Would you kill children to become smarter?

[The Sivent Isles]

Fuck No!!

[The Mathematical States]

Christ, I hope you're not serious.

Just be glad we live in the real world, where things make sense and I gain no personal advantage from being a serial child murderer.

That's twisted.

[Vamtrl]

I just thought of something...if someone was willing to murder children for intelligence, would you really want them in any position of power?

I think they are already in power. Collateral damage anyone?

[Saveyou Island]

Yes. Assuming I could strangle just any ol' kids and there were no magickal-like way for me to get caught beyond police investigations, and the ratio of kids killed to intellect increase is a reasonable tradeoff.

There are plenty of kids in the world, and plenty of them could be murdered and dumped some place in a way that leaves no genuine evidence behind. As stated by the fellow in the quoted post, I care more about my own intellect than random kids I don't know and never will know.

You disgust me.

[Ainin]

...what kind of hypothetical is that?

Would you abort a pregnant tomato on the Ides of March if Morgan Freeman narrated it using a purple rabbit as a microphone?

[Shaggai]

I just thought of something...if someone was willing to murder children for intelligence, would you really want them in any position of power?

Depends on their reasoning for doing so.

Yes, I would. If I were able to use that knowledge for the betterment of society and the human population as a whole, I would do so with little hesitation. I would be willing to carry the burden of also knowing that I am a monster who killed an innocent child. But, I would repent in a way that makes it so no other suffers, ever again. It would benefit humanity and the populations of all other animalistic, insectoid, and such life on the earth. If I were in that child's place, and someone could murder me to do the above, I would want them to murder me. I am but one life compared to the possible benefit of billions now, and billions to come.

Sure...

I expect with that kind of intelligence (''in every way and in every aspect... mentally superior to every peer) I would be unstoppable.

I think the good I would accomplish for myself, my friends, my country, my family would far far far outweigh the life just ONE kid (see no. 4, it's just one kid).

Besides, what happens when we die? No one knows. Maybe I've just sent the kid to a better place, in all likelihood he simply ceased to exist (something that happens to all of us inevitably right?). It's not really that evil and unforgivable in the grand scheme of history...

I haven't really changed the pattern of history DIRECTLY in any way except by massively augmenting my own intelligence. The kid's life process was speeded up that's all...

And I wouldn't get caught... so what's the problem?

First of all, I'm disgusted.
Second of all, how do we know that you would actually USE your knowledge for the better of mankind? In the end, you could just use it to take control of everything. You could use your knowledge to kill millions more than you saved! Do you mean to tell me that it would be worth it to sacrifice a child on the gamble that you would use your knowledge for good?

Besides, I for one couldn't sleep at night if I knew that I had deprived a child of his or her life because I wanted knowledge. It would haunt me forever, and my conscience would eat at me until I, too, would die. That's not the life I would live, and I have a hard time picturing anyone else wanting it either.

1. Good for you.
2. It wouldn't necessarily be a gamble. The person would still be the same person.
3. If it prevents the suffering of untold billions in the future, not choosing that life is a horrifyingly selfish decision.

Would you kill all of humanity by refusing to participate in the yearly sacrifice of 7 youth thus unleashing ancient deities from the slumber to take their wrath out on earth?

The answer is obviously yes. The Dreamland is boring when you're Nyarlathotep. I want my rightful kingdom, dammit!

[Shaggai]

...what kind of hypothetical is that?

Would you abort a pregnant tomato on the Ides of March if Morgan Freeman narrated it using a purple rabbit as a microphone?

Yes. Obviously. What sort of absurd reason could you have not to?

[Blakk Metal]

I'd do it if the victim was Polly Klaas and I got to bang her first.

#NotSeriousGuys

[Czechanada]

What...Czechanada is that you?

Why would you assume that I'm for the murder of children?

[Geilinor]

...what kind of hypothetical is that?

Would you abort a pregnant tomato on the Ides of March if Morgan Freeman narrated it using a purple rabbit as a microphone?

[Benuty]

What...Czechanada is that you?

Why would you assume that I'm for the murder of children?

Well you have the bizarre notion of select sexual eradication.

[Constaniana]

1. Smart enough to be considered the smartest person in history.
2. In every way and in every aspect of your life, you would be mentally superior to every peer.
3. No, but you would never forget it.
4. A random child from {insert the name of a local grocery store here}.

Would you do it?

Sure...

I expect with that kind of intelligence (''in every way and in every aspect... mentally superior to every peer) I would be unstoppable.

I think the good I would accomplish for myself, my friends, my country, my family would far far far outweigh the life just ONE kid (see no. 4, it's just one kid).

Besides, what happens when we die? No one knows. Maybe I've just sent the kid to a better place, in all likelihood he simply ceased to exist (something that happens to all of us inevitably right?). It's not really that evil and unforgivable in the grand scheme of history...

I haven't really changed the pattern of history DIRECTLY in any way except by massively augmenting my own intelligence. The kid's life process was speeded up that's all...

And I wouldn't get caught... so what's the problem?

You kinda have directly changed history by removing someone who could grow up to be great. What if someone murdered George Washington or Horatio Nelson when they were children?

And another thing: saying "it's just one kid; it's alright!" is a pretty disgusting position. Where do you draw the line? Is killing two children acceptable as well? A dozen? A hundred? Ten million? Hell, your hands are already soaked with blood, why not go ahead and kill all their parents, siblings and extended family out to their sixth cousins and the woman who served the kid's dad when he went to a diner with his buddy from high school? She's old and doing nothing more useful than a meaningless job in a diner! There's no way she has any worth!

[Imperia Mlytoria]

Yes. Assuming I could strangle just any ol' kids and there were no magickal-like way for me to get caught beyond police investigations, and the ratio of kids killed to intellect increase is a reasonable tradeoff.

There are plenty of kids in the world, and plenty of them could be murdered and dumped some place in a way that leaves no genuine evidence behind. As stated by the fellow in the quoted post, I care more about my own intellect than random kids I don't know and never will know.

You disgust me.

The reaction of disgust toward what I said is rather surprising, and amusing at the same time.

Really, what did I even say? I don't really see anything particularly more "horrifying" than anyone else who said yes, but it seems everyone's homing in on me.

[The Serbian Empire]

I just thought of something...if someone was willing to murder children for intelligence, would you really want them in any position of power?

Exactly.

Or in reality, would you want anyone who refuses to do so to be in such either as that means they might as well be a doormat in power which leads to others walking all over them. Either way, it's a bad trait for leadership.

[Czechanada]

Why would you assume that I'm for the murder of children?

Well you have the bizarre notion of select sexual eradication.

I don't necessarily support the threads that I make. I merely try to turn existing social theory on it's head, like the in style of Hegel or Zizek, and test it.

[Indira]

How about...not a chance in Hell

[The United Communist Solar Republic]

1. Smart enough to be considered the smartest person in history.
2. In every way and in every aspect of your life, you would be mentally superior to every peer.
3. No, but you would never forget it.
4. A random child from {insert the name of a local grocery store here}.

Would you do it?

Yes, I would. If I were able to use that knowledge for the betterment of society and the human population as a whole, I would do so with little hesitation. I would be willing to carry the burden of also knowing that I am a monster who killed an innocent child. But, I would repent in a way that makes it so no other suffers, ever again. It would benefit humanity and the populations of all other animalistic, insectoid, and such life on the earth. If I were in that child's place, and someone could murder me to do the above, I would want them to murder me. I am but one life compared to the possible benefit of billions now, and billions to come.

Now imagine that child crying, screaming, and kicking, possibly pleading with you to stop, and you holding a knife to that child's throat about to murder it, and tell me again how you would kill it with 'little hesitation'. I mean seriously, you would not be able to go through with it, and you know it. Even to benefit humanity. And if you did, the guilt would more than likely be too much to bear. Unless you were some heartless beast of course. Which I suspect the majority of the people here aren't/

[Timothia]

I just thought of something...if someone was willing to murder children for intelligence, would you really want them in any position of power?

Depends on their reasoning for doing so.

First of all, I'm disgusted.
Second of all, how do we know that you would actually USE your knowledge for the better of mankind? In the end, you could just use it to take control of everything. You could use your knowledge to kill millions more than you saved! Do you mean to tell me that it would be worth it to sacrifice a child on the gamble that you would use your knowledge for good?

Besides, I for one couldn't sleep at night if I knew that I had deprived a child of his or her life because I wanted knowledge. It would haunt me forever, and my conscience would eat at me until I, too, would die. That's not the life I would live, and I have a hard time picturing anyone else wanting it either.

1. Good for you.
2. It wouldn't necessarily be a gamble. The person would still be the same person.
3. If it prevents the suffering of untold billions in the future, not choosing that life is a horrifyingly selfish decision.

Would you kill all of humanity by refusing to participate in the yearly sacrifice of 7 youth thus unleashing ancient deities from the slumber to take their wrath out on earth?

The answer is obviously yes. The Dreamland is boring when you're Nyarlathotep. I want my rightful kingdom, dammit!

There is no one I know that I would trust with that much knowledge, and I certainly wouldn't trust myself with it. If you honestly believe that you would remain uncorrupted, then have at it. After killing a child, the knowledge has already corrupted you. You have already changed, so who's to say you wouldn't change even more? What is stopping you? You have already crossed the line of moral decency by KILLING A CHILD, do we really want you and your knowledge to be in charge any more?

No. I understand the idea that you would be able to make scientific advances that could save lives, but science at the cost of morals will not end will. If you abandon basic human morals (don't kill little kids) for "scientific advances", then you are a compromised human being. If your morals are compromised, you no longer have an inner compass that will ensure that you don't go beserk and use your knowledge to murder all of us.


It would indeed be a gamble. How are we ensured that you wouldn't just kill all of us as unflinchingly you killed that child in the search of more "knowledge"?

[Pyre Raiders2]

You disgust me.

The reaction of disgust toward what I said is rather surprising, and amusing at the same time.

Really, what did I even say? I don't really see anything particularly more "horrifying" than anyone else who said yes, but it seems everyone's homing in on me.

I think it's less that you're willing to kill, and more the fact it seems you'd have little to no remorse. I, as said before, would kill a child for the knowledge of how to prevent the suffering and deaths of more people. But, I would do so with a muddied and hurt conscious due to the fact I had been only been able to save others from the death of someone.
It's not only that you seem to be lacking a conscious. But, also, that, from the way you worded it, it sounds as if you would only want the knowledge for the sake of having it. It didn't appear as if you'd use the knowledge in a constructive way for others.

[The Mathematical States]

Exactly.

Or in reality, would you want anyone who refuses to do so to be in such either as that means they might as well be a doormat in power which leads to others walking all over them. Either way, it's a bad trait for leadership.

Good point. Thanks.

[Imperia Mlytoria]

The reaction of disgust toward what I said is rather surprising, and amusing at the same time.

Really, what did I even say? I don't really see anything particularly more "horrifying" than anyone else who said yes, but it seems everyone's homing in on me.

I think it's less that you're willing to kill, and more the fact it seems you'd have little to no remorse. I, as said before, would kill a child for the knowledge of how to prevent the suffering and deaths of more people. But, I would do so with a muddied and hurt conscious due to the fact I had been only been able to save others from the death of someone.
It's not only that you seem to be lacking a conscious. But, also, that, from the way you worded it, it sounds as if you would only want the knowledge for the sake of having it. It didn't appear as if you'd use the knowledge in a constructive way for others.

The advantages of psychopathy, m'boy.

But, of course I'd use my newfound intellect constructively. I woulda figured that went without saying, really.

[Shaggai]

Depends on their reasoning for doing so.
1. Good for you.
2. It wouldn't necessarily be a gamble. The person would still be the same person.
3. If it prevents the suffering of untold billions in the future, not choosing that life is a horrifyingly selfish decision.

The answer is obviously yes. The Dreamland is boring when you're Nyarlathotep. I want my rightful kingdom, dammit!

There is no one I know that I would trust with that much knowledge, and I certainly wouldn't trust myself with it. If you honestly believe that you would remain uncorrupted, then have at it. After killing a child, the knowledge has already corrupted you. You have already changed, so who's to say you wouldn't change even more? What is stopping you? You have already crossed the line of moral decency by KILLING A CHILD, do we really want you and your knowledge to be in charge any more?

No. I understand the idea that you would be able to make scientific advances that could save lives, but science at the cost of morals will not end will. If you abandon basic human morals (don't kill little kids) for "scientific advances", then you are a compromised human being. If your morals are compromised, you no longer have an inner compass that will ensure that you don't go beserk and use your knowledge to murder all of us.



It would indeed be a gamble. How are we ensured that

Basic human morals-or at least your version of them-are, to be honest, stupid. What matters is not "oh, he killed a kid, he's evil". What matters is "he killed a kid, but he saved billions of other lives, so I think it was worth the cost". If killing a kid will prevent ten other kids from dying, then by not killing that kid you are killing ten. Killing ten kids is worse than killing one. Don't you agree?

[The United Communist Solar Republic]

...what kind of hypothetical is that?

Would you abort a pregnant tomato on the Ides of March if Morgan Freeman narrated it using a purple rabbit as a microphone?

Yes, yes I would.

[Vamtrl]

There is no one I know that I would trust with that much knowledge, and I certainly wouldn't trust myself with it. If you honestly believe that you would remain uncorrupted, then have at it. After killing a child, the knowledge has already corrupted you. You have already changed, so who's to say you wouldn't change even more? What is stopping you? You have already crossed the line of moral decency by KILLING A CHILD, do we really want you and your knowledge to be in charge any more?

No. I understand the idea that you would be able to make scientific advances that could save lives, but science at the cost of morals will not end will. If you abandon basic human morals (don't kill little kids) for "scientific advances", then you are a compromised human being. If your morals are compromised, you no longer have an inner compass that will ensure that you don't go beserk and use your knowledge to murder all of us.



It would indeed be a gamble. How are we ensured that

Basic human morals-or at least your version of them-are, to be honest, stupid. What matters is not "oh, he killed a kid, he's evil". What matters is "he killed a kid, but he saved billions of other lives, so I think it was worth the cost". If killing a kid will prevent ten other kids from dying, then by not killing that kid you are killing ten. Killing ten kids is worse than killing one. Don't you agree?

But the world is black and white man, its just not possible he wont turn evil.

[Shaggai]

Basic human morals-or at least your version of them-are, to be honest, stupid. What matters is not "oh, he killed a kid, he's evil". What matters is "he killed a kid, but he saved billions of other lives, so I think it was worth the cost". If killing a kid will prevent ten other kids from dying, then by not killing that kid you are killing ten. Killing ten kids is worse than killing one. Don't you agree?

But the world is black and white man, its just not possible he wont turn evil.

What?