The Swordfish Mentality

[dcentity2000]

Named after the film that embodied it, the Swordfish Mentality is the literal enforcement of the "greatest good" principal.

Basically;

Terrorists bomb a school. We level ten in their home country. They blow up an embassy, we nuke a city. Basically, we make the cost of terrorism too great to contemplate.

Would you be able to enforce the Swordfish Mentality? Imagine that peace was offered you to the country - if you killed an innocent child.

Could you do it? It's all about sacrifice, people!



Rich::

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Named after the film that embodied it, the Swordfish Mentality is the literal enforcement of the "greatest good" principal.

Basically;

Terrorists bomb a school. We level ten in their home country. They blow up an embassy, we nuke a city. Basically, we make the cost of terrorism too great to contemplate.

Would you be able to enforce the Swordfish Mentality? Imagine that peace was offered you to the country - if you killed an innocent child.

Could you do it? It's all about sacrifice, people!



Rich::

I was following you until that last part. Can you clarify??

 

[dcentity2000]

I was following you until that last part. Can you clarify??

Yeah, my English is suffering tonight - sorry people!

The Swordfish Mentality is all about sacrificing something noble to achieve something noble. The question is:

You are offered world peace. The penalty is that you would have to kill one innocent child in order to achieve it. Could you kill that child?



Rich::

 

[Cool-Beans]

Absolutely. I wouldn't even bat an eye.

The only way to have peace is to make the idea of war so horrible that nobody wants to get involved.

I can't believe someone made a whole movie explaining the obvious.

We've seen the result of weakness. And it drags on and on. We continue seeing it every day. And it will get worse.

Before it is over, someone has to LOSE and someone has to WIN. Someone has to beat the enemy. Not a popular idea here in America, though.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

No. I can't even imagine that mentality.

 

[teacups]

No.

Thou shalt not kill.

 

[teacups]

Absolutely. I wouldn't even bat an eye.

The only way to have peace is to make the idea of war so horrible that nobody wants to get involved.

I can't believe someone made a whole movie explaining the obvious.

We've seen the result of weakness. And it drags on and on. We continue seeing it every day. And it will get worse.

Before it is over, someone has to LOSE and someone has to WIN. Someone has to beat the enemy. Not a popular idea here in America, though.

I'm not judging you, so get all PO'd at me... ok? I just HAVE to ask: Do you have children of your own?

 

[LisaL]

I don't mean to be difficult, really. But people kill innocent kids: war, neglect, violence, starvation, disease... not to mention the "might makes right" crowd.

Wouldn't it be a sacrifice if the decision maker had to kill his/her own rather than "a child?"

 

[Cool-Beans]

I'm not judging you, so get all PO'd at me... ok? I just HAVE to ask: Do you have children of your own?

I have four. ETA: One is technically not a child anymore, away at college. I don't know what to answer anymore.

If you don't kill the child, millions of other children die. So, basically, if you don't suck it up, you've killed millions of children.

The next question that gets asked is, "Would you kill your own child?" Nope.

But the flip side of the extension is that it is basically the same thing. You don't kill the other side, you end up dead.

These aren't new ideas. They've been around as long as man has existed.

 

[ZuZugal]

Yeah, my English is suffering tonight - sorry people!

The Swordfish Mentality is all about sacrificing something noble to achieve something noble. The question is:

You are offered world peace. The penalty is that you would have to kill one innocent child in order to achieve it. Could you kill that child?



Rich::

How is killing an innocent child sacrificing something noble?

I'd kill myself first.

 

[JMD]

I voted no. I couldn't kill a child under any circumstances.

On a separate note, I don't pursue world peace either. Peace is just the absence of conflict,which isn't anything without freedom.

 

[teacups]

Before I had kids, I may have been hard enough to say, yea, kill the kid. BUT, now, hormonal motherhood would cause me to flip my lid at the very idea.

THAT is why women should run things. I can flip my lid AND fix the world.


(Still NOT judging you. I understand totally. Just cant agree anymore.)

 

[Cool-Beans]

The next question that gets asked is, "Would you kill your own child?"

Wouldn't it be a sacrifice if the decision maker had to kill his/her own rather than "a child?"

See, it got asked before I even got my post up.

Then it gets extended to war.

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

How is killing an innocent child sacrificing something noble?

I'd kill myself first.

You answered your own question. By being the "innocent", the child is noble.
To answer the question, yes. I agree with Cool-Beans...which actually happens from time to time. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Would I like it? No. Would I think it sucks? Yes.

 

[dcentity2000]

How is killing an innocent child sacrificing something noble?

I'd kill myself first.

So would I.

Please excuse my English though, I'm not doing too well tonight! I was implying that the life of the child was the noble thing, the question being can you bring yourself to terminate the noble thing, ie. the life?



Rich::

 

[Cool-Beans]

Before I had kids, I may have been hard enough to say, yea, kill the kid. BUT, now, hormonal motherhood would cause me to flip my lid at the very idea.

THAT is why women should run things. I can flip my lid AND fix the world.


(Still NOT judging you. I understand totally. Just cant agree anymore.)

Your "hormones" or "kindness" murders not one, but a million children.

 

[Cool-Beans]

How is killing an innocent child sacrificing something noble?

I'd kill myself first.

That doesn't get you off the hook. Your action will cause a million children to die. You either kill the kid, or a million kids die. Killing yourself just means you aren't around to see the dead kids who died because of your inability to do what had to be done. They still die.

 

[Cool-Beans]

So would I.

And by doing so, you've killed all those children.

 

[ZuZugal]

You answered your own question. By being the "innocent", the child is noble.
To answer the question, yes. I agree with Cool-Beans...which actually happens from time to time. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Would I like it? No. Would I think it sucks? Yes.

Would YOU do it??

 

[ZuZugal]

That doesn't get you off the hook. Your action will cause a million children to die. You either kill the kid, or a million kids die. Killing yourself just means you aren't around to see the dead kids who died because of your inability to do what had to be done. They still die.

You are correct. But when I get where I'm goin' after I'm dead then I only have to answer for myself.....The question: Have you ever killed another human being? The answer: no