would take another bullet out of my pocket and cap both of them. then I would reload my gun and take over the world, since without war, nobody would resist.
You have a gun with one bullet...
- Thread starter TopHatsaur
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hunger kills a lot more people then war does, has killed a lot more people than war ever has. And I'm a selfish prick and far from suicidal.
world war, because World hunger can be stopped using the haber bosch process, and because science can lead the wrld ahead in finding solutions to hunger, it cant however fix stupidTopHatsaur said:
YES!!!!! beautiful, you my friend are awesome, and thats because of what you say and that friggin adorable calvin and hobbes avatarRegnes said:
World Hunger. Once that is taken care of, we can focus our attention and resources to finding peaceful solutions that will prevent us from world war.
Can I make world hunger place his head next to world war and try to make the bullet penetrate both skulls and kill them both? If not, I choose to shoot Bob Saget.
Make the two of them fight each other for survival with the false promise that the one who wins will walk away. Winner kills loser, then I would shoot the winner. Problem solved!
If that isn't an answer, then hunger. People having enough food might solve some fighting in poor countries, and without war, populations will rise and food shortages will be an even larger problem.
If that isn't an answer, then hunger. People having enough food might solve some fighting in poor countries, and without war, populations will rise and food shortages will be an even larger problem.
Toby, twice.
EDIT: Shooting yourself doesn't necessarily mean suicide. One shot in the foot to stop war and hunger for 100 years? I'm game.
EDIT: Shooting yourself doesn't necessarily mean suicide. One shot in the foot to stop war and hunger for 100 years? I'm game.
Well, the big problem with shooting myself is that it's temporary. If it would permanently solve both problems, then it would be the obvious choice.
As stated, it seems that I can save lives from hunger, forever, but that those lives will then be lost to war, or I can permanently save lives from war that will then be lost to hunger. Without clear guidance there as to how powerful each would get with the other's demise, it seems like all you're asking me between those choices is whether to starve or shoot more people, and to be honest neither apeals. Yes, the changes last forever, but they make no net difference, if you follow me.
Therefore, it seems like the only way to relieve any suffering at all, rather than just transmuting it from one form to another, would be to take the temporary deal at the cost of my own life. A hundred years really isn't a long time, though, in the grand scheme of things... this would likely be my choice, as it's the only one that seems to help anybody, but unless I'm Gluttonous Hitler I would want some assurances as to why that would work, or why it makes any kind of sense.
As stated, it seems that I can save lives from hunger, forever, but that those lives will then be lost to war, or I can permanently save lives from war that will then be lost to hunger. Without clear guidance there as to how powerful each would get with the other's demise, it seems like all you're asking me between those choices is whether to starve or shoot more people, and to be honest neither apeals. Yes, the changes last forever, but they make no net difference, if you follow me.
Therefore, it seems like the only way to relieve any suffering at all, rather than just transmuting it from one form to another, would be to take the temporary deal at the cost of my own life. A hundred years really isn't a long time, though, in the grand scheme of things... this would likely be my choice, as it's the only one that seems to help anybody, but unless I'm Gluttonous Hitler I would want some assurances as to why that would work, or why it makes any kind of sense.
