December 6th, 2007 John
Question: This is an age old question, but one worth examining with some specificity. We all enjoy some level of basic intelligence, as well we have all come to accept how we look for the most part. If you were forced to make the choice, would you choose to be hideously ugly, or extremely stupid?
Now, when I say ugly I mean monstrously ugly. People will not want to be around you, children will be frightened of you, the weak of stomach will vomit at the sight of you. Most likely, nobody will ever want to touch you or even look at you. Your mental prowess will not increase, it will just stay how it was before.
When I say stupid though, I mean remarkably, notably, and memorably stupid. You would not be able to attend college, as you would have failed high school, middle school, and probably grade school. And it won’t be from learning disabilities. People will have a hard time enjoying a conversation with you, and you will be aware of this. Try as you might, it is impossible for you to become smarter, or learn pretty much anything beyond day to day trivialities for that matter, which will constantly frustrate you. You will be able to read, but very slowly and at a very low level. You’re level of physical attractiveness will stay the same as it was before.
In both of these cases, you will be aware of how you looked or how intelligent you were (depending on what you choose) before you made this decision.
Would this decision change if you only became marginally less smart or less attractive than you currently are? Let’s say you just lose 15 IQ points, or you gain 50 pounds and get some hideous oozing scars on your face. Would this change your decision of which attribute to sacrifice?
-John
john@addictedtowords.com
Posted in Questions, All | 2 Comments »
November 28th, 2007 John
Question: The other day while you were doing some lat pulldowns at 24 Hour Fitness, you met Gandalf, the wizard of Lord of the Rings fame. You are a fan of his work, and let him know. You and Gandalf strike up a friendship of sorts and later you end up dropping him off and picking him up at the airport one weekend when he is flying to a meeting with Glorfindel the elf (who is upset that all of his major accomplishments in the Lord of the Rings books were done by Arwen or Legolas in the movies). It was really no big deal, but Gandalf is incredibly appreciative and tells you that he “owes you large”. In exchange for your generosity, Gandalf offers to do a bit of magic for you. He tells you that he can conjure any five people, living or dead for a meal with you. However Gandalf, having that famous Wizards’ sense of humor, almost offhandedly mentions one major disclaimer: you must dine with these people at a McDonald’s that is infected with salmonella.* You know this, but cannot tell your 5 meal guests. It can be any meal at McDonald’s. You can Super Size or not, the choice is yours.
So these people will be conjured from wherever and then promptly taken to McDonald’s, which they probably be unhappy about, and then the unhappiness will be further accentuated when they unavoidably get violently sick. Needless to say, the opinion these 5 people have of you will most likely not be very high.
There are two ways to go about this, you could say “fuck it,” and decide it is worth subjecting them to unfortunate situations, as well as them having a low opinion of you and just invite the 5 people you most admire or want to dine with. Or you could bring the 5 people you dislike the most and constantly pester them throughout the meal and kick their shins under the table, all the while chuckling inside because you are subjecting them to salmonella and a shitty McDonald’s meal. There may be a third (or fourth) way to go about this, but I haven’t thought of them.
Who do you take on this meal, and would you make it breakfast, lunch, or dinner?
*If you happen to actually enjoy McDonald’s (or salmonella), substitute it with whatever restaurant you happen to particularly disdain (as well as your least favorite bacteria).
-John
john@addictedtowords.com
Posted in Questions, All | 7 Comments »
November 26th, 2007 John
Question: You are granted the ability to travel back to any point in time, any place in the world. You only get to do this once. You cannot travel to the future. You will spend exactly one day to your chosen place, no less time, and no more. You cannot explain your presence there to anybody, but you can talk to anybody you may run into. However, this comes with one major caveat, you cannot wear a stitch of clothing, nor can you cover yourself up with anything at any time. You cannot explain your nudity to anybody either. If you ever cover yourself or put on clothes, or attempt to explain your shocking (and possibly innapropriate) nakedness, you will be randomly thrust* somewhere in history, most likely to a medieval dungeon, where you will be tortured mercilessly.**
Where and when do you travel to in history?
Keep in mind temperature, the confusion you will cause if you are seen with your past self, the ridicule your past (and possibly future) self will face for that random day when they decided to be naked all day, and of which they have no memory of (as your past self was presumably somewhere else while your future self was around). These tenses are getting confusing, the point is: consider all the weird nuances time traveling can possibly cause.
*Pun intended.
**And you still won’t have clothes.
-John
john@addictedtowords.com
Posted in Questions, All | 3 Comments »
November 11th, 2007 John
Question: You are faced with having to choose one of the following three vehicles:
- A tank
- A Ferrari
- A laser beam truck
In a tank you are the safest of the three. If need be, you can run over almost anything or anybody. The tank has weapons, but you need somebody else to operate them while you are driving. The tank can carry more than the other two vehicles. The tank is however, the slowest of these three vehicles, and only comes in a shade of brown that is in the tope/cochise family.
A Ferrari is the fastest, and the most stylish, but the least safe. You can pick any Ferrari, but it must be red, further advertising its speed. The Ferrari cannot run over anything, as it is very low, nor can you carry much of anything.
A laser beam truck is exactly what it sounds like, a truck with laser beams which can be used to burn things in your way, or also to make cool Pink Floyd laser shows.. The laser beam truck is the median in speed, safety, cargo room, and ability to run things over of these three. It’s lasers are it’s defining feature. You can get the laser beam truck in any color you wish.
Do not worry about gas mileage or pollution of any of these vehicles. Let’s presume, for the sake of this scenario, that they all exist in a world where global warming is not (and never will be) an issue. As well, all three of these will be new, not second hand. Which do you choose?
-John
john@addictedtowords.com
Posted in Questions, All | 3 Comments »
November 9th, 2007 John
Question: Put aside whatever you may believe, and let’s say for a moment that everything the Bible says is real. Jesus is all he is thought to be by the most vociferous, strident Christian the world has ever seen. As well, we all are strongly Christian, we believe in every bit of Christianity with every ounce of our being.* Now, let’s imagine that being a good Christian, you have found a wonderful spouse and gotten married. Once you were married and it was kosher** to have sex you wasted no time, and immediately had a baby. The pregnancy and birth went splendidly and you are now the proud parent of a perfectly healthy baby. You love this baby more than you thought it was possible to love something. You couldn’t be happier, your family is perfect.
Without warning, Jesus shows up and tells you that you have to toss your baby in a dumpster. Jesus says nothing of what will happen to your baby, nor does He give an explanation as to why you should do this. Maybe your baby will die in that dumpster, hopelessly crying out it’s short life. Maybe a roving band of street urchins will find your baby, and raise it as a pickpocket, only to be a lifelong transient. Maybe a very well off and morally sound family will find this baby and raise it, giving it more opportunities in life than you could have, maybe in this case your baby ends up becoming the President of the United States and uses it’s position of power to end global warming and world hunger. Maybe Jesus himself will scoop up your baby out of the dumpster and teach it to become his sidekick. You just don’t know what will happen to your baby.
Remember though, this is (as you believe) your Lord Jesus, who died for your sins, whose word you must accept without question. Do you follow Jesus instructions and toss your baby in the dumpster out back? Do you trust the fact that you have been a good Christian in your life, and Jesus will make sure your baby is alright? Or do you follow your heart (and your parenting instincts) and keep your baby? Do you glance down at your WWJD bracelet and realize that what Jesus would do is keep his family together?*** Keep in mind if you were to keep your baby, this is like a slap in the face to Jesus. Supposedly, you love Jesus above all, by keeping your baby you are admitting that you love your baby more, and are living a lie, almost certainly condemning you to Hell. Once in Hell you will be burned and taunted mercilessly for all of eternity. As well, while you are alive, the rest of the world (who, remember, is fiercely Christian) will shun you as a sinner and a traitor.
What, pray tell, do you do?
*I won’t get into the mess this would cause.
**Am I funny or what?
***While Dan Brown would have you believe Jesus had a wife and a baby on the way, I, quite frankly, have not put much thought into the subject. I make the above speculation based on Jesus preaching love and family values.
-John
john@addictedtowords.com
Posted in Questions, All, Uncategorized | 83 Comments »
November 8th, 2007 John
Question: We all like to think that we are nice generous people. Rarely do you ever hear of somebody boasting the fact that they are not generous and would not help out another human being. In that vein, most of us would jump at the chance to help out thousands, if not millions of human beings. To what extent though, would you go to do this? What personal sacrifices would you allow to help out a very large amount of people?
Let’s take the classic case of curing cancer. If you could cure cancer, how far would you go to do so? Let’s assume you somehow have no chance whatsoever of developing cancer, so you personally stand to gain nothing from curing cancer. You will only be helping other people, not yourself. It’s probably (hopefully) safe to assume that most people would give up a creature comfort to cure cancer. You would probably give up your favorite food for the rest of your life. You would likely give up your favorite hobby for the rest of your life. Would you make larger personal sacrifices though? Would you give up listening to music for the rest of your life? How about sex? Or the love of your life? Would you give up one of your senses? How about 20 IQ points? Would you live the rest of your life as in excruciating pain? Would you end your life today if it would cure cancer?
Let’s involve other people now. If you were forced to murder an innocent (and presumably very cute) 5 year old to cure cancer, would you? You have to murder them first hand, with an axe. You have to look into this child’s innocent face before you behead them. Would you do it to cure cancer forever? Would you molest this same child if it would cure cancer? I ask these questions, not to be gratuitously violent or perverted, but because they are difficult questions. It makes most people uncomfortable to think about murdering or molesting an innocent child, and that’s exactly the point. How much discomfort are YOU willing to put up with, and also how much discomfort would you be willing to subject an undeserving person to if it meant that you could cure cancer forever? Remember, you would save countless lives.
If you have gotten this far, saying you would do these things to cure cancer, would you still do them even if you got no credit for curing cancer? Or how about the opposite, how about if you somehow ended up being thought of as a commonly hated figure, on the level of Hitler? Would this change your decisions on how far you would go to cure cancer?
-John
john@addictedtowords.com
Posted in Questions, All, Uncategorized | 5 Comments »