Is there anything you would kill for?

bingefeller

octatonic said:

bingefeller said:

octatonic said:

I am not sure I'd personally do the killing but anyone who uses the word 'vinyls' as a plural for 'vinyl' records clearly shouldn't be allowed to live.

What is the pleural for vinyl?

'Vinyl', as in 'he has a great collection of vinyl'.

ah right.  I don't have any vinyls, just CDs.  

Philly_Q

EricTheWeary said:

Can you kill the undead? jonnyburgo said:

I'd kill a zombie if it was trying to bite me.

Yeah, you take it from undead to... proper dead.

Sporky

octatonic said:

I am not sure I'd personally do the killing but anyone who uses the word 'vinyls' as a plural for 'vinyl' records clearly shouldn't be allowed to live.

Also anyone who says "Legos".

Myranda

Sporky said:

octatonic said:

I am not sure I'd personally do the killing but anyone who uses the word 'vinyls' as a plural for 'vinyl' records clearly shouldn't be allowed to live.

Also anyone who says "Legos".

I've heard it further compounded with "a legos" I almost vomited bricks! 

Sporky

May such people always stand on Quadro.

equalsql

Anyone who says PIN number.

mike_l

Other than to protect someone (or myself obviously) I really don't think I could.
I'd have no problems in getting into fisticuffs, but I really couldn't kill someone in cold blood.

mgaw

for fun

Wolfetone

The OP has asked a good question but a more interesting question would be "who or what is it perfectly ok to kill?" 

Who's rules do we live by? Does circumstance change the rules? Does it matter who lives or dies as long as it isn't us? 

Hmmmm..... 

HAL9000

There's an interesting psychological test which, if I remember correctly, goes something like this...

Imagine a train track which at some point divides into two tracks, A and B, and you have control of the points. The default is that the train will take track A.

A person is standing at the end of track A, and you can save their life by moving the points so that the train diverts to track B. Would you move the points? Pretty much 100% of people respond that, yes, they would move the points.

Next, imagine two people at the end of track A, but only person at the end of track B. So this time moving the points saves two lives, but will result in death of the person at the end of track B. Now most respondents won't intervene since it means they're complicit in causing a death. Even if that one person at the end of track B is Adolf Hitler most people still don't want to have actively taken a life.

Sambostar

I'd like to come face to face with your insect animosity.  Psychos wrapped in baby cushions.  I would feast off you carcasses if they weren't so fat and untasty. I mean if they were worth eating at all.

Sambostar

ADMIN EDIT: C'mon, dude. There are limits.

Iamnobody

HAL9000 said:

There's an interesting psychological test which, if I remember correctly, goes something like this...

Imagine a train track which at some point divides into two tracks, A and B, and you have control of the points. The default is that the train will take track A.

A person is standing at the end of track A, and you can save their life by moving the points so that the train diverts to track B. Would you move the points? Pretty much 100% of people respond that, yes, they would move the points.

Next, imagine two people at the end of track A, but only person at the end of track B. So this time moving the points saves two lives, but will result in death of the person at the end of track B. Now most respondents won't intervene since it means they're complicit in causing a death. Even if that one person at the end of track B is Adolf Hitler most people still don't want to have actively taken a life.

What do the shrinks tell you about the mindset of people who choose B? 

HAL9000

TBH I don't remember. A bit of Googling suggests that the test is known as The Trolley Problem and was designed as an ethical rather than a psychological test. Seems the right answer should be whatever results in the greatest good i.e. most lives saved. I had got my facts muddled though - most people in the second test would change the points. However, an analogous test is would you deliberately push one person onto a single track to save two people who would otherwise be killed by the train. People who were happy to reset points were not happy to give one person a shove even though ultimately the situation is identical (one life for two).

Chalky

The problem plus others is covered in this series of lectures.

Sambostar

Iamnobody said:

HAL9000 said:

There's an interesting psychological test which, if I remember correctly, goes something like this...

Imagine a train track which at some point divides into two tracks, A and B, and you have control of the points. The default is that the train will take track A.

A person is standing at the end of track A, and you can save their life by moving the points so that the train diverts to track B. Would you move the points? Pretty much 100% of people respond that, yes, they would move the points.

Next, imagine two people at the end of track A, but only person at the end of track B. So this time moving the points saves two lives, but will result in death of the person at the end of track B. Now most respondents won't intervene since it means they're complicit in causing a death. Even if that one person at the end of track B is Adolf Hitler most people still don't want to have actively taken a life.

What do the shrinks tell you about the mindset of people who choose B? 

I think in truth, most people would ignore A and B entirely and get on with their lives.

octatonic

Iamnobody said:

HAL9000 said:

There's an interesting psychological test which, if I remember correctly, goes something like this...

Imagine a train track which at some point divides into two tracks, A and B, and you have control of the points. The default is that the train will take track A.

A person is standing at the end of track A, and you can save their life by moving the points so that the train diverts to track B. Would you move the points? Pretty much 100% of people respond that, yes, they would move the points.

Next, imagine two people at the end of track A, but only person at the end of track B. So this time moving the points saves two lives, but will result in death of the person at the end of track B. Now most respondents won't intervene since it means they're complicit in causing a death. Even if that one person at the end of track B is Adolf Hitler most people still don't want to have actively taken a life.

What do the shrinks tell you about the mindset of people who choose B? 

It is a rudimentary psychopath test and the thinking is that psychopath's can turn off their empathy and without too much thought divert the train.

I'm a bit dubious about this test though.
It is hard to prove though, because any test that doesn't involve the death of a person will be easily seen through as a test with no consequences.
Sitting here right now, I would think that I would have no problem flicking the switch and it would be difficult to construct a test where I thought someone would actually die from my actions.
I don't think of myself as a psychopath though

speshul91

I'd flick the switch. 

57Deluxe

Femidom...

Chalky

If you watch the YouTube lectures I posted above, they make adjustments to  the test to make it more and more difficult, then add other tests. It gets hard to know what is right.