Skip Navigation

Severe moral dilemma!

Travel Forums Off Topic Severe moral dilemma!

Page

Last Post

21. Posted by wouterrr (Travel Guru 3379 posts) 9y

Quoting tway

Quoting Brendan

what happens when we run out of baby bunnies?

Kittens. Actually, I think we should start with the kittens.

there are also a lot of sweet puppies I like to see slaughtered systematically

22. Posted by wotthefiqh (Inactive 1447 posts) 9y

Quoting beavis

I cant go into detail, but I KNOW the Easter Bunny excists

I'm sorry Beavis, but my best mate Smeagol had the Easter Bunny with a nice chianti just 2 hours ago.
God those wabbits cause flatulence something chronic, so Smeg has been locked out for the night.
Don't tell Butt-Head just yet. Think about it and break it to him gently.

Bit like Watership Down.
You've read the book.
You've seen the movie.
Now try the stew.

23. Posted by wouterrr (Travel Guru 3379 posts) 9y

hey beavis, where is butt-head....

24. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 9y

Quoting wouterrr

how many bunnies represent one human being, I ask once again!

I don't think you can compare the two. Life is life.

25. Posted by wouterrr (Travel Guru 3379 posts) 9y

Quoting Brendan

Quoting wouterrr

how many bunnies represent one human being, I ask once again!

I don't think you can compare the two. Life is life.

I think a human being is more important then some bunny. we are at the top of the foodchain. and besides, we even eat the animals and put them in cages, is that good?

26. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 9y

What does the food chain have to do with worth of life?

27. Posted by wouterrr (Travel Guru 3379 posts) 9y

Quoting Brendan

What does the food chain have to do with worth of life?

no idea
still haven't heard a satisfying answer
btw the amount of carbon dioxides would become lower together with current environmental policy, so the environment improves as well. so at the end this measure would be less necessary and so less bunnies.

[ Edit: Edited on May 1, 2007, at 3:51 PM by wouterrr ]

28. Posted by Gelli (Travel Guru 2457 posts) 9y

Geli, I am surprised u agree, with aeroplane travel,

Erm..... I'm sorry, but I really have to ask.
What the frickin heck makes you think I agree with aeroplane travel????????

Gelli, I'm not sure 50% of the world would be unemployed, as it would make commute times minimal AND would allow people in developing countries work elsewhere in the world, food would be cheaper because it wouldn't need transporting,

Sure. Anybody could work anywhere.

But my point is that huge swathes of jobs/professions would no longer exist. Food would be much cheaper. Actually, it would be free. People would go and take what they wanted and there's no easy way to stop them. Why buy food when you can go and get it for free from a shop/house/field in a country on the other side of the world. The entire financial system would collapse more or less entirely. It could not survive. There would be NO incentive to make/build ANYTHING, because you have no way of keeping it or selling it.

Actually, i'd be inclined to revise my estimate of 50% up to maybe 98%+ unemployment.

and tourism would be more accessible to people who couldn't ordinarily afford it, places may get flooded with people[/quote

Real Armchair travel would exist, and part of me loves the idea of watching the sun go down over the Sahara, for example, sitting on my own armchair or in my own bed...

[quote]but if it was busy just teleport somewhere else for awhile, by a secluded lake or the top of a mountain....

If anybody could go anywhere instantaneously, how many secluded lakes or mountain tops do you really think would exist?? In todays world, it's hard enough to find them, let alone offering 6billion (give or take) people free access to anywhere.

[ Edit: Edited on May 2, 2007, at 8:42 AM by Gelli ]

29. Posted by Mr Gee (Budding Member 91 posts) 9y

Food would be much cheaper. Actually, it would be free. People would go and take what they wanted and there's no easy way to stop them. Why buy food when you can go and get it for free from a shop/house/field in a country on the other side of the world.

Am i the only person that struggles to see the downside of this? call me crazy, but i think feeding people all over the world for free would be a good thing to do, and to be fair, i'd rather do that than live in a world driven by consumerism and profit making.

[ Edit: Edited on May 2, 2007, at 9:26 AM by Mr Gee ]

30. Posted by Mr Gee (Budding Member 91 posts) 9y

You'd have 500,000+ people all teleporting inside Fort Knox to try and steal the gold, let alone anything else. Nothing would be safe. You could teleport in and steal Nuculear weapons, just like that, and then teleport somewhere else, leave it to explode in 5seconds, and still be safely on the otherside of the world when it went off. Prisons and law would be irrelevant. How the feck do you catch a murderer in London who is only at the scene for 3seconds, leaves no trace except a bullet wound, having come from Tokyo, dumped the gun somewhere in Alaska and being in Buenos Aires barely 10seconds after leaving Japan? a
And Plunder (and to please Phil, Rape and Pilage) would be enormous.

bit dramatic don't you think? do you REALLY think people in this world are THAT fucked up? haha if so, maybe its not a good idea to leave your house, let alone travel the world! gulp!