English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

1. An embezzaling doctor.
2. A dirty pastor who takes advantage.
3. A religious grandmother who disowned her gay grandson.
4. A hooker with AIDS, but with the heart of gold.

2006-09-30 16:22:41 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Okay, okay, if you HAVE to save one. Don't take the easy way out if you're going to answer at all. And fireball, don't take everything so friggen seriously.

2006-09-30 16:26:49 · update #1

25 answers

Does the embezzaling doctor have some of that cash on him? Am I a superhero that I am trying to save people other than my own sorry hide in the first place? Probably the grandmother, the hooker can hold her own I'm sure. Men can take care of themselves, but an old lady - no matter how bigotted, could probably use a hand. Maybe she'll see things differently when a single mom of 2 drags her judgemental @$$ from a burning bus.

2006-09-30 16:32:15 · answer #1 · answered by devilUknow 4 · 0 4

I assume I can only save one, and no one else is around, and there is no water at hand, etc etc.

I know where you are going with this question. Each person is not a "good person" (but then again, everyone has sin). You are in some sense asking which sin is the worst and which is the least bad. God loves all people equally, and if you break one part of the law, you have broken it all (James 2:10). Therefore I cannot make an ethical distinction as to who is the most right to live. If I knew one or more of them was saved, I would probably chose someone else, so that that person might become saved.

Perhaps I would save the youngest person, since I am saving the maximal number of years of life. Or, perhaps, whoever was the closest to the door or the easiest to save.

2006-09-30 23:32:31 · answer #2 · answered by Theodore R 2 · 0 1

Forced choice questions DO cause people to think, all right....
My triage sequence, assuming all are equally vulnerable and I have to save one (or only one at a time): doctor, grandma, hooker, preacher.

Doctor: Pretty much a utilitarian choice here, as "most likely to be useful to the widest range of people". We might be able to recover the embezzled funds through payback/insurance restitutions, plus whatever having her put in a lot of "community service" hours at clinics.

Grandma: Might be that she'll change her mind about the grandson---the prejudice could be just from "old school" thinking.

Prostitute: The AIDS is not the specific issue here; it's the likelihood that there's OTHER significant problems, like substance abuse, leading into the prostitution.

Pastor: He can roast, and I'll bring the marshmallows!---(assume you're referring to someone who is financially or sexually exploiting people, using the cloak of religious authority: completely reprehensible!)

Nonetheless, triage situations do really bite.

2006-10-01 00:03:18 · answer #3 · answered by samiracat 5 · 0 0

I'm not a firefighter. I probably wouldn't go near a burning bus, I would call 911 and hope for the best. But, I'm guessing this is hypothetical, so, I would save the closest one to me. I could care less what they do, or have done. I'm not going to crawl around in a burning bus picking and choosing who to save.

2006-09-30 23:25:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Since I am allowed to choose one I would take the embezzling doctor since he is a victim of his own sucess,to be on the lighter scale ,but if I were to do this on a more serious note ,These are the choices that elude the mathematical calculation in our brain,which is good exercise ,do not get me wrong,finally all life is precious and wherever possible ,even congress and Gw bush

2006-09-30 23:37:35 · answer #5 · answered by delmy d 3 · 0 1

If I HAD to choose one I WOULDN'T save, it would be the hooker. Heart of gold or not, she's the only one directly threatening people's very lives. Someone could die because of her.

2006-09-30 23:26:52 · answer #6 · answered by Cool1ness 2 · 0 1

well as they are busses do not burn too well,(being made or metal and all.) so i would safe who ever was closest to the fire.
or whoever looked like they did not have much chance of survival in the immediate situation.

P.S., i also know that all busses have fire extinguishers both inder the dash and the drivers seat. and one outside in the under bus compartment. so i would probally put the fire out first.

2006-09-30 23:27:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Whoever is closest to the door. Everyone is valuable and loved by God, so we should try to save as many as possible. Start with the one closest to the door and work further back.

2006-09-30 23:28:10 · answer #8 · answered by Tim 6 · 1 0

The hooker, I guess. But I'd probably just grab who I could and think about it all later.

2006-09-30 23:26:58 · answer #9 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 0 0

all of them.. i have been told i wouldnt hesitate to save someone else cause i have a big heart! how could anyone let someone burn i mean omg think if you were the one on that bus wouldnt you want someone to rescue you and not just stand around and watch like a loser!

2006-09-30 23:28:01 · answer #10 · answered by lita 5 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers