Hypothetical: Ridding the world of evil people.

[Rain Man]

In light of your amazing contributions to a football bulletin board, you have been deemed a person with a very high understanding of humanity. (This is hypothetical if that's not already obvious.)

As a result, some higher power has approached you for help. You may assume that this higher power is someone you respect and will not turn down, whether it's God, the Illuminati, Batman, The Global Commission To Make The World A Better Place, aliens, the Teamsters, dolphins, or some other group. It doesn't matter to me.

You are given the following assignment:

1. Develop up to 10 yes/no questions that everyone in the world must answer truthfully.
2. Define a "cutoff score" where people scoring below (or above) a certain level will be categorized as non-contributing members of the world. They will suddenly cease to exist.

The rules:

A. For your ethical purposes, you may assume that some time travel or divine intervention ensures they were never born, or if you prefer ... public executions. But let's go with the most humane route that doesn't make you a mass murderer.

B. Questions may be worded any way you wish. They can be negative ("Have you ever stolen something from someone else's house?"), they can be positive ("Have you ever helped a stranger in a broken-down car?), they can be value-laden ("Do you believe in the Hindu god Vishnu?), they can be attitudinal ("Do you approve of pedophilia"?), they can be attributes ("Are you under 5 feet tall?"), they can be oddly specific ("Are you a Denver Bronco?"), they can be whatever you want as long as they're yes/no questions.

C. You can have anywhere from 1 to 10 questions. Your call.

D. People get 1 point for every yes, and 0 points for every no. You can define a minimum passing score or a maximum passing score depending on how you word your questions. For example, you can define 10 questions about positive traits and anyone getting less than 9 points is gone, or you can define 4 questions about negative traits and anyone getting more than 2 points is gone. You get to design it.

E. Recognize that once you set the scoring, the people who fail your test will cease to exist. No exceptions to the rule. If your mom fails, she's gone right along with those Taliban leaders. And if you arrange questions to save your sister the crack whore, maybe her pimp will get saved, too. This is a standardized test.

F. Recognize that you have to take the test, too.

With those rules, what are your questions, what scores will let people survive, and what percent of the population do you think will cease to exist?

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Your questions still allow too much leeway.

They are all yes or no questions that must be answered truthfully. Where do you see leeway in that?

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That still leaves too much leeway. For instance:

"Should you refrain from causing unnecessary harm, both physical and psychological, to other living beings?"

Normal good guy answer: Yes, that's bad and you shouldn't do it.

Normal bad guy answer: No, I hurt people even if it's unnecessary because it's expedient.

Psychotic answer: Yes, I should refrain from doing things, but I don't because I'm not concerned with what I should or shouldn't do.

Yeah, it seems like our questions need to concentrate on whether they behave in the manner we want rather than do they know right from wrong.

Since they have to answer truthfully, we could also ask attitude questions or future behavior questions, e.g., "would you rape a child if the opportunity arose". We'd just have to word any attitude questions very carefully, because if people answer truthfully you might catch a bunch of people who occasionally have evil thoughts but would never act on them.

Of course, maybe a person's definition is that having a single evil thought in an area qualifies a person for removal, and that's allowable under the rules.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

1. Do you believe all atheists are bad people? No
2. Have you ever given money/food to someone in need when nobody was watching? Yes
3. Have you ever intentionally harmed an animal outside of a hunting situation? No
4. If you found a wallet/purse that contained $500, would you attempt to find the owner and return all of their money? Yes
5. Have you ever inappropriately touched a child? No
6. If you saw someone stealing from someone you didn't know, would you attempt to stop them or call the police? Yes
7. If it was legal, would you kill someone because their religious beliefs were different than yours? No
8. Have you ever been moved to tears by a song, movie, or play? No
9. Have you ever farted inside a pen elevator full of people just before exiting? No
10. Are you a fan of the Denver Broncos or Oakland Raiders? No

The bolder answers earn 1 point. If someone scores below a 7, they are to be sent to Brazil where they have to complete what I call the Devil's triathlon. They have to swim two miles in a river, bike 30 miles through the Brazilian ghettos with $1,000 dollars taped to their body, and run 15 miles through the rainforest covered in human blood. If they survive the triathlon, they are forgiven for being an evil person and allowed to return to society.

Good list, good list. But I have a question. I've stepped on a fair number of spiders in my day, and more cockroaches than I care to admit. So I have to answer yes on #3?

[Rain Man]

I also wonder if you have to go off past behavior, or otherwise you're going to take a bunch of innocent children. For example, a question like "Would you take something that's not yours purely for your own satisfaction or enjoyment" seems like a good question, but that's going to cost a point to four year-olds who don't know yet know that's right or wrong.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Good list, good list. But I have a question. I've stepped on a fair number of spiders in my day, and more cockroaches than I care to admit. So I have to answer yes on #3?

Spiders and cockroaches aren't animals. Insects are fair game.

[Indian Chief]

A pedophile doesn't think there is anything inappropriate about the way they touch that child. So "truthfulness" doesn't mean you get the answer you want.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Spiders and cockroaches aren't animals. Insects are fair game.

We'd better hope that an adherent of Jain doesn't get tapped to design the questions.

I wonder now if the animal question really should be, "If you kill another living creature, do you do it in the most humane way that is practical?" That would cover me killing a fly and being glad it's dead or a farmer killing a cow when he's really looking forward to having a steak.

I'm definitely infusing my own values into that question, though.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Indian Chief

A pedophile doesn't think there is anything inappropriate about the way they touch that child. So "truthfulness" doesn't mean you get the answer you want.

Very good point. How about "Have you ever touched a child for your own enjoyment in a manner that caused harm to the child?"

That would cost a point to a bunch of tickling uncles, though I personally believe that tickling uncles deserve it.

My wording too would cause a bunch of questions, though I'll defend it. If a hot teacher has sex with a student, it would only count if the student was harmed. It wouldn't count if the student was not harmed. Is that reasonable? (And by harm, I would count both physical and psychological.)

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

They are all yes or no questions that must be answered truthfully. Where do you see leeway in that?

right back at you. You didn't put much though into your list.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

1. Do you believe all atheists are bad people? No

A Christian may view everyone as "bad", even themselves, without accepting Jesus in order to cleanse away Original Sin. That doesn't mean they are going to do anything to you. That just means that they hold an opinion. Nothing evil about that

2. Have you ever given money/food to someone in need when nobody was watching? Yes

Some people have never had that opportunity.

3. Have you ever intentionally harmed an animal outside of a hunting situation? No

There are legitimate times where you may harm an animal outside of a hunting situation. I've had to put two dogs to sleep. I've been attacked by a neighbor's Doberman and had to use my bicycle as a weapon. I've used rodent traps when field mice infested our home after a particularly harsh rainy season.

4. If you found a wallet/purse that contained $500, would you attempt to find the owner and return all of their money? Yes

Use the standard "starving person steals a loaf of bread to feed their children" morals exercise for this one.

5. Have you ever inappropriately touched a child? No

It's the same as a "should you" question. You are asking the respondent to determine appropriateness.

6. If you saw someone stealing from someone you didn't know, would you attempt to stop them or call the police? Yes

Depends on the situation, depends on my relationship with the local police force, depends on the corruption level of the local police force.

7. If it was legal, would you kill someone because their religious beliefs were different than yours? No

I would say "no."

8. Have you ever been moved to tears by a song, movie, or play? No

Did you mean "yes"? Because, if not, you are describing psychotic behavior.

9. Have you ever farted inside a pen elevator full of people just before exiting? No

Not evil.

10. Are you a fan of the Denver Broncos or Oakland Raiders? No

Not worth examining.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by listopencil

right back at you. You didn't put much though into your list.

A Christian may view everyone as "bad", even themselves, without accepting Jesus in order to cleanse away Original Sin. That doesn't mean they are going to do anything to you. That just means that they hold an opinion. Nothing evil about that If you think someone is "bad", even yourself, based on any religious views or practices, you are evil.

Some people have never had that opportunity. Valid point

There are legitimate times where you may harm an animal outside of a hunting situation. I've had to put two dogs to sleep. I've been attacked by a neighbor's Doberman and had to use my bicycle as a weapon. I've used rodent traps when field mice infested our home after a particularly harsh rainy season. Putting dogs to sleep is a kindness, not harm. Killing mice us hunting them. Self defense against an aggressive dog is a valid point.

Use the standard "starving person steals a loaf of bread to feed their children" morals exercise for this one. Stealing is stealing and $500 buys a lot of bread.

It's the same as a "should you" question. You are asking the respondent to determine appropriateness. I believe even pedophiles know what is considered inappropriate.

Depends on the situation, depends on my relationship with the local police force, depends on the corruption level of the local police force. Bullshit. Just answer yes or no.

I would say "no."

Did you mean "yes"? My mistake I meant "yes".Because, if not, you are describing psychotic behavior.

Not evil. You're obviously a serial elevator farter.


Not worth examining.

.

[Rain Man]

The more I think about it, my definition of evil may boil down to one question, though I don't have the wording right. Really, it's something along the lines of "Would you intentionally harm another living creature (including people) for your own pleasure or gain?" Is that really all we're talking about here?

The question doesn't work as above, though. Any time a businessperson makes a profit, he or she could be construed as intentionally harming the customer if they could have sold the product cheaper. And personally, I wouldn't blame a person who saves their own life if a killer says, "You pick who dies - you or that stranger over there". We kill animals all the time for our own survival, and if we take in more than 2,000 calories we're really doing it for our own gain.

Realistically, there's probably a ratio, too. I wouldn't delete someone if they heckled a comic, particularly if it's a bad comic like George Lopez. Harming someone else has to rise above a certain magnitude before I would consider it evil, and maybe above a certain ratio of giver's pleasure to receiver's pain. But I don't know what those ratios are.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by EPodolak

I prefer the fun threads where you do most of the work.

Rain Man specializes in these complicated and highly involved interactive threads

Originally Posted by Otter

Do you love dogs?

While it's not up there with will you murder for religion I sincerely believe it has intrinsic value to gauge someones karma. And Rain Man, if you ever decide to eat mushrooms I'm only at the other end of the state. I don't want to be the focus point. Just a fly on the wall to see what comes out of that dome when turbo boost kicks in.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

.

Bad and good are really loose terms when it comes to religion. Along those lines I would ask, "Do you feel that the laws of our society should be based solely on your religious beliefs?" I consider theocracy to be evil. Regarding animal harm: Focus on whether it is essential or inessential harm, but then you are still relying on the respondent to determine what is essential. Regarding pedos: Most seem to be embarrassed once they are caught and realize that they were engaging in evil but I don't know how to word a question that would rule out all of them-including the possibility of the psychotic ones and the ones who think child brides are A-OK. Regarding witnessing theft: I have been in situations where reporting theft would have meant that I would be killed shortly afterwords. Is the potential return of a pocket full of cash or a watch worth your life? And, yes, I am a serial farter. I regret nothing.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by listopencil

And, yes, I am a serial farter. I regret nothing.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Good list, good list. But I have a question. I've stepped on a fair number of spiders in my day, and more cockroaches than I care to admit. So I have to answer yes on #3?

Yes you do.

Spiders belong to a group of animals called “arachnids”.