Discover Habbo's history
Treat yourself with a Secret Santa gift.... of a random Wiki page for you to start exploring Habbo's history!
Happy holidays!
Celebrate with us at Habbox on the hotel, on our Forum and right here!
Join Habbox!
One of us! One of us! Click here to see the roles you could take as part of the Habbox community!


Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 76
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    7,177
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    I would torture the baby, of course I would. I wouldn't think twice. I think almost everyone would say they would... of course, being put in that situation you may well find that you wouldn't be able to do it. I think I would though, I can be a cold and heartless ******* at times.

    As for question two, I would let them die fer sure. I wouldn't let myself die for the sake of others unless I was going to be seen as like, a full on hero for it.
    Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,405
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    I wouldn't be able to torture a baby. I'm guessing the deaths of the people of London would be pretty quick, so I would see torturing a baby as the worse option.

    The second question really depends on my circumstances. I mean I couldn't do that to my family but if I had no family, I'd possibly consider it. Put it like this, I'd be way more likely to agree to die to save others than to torture a baby. End of.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    4,183
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Couldnt even considering torturing the baby, thats just sick in the head, i would rather die.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    17,702
    Tokens
    60,948
    Habbo
    Habbic

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    I wouldn't be able to torture a baby. I'm guessing the deaths of the people of London would be pretty quick, so I would see torturing a baby as the worse option.

    The second question really depends on my circumstances. I mean I couldn't do that to my family but if I had no family, I'd possibly consider it. Put it like this, I'd be way more likely to agree to die to save others than to torture a baby. End of.
    1 life vs thousands, lol.

    Torturing the baby is the better option, not worse

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,832
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SauravG View Post
    Hitman, in the baby scenario, what would you do?



    My decision would be affected by many factors e.g. my age, who will die in the bomb? My family? Am I healthy or ill?

    What would you do in that situation?
    Torture the baby. The intrests of the thousands of people in London are greater than that of this one baby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Titch View Post
    Couldnt even considering torturing the baby, thats just sick in the head, i would rather die.
    Evidently you either didn't read the post properly or you don't understand this at all. Both options are sick - both options will result in something very nasty happening, but one must be chosen. You dying ISN'T an answer. You must choose to torture the baby or allow thousands of people to die (in painful ways aswell). If you don't want to answer the question then don't post, otherwise your post is utterly pointless.

    The whole idea is about morality: both are wrong, so you must act morally wrong but with good intentions (saving thousands of people, or not causing pain to a baby).
    Last edited by Hitman; 03-12-2009 at 03:33 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,405
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottish View Post
    1 life vs thousands, lol.

    Torturing the baby is the better option, not worse
    No because the baby isn't gonna die, it's just going to suffer. Quick death is better than that kind of suffering.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,832
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    No because the baby isn't gonna die, it's just going to suffer. Quick death is better than that kind of suffering.
    Remember those in London will experience pain. Many will die instantly, those who don't will have radiation poisoning and thus be in as much pain.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    17,702
    Tokens
    60,948
    Habbo
    Habbic

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    So you'd take the guilt of thousands of deaths being on your shoulder just to save one kid from some suffering.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    4,183
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitman View Post
    Torture the baby. The intrests of the thousands of people in London are greater than that of this one baby.

    Evidently you either didn't read the post properly or you don't understand this at all. Both options are sick - both options will result in something very nasty happening, but one must be chosen. You dying ISN'T an answer. You must choose to torture the baby or allow thousands of people to die (in painful ways aswell). If you don't want to answer the question then don't post, otherwise your post is utterly pointless.

    The whole idea is about morality: both are wrong, so you must act morally wrong but with good intentions (saving thousands of people, or not causing pain to a baby).
    I do understand the question.


    *REMOVED*

    Edited by invincible (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't make inappropriate comments
    Last edited by Hecktix; 03-12-2009 at 06:36 PM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,832
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titch View Post
    I do understand the question.*REMOVED*.
    From what you said before it appeared that you didn't, but what you've posted now shows you do.

    Your answers are interesting... first is different to everybody else's. Maybe so but many babies (children, men and women too) will be in a lot of pain and will die.

    They're dying because they don't have the organ, but if they do then they'll be fine.
    Last edited by Hecktix; 03-12-2009 at 06:37 PM.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •