which ones more important?
child dying as in murdered.
Printable View
which ones more important?
child dying as in murdered.
Child.
I know this person has already done some good by joining the military.
The child could grow up to be a murder, or something like that
A troop dying in Iraq obviously..
Every life is important and special so therefore I say both. That's basically the cowardly way out of answering properly. While it is true what corporal says, what's not to say that that murdered child could be the first person to invent a 100% cure for cancer without all the aggro of chemo/radiotherapy? You can't therefore it's unfair to really say an answer to this question. :P
A fully grown solider fighting for his country although a child would be bad for the parents. But then again, the soldier would also have a family.
probabilty is what you would need to go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inseriousity.
Its sort of like the
You can save your mums life, but you have to have sex with your dad.
Which to do?
Depends on the circumstances; but I'd go for the child.
hmm? i would say the child as the troops signed up for what there doing, they signed up knowing they could die - its part of the job.
the child
Neither, they're both useless as the troop is clearly useless and crap at his job if he died and the child is useless to society, they don't work and hardly pay any taxes.
Sorry my bad sense of humour... I don't really think you can choose between the two, two of the most important sectors of Society so they're obviously both important.
Edited by MattGarner (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude, even if you are posting it as a joke people may still take it as rude and offensive.
After saying that, i think you deserve it other them two!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordy
Even if you are joking its such a horrible thing to say!
Ask their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters etc etc! Neither in my opinion, as they are both of equal importance. A soldier could also be a parent.
Even if its a joke that's a terrible thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordy
It's not a bad thing to say, as he was cracking a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohirian
Just because its a "joke" doesnt mean that it was a ok thing to sayQuote:
Originally Posted by JOSH
Let the English die!
Nah, let the soldier die, I say. He signed up, he knew the risks he was taking and one of them was being killed. The child will also be able to live more of it's life.
I say a person in iraq
The Child obviously.
The soldiers know the risks they are taking joining the army, but I child dosn't exactly take the risks to get murdered to they?
Child.
Army dude going into the army knowing they could die, which is their own choice.
The child doesn't live to be killed, and doesn't do anything like go in to the army...
Child...
how do you know that the child wont go in the army?Quote:
Originally Posted by astonvilla
A child dying in a murder. I have plenty of friends that are in the army etc but that is part of signing up. To server and protect by force and possibilities of putting your life in danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomitsliiam
If you asked which is more significant id say the soldiers as they risk their lives for their country.
You can't really say 'Which is more important', thats just using there lifes as statistics or as points in a debate, each life is special and loss of any is just as important as the one before, or the million after.
Both are as important as each other. You cannot say one persons death is more important than another.
Yea, both are as important, but I would feel for the child most.
Well i would say troop in iraq because you didnt state what the child was or had done if a troop gets killed thats one more small step to loosing the war
anyway yeh the Kid shouldnt die because its not their fault they have been put in that situation however the soldier has chosen to put themselves in that position.
what about if the guy in iraq dies, then the kid grows up and joins the army :rolleyes:
child.
the soldier however signed up knowing he could die. though i suppose any death is bad
the soldier... he signed up and made the choice, but the child hasnt had any life yet
I think a child being murdered is more drastic,
As A, the child is defenceless and anyone being murdered is brutal.
B, The child could grow up to do great things, such as discover a cure for cancer!
Also, looking on the soldiers side, he is doing his job, not getting killed, but hes fighting for his country, and he will be ready for anything, and die a hero, whereas the child hasnt even had the chance.
IMO.
A child is more important my reasons are..
1. its a child..
2. when someone joins the army they know there is a risk of going to war and dieing and they accept this risk when they join, im not saying its correct when it does happen but they know the risks.
lol no my uncle was forced into army because he didn't have a job so it's not as if he signed up :l . i'd still say a child being murdered is more 'important'
Well a child because soldiers have lived longer and are more older so children should have the experience of life... if you get me