Poll: You must spend a year locked in a room.
- Thread starter Evil Top Hat
- Start date
I would have to take the person. A girl after that amount of time would be willing to have sex with anyone. And ill be the only one there. Sure you guys might get into fights like whose is whose side of the room but after awhile it all mellows out and it would just be sex and conversations about who knows what....and seriously probably a lot of sex.
Yeah, but the OP involved picking people you don't even know (probably so you could grab a celebrity) and also erasing their minds afterwards so there is no "ethical dilemma" or consequences. Then the whole "time doesn't pass, so no one knows..." That is just super creepy to me.Doti said:I don't think it's ethical either, but I think most people are disregarding that and treating this and a hypothetical case? Or maybe I'm wrong. I just think of it as "what I would rather do in that room given those two choices".trooper6 said:I don't think it is ethical to kidnap someone and force them to be in a room with you 24/7 for a year.CarlMinez said:59 percent would rather spend a year alone in a room with video games than with another human being?
What on earth?
The way the OP framed it, I'd have to go with video games, not because I like video games over people...I don't. For example, if I have a choice between going out with friends or staying in and playing video games, I pick friends every time. But I'd feel like a real creep if I chose a person for the year as per the OP--which says nothing about consent at all.
Hmm, person, I don't want the mental scaring of a whole year with no people. Also with my girlfriend we could make the time pass a little quicker
That's reasonable enough then, I don't think I could force someone into that type of situation. I just assumed that since the OP was so vague about it that it would boil down to "are you more entertained by people or videogames" instead of "do you go through that torment alone or drag some poor sucker into it with you?". Seeing things that way, though, you're absolutely right.trooper6 said:Yeah, but the OP involved picking people you don't even know (probably so you could grab a celebrity) and also erasing their minds afterwards so there is no "ethical dilemma" or consequences. Then the whole "time doesn't pass, so no one knows..." That is just super creepy to me.Doti said:I don't think it's ethical either, but I think most people are disregarding that and treating this and a hypothetical case? Or maybe I'm wrong. I just think of it as "what I would rather do in that room given those two choices".trooper6 said:I don't think it is ethical to kidnap someone and force them to be in a room with you 24/7 for a year.CarlMinez said:59 percent would rather spend a year alone in a room with video games than with another human being?
What on earth?
The way the OP framed it, I'd have to go with video games, not because I like video games over people...I don't. For example, if I have a choice between going out with friends or staying in and playing video games, I pick friends every time. But I'd feel like a real creep if I chose a person for the year as per the OP--which says nothing about consent at all.
Makes me wonder if the results would be any different if the OP was worded differently. Probably not by much.
What it comes down to, for me, is which emotion I'd rather have to deal with. Boredom (ie. excess mental/physical energy that I'm not able to use), or loneliness.
Honestly, I'd rather deal with boredom than loneliness. Ultimately, my mind can compensate for boredom pretty well. I'm really good at just sitting and thinking about stuff. That alone can occupy me for a really long time. I enjoy video games, but I'm the kind of person who can't play them for more than an hour or so at a time. I've also been known to go months without touching one. So, as my only source of external mental stimulation, I wouldn't want to rely on it. Even if they were great, I think a complete lack of human interaction would harm my mental state far more than boredom.
Another person would make the experience far more bearable. I'd choose the person very carefully, though. I think it would have to be someone I'd be physically attracted to (sex would be a great way to deal with boredom), truly loved, and who was generally mentally compatible with me. Someone who is aware of, but in control of their emotions. Someone who is good at thinking and doesn't view a dissenting opinion as a personal attack. If all those boxes are checked, I think we could have a pretty interesting experience together. A LOT of time would be spent talking, about all kinds of stuff. I'm sure there would be conflict. But, it would absolutely beat the alternative.
Edit: I'm ignoring the ethical implications of effectively kidnapping the other person here. I can tell that component of it wasn't really the point the OP was getting it.
Honestly, I'd rather deal with boredom than loneliness. Ultimately, my mind can compensate for boredom pretty well. I'm really good at just sitting and thinking about stuff. That alone can occupy me for a really long time. I enjoy video games, but I'm the kind of person who can't play them for more than an hour or so at a time. I've also been known to go months without touching one. So, as my only source of external mental stimulation, I wouldn't want to rely on it. Even if they were great, I think a complete lack of human interaction would harm my mental state far more than boredom.
Another person would make the experience far more bearable. I'd choose the person very carefully, though. I think it would have to be someone I'd be physically attracted to (sex would be a great way to deal with boredom), truly loved, and who was generally mentally compatible with me. Someone who is aware of, but in control of their emotions. Someone who is good at thinking and doesn't view a dissenting opinion as a personal attack. If all those boxes are checked, I think we could have a pretty interesting experience together. A LOT of time would be spent talking, about all kinds of stuff. I'm sure there would be conflict. But, it would absolutely beat the alternative.
Edit: I'm ignoring the ethical implications of effectively kidnapping the other person here. I can tell that component of it wasn't really the point the OP was getting it.
That's easy, I'd pick the games. I can't think of any single person I'd want to be with for a whole year in one room. There's very little to do in my room. I can read books and play videogames and watch TV. Reading isn't fun with other people and I only like to play games with others if it's across xbox live chat, usually. Most of my games are single-player, you see.
I chose video games. it would give me a chance to catch up on all the games i missed, seeing as i can choose every single one. Sure, i might get lonely, but i reckon i could survive the year.
You make a pretty strong case regarding humans. Now that I think about it, I don't know any other human being I would want to a spend a year locked up in. And knowing that I know about the human mind, there's always the risk of you trying to kill each other eventually.Devias- said:Being about to socialize with another person may be better for your sanity. But the odds are highly stacked against them in this scenario.CarlMinez said:59 percent would rather spend a year alone in a room with video games than with another human being?
What on earth?
The belief is that if you choose a human being, there is not much else you can do except talk. Time doesn't pass, so there's no need to sleep, eat, or defecate (which I suppose, if you dochoose a human being, is a major plus in the restricted room) . Additionally, the room is small enough already, why would I choose to have another person cramp with me? Besides, there's no guarantee that he/she won't go insane in a few days. What would do with another human being for a year? Talk? Or.. hmm.
I suppose it depends on how significant this other person is to you. There's no reason to pick a stranger. A celebrity is an option as well but wouldn't that be awkward? A family member is what most users on this forum actively try to get away from. As for a hypothetical significant other, I personally wouldn't condemn her to a year in a locked room. A friend may be the best option, but still, I don't know how close people usually are with their best friends, but for me there's not enough stupidity inside this brain.
If possible, I would pick a pet that you wouldn't have to clean up after. There's still no guarantee I wouldn't kick it after a dozen days worth of company.
After much thought, a pet is still a bad idea. Limited things to do. Video games is probably the best option.
I may or may not be reading too much into this.
But a pet? A dog perhaps? A dog would probably be a good idea. Sure, you want be able to discuss politics with it, but the dog can still offer you the emotional attachment you would need not to go utterly insane. Besides, the fact that a dog doesn't talk is a huge plus.
Basically, I think a canine could be a quite nice companion whereas the presence of another human being would quickly become insufferable.
Yeah.Doti said:
For the "you must be locked in a room" I picked video games.
If the question had been worded differently: "do you prefer hanging out with friends or playing video games" I would have picked people.
I, too, wonder what the results would be if the OP situation were different.
Games, hands down. I know for sure I'll rage and stop talking to the other person a day or two in.
I would take the games - seems a little unfair to inflict this on someone else. Plus, I FINALLY get time enough to complete Croc and Crash Bandicoot 1!
I'd definitely go for spending the year with another person. Video games would be ok for a while but even with every one ever made (and if anyone requested E.T for the Atari 2600 they're nuts) but you'd go insane eventually for sure.