Forget the city. Save the kid.

Become, Shougo Makishima, no one will understand this reference.

Who the fuck cares about the kid? Honestly all you people who want to butt rape the city in favor of the child make human progress seem sinful. If we could have a society where only one person had to experience these hardships,  I'd try and preserve it with my life. Why start over for no reason?

Thanksgiving is over >_>

Quote from: IcyWind on December 05, 2014, 01:47:55 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 05, 2014, 01:44:41 PM

Fairly certain I had a dream about this once...

Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left.
May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.

Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.

One person suffering while everybody else leads perfect lives? It's simple mathematics.

And what right do they have to let this child suffer for them to have good lives?

That child deserves freedom and a chance to live just like anyone else. We'll suffer the consequences for what's right.

Fuck the city.

Has anyone here ever read the book The Brothers Karamazov? It deals with exactly what is being talked about. The following quote is a conversation from the book between the brothers Ivan, a rational atheist, and Alyosha, a Russian Orthodox monk. It centers around the unjust suffering of innocents (namely children). It also comes from the chapter preceding the famous The Grand Inquisitor parable.

"...It's not that I don't accept God, Alyosha, I just most respectfully return him the ticket."
"That is rebellion," Alyosha said softly, dropping his eyes.
"Rebellion? I don't like hearing such a word from you," Ivan said with feeling. "One cannot live by rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me straight out, I call on you- answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears- would you agree to be the architect on such conditions? Tell me the truth."
"No, I would not agree," Alyosha said softly.
"And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a tortured child, and having accepted it, to remain forever happy?"
"No, I cannot admit it." Alyosha said.

"Purity that demands exclusion isn't real purity. Paradise is a lie."
--Pierce Hawthorne

If this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.

Whether or not the place is a utopia wasn't the question, nor should it  even be important to consider.

Quote from: DAS B( Ν‘Β° ΝœΚ– Ν‘Β°)T x2 on December 06, 2014, 02:04:34 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on December 06, 2014, 01:57:45 PM

"Purity that demands exclusion isn't real purity. Paradise is a lie."
--Pierce Hawthorne

If this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.

Whether or not the place is a utopia wasn't the question, nor should it  even be important to consider.

Literally the first sentence of Turkey's post refers to it as a utopian society. The fact that this place is a supposed utopia is the only justification for the torture of an innocent child. But that act, in and of itself, negates the only advantage that it has.

Okay, but what's your answer to the question?

If this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.

I've dealt with this two or three times by now. You're missing the point if you're caught up in the semantics.

And in that way they don't deserve to have a utopia if they let the child suffer like that.

You mean in the same way people in the West profit off child labour and sweatshops?

Given that this is the case, I'd be interested to know why these people aren't conducting aid missions. Unless, of course, the value of their personal labour exceeds the value of stopping suffering. Then it's about expediency, not principles or morals.

Everyone wants to say they care without actually caring.

But there are far worse.

That's no excuse. I'm not talking exclusively about child labour. The fact that there is a spectrum, or gradation, of suffering doesn't excuse inaction.

Like I say, if people are saying they'd save the child and forsake the city on principle then they should be out there, doing something about the suffering in the world. If a taxi driver can go to Syria and, unfortunately, fall hands to ISIS in his efforts then he is living proof that I) an effort can be made and II) more effort should be made.

You don't ignore the cancer because you have a stab wound.

Quote from: Lord Ruler on December 06, 2014, 02:44:22 PM

And in that way they don't deserve to have a utopia if they let the child suffer like that.

You mean in the same way people in the West profit off child labour and sweatshops?

And that's not okay.