Which one of these causes would you be most likely to die for?

God does not need to be proven you ether belive or don't. Although I'd rather die the most horrable death then renounce my Faith or Belief in him.

I would only die AFTER I knew my own interests had been satisfied.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
None.

Dying for any cause (no matter how noble it maybe be) is the actions of an extremist...I refuse to become an extremist.

So Martin Luther King Jr was an extremist, so was Gandhi?
Black people who died fighting racism were extremists?

I think that is a very simplistic view. If people didnt die for any causes we wouldnt have freedom of speech, democracy or the rights we do today.

yeah, but neither expected to be shot.
i mean, they both knew that they were putting themselves
at great risk, but they didnt knowingly go to their deaths.

Originally posted by PVS
yeah, but neither expected to be shot.
i mean, they both knew that they were putting themselves
at great risk, but they didnt knowingly go to their deaths.

If they knew they were exposing themselves to a great risk, a risk which could mean death, and they proceeded in doing what they did, then they were ready to die for it.

To think that neither of them were ready to die for what they were preaching is foolish.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If they knew they were exposing themselves to a great risk, a risk which could mean death, and they proceeded in doing what they did, then they were ready to die for it.

people skydive.
knowing very well there is a significant chance they can splatter on
the ground, they still jump...does this mean they are ready to die for it?
i know its an off color analogy, but the point is that there is a big difference
between risking death and willingly going to that death.

How can you compare skydiving with what Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi were doing?!

I think this is such a stupid thing to even put forward as an example.

Neither of them did what they did FOR FUN, they did it for a cause!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
To think that neither of them were ready to die for what they were preaching is foolish.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How can you compare skydiving with what Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi were doing?!

I think this is such a stupid thing to even put forward as an example.

Neither of them did what they did FOR FUN, they did it for a cause!

dont be deliberate. as i said, there is a difference between risking death and going willingly to that death. mlk and ghandi put their lives at great risk, but they did not sacrifice their own lives. they were assassinated. it was not their choice to die. big difference.

If I had to choose, curing all diseases.

even sexoholism?

That's not a disease, that's a blessing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So Martin Luther King Jr was an extremist, so was Gandhi?
Black people who died fighting racism were extremists?

I think that is a very simplistic view. If people didnt die for any causes we wouldnt have freedom of speech, democracy or the rights we do today.

I wouldn't confuse apples and oranges lil. MLK and Gandhi were not extremists. They didn't incite people to respond in a violent ways. Rather they promoted a peaceful rejection to violence inflicted to their people. An extremist would distort and confuse people to their will by any means necessary... meaning that they will impose their will on those who would disagree. Remenber that thread I made about Religion and extremeism last year? I'll search it and post the link.

My family and friends, if I died to save the world they would just screw it up a few years down the line. Did that sound bitter?helpsmilie

Originally posted by Normal Guy
1. Ending world hunger

2. Same sex marriage.

3. Proving the existence of the Christian God.

4. Disproving the existence of Christian God.

5. Proving Evolutionary theory.

6. Bringing about world peace.

7. Finding a cure for all terminal diseases.(aids, cancer, etc)

8. Animal Rights.

9. Your own self interests.

And explain why you would choose the one cause over the others.

3

None of them.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I wouldn't confuse apples and oranges lil. MLK and Gandhi were not extremists. They didn't incite people to respond in a violent ways. Rather they promoted a peaceful rejection to violence inflicted to their people. An extremist would distort and confuse people to their will by any means necessary... meaning that they will impose their will on those who would disagree. Remenber that thread I made about Religion and extremeism last year? I'll search it and post the link.

I think we misunderstood each other.

I was refering to dying for a cause, rather than promoting a voilent way of doing something, in which one would die.

And the perfect examples, of these are King and Guevara.

They both died for what they believed in, but in complitely different ways...imo.

Originally posted by PVS
dont be deliberate. as i said, there is a difference between risking death and going willingly to that death. mlk and ghandi put their lives at great risk, but they did not sacrifice their own lives. they were assassinated. it was not their choice to die. big difference.

Precisely. Dying as a result of your cause and dying for your cause are two totally different things.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely. Dying as a result of your cause and dying for your cause are two totally different things.

-AC

You are dead afterwards anyways.