All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

Virus targets

<< < (11/12) > >>

H_TeXMeX_H:
I'm not imosing anything on anyone ... were you talking to me ? Far from it, I'm just thowing arguments out there ... I'm not being forceful am I ? ... You must listen to what I say, I am absolutely right, you have no right ot question me or what I say, you will obey ! :)

It's interesting, if you tell something to someone early and often enough you can get them to fight for it as if they came up with it themselves ... even though I think Aristotle is for the most part an idiot in the scientific field ... this was one of his most successful rhetorical theories (he was much better at rhetoric than at science). Get people to convince themselves that what you say is true and they will fight for it as if they came with the idea themselves.

GenuineAdvantage:
I was also throwing arguments out there. Maybe one day I will believe that nothing is worth fighting for, but I'm not that much of a free thinker atm. Maybe I will be when I'm dead or a veggie.

pofnlice:
OK, then I'll sum it up as simple as I see it.

A bomb that would kill 100,000 people and end a war...for sure.It's not goin to get the bulk of opposing forces, but it will guarantee and end to attrocities.

An air, land and sea war that will claim 100,000,000 lives and take a decade to resolve.

It seems obvious to me which abomination I would choose.

worker201:
Let's divorce this discussion from WW2 for a moment and be purely hypothetical.

Your conclusion is the only logical resolution, given that your numbers are correct.  But how reliable are those numbers?  And what other considerations besides the pure numbers are you not considering?  Remember that purely utilitarian arguments tend to be cold and viscious and unpopular.

pofnlice:
Ok then, would you rather I kill your father...or your whole family? Maybe I worded that wrong...You are in a position wherre you can end major problems, there are only 2 decisions. 1 - Your Father has to die and all will be right with the world...Option 2, your whole family will die. To make no decision means option 2 auto happens. To stall makes option 2 happen, to attempt to come up with any other otion, causes option 2 to happen.

Is that divorced.

I hate to sound Star Treki about it...

In dicisions of this nature, you have to weigh the needs of many over the needs of the few. Or in this case, the losses of life. You can include the damage in money as well as loss of human life, either way the "quick method wins. As in the WWII analogy, 2 cities VS an entire set of islands and any sub islands.

BUT the long term, what about radiation and contamination and mutation and what ever other blahblations you can think of...It's hard when you pick the wrong side, tough it's a direct repercussion of a previous decision they made.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version