Can I shoot one and pummel the other one to death with the gun (or my fists)? There. World Peace for everyone forever.
You have a gun with one bullet...
- Thread starter TopHatsaur
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hmm... if I just scribble "Evoker" on the side, I think I should be safe...
"PERSONA!"
*boom*
Well shit.
"PERSONA!"
*boom*
Well shit.
I wouldn't shoot anything. One-hundred years is a relatively short time in the grand scheme of history so why cut my life short for only about 1 generation of people when if I don't do anything, life just continues as it has been. Now if this ended war and hunger forever well...then I'd have a dilemma...and probably still wouldn't shoot anything because I don't want to die.
None of the three. If humanity can't solve these problems itself, then we don't deserve an "easy way out" choice.TopHatsaur said:
Fuck that.
awwww fuck, i hate these questions but i love them to, like batman and catwoman.
i'd shoot world hunger. if i could give hope to millions of people in 3rd countries, giving them something to fight for, then maybe on the other side of wars and conflicts there will be a brighter tomorrow. should i start singing 'when tomorrow comes' from les mis? maybe not quite yet.
shooting myself though....realistically, no way in hell but ideally, that 100 years of peace and prosperity for the whole world might lead to a stable and more peaceful future. but knowing mankind, i doubt we'd even get through the 100 years i was promised for my own death.
can't i just shoot justin bieber instead?
i'd shoot world hunger. if i could give hope to millions of people in 3rd countries, giving them something to fight for, then maybe on the other side of wars and conflicts there will be a brighter tomorrow. should i start singing 'when tomorrow comes' from les mis? maybe not quite yet.
shooting myself though....realistically, no way in hell but ideally, that 100 years of peace and prosperity for the whole world might lead to a stable and more peaceful future. but knowing mankind, i doubt we'd even get through the 100 years i was promised for my own death.
can't i just shoot justin bieber instead?
I don't see how stopping world war would make world hunger more of a problem, unless the reason the world stops fighting is because hey, screw food.
That sounds like a better plan to me.Aiedail256 said:
I would end war. Without war, people will be more willing to cooperate and end world hunger. Also, without war people wouldn't be spending trillions of dollars every year on weapons of war. All that money could go toward food and other necessities.
Also, I wouldn't shoot myself because 100 years isn't that long compared to human history. I find it better to attack the source of a problem than alleviate the symptoms temporarily.
Also, I wouldn't shoot myself because 100 years isn't that long compared to human history. I find it better to attack the source of a problem than alleviate the symptoms temporarily.
Myself. That would be the easiest way, but if you should kill World War, doesn't that mean World Peace and a more likely way to find and a "cure" for world hunger.
But a lot of people make their money off of war. So if we get rid of war at all, every one in every army would loose their jobs.
But we would save a lot of tax money.
If we would kill hunger... we would still kill each other over a lot of different things.
But I also have to think of MGS4, which leads to a Powerpuff Girls song: "War, War, War, WAR , WAR! Warwarwar, keeps the world go round."
I'll have to think over this one and come back.
But a lot of people make their money off of war. So if we get rid of war at all, every one in every army would loose their jobs.
But we would save a lot of tax money.
If we would kill hunger... we would still kill each other over a lot of different things.
But I also have to think of MGS4, which leads to a Powerpuff Girls song: "War, War, War, WAR , WAR! Warwarwar, keeps the world go round."
I'll have to think over this one and come back.