I would choose C EVERY TIME, If those were my choices. Would you hit with a 20 in blackjack? NO, EVERYTIME

hindsite is 20/20, but we`re not talking about that.

 

[atlantabiolab]

i know this has been going around the internet for a few days but it's definitely worth the read IMHO.

TWO TOUGH QUESTIONS

Question 1:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

Read the next question before looking at the answer for this one.

Question 2:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only Your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading Candidates. Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults With astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day. Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening. Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.













Candidate A is Franklin D Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

And, by the way, the answer to the abortion question: If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.

Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before judging someone. Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit 3 have done time for assault 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges 8 have been arrested for shoplifting 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

The problem with this argument is that it is totally empirical. What the author is attempting to imply is that moral judgements are bad, due to their potential fallibility, and that one should not make moral/ethical judgements and only look at outcomes. How would one elect a candidate if the three persons were the only three candidates? No abstract values could be used, so what criteria would be used to elect the "best" candidate? Are we to discard known facts about individuals, which are moral/ethical judgements in nature, such as drug-user, adulterer, dishonest, etc., and give them our approval and simply hope for the best?

As for the abortion argument, one does not have to use factual occurances to debate this issue, even though this is useful to sway non-thinkers, one can make an abstract judgement about the morality of the idea. Would you have to make factual arguments about murder to prove it's immorality? Would it matter if the person was great or common to prove that his murder is wrong?

 

[hellorhih2o]

Re: Re: for those of you who think of yourself as non-judgmental

Are we to discard known facts about individuals, which are moral/ethical judgements in nature, such as drug-user, adulterer, dishonest, etc., and give them our approval and simply hope for the best?

I don't think that's the point at all. I think the point is that "moral" issues (however you define that) shouldn't be the ONLY reason someone gets a vote. Imperfect people can still make great leaders and imperfect people are a hell of a lot easier to trust (at least for me) than someone who CLAIMS that he or she is completely "moral/ethical". Bullshit.

A politician who claims that he doesn't lie is by default a liar.

A politician who claims that he has never done anything morally/ethically wrong is also by deafult a liar (or Jesus).

To quote velvett: "Give me an imperfect moody bastard and I show you a real human being with something to offer. "

 

[Tiervexx]

i agree with velvett, if you manage to find out why a moody bastard is a moody bastard you may learn something about yourself.

 

[Monkey Pox]

I don't remember any politicians who have said that they have never done anything morally or ethically wrong. They'd be laughed off the podium. The usually deny specific incidents but never a silly statement like that.

Seems like most people who are thinking people are the only people who would give that sort of little test any consideration. And then those people would sort of be too smart to fall for any of that nonsense anyway.

Goofy.