Debate. Debate. Debate.

It'd be a noble death. Maybe you'd even count as a martyr.

That's not how martyrdom works. Honestly, Jynneth, I'm quite miffed that you would kill me.

I hope that if it came down to it, you would be selfless enough to kill me for the sake of others.

It'd be a noble death. Maybe you'd even count as a martyr.

That's not how martyrdom works. Honestly, Jynneth, I'm quite miffed that you would kill me.

>Coming from the friend part or the father part?

with this whole 1 innocent to save 1000 more thing
…what if some of those 1000 people were also innocent?
should those individuals have to lose their lives all for one person, when they've done nothing to deserve it?

Exactly, why should 1,000 innocents die to save one innocent? What makes the single person worth more?

Dom, you seem to forget that not everyone is a novel protagonist with an intense inner moral dilemma.

It'd be a noble death. Maybe you'd even count as a martyr.

That's not how martyrdom works. Honestly, Jynneth, I'm quite miffed that you would kill me.

I hope that if it came down to it, you would be selfless enough to kill me for the sake of others.

No I would absolutely not! It is not selfless to kill another!

It's selfless to kill a friend to save the others. To care more about the world than for yourself. If you had to kill me or save 50 innocent lives, I hope to God that you choose to kill me.

Dom, you seem to forget that not everyone is a novel protagonist with an intense inner moral dilemma.

Hey, not every novel protagonist has an intense moral dilemma!

Mm, not quite. If we both agree that a fetus was indeed a fully-fledged human, then the parents would be the ones able to give consent, since parents are legally bound to do so with their children. So, if the parents consent, then legally the fetus-child also consents.

Ironically, the same happens for parents giving their children the said vaccines.

Oh yes. But according to that, the parents can give consent for the child in anything. Think about what that entails. Sure makes incest cases a lot more difficult.

No Dominic, you cannot give your child consent to do illegal things.

But then that means if it became legal, the parent could consent for the child.

Dom we are not talking about incest here. It's unrelated.

And yet you haven't answered yet. Sometimes a problem cannot be solved unless you go outside it. (Like the rule of Indirect Proof shows us. I love logic!)

I have a Thing to do, give me a bit and then I will if you wish

It is still very much rape. Legalizing incest ≠ legalizing rape. I had more to say but I can't remember

dom is being a little dumb tonight

domb

Exactly but Dom seemed upset that I said that instead of giving a proper response or whatever
Because ig telling him that he's spouting non sequiturs doesn't count as a valid answer to his quite frankly stupid ass theory. Sorry Dom. You know I love you.

well
if i had to kill one person i don't know to save 1000 people i don't know, i'd kill the one
same if they're people i know and love dearly
but if it was one innocent to save 1000 pedophiles, bank robbers, baby murderers, predators…
i'm totally killing the thousand

it depends on the people

Agreed.

So Dom wouldn't kill anyone for the sake of someone else/a mass of people because he feels not involving himself at all in the equation makes him guilt free.
Like, say he doesn't choose to pull the lever. 5 people get run over right in front of him, but he had nothing to do with it. He was just a bystander. To him, if he pulled the lever, he'd have the blood of the one on his hands. He couldn't get in trouble for taking no action. But if he does take that action, he's involving himself in the equation and making himself guilty.
Am I somewhat correct, Dom?

Would Good Samaritan laws play into this?
Are those real or just in Seinfeld?

So Dom wouldn't kill anyone for the sake of someone else/a mass of people because he feels not involving himself at all in the equation makes him guilt free.
Like, say he doesn't choose to pull the lever. 5 people get run over right in front of him, but he had nothing to do with it. He was just a bystander. To him, if he pulled the lever, he'd have the blood of the one on his hands. He couldn't get in trouble for taking no action. But if he does take that action, he's involving himself in the equation and making himself guilty.
Am I somewhat correct, Dom?

Would Good Samaritan laws play into this?
Are those real or just in Seinfeld?

The Good Samaritan law is if you try to help save someone and make it worse (because you're most likely an average citizen), you can't get in trouble
In conclusion, what are you talking about Eva?

I shall leave and come back later.