An Ethical Dilemma

Quick aside: You've got a lifeboat with D'Souza, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Malkin, Rove, Krauthammer and Lowery in it. There's only food and provisions for 9 people to have any choice of survival. What do you do? Who goes over the side? You must decide.

The ethically correct answer will be posted in 2 days. Good luck.


mac said...

Just go overboard yourself...living with those stiffs would be worse than death anyway.

Asylum Seeker said...

Have them tell who they each would decide to dispose of, ostensibly in order to put it up for vote. Then, using that information, tell each person on the lifeboat which of the others voted for them to tossed be overboard. Let that boil over a few days and before you know it, the whole thing will sort itself out. And you might even get a new food source out of the ordeal. (Though I am not quite sure how deadly brawls to the death would work out on a lifeboat if it is too small.

Richelle said...


grab all the food and jump overboard with it.

in sacrificing myself i would be doing the greater good for all of humanity.

in order for any of them to survive after that they would have to turn on one of their own and resort to cannibalism (because we know none of them are resourceful enough to catch fish or anything).

should any of them still survive and be rescued, their supportive base, the religious right, would immediately turn their back on them for their very unchristian behavior resulting in the surviving douche bag's life-force (their inflated ego) to shrivel up which is the cause of their inevitable pathetic death...

and if that last part didn't happen we would just have to count on my fiance blaming all those assholes for my death and, being the texan that he is, arm himself to the teeth and execute some vigilante justice, punisher style!

the end

was i close?

if not do i get bonus points for creativity? :)

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Remind me never to piss you off Richelle ;)

GearHedEd said...

I don't even know some of those names, but Ann Coulter can stay, as long as her jaw is still wired shut...

pboyfloyd said...

First, we'd have to eat the 'freshest' one, right?

This involves some 'shock and awe' on D'Souza.

Then we get some D'Souza haggis! Yum, liver, heart, lungs and stomach!

Some blood sausage, and a week later some tender rump steak.

Then the next healthiest!

This might seem 'backwards' but if we eat the sickest, we'd only make ourselves sick too.

So it's, "Hands up those who have never smoked!", and you KNOW that they're thinking that they'll be safe because they're thinking that the fittesst ought to be left to survive.

Plus, we'd all get a good laugh with quips(while we're eating him) such as, "How's that Brazilian kick-boxing working out for you Dinesh?", and, "Hey, he should have been named 'Delish!'"

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Actually several of you are getting bonus points for creativity - nice we can bring our talents to bear on an interesting dilemma ;)

Stacy said...

I realize that u have posted the answer already but I have not read it yet - so I'm not cheating.

I throw Coulter over. One less girl for the boys to fight over and take care of.

It's not ethical - but I don't give a shit.

P.S. @Gearhead Ed - I'm cuter than she is so you can change your answer now. :-)

Richelle said...

Remind me never to piss you off Richelle ;)



i get that a lot.