Subj : Re: Ethics test To : alt.tv.farscape From : John Iwaniszek Date : Sun Sep 11 2005 20:12:50 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Jim Larson wrote in news:Xns96CE67E45551D3v234oiwofui3284af93@130.133.1.18: > John Iwaniszek wrote: > >> 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. >>> >> >> Hmmm. Preferenial treatment to allow a rich drunken wastrel to avoid >> the draft vs. preferential treatment to allow a poor Rhodes scholar >> to complete his education. I get it! It's exactly the same thing! > > Is that what I said? No. > > I said both deserved to have their wartime record analyzed critically. > The conclusion one derives from that analysis is beside the point. > > While you may have known the details of Clinton's deferment history > inside out, your earlier posts failed to even hint at this. Instead it > gave the strong impression of allowing him a free pass when clearly > the issue is muddier than a simple academic deferment. > > That said, of course it's not the same thing. Of the two, Bush's > behavior during that period is far more suspect. > > (P.S. I thought Clinton was a well-meaning, competent president. I > disliked his little character flaws enough that I wouldn't want to > know him personally, but that was incidental to his ability to do the > job...up to a point. It did, of course, provide fuel for his critics > that really shouldn't have been that readily available. On the other > hand, I think Bush is a compassionless, trained chimp.) > Trained? .