Subj : Re: Ethics test To : alt.tv.farscape From : Nick Date : Mon Sep 12 2005 03:47:20 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Jim Larson wrote: > 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. > Bush is a republican and therefore evil while Clinton, being a democrat, is incapable of wrongdoing. .