OT: Test to see where you stand Morally.

[Thermodyne]

Test to see where you stand Morally.
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.
No one else will know, so you wont be fooling anyone but yourself if you give anything but a truthful answer.
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 read slowly and thoughtfully, giving due consideration to each line.
Here's the situation:
You are in Florida; Miami to be specific. 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 under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury. Suddenly you see a woman floundering in the water. She is fighting for her life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer...somehow the woman looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's Hillary Clinton, wife of the impeached President of the United States!! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take her under... forever.
You know that by giving a little assistance you can save the life of Mrs. Clinton, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful women.
So here's the question, and please give an honest answer:

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

[Wolfman77]

Black and White for the dramatic aspect.

Where does that put me btw?

[TurinTurambar]

The camera would be already loaded with "high contrast color film" (whatever that is), I'd set the timer for 10 seconds and then dive in and get a picture of myself rescuing her undeserving ***. I'm an oportunist but I'm not going to watch someone die.

[Renegade 13]

Easy choice. Snap a picture or two, then dive in and save her. Then take a few more pictures. After all, it only takes a second to take a picture. A second won't kill her...hopefully.

[Hunpecked]

I'd have a digital camera. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Oversway]

This is funny because it portrays Republicans as not valuing human life over material gains? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/fear.gif

[Hunpecked]

What human life? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[Thermodyne]

Oversway said:

This is funny because it portrays Republicans as not valuing human life over material gains? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/fear.gif



Perhaps, but I was thinking that they were targeting the photo-journalism crowd, and their personal gain based on the pain and suffering of others.

My answer would be that I could not choose. The film would all have been ruined while I was saving the drowning person.

But since the Party line and said point of view has been breached I guess I might have razzed her a little. My first comment to her might have been “Mrs. Clinton, how does it feel to be dependant upon a Republican to save your life?” And her answer would probably be related to the number of times she banged her head during the rescue.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Already seen that one.

[Atrocities]

As much as I dislike the coniving, back stabbing, political game playing "C" word biotch from the dark left side, I would save her. Ya ya ya I know the first rule of journalism, TAKE THE SHOT, but in this case, if I took the shot I would end up going to jail for the rest of my life because the evil democrats would have me charged with "failing to render assistance." Yet we all know that if the situation were reversed, and Hilary was on the bank and I was in the water, she would not lift a god damn [censored] finger to help me, and would most likely be awared the congression service award for it. I hate that biotch!

[Atrocities]

As to the morals of this question. I think that any journalist that fail's to render aid to someone in favor of taking the shot, as did the journalists who killed Princes Diania, then yes, they should be charged with a crime and sentenced to prison.

However, if by rendering assistance the Journalists life would be put in to jepordy, then no... they should not render assitance.

[El_Phil]

Ahhh Princess Di, really she should be used as an advert for what happends if you don't wear a seatbelt. Just ask the bodyguard, he's still breathing unlike everyone else who was in the car.

Sadly I don't think that public service advert will be made, I can't think why......

[AgentZero]

OK, I voted for taking a picture, then running off to loot a video camera so I could capture the event 'live' as well. Where does that put my moral compass?

[Starhawk]

You know if it was anyone else and I mean any other woman I would save their life.

Now as far as Hillary Clinton goes I must admit I'd have cause to pause and consider, I mean she IS suspected of having people murdered......I mean they all just "conveniently" commited suicide? Bull!

That AND she wants to run for President which scares the living crap out of me I mean Bush is funny for his little oddities I don't think he's a crusading maniac like many here, but HER! she's just too.....inhumanly cold?

[Oversway]

Perhaps, but I was thinking that they were targeting the photo-journalism crowd, and their personal gain based on the pain and suffering of others.



Ah, I think you are right. I was mistaken that it was talking about Republicans because of the "...wife of the impeached President of the United States..." line. Not exactly a politically unbiased way to describe someone.

[El_Phil]

El Presidente Clinton (Mk II) or El Presidente Arnie.

Tough choice really, even from a comedy point of view. On the one hand Arnie would make me laugh, on the other hand Hillary seems fairly inept so would make comedy mistakes

I think the deciding factor is that Hillary would scare fundamentalist christians as much as Bush scares everyone else, so I'd go with her just for balance.

[AgentZero]

Heh, speaking of comedy moments, did anyone see that clip from China where Bush was being questioned by the press & someone asked a question he didn't like so he did the typical Dubya thing and stormed off... except he couldn't get out because the doors at the side of the stage were locked? Classic.

Anyway, I actually heard the 'morality test' as a joke a while back, where it's all the same up to 'you spot a drowning man, and the moral dillema is do you jump in and save him, or take an award winning picture of the human tragedy. Then you suddenly realize the drowning man is George Bush (or insert whichever public figure you dislike), and the dillema becomes, black & white or colour.'

[Atrocities]

Heh, speaking of comedy moments, did anyone see that clip from China where Bush was being questioned by the press & someone asked a question he didn't like so he did the typical Dubya thing and stormed off... except he couldn't get out because the doors at the side of the stage were locked? Classic.



Yes, laughed my *** off too. Ah well, could have happened to any one. It's just funnier that it had to happen to Bush.. I would fire the aid in charge of doors for that blunder. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

I would promote the guy and give him a medal while we're at it too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I would go for the normal camera with color film and the zoom lens camera with black&white. That way, you can see her in the "big picture" in full color, but the close-up shot of the face is classy b&w, bringing forth the emotion* better.

(* = happiness and joy, of course!)

[Raging Deadstar]

Full-Colour Film everytime.

If I think Black and White would be better, That's what Photoshop is there for. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Atrocities]

[censored], Hillary has no emotion, she is [censored] evil ***** from hell... The Devil couldn't stand her so he tossed her *** back up here to torment us. I would say poor Bill, but hell he got what he deserved out of the merger.

[El_Phil]

What has Hilary done to annoy you so much AT?

She just seems an ambitious Lady McBeth type figure without the murder, allegedly. She wants to be El Prez, so do quite a few others, and she's a Democrat, there are worse crimes and probably not worth such vented spleen.

Could be I missed a major story about her of course, wouldn't be the first time.

[Fyron]

Nah, she's a Democrat.

[AgentZero]

Imperator Fyron said:
Nah, she's a Democrat.



Which is different than a Republican how?

Seriously, I've got this lovely little article sitting in front of me with all sorts of lovely quote of Republicans saying very Democrat-y things, and vice versa.

They're both the same. Admit it.

[Fyron]

I was just explaining the reasoning.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Ah. Politics http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif No matter which way you look at it they all want to express the same things in such radically different terms that people think they're the exact opposite of each other http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Will]

Hey, don't blame me! I voted for Kodos.

[AMF]

Honest question, really: why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I dunno.

[Wolfman77]

Just my personal opinion, but she always seemed to me like she felt that she needed to be the center of attention at all times. It may or may not be the way she is, thats just how I alwasy saw her. Add that to the fact that she is a politician, and well, most people don't like politicians to begin with. I've just never really liked any self centered people. If she really isn't like that and its just the media making her look that way, then she needs better PR. More likely though is she has decent PR and is actually worse than she appears. I'd like to say the fact that I don't agree with most her political views has nothing to do with my impression of her, but I don't think I can separate political views and personality, so if I don't like her views then I don't like her.

[Thermodyne]

The people that have known of her since the seventies have found the woman to be a vindictive ***** who has never felt that she was held to the same rules of conduct as the rest of us. The highlights of this would be her participation of the impeachment of Nixon as an intern then congressional staffer. During this time it is reported that she made many lifelong enemies on the hill by refusing to give MC’s their due respect. I would think that this played no small part in the treatment that her husband later received. Then later she was involved in qusi-criminal activities involving investments and land deals. Between the convenient suicide of an important witness and the power of the presidency, she was never taken to task. Later, some of her business partners went to jail. When she arrived in Washington, she cleaned house, firing many people who had served in the Whitehouse for many administrations. Some of these people later had their dismissals reversed, but none the less never regained their actual positions. Recently, there was a book published about her that was less than flattering. She has insisted that it was a “pack of lies and distortions”, but has yet to file suit against the author or his publisher for same. Instead, she used her political power to freeze said author off of the normal talk show circuit used by authors when promoting new books. Said author did file and subsequently settle a suit against several corporations for said activities.

Personally, I dislike her because of her distorted view of the constitution, and her ceaseless campaign to take rights away from law abiding citizens. IMHO, I would suggest that you read the book. Then read her biography. After that, form your own opinion.

On a side note. She was often a victim of circumstanses. One incident that I will always remember is the day she exited from testifying before the grand jury about something or other and she was wearing a long black coat. On TV it looked as if a pigion had crapped all over the back of it. For those of you not living in DC, this has been known to happen to public officials at less than opportune times. She and her press people immediately sprang into action explaining that the coat actually had an embroidered silk dragon on the back side. The next morning, the Post headline read “Dragon Lady Testifies Before Grand Jury”

In writing this, I have just realized that she testified before several grand juries and a special prosecutor. Off hand, I can not recall any other first ladies having to do this. I think it was perhaps a first. But so was having a trusted advisor commit suicide in the executive office spaces. I’d sure like to see read ALL of the reports on that one.

[AMF]

I appreciate the answer. It's educational to get an understanding of others' opinions. I do think that most, if not all of the things you mention have been undertaken by many other politicians on both sides of the aisle. I mean, if the Right held the Bush administration to the same standards as it did the Clinton one, they'd all be impeaching them as well.

But, nevermind.

I do, however, find it absolutely hilarious when the Right puts on its victimhood hat and blames the Clintons or the Dems for every problem under the sun. I mean, the Right has controlled the legislature for over a decade, the Supremes for arguably much longer, and the Executive for almost six years. Yet, they still seem to think they're the victims. And you just know that if we lose in Iraq they'll blame it on the Left - despite the fact that the President has gotten everything he asked for in Iraq planning, execution, etc...

But I digress.

[Atrocities]

Right left, they are both to blame. Nuff said.


“Dragon Lady Testifies Before Grand Jury”



Now that was truly funny.

[Wolfman77]

Indeed, right or left, it's all pretty much the same for most things. They just phrase the wording a little different. There are a few issues that they are actually divided on, and I don't agree with all policies on either side, heck some of them can't even agree amongst themselves. For the most part, I don't really look at what party they are, but some times, the "lesser of the two evils" theory must be used, then It usually puts me on one side more than the other.

Something I've always wanted to ask people in a disscussion like this:
If you could change one major aspect of the way your government was set up, wha twould it be? How would it be better, and what would the side effects be?

I've always disliked our 2 branch congress. I think things would flow through better with 1 branch. I do see why we have them both, large states would complain about our Senate not being equal, small states would complian about the House. But when they both write a bill that is just slightly different, mostly due to pork being added, it seems like alot of duplication. (For those who don't know, pork it the term used to describe extra things added to bills to encourage support from those that might not otherwise support it. usually locally benificial for the Reps. state or district.) Maybe if they worked on the bills together from the start then voted separately it would cut down on this.

[Atrocities]

It makes me sick to watch the news any more. Its filled with so much bull****, pandering sensationalism, and out right manufactured news that it shouldn't even be called news any more. You have the Pervert of the day segement, they said he said segment, spindoctor segment, point the finger segment, and so on.... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It never [censored] ends!

They hyped the weather last night saying it was going to snow heavily today... they toyed with us keeping us on long enought to lie to us. It did not snow, not so much as one flake today.. and do you know what those SOB's said? They said that they were correct, that their forecasts was spot on.... WTF???? All you have to do is pull up the video from last night to know they are lying through their god damned teeth!

If they will lie about what they said when they are wrong, imagine what else our news organizations will lie about.

I say line them all up against a wall and execute them. Tell us the truth or die.

[Suicide Junkie]

I don't watch the news... No point to it.

If it is important, it will come up on the forums or in the IRC channel.

[AMF]

Wolfman77 said:
I've always disliked our 2 branch congress. I think things would flow through better with 1 branch. I do see why we have them both, large states would complain about our Senate not being equal, small states would complian about the House. But when they both write a bill that is just slightly different, mostly due to pork being added, it seems like alot of duplication. ...



You're making an argument for a form of government in which efficiency is a guiding principle. But divided government is specifically designed with an opposite intention: that of providing an overlapping set of checks and balances and thereby institutionalizing moderating influences on the governing of the nation, and in so doing avoid the hazards of radical change.

The Senate is a fundamentally different body, with a very different dynamic than the House.

The danger that arises when a single group or party controls all branches of government is not simply hypothetical, and having a government that is divided horizontally (legislature, judiciary, and executive) as well as vertically (federal, state, local) has provided the US with a system that can self-correct pretty well. While we historically lurch between flirtations with radicalism we typically come back to the center in the end.

I would be very concerned if all three branches of government were controlled by a single party in the US, no matter whether that party was from the left, the right, mars, venus, whatever. Divided government is a very good thing.

But it is definitely not efficient. Redundancy is one of the prices we pay for a system that is relatively durable and still largely protects local & individual rights in a very diverse country yet still with a functioning government that can get things done (but rarely as fast as people would like...and that's good)...

I'll stop babbling...

Alarik

[Fyron]

The less efficient a government is, the better it is.

[El_Phil]

Well up to a point. If a goverment is totally inefficient then nothing happens. I suppose that is 'better' provided you're happy with the way things are.

[Wolfman77]

Good points. I can see the usefulness of having both a Senate and a House for keeping things cenetered, especially when opposing parties control each. My ideas are probably more attributed to my personality than anything that might work in real life, I just hate to seee waste. I guess the less a government does the less it can mess up isn't to far from the truth, but unfortunately there are enough people out there that need some guidance in order for them to benefit society, though it does tend to benefit a small portion more than the whole. A government that did absolutely nothing would be extremely inefficient, but then what would be the point of having one. Government power is always going to increase. We elect people who want power, it is in their nature to get more. Very few would run for office if they had no desire for power, or wasn't a step in the direction for them to get more.

[Thermodyne]

alarikf said:

You're making an argument for a form of government in which efficiency is a guiding principle. But divided government is specifically designed with an opposite intention: that of providing an overlapping set of checks and balances and thereby institutionalizing moderating influences on the governing of the nation, and in so doing avoid the hazards of radical change.

The Senate is a fundamentally different body, with a very different dynamic than the House.

The danger that arises when a single group or party controls all branches of government is not simply hypothetical, and having a government that is divided horizontally (legislature, judiciary, and executive) as well as vertically (federal, state, local) has provided the US with a system that can self-correct pretty well. While we historically lurch between flirtations with radicalism we typically come back to the center in the end.

I would be very concerned if all three branches of government were controlled by a single party in the US, no matter whether that party was from the left, the right, mars, venus, whatever. Divided government is a very good thing.

But it is definitely not efficient. Redundancy is one of the prices we pay for a system that is relatively durable and still largely protects local & individual rights in a very diverse country yet still with a functioning government that can get things done (but rarely as fast as people would like...and that's good)...

I'll stop babbling...

Alarik



The founders set up three branches and the intent was that each branch would limit the power of the others. They didn’t foresee that it would become an issue of two parties competing for the power regardless of governmental branch. They assumed that Senators and Congressmen would be loyal to their home states and not so heavily beholding to the party. There are some things that could be done to correct this. But it will only happen when the people demand it. First, we need to ban Pac’s and this includes the national comities of the major parties. The importation of campaign funds from out of state to influence local elections should be a crime. Then we need to ban corporate campaign donations, union endorsements etc. It’s one person, one vote; let’s leave out the graft and paybacks. After that we need to limit campaign funds to in state sources for all non presidential candidates. This should filter down all the way to the local level. A person running for member of congress in say Arkansas should not be getting campaign funds from New York or California. Just as presidential candidates should not be getting funds from China or France. Some guy running for county government should not have to sell out to the national party to get indorsed and funded. His funding should be limited to the district(s) where he is running. If we did this, then our elected officials would once again have to rely on their constituents to put them in office, instead of some large multinational money raising machine. It’s this same machine that forces them to vote the party line instead of their conscience. Diverge from the party line and find yourself unfunded in the next primary. The people on the Hill will never change the way the system works, they can’t comprehend life without the millions of dollars at stake. This has to be done by us, starting at the local level.

[Renegade 13]

Atrocities said:
It makes me sick to watch the news any more. Its filled with so much bull****, pandering sensationalism, and out right manufactured news that it shouldn't even be called news any more. You have the Pervert of the day segement, they said he said segment, spindoctor segment, point the finger segment, and so on.... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It never [censored] ends!

They hyped the weather last night saying it was going to snow heavily today... they toyed with us keeping us on long enought to lie to us. It did not snow, not so much as one flake today.. and do you know what those SOB's said? They said that they were correct, that their forecasts was spot on.... WTF???? All you have to do is pull up the video from last night to know they are lying through their god damned teeth!

If they will lie about what they said when they are wrong, imagine what else our news organizations will lie about.

I say line them all up against a wall and execute them. Tell us the truth or die.


You must have some baaaad newscasters. I like watching the news here; though mostly for the people. They have some people who obviously like their job, get along with each other and provide a lot of humor throughout the news. Especially the sportscaster. Really funny guy.

On the other hand, most of the actual 'news' is pure dross. Every other story is about how "Avian Flu" is gonna wipe us all out (yeah, right...) or about the evils of the so-called Global Warming, which I believe is also a load of bull****e. After all, it's only sitting at -21C right now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

You know what would make the news better? A lot more coverage of scientific work, besides medicine which gets a fair bit of coverage. Give us some physics, astrophysics, cosmology, chemistry, neurology. Pretend for just a moment that a few members of the public are actually intelligent enough to see through the drivel and want something more substantive, something that will actually stimulate the mind!

Hey, I can rant! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Combat Wombat]

alarikf said:
Honest question, really: why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much?



I think the "Inhumanly Cold" reason used earlier by Starhawk covers why I don't like her. Being a Democrat and her stance on violent video games*(which I hold near and dear to my heart) doesn't help her case much either.
Really theres no reason why I should like her...

Condoleeza Rice in 2008!!!
http://www.rice2008.com/

* http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1543329,00.html