Ditto. Or you could just shoot War and beat Hunger to death with the but of your gun, he's starving so he won't put up much of a fight.MrSean said:Line them both up.
You have a gun with one bullet...
- Thread starter TopHatsaur
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I will shoot Idiocy, right in it's stupid face. I don't die, world hunger AND war are resolved, I get a fucking medal for thinking outside the box.
Hunger. That essentially means setting up instant infrastructure and supply lines to ensure a reasonable amount of food for everyone in the world. Lots of problems just got solved at once.
religon, then ***** slap war and call it a *****, then give world hunger +100 coin and tell it to go and get a cookie
People war because of lack of resources. One necessary resource is food. Thus, shooting world hunger will further the cause for world peace.
The only way religion has ever been used in starting war is to convince the masses that war is a good idea; by then, it's already been decided by the higher ups that war is an excellent idea, and as such religion is not the cause for war, but rather a tool for which war can be more easily waged.
As for societal issues, people would cry foul against that sort of thing regardless of religion for simply being a change in the culture. People who dislike homosexuality only use religion as an excuse for their dislike of it, and religion is not the cause for their dislike. It's a case of cognitive dissonance; there's something the mind does not like, so the mind searches for a valid reason for the dislike. Naturally, religion is one major answer that the mind clings to. Another is that it's just plain wrong. The real reason that a person may disliked homosexuality is because they were raised to dislike homosexuality, and because homosexuality is a different lifestyle.
Because religion is the real reason governments declare war on other governments, not the increase in power, wealth, and land that comes with victory. Uh huh, right.Zac Kookoo-kachu said:
The only way religion has ever been used in starting war is to convince the masses that war is a good idea; by then, it's already been decided by the higher ups that war is an excellent idea, and as such religion is not the cause for war, but rather a tool for which war can be more easily waged.
As for societal issues, people would cry foul against that sort of thing regardless of religion for simply being a change in the culture. People who dislike homosexuality only use religion as an excuse for their dislike of it, and religion is not the cause for their dislike. It's a case of cognitive dissonance; there's something the mind does not like, so the mind searches for a valid reason for the dislike. Naturally, religion is one major answer that the mind clings to. Another is that it's just plain wrong. The real reason that a person may disliked homosexuality is because they were raised to dislike homosexuality, and because homosexuality is a different lifestyle.
Argh! I came in here ready to say Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg for ruining The War of the Worlds...
OT: Well I would go with shooting World War, mostly because then we would all have peace and then we'd be able to do something about that world hunger problem together...
OT: Well I would go with shooting World War, mostly because then we would all have peace and then we'd be able to do something about that world hunger problem together...
I'd pop a cap into my foot. Problem solved.
If that's not allowed I'd slot war one. Because most everyone else is choosing hunger.
Neither. Overpopulation is already too much of an issue. Even though that sounds horrible, imagine the overpopulation crisis we would face without war or hunger. Third world countries would blossom, birth rates go up, and all of a sudden we are standing shoulder to shoulder in grocery stores. No thank you.
Funny thing is that war and hunger are things that always tend to come and go together. War causes hunger, hunger causes war, etc.
By that reasoning, solving World War SHOULD increase food production. Also, if you aggrevate World War by shooting World Hunger, you can unleash a nuclear holocaust that will make the majority of the lands unable to produce healthy food.
There is one thing connecting this thing; population size.
If you shoot World War, population figures will increase so much that food production can't possibly keep up. If you shoot World Hunger, food production should normally go down, but it also causes the population to shrink in size.
Now which one is better;
Birth control is the key. If you shoot World Hunger and unleash devestating wars, there will be less space for humans to live, leaving no means to increase the population until humanity finally dwindles into extinction. Over-populating by shooting World War will only cause both birth and death figures to climb, but there will be no final extinction and the world can eventually try to overcome the obstacle of hunger with the use of technology.
I'm definately shooting World War.
By that reasoning, solving World War SHOULD increase food production. Also, if you aggrevate World War by shooting World Hunger, you can unleash a nuclear holocaust that will make the majority of the lands unable to produce healthy food.
There is one thing connecting this thing; population size.
If you shoot World War, population figures will increase so much that food production can't possibly keep up. If you shoot World Hunger, food production should normally go down, but it also causes the population to shrink in size.
Now which one is better;
Birth control is the key. If you shoot World Hunger and unleash devestating wars, there will be less space for humans to live, leaving no means to increase the population until humanity finally dwindles into extinction. Over-populating by shooting World War will only cause both birth and death figures to climb, but there will be no final extinction and the world can eventually try to overcome the obstacle of hunger with the use of technology.
I'm definately shooting World War.
