Trump by name......

But would you sacrifice your country to enable the world to survive?

 

Yes. I like existing. A lot. There's bonsai and wine and orgasms.

 

Good man, but what about trump voters?

If they say no, why do they say no, do they not believe the threat, or do they just not care?

 

May nobody on MAP become a public relations officer for a political campaign trying to win over people on the other side.

I'm such a lost child in the political landscape because I actively don't vote. My lack of voting doesn't come with the common reason, rather that I like to remain neutral. I get a lot of crap for that but I honestly believe trying to look at things in a neutral manner is uncommon, in the circles I engage in anyways. I should copy/paste my conversations with "the other side" since the conversation is left biased on MAP so how I react to those isn't exactly expressed.

Honestly most of the things being discussed is not affecting people's day to day life in the hyperbolic manner people make it out to be. The things people are in an uproar about happen the same way violence happens in war honestly. Long bouts of doing nothing and boredom, then short bursts of chaos. Sometimes people are in chaos all the time, while others are going to experience nothing but the boredom but those would be the rare extremes. It's pretty unfortunate that people either take the side of "these people are ALWAYS in the chaos" while the other side is saying, "No, they're ALWAYS in the boredom."

 

I mean, 50% of 7 billion people is more than enough people for there to be a comeback for the human race. Since I live here and am invested to some degree in partaking in the U.S. society, damn the rest of the world if it comes down to that.

#BannedFromMAPBecauseTheUKIsn'tTheU.S. : P

 

I didn't know that word was against ToS. I cannot find an edit option to fix it. Sorry.

[Mod] Got it. Thanks for taking ownership. Maybe it's just my moderator privilege, but when I'm logged in, I see a small "Edit" option in blue at the bottom of each post, next to the time stamp. [/Mod]

 

so the question was - (reworded for clarity

''So would you rather a 50% chance, of ALL of humanity going extinct but the USA survives (in the winning 50%), or the USA definatly ending but humanity as a whole having a 100% chance of surviving?''

So its not 50% of everyone surviving, but 50% chance, of everyone dying as a big group in a mass extinction, Does that make sense now? or am I writing this in a confusing fashion?

 

So when trump said there were many fine people, marching on the side of the KKK, Nazi and white supremacists, (who would hate your children,and within living memory have killed people for their racial background) do you still think trump is the lessor of two evils?

How do you intellectually reconcile that?

 

So I have a 50% chance of living, or a 100% chance of dying.

Or do you mean to say the USA dissolves as a nation?

 

I honestly don't see an "edit" button anywhere? I also really had no idea that word wouldn't fly. I feel like that was a new addition to the "words we must never write on MAP." Is there a list of these words so I know next time?

Also I know I'm supposed to be typing this sort of thing in a PM with a mod, but it doesn't show me what mod edited my post so I'm kinda' stuck ::tear::

 

a) Personally yes, but to balance the choice, humanity as a whole, either has a 50% chance of living or a 100% chance of living.


b) No destroyed for good, but culturally its impact will remain.

 

My answer doesn't change then.

You're giving me a 50% chance everyone I love and care about dies while framing it as if the human race wouldn't survive with 350 million people left to continue the species if the USA lives, vs. a 100% chance everyone I care about and have invested my life in dies. I care about other people. I care about other people at the expense of myself. I don't care about other people at the expense of those I care about.

 

Sigh*, I really wish there was an edit button. The hypothetical is a bit confusing for me.

 

Sorry, but again thats not the question,

Ill try to reword it better

'So would you rather a 50% chance, of ALL of humanity going extinct but if were lucky and All of humanity survives, so does the USA, or the USA definitely ending but humanity as a whole having a 100% chance of surviving?''

So its a test of whether you want to conserve the larger group as a whole/our species (humans) more then you want to conserve your smaller sub group/country.

So 50% chance of extinction including a 50% chance of all your USA based loved ones dying, or no extinction but 100% chance all your USA based loved ones dying.

 

That is the part I would have edited out good sir. >: O

Answer remains the same without the bolded.

You frame it as if humanity is important to the universe or something. ::scoffs::.

 

Which is why people with your viewpoint don't want to sort out the very real extinction threats we face.

Nuclear war, and global warming all need the world to act as one, but petty squabbling about local transitory issues risks all that.

 

We're the only intelligent life that has been discovered so far, it looks like intelligence is astonishingly rare, it would really be a shame if we winked out of existence before really getting going.

Look at how far we've come in the last 300 years, to deny life to the countless generations unborn, because of petty squabbles is just unforgivable.

 

What a crock of horse manure.

"Here's a hypothetical that implies the instances that will occur will happen overnight, cast your vote!" does not transfer to "I just summed up you and people like you, not caring about the issues we face today." Like, get out of here with that man. That's so intellectually dishonest.

It's the ignorant vs. the misinformed, the anti-intellectuals vs. the pseudo intellectuals. And ain't nobody winning.