The Consequences [Concluded]

1. ourself

2.
- A 33-year-old single mother, who refuses to go without...
- Her 7-year-old daughter, who will go without Mommy but will probably never be the same
- A Catholic priest
- A 27-year-old male computer programmer who originally dropped out of med school
- A 51-year-old handyman/mechanic, who may or may not be able to still have children

3. JFK

4. Tis better to have loved and lost (live for 5 years)

5. Don't answer yet

6. See previous post from Stildawn

7. If he was trying to smuggle it, don't cover, if it was planted, cover.



My reasoning for the 5 others is that we would then have a handyman (Could be a woman :tongue:), a computer literate person, a religious person, a child and a woman.

I'll leave 5 and 6 to someone else. :bow:

I answered 6 lol... Straight from google.

Noticed that after I'd posted. :wink:

I love it how you just didnt bother waiting for others... to be honest it had to be done lol.

We need action.

If i start making stupid decisions and people get angry, I'll stop without having consent first.

So... anybody watch the Sopranos?

All I know is that it ends just too early.

Tony Soprano (Protagonist) heard his door bell ring. He opens the door and the screen fades to black.

That's it. There is a lot (A lot) of other stuff that happens, but we only really need to know the ending. In my opinion, I think it's cheap.

So, answer to the question would be something like this?

It sucked. I'd have ended it in a non-sucky way.

:beam:

Although I'm an advocate of discussion, I fully appreciate what pever has saved us all from here.

I think we should tell the old man

"I have something really important to tell you, I'll tell you after the experiment"

This would be some kind of insurance against having our memory wiped again, perhaps the old man would alert the police that we had not emerged from the experiment?

The Sopranos is about organised crime isn't it?

Maybe after he opens the door, rather than fading to black, [insert rival here] could shoot him multiple times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

You sign the paper...

---

With what name? :whip:

Quote:

---

You answer number 6 first....

Success: an event that accomplishes its intended purpose

---

Lamest definition of success ever. What about if you succeeded in preventing someone else from succeeding? And what about serendipity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Lamest definition of success ever. What about if you succeeded in preventing someone else from succeeding?

---

In that case your intended purpose would have been to stop them succeeding, but yes, it's is a very boring and literal definition, I agree. When I first read it I thought it meant in a general success in life kind of way, and the first answer I thought of was "happiness", I was kind of disappointed when I seen that a dictionary definition had already been submitted.

Here is my answers, which have some more thought to them than some of the suggestions.

Number 5 is missing, as I haven't got a clue what it is. Some one else could fill this in.

1. You are a healthy adult adrift at sea with no hope of immediate rescue. Two other people are adrift with you: Another healthy adult with whom you have a friendly relationship, and a child whom neither of you know who is starting to feel the effects. The three of you are starving. Which one of you do you choose to sacrifice to buy the other two time?

You can survive a long time without food, however, the most immediate concern is infact water, considering how you are ironically surrounded by it. Also, if you are adrift, your most immediate concern would be getting out of the water and getting dry, as you would die from hypothermia long before the need of food. Depending of where abouts you are, attempting to kill another bad idea in itself, since you would have to expend energy in doing the feat which would mean you wear out in a shorter amount of time and this would kill you, also, any blood in the water would attract local wildlife, including sharks and other predators.

So the best course of action would be not to sacrifice anyone.

2. A cataclysmic event is happening planetwide. You have a well-stocked bunker and will manage to survive indefinitely, but the bunker can only hold five people aside from yourself and there are several people vying for the spot. Whom do you choose, keeping in mind that your party may be the only people on Earth that survive the cataclysm:
- An elderly professor that has won several community awards, but refuses to go without...
- His wife, who is past childbearing age and refuses to go without her husband
- An infertile professional chef
- A 32-year-old ex-Marine, who was dishonorably discharged
- A 27-year-old male computer programmer who originally dropped out of med school
- A 51-year-old handyman/mechanic, who may or may not be able to still have children
- A 19-year-old pregnant crack addict
- A 33-year-old single mother, who refuses to go without...
- Her 7-year-old daughter, who will go without Mommy but will probably never be the same- A Catholic priest

First, you would have to meet the criteria of what is needed. Your biggest concerns would be:
1) Healthcare
2) Repopulation/Reproduction.
3) Rebuilding.

First is the elderly couple. They would not provide anything productive and would only be a hinderance. Will not contribute anything.
Ex-Marine who was dishonorably discharged - is young enough to be fertile.
Infirtile chef - well, this will contribute nothing.
27-male computer programmer who was in med school. He is young enough to be fertile and live a while, he has medical skills available.
51 handyman/mechanic, while not possibly being firtile, he does have skills which are needed and can be taught on.
19-year old pregnant crack addict - There would be any crack, which would pose a cold turkey situation, but they could be cleared up and they can reproduce and obviously not inflirtile.
33-year old mother - which can still have children most likely.
7-year old daughter, the future is in the children.
Catholic priest: a vow of celebracy, male, no other information. Will contribute nothing.

From this list, the old couple are obviously a bad choice. The catholic priest is a bad choice. So those are simple to write-off.

The 19-yr old, the single mother and the daughter are all obvious choices to take.
The 27 ex-med student is obvious to take.

Then it leaves a choice between skills or sperm. Well, being male, there is enough sperm, so it is the matter of skills, which appears to be the Handyman/Mechanic. The Marine would have to do the honourable thing.

So the five choices -

- A 27-year-old male computer programmer who originally dropped out of med school
- A 51-year-old handyman/mechanic, who may or may not be able to still have children
- A 19-year-old pregnant crack addict
- A 33-year-old single mother, who refuses to go without...
- Her 7-year-old daughter, who will go without Mommy but will probably never be the same


3. Ignoring the inherent paradoxes, if you had a time machine and were allowed to go back in time to prevent one person's assassination from happening, who would you choose and why? Keep in mind that the world you are coming back to will not be the same because of your actions.

It would be the assassination of Leon Trotsky. Because of his efforts to expose the corruption and the regime in Russia under Stalin, which could shape the future of socialism and communism, which could have ended up stopping the Cold War.

Also, this would have the most miminal impact. While there are some major assassinations in the past, some of the obvious ones would be a bad idea to stop.

Most famous assassination of all would be Julius Caesar at the hands of Brutus. Changing this result would vastly change history in such a way, it would probably be recognisible today without much thought to whether it would be for the better or worse, and if you stopped it, Julius Caesar might have disbanded the Senate of Rome, which could destroy the principles of a republic which would shape the foundation of important events such as the America Constitution.

J. F. Kennedy was round up in a bunch of scandels, and would have most likely ended up impeached or imprisioned, which would have put America in conflict, and with the Cuba Missile crisis which would be occuring during this... I think annihilation of the world through nuclear arms is a bad consequence.

There again, are many other people. Martin Luther King Jr. is now forever memorised as being the great person he was, he inspired others to take up the mantle spread equality and opportunity to a discriminated class.

Sometimes, when looking in History, great men can die. However, the conquences of that can be greater, because of the impact they have had on the world.



4. Would you rather spend five years with the love of your life and then die, fully content, or live a full lifetime without ever experiencing love?

Living life to its fullest, or being in the paradise of being fully content is a gift people rarely can recieve and it is the most prized gift of all. Would be the first option.

6. Define success.

While searching "define: success" in google might produce the result of "an event that accomplishes its intended purpose." In-line with the emotive questioning, this is obviously the answer not being looking for, but infact "Define success in life."

This leads to theorical issues such as what purpose of life, to become successful. This is usually based on the simple biological "reproduce", to religious "Follow the will of Allah", to consumer capitalism "Make a billion dollars then blow it all on planes, boats, fast car and women".

Life is what you put into it. Therefore, your success can only be measurable by your own standards of what it is to achieve it.



I'll allow some one with kids to answer number 7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

My reasoning for the 5 others is that we would then have a handyman (Could be a woman :tongue:), a computer literate person, a religious person, a child and a woman.

---

The priest shouldn't even be in there, the priest is one of the plainly obvious "not to select".On the bright side, he believes he will go to eternal paradise, so it is not like he would care about dying anyway.

Discussing it further seems a bit silly since the first italicised orders have already been submitted, except for number 5 of course.

I really hope not.... because some of the answers were not answered properly, thus, we would not even get the $50 because of them.

I think giving an explained answered to who you would save doesn't equal "JFK" which looks more like a Jersey-based Fried Chicken establishment.

Well the time travelling question was the only one not answered properly since it asked for a why, the others had aceptable answers.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We can always cross out our answers. I didn't see anything stopping us from doing that.

We have to be careful about what age we are in. If we are good American living in a modern age, JFK wouldn't be too bad as a choice.

As for the five man in the bunker question, I would've choose Priest instead of Marines in Beskars list. After few years living in the bunker, there could be heaps of trouble. Priest looks like the one who can resolve the problem. Marine who was dishonorably discharge could know couple of handy skills, but I don't think its worth it to keep him, considering the risk of him getting abusive and all in the future. But denying him, may cause him shooting us off.

This psychology test reminded me of a story I saw on TV. So I present the robot theory.

Some corporation does series of tests (including psychology) to the people who wanted to be hired by it. While many retires by insanely inhumane tests, protagonist passes them all perfectly. But at the end, it turns out that the protagonist is a robot designed to imitate humans. However, since the protagonist was not able to show the emotions which ordinary people would, corporation who made her (and was testing her) shut her down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy187

As for the five man in the bunker question, I would've choose Priest instead of Marines in Beskars list. After few years living in the bunker, there could be heaps of trouble. Priest looks like the one who can resolve the problem. Marine who was dishonorably discharge could know couple of handy skills, but I don't think its worth it to keep him, considering the risk of him getting abusive and all in the future. But denying him, may cause him shooting us off.

---

Actually beskar's list didn't include the marine, and I don't think a priest would be very useful in a survival/repopulating scenario.

Yeah, I never included the Marine. But I did rank the Marine higher than the priest, because at least the marine would be a sperm donor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I really hope not.... because some of the answers were not answered properly, thus, we would not even get the $50 because of them.

---

Oh, I also forgot to mention that your first answer is wrong as well because you didn't pick one of the 3 options. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

Oh, I also forgot to mention that your first answer is wrong as well because you didn't pick one of the 3 options. :shrug:

---

But the question was wrong, in that case. :beam:

Because you don't need to kill anyone to survive as you would be dead before then. Even then, argubly, the child might die soon of natural causes anyway, so you still don't need to sacrifice some one.

Update: All questions have been sufficiently answered save for #5. I am using Beskar's answer for #3 (since he included the "why", which was required), Stildawn's answer for #6, and pever's answers for #s 1, 2, 4, and 7. You may revise your answers, but once you answer all questions the paper will immediately be handed in.

-edit- If you are making a revision, you must specifically state that you are doing so in your italicized orders.

Please could you use Beskars answers for everything? If we can -

Scratch of previous answers, and print the revised ones instead. Add for #5 - I found the ending of the Sopranos disappointing because the end implied a return to where it all started, that throughout the whole series, character development, plot development, etc, meant nill, which would be worse then an ending with Tony's death or salvation simply because our emotional investment in the characters has been for naught.

However, once the questions are finished, do not hand the paper over just yet - look over our answers, make sure they are what we want first.

If anyone wants to overwrite my answer to #5, be my guest :bow:

Its all good to me, who cares lets get this over with lol.

Parts of these questions look similar to my University interview.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stildawn

Its all good to me, who cares lets get this over with lol.

---

You say lol a lot.

Haha im sorta know for my use of 'lol' lol... Just ask AA, or Cap C lol.

Stildawn is the Legislator of Lol.