Poll: Two Questions
- Thread starter Blatherscythe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, I wouldn't encourage her to get an abortion. That's her own decision to make. And I went with Churchill before knowing it. I admire a man who sleeps til noon and had to be kicked out of office Twice. The drinking thing isn't so bad--after years and years of doing just that, turns out drinking has the power to make you rational. And what happened in college is no sad thing--it was College, you're supposed to do crazy shit.
No, just goes to show that making judgements on incomplete cherry-picked information is a bad idea. Also shows that you can find anyone who beat very severe genetic conditions if you look hard enough.Blatherscythe said:
Want me to find examples of alcoholics who beat their wife? Vegetarians who have affairs? People born to families with long histories of genetic illnesses that never progress past the mental age of seven? Would that prove anything? Bollocks it would. You've just grabbed some highly specific (and in some cases plain wrong) information and are trying to draw a conclusion from it.
gawd i hate the stupid anti-abortion question. whats not to say i didnt kill hitler then, or mussolini, stalin, and a multitude of other 'bad eggs'.
ftr, I believe the mother has the choice, as she has to deal with the consequences.
ftr, I believe the mother has the choice, as she has to deal with the consequences.
Well, for starters, I didn't kill Beethoven, i prevented him from beeing born. He was also deaf, or went deaf while he was young BTW.Blatherscythe said:
Yeah based on what you wrote i ended up voting on Hitler, but when you only highlight the bright sides, it's hard to see, cause honestly, i would've never voted on any of the 3 when no more info was given.
I'd be interrested in knowing what Churchill was kicked out for for insatnce.
About the ark, theres 2 possible options.
A, the ark wasn't built by amateurs, it was fiction, and not real (god doesn't exist)
B, teh ark was real (god exists) but it was inevitably gonna work, cause it was the will of god, so it doesn't matter if they were amateurs.
fate is something that shouldn't be trifled with.
I would let the woman have an abortion, think about it, if she is already has with 8 other children to raise and nurture wouldn't one more be damaging to not only the other 8 but the child itself?
but then a question like that cant be answered simply in a post, it would take a lot of time to consider and weigh the pros and cons...
And does anybody REALLY know who they're voting for these days?
I would let the woman have an abortion, think about it, if she is already has with 8 other children to raise and nurture wouldn't one more be damaging to not only the other 8 but the child itself?
but then a question like that cant be answered simply in a post, it would take a lot of time to consider and weigh the pros and cons...
And does anybody REALLY know who they're voting for these days?
I just wanted to say that health care *has* improved since the 18th century, you know... Also, the risk for the child risks when the mother has syphilis are, among other things, inutero Death & preterm birth. (Of course, you can just give the mother a shot of penicillin).Blatherscythe said:
What I'm saying is that the question is a bit obsolete, and that if Beethoven hadn't existed, my life wouldn't be the same.
candidate 3 sounds like the ideal leader.... except he is FUCKING HITLER!!!!
So i'll go with Churchill.
To be fair, I did cheat, this question came up last year in a lecture at University.
So i'll go with Churchill.
To be fair, I did cheat, this question came up last year in a lecture at University.
As bad morally as Hitler was, it would be foolish to claim he was a bad leader. He clearly had a lot going for him or else the German people of 1935 wouldn't have voted for him in the elections for the Reichstag.
Concerning your claim that OP's claims are mind blowing, they really aren't. Seeing as you only provide one or two sentences for each candidate it is unfair to expect a response that would be anything but number 3. The omission of important facts means we can't make a proper decision. For example Churchill was an excellent orator who had a worthy cause, hence I'd let him run my country, did you include this in your description? No you did not.
Concerning your claim that OP's claims are mind blowing, they really aren't. Seeing as you only provide one or two sentences for each candidate it is unfair to expect a response that would be anything but number 3. The omission of important facts means we can't make a proper decision. For example Churchill was an excellent orator who had a worthy cause, hence I'd let him run my country, did you include this in your description? No you did not.
Ive got a better one:
Candidate 1: He is guilty of near-genocide, has ruled Israel with an iron fist for thousands of years and has recently dug his claws into the west. He has statues in his families likeness scattered all over the world and huge monuments. He has helped the Israelites win many wars and slaughter many people. His punishment is horrible and painful.
Candidate 2: He was kicked out of his hometown because of political differences, has fewer people under his influence and has been imprisoned by candidate 1 for a good chunk of his life. Candidate 1 has been spewing hate speech about him and his motives for a while, and most of candidate 1's subjects dispice him even though he has done no real harm to them.
Who would you vote for?
SPOILER: They a God and Satan respectively (im athiest so i may have some facts wrong). See if you bend the truth enough you can make people vote bad leaders into power.
Candidate 1: He is guilty of near-genocide, has ruled Israel with an iron fist for thousands of years and has recently dug his claws into the west. He has statues in his families likeness scattered all over the world and huge monuments. He has helped the Israelites win many wars and slaughter many people. His punishment is horrible and painful.
Candidate 2: He was kicked out of his hometown because of political differences, has fewer people under his influence and has been imprisoned by candidate 1 for a good chunk of his life. Candidate 1 has been spewing hate speech about him and his motives for a while, and most of candidate 1's subjects dispice him even though he has done no real harm to them.
Who would you vote for?
SPOILER: They a God and Satan respectively (im athiest so i may have some facts wrong). See if you bend the truth enough you can make people vote bad leaders into power.
Chruchill cos hes British...
Anyone who chose Hitler, go into your kitchen, grab a spoon, place over the hob until it glows red and then shove it up your arse - I swear ta god they dont teach history in schools today...
Anyone who chose Hitler, go into your kitchen, grab a spoon, place over the hob until it glows red and then shove it up your arse - I swear ta god they dont teach history in schools today...
I pick candidate four. The one that has a history which is far more in-depth ... ya-know, like have they ever held a large prejudice against an entire nation? Do they seek to create the perfect human? Do they have mental issues. However, if it is based solely of the qualities you listed, then I'd pick hitler, because if he was a man made just by those qualities you listed, he wouldn't have ended up being 'Adolf Hitler: Jew killer', he would have been 'Adolf Hitler: benevolent Prime minister' or something.
Also, the woman should have aborted, you can't just go 'Well, she might give birth to beethoven' because then you'd have a billion other disabled/retarded children running around and only one master-of-music to show for it.
Also, the woman should have aborted, you can't just go 'Well, she might give birth to beethoven' because then you'd have a billion other disabled/retarded children running around and only one master-of-music to show for it.
Not really given the context, that's assuming that you've simply produce this question to shock people by their choice of electing Hitler, which to be frank I'll still maintain that he was quite high up there as far as leaders go. I was surprised by Roosevelt and Churchill's pasts however, so I appreciate that information.Blatherscythe said:
If your aim was merely to show that personality doesn't necessarily go in with leadership then I suppose I can appreciate that.
Adolf Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian, and his mother considered having an Abortion, but her doctor told her not to.
Think about that for a moment.
Think about that for a moment.
I'd hardly call it an iron fist, considering the way everything has gone down there for the past several... Thousand years? Shit, I don't know. Nice bending though I guess, being an atheist I'm suprised you described your description as 'facts' though. ^^skeliton112 said:
twistit said: