> > What if they volunteer themself to the group so the
> > rest may survive?
>
> That's assumed not to occur, and I never said anything
> about a group, you ****ing slovenly idiot; I clearly
> specified two people, and only two people. In any
> case, the "volunteer" could always commit suicide
> first. We are assuming the survivor kills the other
> person.

Are we assuming that it's against the other person's
will? IF so, then it's kind of high up on the wrongness
scale. Their desperation for food must be taken
into account though.

> > If the snowshoes are hers, she can go and I'll just
> > hope help arrives in time. Probably, we would
> > realistically look at who's in better shape to make
> > the trip to get help. I can't think of a place so
> > remote that emergency people (maybe in
> > snowshoes) can't get there in time.
> >
> > Another McGyver-like possibility is to rig up a
> > sled of some kind. Take turns with who pulls
> > using snowshoes and who rides in the sled.
> >
> > I can't picture either of us wanting to kill the
> > other in your scenario.
>
> I am asking you if you could somehow justify killing
> her and taking her snowshoes, and clearly you can't
> honestly address the (admittedly extreme) scenario,
> because then you'd have to acknowledge that it would be
> ABSOLUTELY wrong.

It's nothing to do with absolute wrongness. I just
can't see a situation where I would kill her. If I
became as desperate for those snowshoes
as you put above, then why wouldn't I simply
fight to get them?




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.