Let's say there's a guy. And he goes to jail for uh let's say stealing drugs and selling them for a higher price. And he meets another guy. The other guy was black and had a lot of problems. He was only 17 and was a drinker. He was in jail because he bombed some electronics shop. Let's say they both meet and they talk and they become close friends. Then uh the jail decides to let one of them go free forever but they don't know who to choose. So they let the jail decide. They all chose the black guy. The black guy was really happy but worried that he would never see his friend again so before his parents came he killed his friend yes the drug stealer and he had to stay longer. He was happy even he would never see his friend anyway because he died. Why did he do that? He was his best friend and wouldn't hurt him so why kill when he's the one being set free?
2007-02-26 17:18:58 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
And why was he happy? Too hard? HAHAHA! This is in the easy section my teacher said.
2007-02-26 17:23:32 · update #1
Rae:maybe but he wasn't mental he just had problems This is one of those who killed who kinds of questions Come on this isn't that hard. If you could answer this you can figure out why he killed him. THERE WERE TWO BARBERS AND WERE THE ONLY ONES IN THE TOWN. ONE HAD MESSY HAIR AND ONE HAD VERY SHORT AND CLEAN HAIR. WHO WOULD YOU GO TO TO GET A CUT?
2007-02-26 17:31:31 · update #2
ALRIGHT NEITHER OF THEM WERE RELIGIOUS!!! EASY?
2007-02-26 17:32:23 · update #3
Jesus Christ this is killing me. Where do bad people go when they die? HELL. Where will the black guy go when he dies? HELL. Where did the drug stealer go when he died? HELL!!! Where will they meet soon? HELLLLLL!!!
2007-02-26 17:34:03 · update #4
Oh sorry I forgot to write the part where the black dies two weeks later.
2007-02-26 17:35:55 · update #5
I made this up. There's a similar question that my teacher told me. And I don't go to any ordinary school. At my school they don't teach math or history they teach Bible and Philosophy. for 3 hours each. The similar question is too hard and uncomprehensible for you guys. Too hard to understand. So I made up an EASY version of the question.
2007-02-26 17:48:08 · update #6
oh shut up
2007-02-26 17:22:27 · answer #1 · answered by augustina 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I have no idea what you're trying to get at with this, it's so convoluted and full of unnecessary information. Who cares if guy #1 was selling illegal drugs "for a higher price"? The drugs are illegal no matter what kind of profit you try to make off them. And how would you get away with "stealing" an illegal substance for more than two days without the person from whom you were stealing noticing and probably threatening to kill you/beat the s.hit out of you? It also seems insignificant that guy #2 is black and "a drinker."
Whatever. Is this supposed to be some Jesus allegory (Pontius Pilate released Barnabas; if Barnabas represents "the crowds," the common people, then the crowds/Barnabas put Jesus to death)? That doesn't even work out.
First, nobody at a jail in the U.S. would choose to release a bomber over a nonviolent drug offender. The violent ones are the ones that need to be kept out of society. Second, how did guy #2 kill guy #1? He wouldn't have been able to get a weapon while in jail. He must have killed him with his bare hands. Third, you say that guy #2 "had to stay longer" in jail after killing guy #1. I have no doubt he not only "had to stay longer"; he probably had to stay for _50 years_. You don't get a three-week jail sentence for killing someone.
The only way any of this might possibly make sense (and not really even then) aside from the suggestion that guy #2 is psychotic is if guy #2 discovered while chatting with guy #1 that guy #1 was, in addition to a drug dealer, also some kind of child molester or pervert or had committed murders that he never got caught for. This wouldn't necessarily "cancel" their friendship; people murder for complex and varied reasons, some more justified than others. The second thing might be that guy #2 has a deep-seated fear or hatred of whites that he can't overcome, even when he finds a white person who is OK.
Anyway, even if guy #2 did kill for "loyalty," it wouldn't be strictly loyalty unless he also killed himself. And it certainly wouldn't be loyalty if guy #1 had not _requested_ or consented to guy #2 killing him and had struggled to stay alive (struggle should give guy #2 a hint that guy #1 wants to live, and generally friends let their friends live if they want to).
2007-02-26 18:11:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The black guy assumed that they were both going to hell, and would see each other there.
Unfortunately, this question makes too many assumptions. We have to assume that they both believed in hell. We have to assume that he was thinking about going to hell for both of them. We have to assume that neither one of them could have been redeemed. The question itself assumes that all readers believe in hell also, and that at least one of them deserved to go there.
This might have been an easy question from a narrow-minded perspective, but not from an educated one. If neither of them were religious, then hell would not have been an issue, since hell is a religious concept.
As to the barber question, of course you go to the one who had the long hair, because the one with the short hair goes to him as well, since there are only two barbers. Obviously, the guy with the long hair doesn't trust the other one enough, so why would I?
2007-02-26 18:01:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
To be loyal, to have only what his friend would have, life in prison.
I used to get the same danged complex with my brother, odd, I didn't understand it at the time, it was just accepted between us.
You ask why he was happy, like I said, he is being loyal. He would feel terrible if he was free and his friend wasn't. He killed his friend to solve two problems, so that his friend wouldn't suffer in jail, and so that he would in his place.
'Ahh, the barber question, I'd choose the guy with the long hair, he can't even cut his own hair, so he has to cut it short. The other guy is more confident in his abilities, sure of what he can do.
2007-02-26 17:23:44 · answer #4 · answered by Scott and Friends 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
anyone can answer this question, can i say?
I believe the black guy can't bear the thoughts him leaving out for freedom while his friend will be suffering still inside the prison.
This is an act of agape. Self-sacrifice. Instead of him leaving for freedom, the black guy thought he might as well stay in prison and set his friend free. But it is a given fact that his friend wasn't going anywhere near freedom. So the black guy killed his friend to set him free in quiescent and sacrifice himself instead.
P.S Everyone, please take it easy on this poor guy. He has got an idea to point out.
2007-03-02 13:19:31 · answer #5 · answered by oscar c 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
hate to shatter your fragile world in which you are the 'supreme intelligence' but your wording is grammatically retarded as is your phrasing. perhaps you should learn a little more from your omnipotent (hope you know what that word is) teacher on how write in a comprehensible way instead of sounding a a pre-pubescent smart as$ that i would slap across the face harder than i would slap a $20 crack whore!
is that all you can do is to try, and i mean try, to misquote and misrepresent what your TEACHER is telling you? dont you have any original stories or scenarios of your own? what? cant make up any stupid screwed up uncohesive story that lacks any form of continuity, fictional scenario or even retarded fantasy?
i can tell you are very intelligent! in your own protective world in which you have spun a protective shell around you to prevent insults and criticism from reaching the inner core of your weak minded being.
too bad youre an idiot, i would have loved to have a face to face with you. i would eat you alive...but, i dont eat junk food!
2007-02-26 18:09:17 · answer #6 · answered by jkk k 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A better question would be, "Why the hell did people bother to answer this question?" It is moronic, hypothetical, and makes little sense, even if explained right the first time. So did you figure out how smart we are? Pffff.....moron. Your mom needs to get you out of those private schools.
2007-03-02 02:52:30 · answer #7 · answered by joshnya68 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only possible answer I could think of is, the need for companionship and over possessive nature of the dude might have cause this bizarre incident. If they're really best friends, and the dude who blew up shops was only seventeen, there's something wrong with him, probably mentally... obsessive compulsive neurotic!?
2007-02-26 17:28:49 · answer #8 · answered by Rae 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Did this come out of some text book? Or was it just something your teacher told you?
It's not based on any real jail since jails don't decide who is released. And they don't simply pick one criminal or the other to release. Only a judge and/or DA can dismiss charges and that would be based on one inmate's case.
I have a serious feeling you've got the story wrong - to one degree or the other.
2007-02-26 17:42:43 · answer #9 · answered by Daniel J 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He was worried about being released because then his friend would be on the inside alone. His worry was for his friend, not himself. By killing the friend, he erased the possibilty of his friend feeling lonely or the like. That nade him happy because it was his friend's feelings he was concerned about, not his own freedom.
The 'hell' answer assumes a Christian tenant of faith is truth. Not too savvy for a philosophy question. Not to mention you stated neither were religious.
2007-02-26 17:32:57 · answer #10 · answered by eschampion 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
if you want to see how smart people are then give the exact story your teacher gave.
you obviously go to a school for geniuses because your question was kinda genius, or not
nothing can be deduced from your question except that it was poorly written
2007-02-26 19:02:24 · answer #11 · answered by sahajrob 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋