You have a gun with one bullet...
- Thread starter TopHatsaur
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Can I make world hunger place his head next to world war and try to make the bullet penetrate both skulls and kill them both? If not, I choose to shoot Bob Saget.
Make the two of them fight each other for survival with the false promise that the one who wins will walk away. Winner kills loser, then I would shoot the winner. Problem solved!
If that isn't an answer, then hunger. People having enough food might solve some fighting in poor countries, and without war, populations will rise and food shortages will be an even larger problem.
If that isn't an answer, then hunger. People having enough food might solve some fighting in poor countries, and without war, populations will rise and food shortages will be an even larger problem.
Toby, twice.
EDIT: Shooting yourself doesn't necessarily mean suicide. One shot in the foot to stop war and hunger for 100 years? I'm game.
EDIT: Shooting yourself doesn't necessarily mean suicide. One shot in the foot to stop war and hunger for 100 years? I'm game.
Well, the big problem with shooting myself is that it's temporary. If it would permanently solve both problems, then it would be the obvious choice.
As stated, it seems that I can save lives from hunger, forever, but that those lives will then be lost to war, or I can permanently save lives from war that will then be lost to hunger. Without clear guidance there as to how powerful each would get with the other's demise, it seems like all you're asking me between those choices is whether to starve or shoot more people, and to be honest neither apeals. Yes, the changes last forever, but they make no net difference, if you follow me.
Therefore, it seems like the only way to relieve any suffering at all, rather than just transmuting it from one form to another, would be to take the temporary deal at the cost of my own life. A hundred years really isn't a long time, though, in the grand scheme of things... this would likely be my choice, as it's the only one that seems to help anybody, but unless I'm Gluttonous Hitler I would want some assurances as to why that would work, or why it makes any kind of sense.
As stated, it seems that I can save lives from hunger, forever, but that those lives will then be lost to war, or I can permanently save lives from war that will then be lost to hunger. Without clear guidance there as to how powerful each would get with the other's demise, it seems like all you're asking me between those choices is whether to starve or shoot more people, and to be honest neither apeals. Yes, the changes last forever, but they make no net difference, if you follow me.
Therefore, it seems like the only way to relieve any suffering at all, rather than just transmuting it from one form to another, would be to take the temporary deal at the cost of my own life. A hundred years really isn't a long time, though, in the grand scheme of things... this would likely be my choice, as it's the only one that seems to help anybody, but unless I'm Gluttonous Hitler I would want some assurances as to why that would work, or why it makes any kind of sense.
Fire the shot into the ground.TopHatsaur said:
As I know that bullet will stop either of those at a terrible unforeseen cost. It always does.
Remember what "on bullet" did for Franz Ferdinan? I'm quite sure that was to stop something and it started the First World War!
No, I'm saying that if the inequalities got that bad then you'd already BE in Stalin's Russia. There's a ruling class, and there's everyone else, and the "everyone else" has no hope of displacing them. No war, remember?2012 Wont Happen said:
And are you seriously saying that it wasn't the case that Stalin's Russia was bad for the poor? It was one of the most repressive regimes in history, with a bodycount that made pre-WW2 Germany look like a holiday camp in comparison...
*Bam* I fall over. No questions asked.TopHatsaur said:
Well, one question: would "killing" World Hunger/World War end them for all time? Because if so then I would shoot World Hunger because a lack of Hunger lessens the need for War (less resources to fight over) and better enable people to take care of themselves.
I just change my positin so that they are lined up and do it Angeline Jolie style from Wanted!
I think world Hunger would be the one (well my first opininon goes first of course) beacause that is a lot more lasting problem and with the hunger away I don't think we need war... (I know I am a bit optimisic)
I think world Hunger would be the one (well my first opininon goes first of course) beacause that is a lot more lasting problem and with the hunger away I don't think we need war... (I know I am a bit optimisic)