On the convenient Tuesdays, I will think of a debate topic that should get us talking. If you have any ideas, let me have them after your have said your piece. Now to principles and expediency. I had a great debate with Atala yesterday on this topic and you know me and debates, they are the food to my intellect. We took sides, doesn't really matter what you actually believe or will do in the situation.
We argued about whether people should stick with their principles when they find themselves in a tight spot or if they should just do what is easy and without fuss. Now this was our scenario.
The US has a policy for non-negotiation with terrorists. So what if a mad man went off half-cocked and stole a plane full of Americans and asked the president for something. Says he'll blow up the plane if his demands are not met. What should the President do? If you were the president, what would you do if;
1. -said mad man want only $1 dollar (to be donated by you on media) funneled to his charity?
2. - said mad man wants the American flag redesigned by him?
3. -will you wait till terrorist kills first before meeting his demands? And how many acts of terrorism will you stand for before you crack or bend? For example he's killing the hostages one after the other.
4. Say he has 124 hostages, and just as many demands. Will you meet all the demands to free the hostages?
Of course this is all hypothetical. In real life, it my be someone wanting you to break your celibacy, circumstances forcing you to lie, etc.
I argued for principle, the hook being: WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
What about you?
***********************
picture from the web
