Subj : Re: Ethics test To : alt.tv.farscape From : John Iwaniszek Date : Sun Sep 11 2005 15:29:12 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Jim Larson wrote in news:Xns96CDEBA1559233v234oiwofui3284af93@130.133.1.18: > John Iwaniszek wrote: > >> Jim Larson wrote in >> news:Xns96CDE1EDCB6E23v234oiwofui3284af93@130.133.1.18: >> >>> Nick wrote: >>> >>>> Jim Larson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Trouble wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jim Larson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim Larson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nick wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim Larson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> weirdwolf wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> John Iwaniszek wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns96CD8EBB268E2joiwhnanri@66.26.32.7: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> weirdwolf wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns96CDBA1CAE389r73u67jw56nas@62.253.170.163: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ethics Test >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This test only has the one question, but it's a very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> important one. By giving an honest answer, you will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discover where you stand morally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The test features an unlikely, completely fictional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation in which you will have to make a decision. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> spontaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> each line. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all around you caused by a hurricane with severe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The situation is nearly hopeless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses and people swirling around you...some disappearing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> destructive fury. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suddenly you see a man floundering in the water. He is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the debris. You move closer... somehow the man looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's George W. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush! At the same time you notice that the raging waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are about to take him under... forever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have the two options: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can save the life of G.W.Bush, or you can shoot a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> death of one of the world's most powerful men. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So here's the question, and please give an honest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you select high contrast color film, or would you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> go with the classic simplicity of black and white? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd fish the moron out. Even a shit-heel deserves humane >>>>>>>>>>>>> treatment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah but John you are a liberal, probably after it happens >>>>>>>>>>>> people who weren't there and you've never heard of will go >>>>>>>>>>>> on tv saying how you didn't rescue anybody and that in fact >>>>>>>>>>>> you turned and ran like the big commie pinko that you >>>>>>>>>>>> really are. Ted >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And they will call themselves Rescue Boat Veterans for >>>>>>>>>>> Truth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (You know, that whole espisode still boggles the mind. You >>>>>>>>>>> have two individuals, both patricians for lack of a better >>>>>>>>>>> term. The first volunteers to serve during a time of war, >>>>>>>>>>> never mind his conduct during or after. The other hides >>>>>>>>>>> behind Daddy's trousers. Yet it's the first one that is >>>>>>>>>>> somehow vilified and called a coward 35 years later.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (Not to mention that joining the national guard is considered >>>>>>>>>> hiding behind daddy's trousers.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ((No. Joining the national guard then consistently failing to >>>>>>>>> show up with impunity is considered hiding behind daddy's >>>>>>>>> trousers. And are you seriously saying that serving in Texas >>>>>>>>> in any capacity was equivalent to serving in S.E. Asia?)) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (I don't remember typing that. I am saying that serving in >>>>>>>> Texas is better than leaving the country.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Kerry left the country...but didn't serve in S.E. Asia??? Now >>>>>>> I'm confused.) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In order of relative servitude, least to greatest >>>>>> >>>>>> Clinton signed up for ROTC, but then left the country, went to >>>>>> Russia, joined the British Communist party and organized other US >>>>>> draft dodgers for anti-war demonstrations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bush signed up, missed a physical, and had a tour just as easy as >>>>>> anyone serving in the Guard at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kerry served in SE Asia, wrote notes to himself about the war, >>>>>> but was smart enough not to demoralize the men he served with, >>>>>> went home and participated in rallies against the war. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Woohoo! >>>>> >>>>> (I still don't get how Clinton got into this.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I never really meant Clinton particularly. I just thought Bush did >>>> better joining the national guard than so many others did leaving >>>> the country. >>>> >>> >>> Ah...I disagree, sort of. Those who left because of genuine issues >>> of conscience are o.k. by me. Those who left not because of any real >>> conviction but because they were a) scared and b) could get away >>> with it are pond scum. I suspect Clinton, at least for the purposes >>> of this discussion, was leaning towards the scummy end of the pond. >>> >> >> Clinton had an academic deferrment. He didn't dodge the draft any >> more that Cheney did with his family deferrment, he was never drafted >> to begin with. He was studying abroad. What's magic about using a >> deferrment at a US school? > > Yes, he did nothing illegal. However, it is hardly as cut and dried as > that: > > http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp > > (Pardon the source, but it's a decent summary.) > > If you're going to apply a critial eye to Bush's ROTC service (or lack > thereof), it's only fair that the same level of scrutiny be applied to > Clinton. His behavior during the period was not entirely exemplary. > Teh Snopes article seems to be mixing fact with a lot of supposition. I'm way more inclined to give a poor, but hardworking and promising student a pass in this on what is not clearly "Unethical or morally reprhensible" (as Snopes seems to be inserting into the equation via weasle words) than I am the C student son of a rich connected politician. .