What do you do anons?

What do you do anons?

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/31Ffd8Xa
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>politics and current events

>book
>cover
>judging the former by the latter

I tell the guy that if he doesn't holster his gun I'll pull the pin and kill us all, then ask if he'd rather just put the gun away and we can all forget about this regrettable incident.

Because that's how nuclear deterrence works. Rational actors tend to favor self-preservation and will reconsider a first strike if a nasty retaliatory strike is guaranteed.

Depends which room I'm in.

That's a stupid hypothetical for the situation, because in the case of nuclear weapons the other guy is holding a grenade too. The point of you having a grenade ready to set off is so that the other guy knows that if he shoots you, he'll die anyway, and you know that if you shoot him, you'll die anyway.

Ideally, yes, everyone could just put their grenades and guns down and hug it out. But what if, when you put your grenade down, the other guy shoots you in the face and takes your gun and grenade for himself, and uses them to hold the rest of the room hostage. You don't want that, because the other guy has a lot of ideas that are pretty far removed from what you consider normal and decent.

So you hold onto the grenade for now. Over time, you build up a bit of trust with the other guy, because hey, neither of you have shot each other in the past 60 minutes, so maybe no one wants to die. You get a smaller grenade as a show of good faith, and the other guy does the same thing. Eventually maybe you won't need a grenade at all.

But now, suddenly, the other guy has started forcing some of your friends to hang out with him, he's knocked a little kid's paper airplane out of the sky, and he's upgraded from a revolver to a semi-automatic pistol, along with a bunch of other shady shit.

Maybe now isn't the best time to be thinking about downsizing your grenade again.

Pull the pin in a room full of Muslims, BLM people, and liberals.

I sage and report a shitty slide thread.

Yeah but working on the assumption this man isn't going to listen to you, and is instead going to shoot you regardless of what you have to say.

Do you pull the pin?

Its just a room filled with civilians, miscellaneous ones.

Not at all. This isn't an choice about having a deterrent or not. It's about retaliation. Would you retaliate or would you not, even if retaliation meant killing civilians too?

I agree, this is entirely at the very end of the whole nuclear weapons debate, but I'm not arguing for or against having a deterrent, or trying to force a point at all. I just want to know whether people would retaliate or not. It's a personal question of morality, nothing more.

>Pull pin
>Hold lever down
>Inform him how this works and that if he shoots me, it's him killing everyone in the room not me

if you don't pull it you're a cuck

>"You have two options. Pull the pin, or-"
*sound of pin hitting floor*
:^) gg

...

Well I guess, but not really. Those other people may not have died had you not pulled the pin.

You will be at least somewhat responsible for those people's death, is it still a decision you want to make? and why?

Because it's the best chance at self preservation. If he's a suicidal cunt that doesn't care about his life or the lives of his friends then at least I'll take him with me.

What this faggot said.

I will then be sure that I'm taking the gun guy with me.

Fuck yeah I'd pull the pin, if I'm going to die for some bullshit reason someone else is gonna get stiffed too

>the room itself is damaged and will take years to restore

why isnt this a home depot questionnaire?

He's going to shoot you regardless of what you say or do - but you're the one making the choice to pull the pin and kill everyone in the room too.

Is that what you would choose to do?

Read the chain following that message and then tell me why you make your decision! I'm really interested.

Even if it means killing a bunch of civilians too?

It's meant to represent the damage nuclear bombs can do to the environment. Its a loose example, sure, but I felt like it needed to be included.

Yes; even if unsuccessful he needs to know that if he kills me, he and everyone he cares about dies too. He sure as shit isn't going to get away with it.

nuclear fallout affects decades

an explosion localize in a room can by rebuilt in a few weeks

If he dares to take my life, I'll take his in exchange, at any cost.

That's why I'll be waiting ti'll he shoots me and I let go the grenade.

That's kinda an interesting morality, myself I don't think I would pull the pin. I don't personally see the point in more deaths to avenge my own.

thanks for the answers!

Sure does.

>Pulling the pin detonates the grenade

Jesus christ these fucking faggots need to visit /k/ more. Pulling the pin makes it armed, not ready to explode. Releasing the lever makes it ready to explode.

The smart thing here is pulling the pin and holding the lever down. If he shoots you, you'll release the handle and blow him the fuck up. If not, you'll just hold the handle long enough to throw it in a safe direction after the escalation has calmed down. You'll win anyway.

Make sure that room is a mosque and pull the pin.

I'm aware of how grenades work, and that's why I wrote it the way I wrote it. It literally says in the picture "it wont detonate unless you pull the pin AND RELEASE THE LEVER"

Perhaps you should read first before you get all antsy and autistic about stuff.

And again, the man is going to shoot you regardless of what you do. You will die in that room. The decision you have to make is to arm the grenade and have it kill the gunman and the people in the room when you die, or not arm the grenade.

All I want to know is what your choice is and why?

nope, you're locked in that room with those random miscellaneous people.

>Even if it means killing a bunch of civilians too?
Yes, unfortunately a preventative measure only works if you're willing to go through with it
I don't want to kill anyone, if we nuke a country in response then as far as I'm concerned the deaths are on the hands of the original aggressor

That's an interesting logic for sure. Thanks for the discussion!

That is on the assumption he pulls the trigger anyways. I know in your scenario he would, but myself within the confines of that scenario could not know this was the case. As such, Id utilize the grenade to protect my life and subsequently everyone elses as I would assume he would hurt the other people too if he could.


Now if I somehow for sure knew hed kill me anyways, and I had to pick between those two choices, I suppose I would let him shoot me, but on the condition I gave the grenade to someone else - if he decides to go after the others, they can kill him then. He has to die.

If I'm going to die anyway (and I think we can relatively safely assume here that it'll be a quick death either way), I would not use the grenade. There's no sense in killing a bunch of innocent people just to get the person who would have shot you.

The metaphor is shit.

A better one would be both the other person and I holding both a pistol and a grenade. In this scenario both people are pointing the gun at the other while also holding the grenade so that when shot it kills everyone. The point of this is that without the gernade someone would have already shot the other, but with the gernades they'd both be forced to do nothing, hence WWII (no grenade) and WWIII (both have grenades, WWIII has not happened)

Interesting, and I agree with everything you said, you can't know these things and you can't know if the man will shoot others after you. Nice reasoning dude.

Yeah this is my answer pretty much.

You're missing the point of the metaphor then calling it shit.

It's not about the debates of whether having nuclear arms is a good thing or not, or why WWIII hasn't happened at all. It's a question of personal morality, and whether you think that you could be responsible for a retaliatory strike or not, even if it means killing civilians.

It's a hypothetical question designed purely to look at your morality, instead of trying to climb out of the box, just answer the question. What would you do?

...

when are we going to finish developing the N2 bombs? would it be a good idea to have nukes that had minimal nuclear fallout?

Why not just use missiles that don't rely on nuclear materials at all, but still have a large explosive yield?

I'd pull the pin; better to kill a predator and a few sheep than just letting the predator go free and kill more sheep whenever he wants. If there is no discouragement from being a predator than everyone is at risk, not just the collateral damage.

I'd pull the pin & let him decide what happens next.

You're a fucking idiot. Reread the OP.

Scream - alah akbar (soo the media can target mudslims) and pull the fucking pin

see you in hell ,degenerates

PS: PRAISE KEK

pull the pin, for it shall please the one true God, Allah

that's what an N2 bomb is. stands for Non-Nuclear bomb. High explosive yield and powerful EMP, but no radioactivity.

Nuking Mecca
>We cannot be safe unless Islam is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps: (4) The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Moslem states and our dependence on their oil reserves is forcibly to seize the oil fields in the Middle East. (6) Totally destroying several Moslem holy sites, including Mecca and Medina. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Allah is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence.
pastebin.com/31Ffd8Xa

I tell him to make my fucking day, and hold my fingers over the pin.

One thing to be added using the analogy
You cannot be certain of the shooter's intention afterwards. (As in the Trident scenario) He could just repeat the executions on everyone else he doesn't like.
It then become clearer, pulling the pin is the only option.

>this is essentially the trident argument
No it isn't that scenario is in no way the same as MAD. I want to fucking kill whoever made it.

Pull the pin. If he lives, he can kill everyone else in the room and then go to another room and do the same thing.

Considering I am in a country where it takes years to rebuild a room that was damaged by a grenade, I'm going to go ahead and pull the pin. I'm sure the world will be much better off

More like

>There's two rooms filled with people
>A guy in the other room pulls the pin on a grenade and says "I'm going to throw this at you in 10 seconds", killing you and everyone in your room
>Do you pull the pin on your own grenade and kill him and everyone in his room?

And the my answer is:
This is an irrelevant question, because I only have the grenade to stop him from throwing his.