Moral dilemma

[bigbadmax]

This is a real tough one!!

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision.

Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.

Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.




THE SITUATION:

You are in New Awlens There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding.

This is a flood of biblical proportions.

You are a photo-journalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster.


The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos.

There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing into the water.

Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.


THE TEST:

Suddenly, you see a man in the water.

He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris.

You move closer... Somehow, the man looks familiar...

You suddenly realise who it is................................................ .............



...................It's Muslim Cleric Abu Hamza (the hook handed one) with the Grand wizard of the KKK.



You notice that the raging waters are about to take them under forever.

You have two options:

You can save the life of Abu and the Grand Knight , or you can shoot a dramatic Prize winning photo,documenting the death of two of the worlds most despised, evil and powerful men!
THE QUESTION:

Here's the question, and please give an honest answer...

Would you select high contrast colour film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

[The Bisexual Virgin]

OH MY GOD, FOR REAL?

[Jobelorocks]

I would save them. I really believe in the value of each human life and rejoice in the death of no one. Everyone was rejoicing when Osama Bin Laden died, but I did not. Even though his death was probably for the greater good, I couldn't bring myself to be happy at the death of another human being.

[welickit]

I would have an extra magazine handy so I could reload fast if I missed.

[tenni]

Film?...How 1990's Max!!!!...;) Digital all the way Max :)

I'd chose high contrast colour because you can always convert it digitally to black and white.

[welickit]

Tenni is right about this modern stuff..............I need to get a laser beam sight and forget fast reloads.

[void()]

I would save them. I really believe in the value of each human life and rejoice in the death of no one. Everyone was rejoicing when Osama Bin Laden died, but I did not. Even though his death was probably for the greater good, I couldn't bring myself to be happy at the death of another human being.

Seems this may be a tasteless joke. I did not cheer Bin Laden's death either. Rather him returned and granted a fair trial, allow a case of evidence to be seen publicly. That didn't happen which in how I think, gives a message of the 'party line' was pure lies. His royal majesty George W. Bush avowed there was iron clad evidence Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

So we just kill him, avoid a trial?

As to this thread, apologies for not finding the joke funny.

[nutme]

OMG! That was friggen hilarious, Max.

[Gearbox]

Well that's about the most offensive thing I've read on here, and that's no mean feat. I'm truly sickened by the insinuation that there wouldn't already be film in the 90's camera if we were journalist! How dare you!:smilies12

Lol! Well I would save them. Would have to. I don't think executing Bin Laden cured any doubts that 9/11 went the way we were told either.

[Long Duck Dong]

I would take a few quick pics then save their lives.... cos they are human too, regardless of what they have done and have the right to life......

[DuckiesDarling]

gotta agree, I'd do my job with the pictures and save the lives if I could, who they are doesn't matter, the fact they are breathing now and won't be if I don't act is what matters to me.

[welickit]

OK. no fast reloading or laser sight. I repent. I would throw them an anchor to grab. Easier to locate them if I don't get to them right away. I can't dive in with my camera so I need to secure it where it is safe.

I guess I learned my safety on the front lines of a war that shouldn't have been. Obviously not many commenting have been there.

[void()]

I guess I learned my safety on the front lines of a war that shouldn't have been. Obviously not many commenting have been there.

Has there really ever been any war that should have been?

[bigbadmax]

Has there really ever been any war that should have been?

Void ask the Jews and the Poles and the Russians et al reference a certain period under Adolf Hitler, no war= MASS MURDER, also ask whether Saddam Hussain should have been punished following a war...mmmm you decide!, the flipside being the loss of THOUSANDS in the last 100 Years defending their country and beliefs.

I don't condone war, but having served in the Gulf War, don't condemn it either.


I think most people across the pond have Zero idea on who Abu is, hence I threw the KKK into the scenario....could have been Obama but I would have been accused of racism.....IT'S A JOKE PEOPLE, accept it as such.

[welickit]

The joke should have been obvious. Some people have no sense of humus. YES, humus. :)

[swmnkdinthervr]

There is little humor in death and those are innocent people until fairly tried for alleged crimes. There is also no guarantee they could get a fair trial in the US either!!!

[bigbadmax]

There is little humor in death and those are innocent people until fairly tried for alleged crimes. There is also no guarantee they could get a fair trial in the US either!!!

I re-iterate "I think most people across the pond have Zero idea on who Abu is". Those who preach hate are guilty of hate, unfortunately the EU are spineless and would rather waste money on defending Terrorists than allowing them to be duly punished in countries where they have been implicated in Terrorism offences.

Would you have preferred Bin Laden have got off with the aid of a slick lawyer as he(abu) has in the UK?

[mnjack]

No, there has never been a war that should have been. The problem is that too many times people with good intentions allowed evil men to back the rest into a corner where fighting or dying was the only choice. Doctinaire pacifists don't want to admit that there are evil people out there who are perfectly willing to kill as many as necessary to get their way and that subjegation is the only option. Gahndi succeeded more because the British Empire didn't wish to wholesale slaughter civilians and the outbreak of WWII than because of anything he did or did not do. Sorry to burst the pacifist bubble, but it is true nonetheless.

Second, Bin Laden himself admitted he helped plot 911, so the idiotic meme that there is no "proof" of his involvement has been trashed for anyone with an iota of objectivity.

Third, radical Islam (there, I said it) of the stripe that not only countenances children with bombs strapped to themselves, but encourages it; that makes the most hateful anti-semitic statements this side of Nazi Germany; that wants to see Shariah law imposed on the world under a new caliphate, is at war with western civilization. This is not my assertion, it is theirs. And puh-leeze don't use the time-honored shiboleths "Well, they are so weak. They can't possibley hurt us." or "Well, they really don't mean that [what they say]." For refutation see Germany, Nazi, 1933-1939, and Revoulution, Bolshevik, 1917.

They have declared war, not us. They hide behind and use civilains for cannon fodder. They are forcing us to fight a battle unlike any seen in modern times. If they do not fight by and follow the Geneva Conventions, then we cannot and are not required to do so (read the Convention sometime). Bin Laden was no different than Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo: leader of an armed force making war on not only the US, but western civilization. The legalists would have us believe that war is like breaking and entering or shoplifting: let the legal system handle it. Well, the legal system was not designed for and was not intended to deal with war.

And, oh, by the way: if you are one of those "hey, hey, ho, ho, western civ has got to go" types: western civilization is far from perfect and has much for which to answer, but Shariah would be no picnic for women, non-Muslims, or those of us on this site who are bisexual. It is fight now or die (literally) later.

Sometimes there are not perfect options, just a selection of terrible options and the best that can be done is to select the least terrible of those available.

So, to answer the question: I would try to save them because even their wasted, miserable excuses of lives have value, but I would not like it very much.

[mnjack]

Max, the biggest joke in this thread is that waving a law book in front of a terrorist bent on killing you will be a magic talisman that will protect you. Some people don't realize that reality has a bite that will draw blood.

[tenni]

"So, to answer the question: I would try to save them because even their wasted, miserable excuses of lives have value, but I would not like it very much."

Reading skills? That is not the question that I read.


THE QUESTION:

Here's the question, and please give an honest answer...

Would you select high contrast colour film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white? ****THE QUESTION

[Long Duck Dong]

snorts, ..... Black and white, 1/32 PS FR, 10MP+ for HDC @ 4MB=1024X768

[pepperjack]

This is a real tough one!!

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision.

Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.

Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.




THE SITUATION:

You are in New Awlens There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding.

This is a flood of biblical proportions.

You are a photo-journalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster.


The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos.

There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing into the water.

Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.


THE TEST:

Suddenly, you see a man in the water.

He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris.

You move closer... Somehow, the man looks familiar...

You suddenly realise who it is................................................ .............



...................It's Muslim Cleric Abu Hamza (the hook handed one) with the Grand wizard of the KKK.



You notice that the raging waters are about to take them under forever.

You have two options:

You can save the life of Abu and the Grand Knight , or you can shoot a dramatic Prize winning photo,documenting the death of two of the worlds most despised, evil and powerful men!
THE QUESTION:

Here's the question, and please give an honest answer...

Would you select high contrast colour film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?


I think within seconds of realizing what I was witnessing, I would lunge for my throw-away camera & start snapping pics. But half-way through that process I would become aware of opportunity ( being elevated to hero status by the media, immortalized in history) and would suddenly do all I could to save them.:suave:

[Carri2u]

I say save the man no matter who he is and let GOD judge in the end. That way if asked when you stand b4 the pearly gates if you lived your life to the best of your abilities you can say with a clear mind that yes I did because I chose life instead of death.

[pepperjack]

I say save the man no matter who he is and let GOD judge in the end. That way if asked when you stand b4 the pearly gates if you lived your life to the best of your abilities you can say with a clear mind that yes I did because I chose life instead of death.

Good reply but apparently the situation evolved the way God wanted it to.

[swmnkdinthervr]

I re-iterate "I think most people across the pond have Zero idea on who Abu is". Those who preach hate are guilty of hate, unfortunately the EU are spineless and would rather waste money on defending Terrorists than allowing them to be duly punished in countries where they have been implicated in Terrorism offences.

Would you have preferred Bin Laden have got off with the aid of a slick lawyer as he(abu) has in the UK?

I wasn't defending anyone's justice system...I was making the point that "we" (the general populace) having a considerably slanted view shouldn't be judge and executioner either in the courts or the public eye! As we are beginning to understand "implication" is often what the powers that be would have us "see" as the truth rather than a real representation of that truth.

If you know ALL the facts and are not in any way mislead, never have been offered slanted/untrue information (and know the difference), have a total understanding of all the intricacies of the allegations and can truly view them from a completely objective stance then feel free to be judge and executioner. I submit nobody here has even a small percentage of those resources or even close to a totally unbiased view!

[bigbadmax]

http://www.bisexual.com/forum/images/styles/lifeElement/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Carri2u http://www.bisexual.com/forum/images/styles/lifeElement/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?p=225435#post225435)
I say save the man no matter who he is and let GOD judge in the end. That way if asked when you stand b4 the pearly gates if you lived your life to the best of your abilities you can say with a clear mind that yes I did because I chose life instead of death.
Good reply but apparently the situation evolved the way God wanted it to.

This is purely on the premis that God exists.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right



I wasn't defending anyone's justice system...I was making the point that "we" (the general populace) having a considerably slanted view shouldn't be judge and executioner either in the courts or the public eye! As we are beginning to understand "implication" is often what the powers that be would have us "see" as the truth rather than a real representation of that truth.

If you know ALL the facts and are not in any way mislead, never have been offered slanted/untrue information (and know the difference), have a total understanding of all the intricacies of the allegations and can truly view them from a completely objective stance then feel free to be judge and executioner.


swmnkdinthervr- Terrorism is seen as the debasement of society by the many, not the few in the populus as a whole, those that preach it, should be held accountable by their peers. Remember that 9/11 was not hte start of Terorism. In Europe there is the Basque and Eta movement in the UK its the IRA and now more feared the middle eastern fundamentalists.

Abu Hamza is a fundamentalist preacher of hatred and DIRECT action, The UK Government are FIGHTING EU Law to get him extradited to Jordan to stand trial.......how would you feel if he were in the UK and was wanted for trial in the U.S.A?

All this is purely on the back of a JOKE, take it as one and move on!

[tenni]

You are correct Max. We do not know Abu on this side of the pond like you do. I looked him up a bit yesterday. Putting him on the back end of a joke may confuse some of us on this side. I took the joke side as that is the question that you asked.

What is the EU law that is preventing his extradition to Jordan?

[swmnkdinthervr]

http://www.bisexual.com/forum/images/styles/lifeElement/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Carri2u http://www.bisexual.com/forum/images/styles/lifeElement/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?p=225435#post225435)

All this is purely on the back of a JOKE, take it as one and move on!

Oh...sorry I thought it was open discussion!?!? You should let us all know who/what is considered acceptable so we can avoid offering our own opinions!!!

"In my opinion" no matter your more complete knowledge of the whole scenario/situation your emotional response shows you wouldn't be able to offer a fair trial....that is essentially my point, probably few of us could because most of us view any of the terrorists the same way!

[bigbadmax]

You are correct Max. We do not know Abu on this side of the pond like you do. I looked him up a bit yesterday. Putting him on the back end of a joke may confuse some of us on this side. I took the joke side as that is the question that you asked.

What is the EU law that is preventing his extradition to Jordan?


Tenni,

The EU has directed that the UK CAN NOT extradite to Jordan firstly as they have the death penalty for crimes he is accused of and hence he cant be sent to his possible death. Secondly, even after assurances from Jordan that they will not use information against Abu that was "allegedly" obtained through "dubious(torture)" means. The second part is the contentious issue as both the UK and Jordan have issued asurances that he will get a fair trial, without the use of dubious/questionable evidence.


swmnkdinthervr- "In my opinion" no matter your more complete knowledge of the whole scenario/situation your emotional response shows you wouldn't be able to offer a fair trial....that is essentially my point, probably few of us could because most of us view any of the terrorists the same way!

I doubt that you have even taken the time to digest the post you are quoting from me- Terrorism is seen as a way to means for some but abhorant to most, however they deserve a FAIR trial by their peers, without political intervention.

I would never stifle anyones opinions, and regardless of your "insight" into my emotions, I cast judgement on FACTS...pure and simple, I NEVER indulge my opinions....something you obviously are trying to surpress without much luck. ONCE AGAIN........ITS A JOKE, if you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

[pepperjack]

Tenni,

The EU has directed that the UK CAN NOT extradite to Jordan firstly as they have the death penalty for crimes he is accused of and hence he cant be sent to his possible death. Secondly, even after assurances from Jordan that they will not use information against Abu that was "allegedly" obtained through "dubious(torture)" means. The second part is the contentious issue as both the UK and Jordan have issued asurances that he will get a fair trial, without the use of dubious/questionable evidence.


swmnkdinthervr- "In my opinion" no matter your more complete knowledge of the whole scenario/situation your emotional response shows you wouldn't be able to offer a fair trial....that is essentially my point, probably few of us could because most of us view any of the terrorists the same way!

I doubt that you have even taken the time to digest the post you are quoting from me- Terrorism is seen as a way to means for some but abhorant to most, however they deserve a FAIR trial by their peers, without political intervention.

I would never stifle anyones opinions, and regardless of your "insight" into my emotions, I cast judgement on FACTS...pure and simple, I NEVER indulge my opinions....something you obviously are trying to surpress without much luck. ONCE AGAIN........ITS A JOKE, if you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen!


Well you certainly tried to stifle my opinions very vehemently on other threads,Max! Also, your response in post #26 suggests you might be agnostic or an atheist. On another thread you said you were not a Christian but a Roman Catholic. Easy to connect the dots; more obvious hypocrisy.

[bigbadmax]

Well you certainly tried to stifle my opinions very vehemently on other threads,Max! Also, your response in post #26 suggests you might be agnostic or an atheist. On another thread you said you were not a Christian but a Roman Catholic. Easy to connect the dots; more obvious hypocrisy.

Pepper, pepper. No surprises here then! I deliberatly placed the post on the existence of God to see what argument you would have on this....the religious Zealot appears again! I am Roman Catholic, and proud to be so. However all doctrine is true????? do you reasonably believe that the world was created in 6 days? next you will be saying that Jesus was white with a flowing gown and God has a huge beard, be realistic man.....every religion is falliable and you should accept the flaws and graces of all religions, not dismiss those whose conflict with your own opinions.

I am trying to show a balanced argument that agnostics and aethiests have points of view as well. but your petty point scoring must trump all posters when religion is even remotely raised. This however is going off topic and again...ITS A JOKE, not a social interpretation of the world as a whole!

[raistkit]

chuck the camera and the film into the water. jump in and drag the useless piece of humanity to shore, cause yes all life is sacred. grab it by the foot and drag it to safety making sure making sure the cranium made friends with every rock along the way. my way a life was saved and with a little luck a little bit of sense got knocked into it along the way. and if not sometimes you have to break an egg to make an omelet. damn shame about the flotsam made the rescue that much harder , but at least i tried. kit

[bigbadmax]

chuck the camera and the film into the water. jump in and drag the useless piece of humanity to shore, cause yes all life is sacred. grab it by the foot and drag it to safety making sure making sure the cranium made friends with every rock along the way. my way a life was saved and with a little luck a little bit of sense got knocked into it along the way. and if not sometimes you have to break an egg to make an omelet. damn shame about the flotsam made the rescue that much harder , but at least i tried. kit


LOVE IT!

[elian]

In the middle of a massive flood? I would probably not recognize the person and save them anyway - actually I would be more worried that if I reached for them they would pull me under in their struggle to stay alive and hence would look for a stick or a raft or something first. In the meanwhile the universe would probably sweep them away anyway, unbenonst to me, averting yet another nasty moral dilemma.

Interesting thing about this life, if you derive all of your power from physical violence and having other people fear you, then when the time comes and you need a true friend you may find yourself quite alone - do none of you read Charles Dickens ?

Short answer: I may not save them, but I wouldn't revel in watching them die.

[pepperjack]

Pepper, pepper. No surprises here then! I deliberatly placed the post on the existence of God to see what argument you would have on this....the religious Zealot appears again! I am Roman Catholic, and proud to be so. However all doctrine is true????? do you reasonably believe that the world was created in 6 days? next you will be saying that Jesus was white with a flowing gown and God has a huge beard, be realistic man.....every religion is falliable and you should accept the flaws and graces of all religions, not dismiss those whose conflict with your own opinions.

I am trying to show a balanced argument that agnostics and aethiests have points of view as well. but your petty point scoring must trump all posters when religion is even remotely raised. This however is going off topic and again...ITS A JOKE, not a social interpretation of the world as a whole!

So, you were deliberately trying to draw me out? I'm flattered! A zealot? Most in the traditional Christian community would probably see me as worldly, even hedonistic. You have a very distorted perception of me to the point that you're profiling me, trying to fit me into your narrow minded stereotype of what a believer is. Realistic? How do you know how I perceive Jesus & God? Okay..... I see Him as a Semite with dark features, physically strong because of his harsh, demanding environment & upbringing; carpenters in His day were actually stonemasons, handling huge rocks all day to build build homes for others. And finally, I had an unexpected encounter with Him one night at the end of which He told me that He wanted me to know that He "lives in the souls of all men." Only God could do that.

[swmnkdinthervr]

I would never stifle anyones opinions, and regardless of your "insight" into my emotions, I cast judgement on FACTS...pure and simple, I NEVER indulge my opinions....something you obviously are trying to surpress without much luck. ONCE AGAIN........ITS A JOKE, if you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

You floor me...you honestly believe what you've written don't you?!?!?! You contradict yourself in the same paragraph, twice! You're right...no more discussion with you!

[Hephaestion]

largely Irrelevant - most cameras are digital (e.g incorporated into mobile telephones) and adjust well to the taking conditions.

The question might be better rephrased as 'Would you take: a still; time lapse; traditional video?'

PS - don't forget the child's 'teddy bear' in the shot (Drop the dead donkey)

[MtnMan]

I guess I'm showing my Irish. I would throw the two of them a lifeline and encourage them to to grab hold, save themselves if they can, film their struggle, and see if the two of them would eventually turn on each other. If they were meant to be saved, they would survive to die another day, but I would film to have proof of their actions. I like the notion of a collision between morality and ethics. Morality posits the notion of immorality, they in my life I've seen much more evidence of amorality in those yet "schooled" to follow one set of theories or another. Ethics seems more to my efficiencies and is a cultural standard I can use in my life more effectively. Every day, I encounter people who have a high moral standard that isn't mine, and mine isn't theirs. But every day, I can tell the difference between what is ethical and what is not within my culture and within my species. When I am ethical or not, I know it. I throw the lifeline, yet I root for their demise.

[Jason0012]

High contrast color. You can always develop in blk and white later.

[void()]

They have declared war, not us. They hide behind and use civilains for cannon fodder. They are forcing us to fight a battle unlike any seen in modern times. If they do not fight by and follow the Geneva Conventions, then we cannot and are not required to do so (read the Convention sometime).

Good idea.


Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument




Common Article 3

Article 3 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570006?OpenDocument), common to the four Geneva Conventions, marked a breakthrough, as it covered, for the first time, situations of non-international armed conflicts. These types of conflicts vary greatly. They include traditional civil wars, internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States or internal conflicts in which third States or a multinational force intervenes alongside the government. Common Article 3 establishes fundamental rules from which no derogation is permitted. It is like a mini-Convention within the Conventions as it contains the essential rules of the Geneva Conventions in a condensed format and makes them applicable to conflicts not of an international character:



It requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without any adverse distinction. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, the taking of hostages and unfair trial.
It requires that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked be collected and cared for.
It grants the ICRC the right to offer its services to the parties to the conflict.
It calls on the parties to the conflict to bring all or parts of the Geneva Conventions into force through so-called special agreements.
It recognizes that the application of these rules does not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict.
Given that most armed conflicts today are non-international, applying Common Article 3 is of the utmost importance. Its full respect is required.


http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm



Common Article 3 establishes fundamental rules from which no derogation is permitted.

I read this and understand what derogation (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/derogation) means.

That means even if the opposing side is breaking the laws/rules one is not excused to do likewise. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, America all have signed allegiance to the Conventions.

We as Americans should hold our government to rigorous standards, America is a world leader, should act as such. War does not excuse us from being better.

And a minor reminder, the word crusade (http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/Crusade) was in the English lexicon 150 years prior to the word jihad.

I do not disbelieve that evil does exist. It does. Presently, I see the evil of two exclusive dogmas fighting to procure a swiftly dwindling resource. There must be a better way. Unfortunately I do not rule the world, nor would I unleash an iron handed dogma to solve our problems if such were the case.

NB: I will continue reading the Conventions as it is beneficial knowledge to have. This post was not written in any duress of emotions or mental status. Actually, feeling and thinking rather lucidly and am relaxed. I am disappointed in the actions of others whom serve in my name, yes.

However, I can manage that disappointment to converse about the subject matter reasonably. If you find me posting summary bits here unreasonable, you may wish to understand I am citing the source to provide accuracy, verification for everyone. I don't think that is unreasonable, merely fair.

[pepperjack]

All this to reiterate that "two wrongs don't make a right?" And especially coming from someone who has done nothing but consistently rail against the -powers-that be. What a grandiose soap box!:rolleyes:

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

At the risk of being looked down on for participating with this joke : Snap several pics, jump in and save their miserable asses, drag them on shore and snap some more pics. Very candid ones, holding one at a time by the seat of their pants, robe whatever, expecially with Me in the shot grinning widely.... to substanciate that I, a mere largely built half-white woman, saved them both from becoming fish food.
Therer, I answered whay "I'd" do..:}
Cat

[bigbadmax]

Pepper, most people are endowed with the civility and common sense to see this as a joke, you are touched..but not with these qualities. hence your previous post ref religion. ITS A JOKE SON, NOW PUT YOUR TOYS AWAY AND GROW UP.

[pepperjack]

Pepper, most people are endowed with the civility and common sense to see this as a joke, you are touched..but not with these qualities. hence your previous post ref religion. ITS A JOKE SON, NOW PUT YOUR TOYS AWAY AND GROW UP.

Max, I saw it as the obvious joke it was & tried to contribute to it but I guess my sardonic reply was over your head. "ref religion?" Look at post #31 where you admitted to deliberately "drawing me out" (my reply, #35). Civility, common sense? How about your incessant hypocrisy? NO! I will not put my G.I. Joe doll away after digging for hours through my stash of collectibles & painstakingly putting your name on his ID tag. Now, if I could just get something personal from you, a nail clipping, strand of hair.............?

[dummmaz_arock]

am i missing something? wasn't the question what type of film....how does that become a moral delima? lol people have so many opinions about other's morals that you totally get off topic....what type of film would you use?

[Coastocoast]

Interesting question and like many situations, you would need to be there to really know how you would react. It would be a tough dilemma. Do I deny the man an opportunity with 72 virgins? Maybe, maybe not although if he were to perish he might be in for a surprise when the 72 virgins are all male, there is no KY in sight and they are all eying the man's backdoor for a grand opening.

[void()]

Black & white in that as a fellow human being I'd try saving them. Would appreciate someone saving me if I were in such a situation.

And yeah, I get it is joke & it's a completely fictional situation. Apologies for lacking the appropriate response of levity. Did not find this same joke funny about a year ago when it was posted here. Still do not find the humor in it. Of course, I am admittedly a bit off keel with most.

[Meliss]

The way the question is worded has the pre supposition that the journalist will put taking the pictures as the initial action. The question is not valid as a test of morality despite pretending to be. Sort of like if a jet plane crashed exactly on the border line of two states, in which state would you bury the survivors.... Taking a curtsie to the applause for my answer : )

[OverNeath]

I guess I learned my safety on the front lines of a war that shouldn't have been.


I don't condone war, but having served in the Gulf War

Thank you BOTH for the service to your country!


Take the photos with a Canon 1DMKIII,70-200 f2.8 IS L series lens and let God sort them out in the flood!