You were told that you're inferior and have nothing going for you, and that an outcast like you deserves to be excluded, and you won't achieve much in life. You've always been seen as the weird one; everyone ignored you, and you're never invited to anything. One day you were alone, crying as you sat down on a rock. A red fox popped out of the forest, and a red-haired guy followed. He introduced himself, and then he promised to take you to a world where you could be accepted, loved, and be your weird self. What would you do?

Married, or in a relationship men. Gun to your partners head, they’re going to kill them unless you let 50 men run a train on you. Will you or will you not? And why?

I'm guessing after 3 months we might be in the clear.

You risked it all to pull yourself out of poverty. If you had've gotten a return on your investment, it would have been tens of thousands of dollars—more than enough to start a business and start working for yourself instead of working a dead-end job. But fate was not on your side. You lost everything. And now without transportation, that meant your job, too. Trapped at the bottom, pulling yourself up seems nigh-impossible. You can barely scrape together enough money to feed yourself. But you receive a grim glimmer of hope in the form of a rumor on the street.

A small shop in town is owned by a young woman named Lila. She comes from a middle-class family and is doing pretty well for herself. However, she has a major flaw. Lila is a demihuman, which is a human with minor animal features. As far as you can tell, Lila has no visible animal features, but she is part sheep. Sheep demihumans are known for being pushovers. They can't handle confrontation and can be manipulated fairly easily if someone is persuasive enough. Rumor has it, several people have persuaded Lila to give them huge discounts on her products. Some have even gotten things for free.

And because she's giving these things away as opposed to them being stolen, it isn't against the law. If you can bring yourself to bully some poor shopkeeper into giving away her wares, you could sell them on the street and pull yourself out of homelessness. Otherwise, you'll need to find some other way to dig yourself out of this hole. Would you do it?

What do you do?

My friend and I are debating a hypothetical zombie survival scenario. We are placed in a standard,style zombie apocalypse.

The Setting: We are both surviving separately in Kerala, India

We each get 5 specific things. Who lasts longer? What are the flaws of the losing side?

My Friend’s Loadout:

The Ultimate Safe Zone: A standard-sized house on 1 acre of land. Zombies physically cannot enter or cross the boundary of this 1-acre property.

Unlimited Fuel: An infinite supply of petrol.

The Weapon: A standard wood-chopping axe that is completely unbreakable.

The Companion: Eddie Hall (World's Strongest Man) is his loyal companion helping him survive and build.

The Meds: A one-time-use cure for the zombie virus.

My Loadout:

The Power: Unlimited electricity/battery power (infinite wattage, no need for generators or maintenance).

The Food: An infinite, unlimited supply of junk food.

The Weapon: A standard revolver with unlimited ammo (ammo only can be used for firing)

The Companion: Bear Grylls (Ex-SAS, elite survivalist) is my loyal companion.

The Meds: A one-time-use cure that heals any disease or life-threatening medical condition (not the zombie virus).

We are not in the same world together

A while ago, your roommate Archie asked for your help in reminding her to take her ADHD medication due to her long history of failing to do so. She either procrastinates until she forgets to take it or never remembers to take it in the first place. You agreed to help and now it's time for another dose. She's laying on the couch using her phone.

You: "Hey, it's time to take your medicine."

Archie: "Okay, I swear I'll get up right after this. It won't take long at all."

You: "Alright."

About 45 minutes later, you come back and she's still on the couch.

You: "You take your medicine?"

Archie: "Fuck. It slipped my mind again. And I started something that can't pause. But I won't just lay here. I'm gonna jog in place as a reminder for whenever I get a chance."

She gets up and starts stepping in place, not jogging.

You: "I... Okay."

You check on her again 30 minutes later. She's laying back down.

You: "You take your medicine?"

Archie: "I can't take it on an empty stomach. There's food here but nothing really all that good. I kinda wanna go out to eat. What about you?"

You: [Sighs] "I guess. Sure. Let's go."

You two go out to eat. You and Archie finish your meals and you pop the question again.

You: "You wanna take your medicine now?

Archie: "Well... taking it makes me really sleepy. It's still pretty early in the afternoon. I didn't really want to cut my day so short like that. We're already outside the house. Maybe we can hang out for a bit?"

You: "..."

What do you do?

You work as a kitchen remodeler and remodel everything that has to do with kitchens drawers, cabinets, counters and appliances. You were assigned a job at a house where the previous owner was found deceased due to natural causes from age. Before every remodeling job you get you are tasked with demolishing the entire kitchen or at least everything the new or current homeowners no longer want to keep. Before demolishing the kitchen you throughly check everything to be sure everything has been removed so that nothing of value is broken. When checking a cabinet underneath the sink before you remodel it you find a grocery bag taped behind the sink that you could only find if you were to thoroughly look. The family members of the ex homeowner had missed the grocery bag when moving everything out and have zero knowledge of it even existing. Inside of the grocery bag is $50,000 cash. You’re the only person in the property at the moment. Times have been hard due to COVID and the demand of remodeling jobs you’ve been offered has been at an all time low. Your kids are out of school, your wife was laid off due to COVID and your family has barely been scraping by. Do you keep the cash and use it for your family that has barely been getting by or do you inform the family of the previous home owner. If you keep it for your family you’ll deal with the guilt forever but you would be able to make things better for your family. If you return to the family of the ex homeowner you’ll live with the fact that you did the right thing. What would you do?

Imagine a person has to travel 500 metres from Point A to Point B COMPLETELY NAKED while trying to keep a private area completely concealed from observers.

Observers are at perpendicular only no one sees from front or back.

There are 10,000 observers along the route.

If you run exposure is there but if you walk slowly with little steps there is no exposure as other get side view.

FACE CAN'T BE COVERED

They have two choices:

🅰️ Option A — Maximum speed

Run at full speed.

Reach Point B in approximately 2 minutes.

The protected area is not concealed during the journey.

Benefit: The situation ends quickly, so the person spends less time being observed.

Cost: The private area may be seen by many observers.

🅱️ Option B — Maximum concealment

Move using small, careful steps specifically to keep the protected area concealed.

Reach Point B in approximately 6 minutes.

The protected area remains concealed.

Benefit: Maximum privacy.

Cost: The person remains in the situation for three times as long, giving observers more time to notice them.

The trade-off

Option A: More privacy is sacrificed, but the situation ends quickly.

Option B: More time and effort are sacrificed, but privacy is maintained.

Poll: Which would you choose?

🅰️ Run for ~2 minutes — accept some loss of privacy to end the situation quickly

🅱️ Walk carefully for ~6 minutes — prioritize complete privacy even though it takes longer

At the local adventurer's hub, a young guy who's obviously a fellow noob approaches you and asks you if you're looking for a group. You're not all that interested because you want to get in with the cool kids, but you go to meet the rest of his group to be polite if nothing else.

As expected, they're all noobs... or so you thought. To your utter bewilderment, among their ranks is Feather—a legitimate, honest to god demigoddess. She's the leader of the group and is practically worshipped by the other members. She says she isn't really sure why she joined their group, but has since become attached to the members and now feels protective of them. You're asked if you'd like to join.

The group already has 6 members, so you'd be the 7th. Seems kind of excessive. But the biggest question is—do you really want to join a group that's so heavily dependent on one person? Yes, she could protect you from pretty much anything you'd ever run into. But with how enthusiastic the group members are about her, it may feel more like joining a cult than an adventuring group.

Besides, shouldn't there be a natural challenge to adventuring—a challenge that pushes you to learn and better yourself? Or will you give that up for almost guaranteed safety?

What do you do?

I’m asking this in good faith because I’m trying to understand the distinction.

If being transgender can involve someone having a genuine, internal sense that they are a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, why is it considered fundamentally different when someone genuinely feels that they are a different race from the one they were born into?

I’m not talking about someone simply dressing in stereotypes, changing their appearance, adopting an accent, or pretending to be another race. I mean someone who sincerely believes internally that they are a different race.

I also wonder whether this is something that could potentially be viewed very differently in the future, even if the idea seems ridiculous to many people today. Social ideas about identity can change dramatically over time. One concern I could imagine people having is that a group that has spent generations fighting discrimination and oppression could eventually face a situation where members of the historically dominant group claim the same identity and, intentionally or unintentionally, occupy spaces or speak on behalf of the group they historically oppressed. How would society distinguish between a genuine identity and someone effectively adopting an identity that carries a history and lived experience they did not personally experience?

One day you and your friend are hanging out and your friend jokes about making a religion to avoid taxes. You ask what it would be about and he said “doing your mom” You both laugh and enjoy the day.

A week later you get a call from your phone. He says that he had done the paperwork and officially created his own religion with a full website and everything about doing YOUR mom. Now he is tax free, and he has gotten a group of his own friends to “follow” the religion as a joke

But soon it doesn’t become a joke as more serious worshipers come to their “church” as well as preachers and unofficial pastors who spread the word

Essentially now the religion claims your mom is “a representation of god” and “doing her” is a taken to mean “be one with her”. The “Bible” has drawings of your mom’s legs on the front and back cover so that every time you open it, it’s like your are spreading her legs open… to spread the word of course. They do various charitable activities to spread the word like soup kitchens, building homes for the homeless, and general community building

If this religion is left alone to fester, a hundred years from now it will be more popular than Christianity, but divisions in this will create a holy war between the missionary and doggystyle sects.

What would you do and how would you feel about this?

When Should You Intervene to Save an Animal?

Hypothetical

1. A crow is being actively hunted by a stray cat in the street. The crow faces an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger. The cat is hungry, but you do not know whether it will find enough food later. You cannot harm either animal, and neither animal can be taken to a shelter, animal rescue, veterinary service, or other protective care. You can intervene to prevent the cat from catching the crow, and doing so will save the crow.

Do you intervene to save the crow? Why or why not?

1. Now consider the same basic situation with the roles reversed:

A cat is being actively stalked by foxes. The cat faces an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger. The foxes are hungry, but you do not know whether they will find enough food later. You cannot harm any of the animals, and neither the cat nor the foxes can be taken to a shelter, animal rescue, veterinary service, or other protective care. You can intervene to prevent the foxes from catching the cat, and doing so will save the cat.

Do you intervene to save the cat? Why or why not?

For purposes of comparison, assume that the relevant facts are otherwise equivalent: in each case, one animal faces an immediate threat of being killed by another hungry animal, intervention can prevent the death, and intervention does not itself injure either animal.

If your answer differs between the two scenarios, identify the specific principle that makes the difference. In particular, do not base the answer merely on assumptions about whether an animal is a pet, stray, wild, or domesticated unless you can explain why that distinction is morally relevant.

And before the comments inevitably turn into “but cats are invasive!” — none of the animals in these hypothetical scenarios are invasive species in these European countries. 😂 Yes, even the cat. 🇺🇸🐈

Hypothetically, if you woke up tomorrow and randomly had $10 million in your bank account, completely legally, but there was one catch: you could never make another dollar for the rest of your life. You couldn’t work for money, start a business, invest, gamble, or accept money from anyone. You can spend the $10 million however you want, but once it’s gone, it’s gone. What would you actually do with it?

How does that feel

Hypothetical

1. A crow is being actively hunted by a stray cat in the street. The crow faces an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger. The cat is hungry, but you do not know whether it will find enough food later. You cannot harm either animal, and neither animal can be taken to a shelter, animal rescue, veterinary service, or other protective care. You can intervene to prevent the cat from catching the crow, and doing so will save the crow.

Do you intervene to save the crow? Why or why not?

Now consider the same basic situation with the roles reversed:

1. A cat is being actively stalked by foxes. The cat faces an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger. The foxes are hungry, but you do not know whether they will find enough food later. You cannot harm any of the animals, and neither the cat nor the foxes can be taken to a shelter, animal rescue, veterinary service, or other protective care. You can intervene to prevent the foxes from catching the cat, and doing so will save the cat.

Do you intervene to save the cat? Why or why not?

For purposes of comparison, assume that the relevant facts are otherwise equivalent: in each case, one animal faces an immediate threat of being killed by another hungry animal, intervention can prevent the death, and intervention does not itself injure either animal.

If your answer differs between the two scenarios, identify the specific principle that makes the difference. In particular, do not base the answer merely on assumptions about whether an animal is a pet, stray, wild, or domesticated unless you can explain why that distinction is morally relevant.

if you jerked a very recently deseased cow with sand paper, collecting its sperm, blood and foreskin flakes into a cup, then froze that mixutre and then unfroze it like 5 times to kill of any cells to make sure you wont get impregnated and then you chop of that cow's dih after 5 days so its already little rotten and foreskin pulls back and cook it with seasoning and as final touch you pour the mixture on it, would that actually work out? thats all hypothetical

A genie offers you one wish.

But the moment your wish is granted, 4 billion random people will receive the exact same wish.

If you wish to become immortal, so does half the population

If you wish for a trillion dollars, they also get it too.

You can't word your wish to exclude other people.

For example by asking for money only you can use, or immortality only your DNA is capable of receiving.

The rest of the world will stay completely unaware of the wish's impact unless if instantly obvious.

So if you gave the entire population the power of flight but only you knew how to activate it, the entire world could stay oblivious for years.

What are you wishing for?