Which One of These 2 Jobs Would You Choose?
Pages: 12
I'd be a Scout! Sneakin into bases. Stealin the secret crap of some dumbass. It sounds like a great time :3
closed account (zb0S216C)
| Grey Wolf wrote: |
|---|
| Let's hope you still find it amusing if/when you are the recipient of some random act of violence. |
You're too late ^_^
Wazzak
Last edited on
Nice discussion! Let me go over a few things.
In regards of the original post, it's true the descriptions of the two seem unbalanced and maybe some unintentional bias is in there, but if your desired answer allows deeper thoughts into the pros and cons of what we know of the two choices then that will affect our answers. Our view of "pro" and "con" is personal to our beliefs and how we think. For example, it might be more common and seemingly obvious to some that their choice depends on what they'd be best at, but some take into consideration that maybe the better choice is to choose what you'd be worst at, and so the choice is to follow the path you are least familiar with.
What I think I would enjoy more and be best at would be Hitman. My current skills, traits, and perspective I think would make it easier for me to get started in or just be efficient at in general. For many people, those are "the" pros and they may make their decision by choosing "what they would be good at", "what they are more prepared for", and/or "what's easier for them". A more uncommon, alternate perspective, is a view that I personally share or at least consider, which is to have a stronger desire to go for what is "more difficult" with "skills or activities that I am worse at" or even because it's "what I disagree with most". I believe the benefits gained in the alternate path are often more useful to me(and anyone) in many ways.
As for those who may feel disturbed at the discussion of these kinds of things, well other viewpoints need to be kept in mind. I do know people who would take this discussion and have a blast, enthusing about killing anything or shooting and being shot at and maybe because they really would love to do such a thing, and those people aren't that uncommon. Do remember there are those out there who would take this knowledge gained from really "getting into" the discussion, and make use of it in ways you may agree with. Unless you strongly believe exposing yourself to those things will "change" you for the worse, as if it's a law of nature in psychology, then is it that hard to imagine this information being used for a better purpose? Perhaps one would study every gruesome and horrifying detail of how to kill someone and so much more, but was adapting that information to create non-lethal weapon technologies so that situations that once required "deadly force" would instead bring about a range of less-than-lethal solutions from "harmful"(which may still seem disagreeable, but probably agreeably better than deadly) to "neutral" and "harmless". Also the possibility of advancing such weapon(if the term "weapon" even suits it at this point) technology that using it would actually "benefit" who you're using it on. Imagine an immobilizing foam that expanded and would help heal wounds of those bonded by it, and if it were biodegradable, or perhaps even a food source that was nutritious to humans or to nature and the soil. Now imagine that non-lethal weapons were far more common than normal weapons, perhaps even out of popular demand rather than by law or force, and 9/10 times a crime is committed with a weapon it's non-lethal. "Now" imagine that non-lethal technology is even "better" than lethal weapon technology, and that it's simply more efficient and powerful.
An observation I made about the original post where it said "As a Hitman you have extensive knowledge about etc..." I looked at that phrase as an indication that this choice felt more like a video game role choice(not surprising considering these forums!). For example a Warrior has higher Strength and Endurance, a Wizard has Magic and Willpower. It makes it sound like if you choose Hitman, you will have specialized skills or perhaps just higher ratings in the skill fields of Neurology and Toxicology. If it is game-like, the environment and game-play would be a factor. If most of the game or a specific scenario was in a large open area with a slow, patient pace, then you see the Sniper makes more sense. A Hitman may benefit more in an urban environment, perhaps with blending in with crowds and full of buildings that would be of more disadvantageous to a Sniper. These factors are also similar to real-life factors as well, and are also big decision changers.
The idea of choosing your targets and going for the more controversial people like drug lords and murderers, that is something that appeals to me. When it comes to whether the Hitman contract-giver(contract-offerer? contract-forcer?) or the Military higher-ups will be more moral, it does make sense to lean toward that being more likely a choice for a Hitman, but they also seem about equal in possibility. If you mean real-life with circumstances that are current and real, I'd say you're more likely to find a moral Hitman contract-giver than a Government Military, unless there are perfectionist and highly moral Militaries(spell check?) in existence I don't know about. This is mainly seeming true more likely because I'm pretty sure there are a lot more of these contract-givers than there are full-fledged militaries in the world, which means a lot more variety on the contract side. In a non-real-life scenario though, if the world turned out differently, it may be equal though because it could be possible that a military could be formed that did things efficiently and morally, keeping deaths and injuries as close to minimum as possible. In that case, the Military may have a more agreeable disposition. These days though, it doesn't really look like it. It also comes down to what you, and what your organization views as "good" or "bad", that alone is a hugely complex subject and of course a huge decision changer.
When it comes down to it though, whether in a video game or for some reason real-life choosing, I would pick Hitman. Hitman definitely feels more free if you do it right, and I may even have the choice to do the job the way I want, and indeed I would get as close as "good" morally as I could get. If it were an option, I would try to figure out how to do jobs without the people who hire me knowing anything personal about me, not even how I looked if I could keep it hidden, not to communicate in person and such. If I wasn't fond of the employer or if I felt the employer was a larger problem than the target I'm given, I may turn the tables and give up the money for what I find to be more "right". I could even track down the job's target, and instead of killing I may be able to work something out that gets rid of my employer's problem without getting rid of a life. As a wannabe programmer and technology lover, I would try to incorporate computers and robots into my arsenal. Remote controlled turret-like devices with a camera down the scope, to useful body-worn gadgets, to surveillance and well, the list can go on. It seems like "freedom" indeed has a lot of options, alternatives, and possibilities over following someone else's strict rules with not much say in how you might do it better.
Military Sniper could teach me how to adapt to that lesser freedom and make something good out of it, to be highly efficient in the face of firm procedure and restrictions, and to even be really good at doing things the way I wouldn't expect. I like to give myself the difficult choice in many situations, but for now I'm just not feeling like choosing Military Sniper.
In regards of the original post, it's true the descriptions of the two seem unbalanced and maybe some unintentional bias is in there, but if your desired answer allows deeper thoughts into the pros and cons of what we know of the two choices then that will affect our answers. Our view of "pro" and "con" is personal to our beliefs and how we think. For example, it might be more common and seemingly obvious to some that their choice depends on what they'd be best at, but some take into consideration that maybe the better choice is to choose what you'd be worst at, and so the choice is to follow the path you are least familiar with.
What I think I would enjoy more and be best at would be Hitman. My current skills, traits, and perspective I think would make it easier for me to get started in or just be efficient at in general. For many people, those are "the" pros and they may make their decision by choosing "what they would be good at", "what they are more prepared for", and/or "what's easier for them". A more uncommon, alternate perspective, is a view that I personally share or at least consider, which is to have a stronger desire to go for what is "more difficult" with "skills or activities that I am worse at" or even because it's "what I disagree with most". I believe the benefits gained in the alternate path are often more useful to me(and anyone) in many ways.
As for those who may feel disturbed at the discussion of these kinds of things, well other viewpoints need to be kept in mind. I do know people who would take this discussion and have a blast, enthusing about killing anything or shooting and being shot at and maybe because they really would love to do such a thing, and those people aren't that uncommon. Do remember there are those out there who would take this knowledge gained from really "getting into" the discussion, and make use of it in ways you may agree with. Unless you strongly believe exposing yourself to those things will "change" you for the worse, as if it's a law of nature in psychology, then is it that hard to imagine this information being used for a better purpose? Perhaps one would study every gruesome and horrifying detail of how to kill someone and so much more, but was adapting that information to create non-lethal weapon technologies so that situations that once required "
An observation I made about the original post where it said "As a Hitman you have extensive knowledge about etc..." I looked at that phrase as an indication that this choice felt more like a video game role choice(not surprising considering these forums!). For example a Warrior has higher Strength and Endurance, a Wizard has Magic and Willpower. It makes it sound like if you choose Hitman, you will have specialized skills or perhaps just higher ratings in the skill fields of Neurology and Toxicology. If it is game-like, the environment and game-play would be a factor. If most of the game or a specific scenario was in a large open area with a slow, patient pace, then you see the Sniper makes more sense. A Hitman may benefit more in an urban environment, perhaps with blending in with crowds and full of buildings that would be of more disadvantageous to a Sniper. These factors are also similar to real-life factors as well, and are also big decision changers.
The idea of choosing your targets and going for the more controversial people like drug lords and murderers, that is something that appeals to me. When it comes to whether the Hitman contract-giver(contract-offerer? contract-forcer?) or the Military higher-ups will be more moral, it does make sense to lean toward that being more likely a choice for a Hitman, but they also seem about equal in possibility. If you mean real-life with circumstances that are current and real, I'd say you're more likely to find a moral Hitman contract-giver than a Government Military, unless there are perfectionist and highly moral Militaries(spell check?) in existence I don't know about. This is mainly seeming true more likely because I'm pretty sure there are a lot more of these contract-givers than there are full-fledged militaries in the world, which means a lot more variety on the contract side. In a non-real-life scenario though, if the world turned out differently, it may be equal though because it could be possible that a military could be formed that did things efficiently and morally, keeping deaths and injuries as close to minimum as possible. In that case, the Military may have a more agreeable disposition. These days though, it doesn't really look like it. It also comes down to what you, and what your organization views as "good" or "bad", that alone is a hugely complex subject and of course a huge decision changer.
When it comes down to it though, whether in a video game or for some reason real-life choosing, I would pick Hitman. Hitman definitely feels more free if you do it right, and I may even have the choice to do the job the way I want, and indeed I would get as close as "good" morally as I could get. If it were an option, I would try to figure out how to do jobs without the people who hire me knowing anything personal about me, not even how I looked if I could keep it hidden, not to communicate in person and such. If I wasn't fond of the employer or if I felt the employer was a larger problem than the target I'm given, I may turn the tables and give up the money for what I find to be more "right". I could even track down the job's target, and instead of killing I may be able to work something out that gets rid of my employer's problem without getting rid of a life. As a wannabe programmer and technology lover, I would try to incorporate computers and robots into my arsenal. Remote controlled turret-like devices with a camera down the scope, to useful body-worn gadgets, to surveillance and well, the list can go on. It seems like "freedom" indeed has a lot of options, alternatives, and possibilities over following someone else's strict rules with not much say in how you might do it better.
Military Sniper could teach me how to adapt to that lesser freedom and make something good out of it, to be highly efficient in the face of firm procedure and restrictions, and to even be really good at doing things the way I wouldn't expect. I like to give myself the difficult choice in many situations, but for now I'm just not feeling like choosing Military Sniper.
Last edited on
If I had too I suppose military sniper. As long as, someone else mentioned, it was a cause I thought was worth dieing for. I've always been a bit on the patriotic side.
Both of my legs are useless so been there done that. Without thumbs I can't do a lot more though so I'll remain paralyzed.
Well, Futurama has told me that apparently it is better to have the fish part on top and the lady part on bottom. So I'll go with that.
| We should just turn this into a huge 'would you rather' thread. Would you rather lose one of your legs or both of your thumbs? Would you rather have sex with a mermaid or a pair of womens' legs with a fish-head for the top half? |
Both of my legs are useless so been there done that. Without thumbs I can't do a lot more though so I'll remain paralyzed.
Well, Futurama has told me that apparently it is better to have the fish part on top and the lady part on bottom. So I'll go with that.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12