Well /lit/, do you pull the lever or not?
You call that a moral quandary?
>>7807659
Who designed this trolley
>>7807669
Satan
>>7807669
An absolute madman
Has anyone done one of these with the Donkey Kong Country mine carts?
Not choosing the hardest version
You pull the lever. If I had to do it in real time I probably wouldn't though, only if given enough time to think.
>9 replies in
>no multi-track drifting
>>7807739
Yes, five lives are worth more than one, I'll just live with the guilt and channel it into my art, if I even feel any remorse, which I probably won't because I'm already dead on the inside.
>>7807750
The trolley isn't even moving so what is there to worry about?
>>7807778
>no pop-top can
Fuck that, we're going to the left
>>7807651
Are there any interesting arguments for NOT pulling the lever? I mean, to my mind
>people are going to die regardless
>the choice is whether it'll be 1 or 5
>just pick the smaller number
but maybe I've missed something.
If you don't touch the lever at all you aren't directly responsible for any deaths
>>7807651
The only right answer is the honest one.
>>7807829
A common argument is because you are actively pulling the level you are directly involved in killing that single person rather than the deaths of five people that are not killed due to your actions.
>>7807659
No that difficult. If you go left and left again you only kill two people. THe other option, the 4 ppl on the first track, automatically harms 2x the number of the other path, before running over any more people (which you would have to, by necessity, if you chose that one).
>>7807857
If you go left, and left again, the trolley runs into a school killing 200 children, one of whom includes Pol Pot
I choose to believe this long (and long-absent) series of posts serve some important containment function and that the discussions here are somehow providing for the greater good by preventing people from debating unrealistic casuistic edge-cases out in the real world.
WELCOME BACK TROLLEY
>>7807651
There is enough time to pull the single guy off the track if you pull the lever
Well /lit/, do you pull the lever or not?
>>7807857
>not that diffucult, since egalitarian utilitarianism is common sense
wew lad
>>7807870
Even easier.
>>7807856
That argument is dumb. Of course you're responsible because you have a clear chance to keep them alive and you didn't take it.
I've heard people say then if that's true, the line of logic should go that we're all responsible for all of the suffering in the world we don't choose to stop but that's true though.
>>7808000
>that argument is dumb apart from the way that it makes sense
>>7807651
If the bottom 5 are roasties, then kill them instead of the 1 male.
>>7807778
lol who on earth invented this madness?
>>7807980
Seems like where we're going, we won't need levers at all.
>>7807669
Asda
>>7808071
>tripcode poster
>>7807829
>no one's posted this
>>7808346
I'm lazy though, so the logical conclusion is that I only intervene to prevent the loss of life when it's convenient/easy for me to do.
>>7808356
The enlightened sage declines to touch the lever, and cannot be blamed for his inaction. Anyone who moves the lever is guilty of murder.
>>7808373
I can live with that.
>>7807651
In my philo class in college, I argued to not hit the lever and kill the larger number of people.
my arguments were that choice is an illusion, and as an affront to a god that doesn't exist i would allow the death of the larger amount because their lives were of no inherent value. so my choice meant nothing. any action I take would be responsibility of death on my end while also effort wasted
all but one female in that class refused to talk to me after that. good times. On the same track, don't fuck with girls who say they wouldn't hit the switch either or have insane blue/green/pink hair.
>>7808000
>That argument is dumb but that's true though.
Good post
>>7808378
You are an insufferable faggot.
>>7807829
Pulling the lever results in the death of a person who was never in danger until you became involved.
>>7808408
He got tied to the tracks somehow, someone clearly has it out for the guy.
>>7808392
thanks
:^)
>>7808346
The flaw with this is that if the person is willing to sacrifice himself to save the others, you are no longer the one killing him and thus are free of guilt.
>>7808438
You are not freed from guilt, only from a guilty conscience. Choosing one outcome because the results are easier to live with is not acting out of moral imperative.
Pull the lever and then quickly pull the single guy off the track
Well?
>>7808527
Every single one of them is dead already so it doesn't matter.
>>7808078
Are all these cut from a philosophy textbook or something? Someone post the answer key.
>>7808378
>>7808456
But why would you be guilty in the first place? You didn't tie those people to the tracks, you just were the one to find them. Your responsibility to save lives is completely unrelated to how they got there. The only thing you could be guilty of is choosing to do nothing if no one was on the second track. Having a person there complicates things, but if you are told by that person he would prefer to sacrifice himself to save the others, not only do you not have any guilt from pulling the lever, you are being selfish by not doing so.
>>7808554
The other anon is either shitposting or just stupid.
>>7808554
A choice is submitted to you. Since then, you are responsible for your choice, whatever it is. "Not choosing" is already a choice. Sure, the simple fact that some people will die is not what you're guilty of, since you cannot choose to save everyone. However, since you can choose to save 4 people, you are guilty of 4 deaths if you don't.
>>7807829
What if the 1 person's life was worth more than the 5? What if they were going to cure cancer or some shit. Or conversely, what if the 5 people are all murderers, etc...
The whole point is to probe people's ethical code.
>>7808580
this has been discussed a thousand times over and that is one of the main arguments made. for you to dismiss it so readily makes you look gormless as fuck
Fuck reading this thread if it's already been said, but the only logical thing to do is to do nothing.
Not stopping death=/=killing
>>7808661
>literally 'I wouldn't piss on you if you were burning'
edgefags plz go
>>7808378
I had to take an Intro To Philosophy course in college. The prof went around the class getting everyone's answer...my argument was quite simple, I wouldn't do anything because I don't care about these strangers either way. It wasn't well received by my peers.
The same peers who then got btfo when the professor asked if they'd pull the lever, why don't they spend their time trying to save starving Ethiopians or whatever, why they don't spend more of their income on charities, etc...since they are able to save people's lives half the world away by simply spending a dollar. They'd be willing to kill someone else to save a life, but not spend an extra dollar? It was basic entrapment, but most people's moral code is so examined they didn't see this and had no response to effectively being horrible people as per their own worldview. The prof gave me a small nod of recognition afterwards.
>>7808686
>if they'd pull the lever, why don't they spend their time trying to save starving Ethiopians or whatever
answer seems very obvious, because the ethiopians aren't dying before their very eyes
>>7808708
>face where the trolley is coming from
>people on rails aren't in front of your very eyes
>no need to pull lever
>>7808718
>image is burned into your retinas
checkmate
>>7808378
wow haha i, a homosexual, sure did get that topical and exclusive piece of humor you did there in the thread name! i pity the heterosexuals for whom that witty bit looks like hieroglyphs from lost eons of vaulted ceilings whose dimensions cannot be fathomed, cyclopean halls exhaling darkness, they surely cant even understand that one, not even in our deep slumber under countless strata awaiting the faint rumblings like the seventh trumpet, the seventh seal announcing the glorious return of our true masters from beyond infinity. like, haha, i suppose i could see your grindr joke and raise you a 'YYYAAASSSSSSSSSS, QUEEN' thats another one youd need to be initiated, one of our blood to understand haha
>>7808708
So close your eyes whenever you see something bad.
They know about the Ethiopians, however indirectly. The fact they aren't troubled by it is indicative of how ridiculous it is to care about strangers being harmed in front of you.
>>7808708
so the only thing that matters when it comes to evil is proximity?
>>7808708
You could say 'because I'm trying to get rich before donating because if I lose all my funds to charity now I would be unable to donate in the future'
You could say 'because charity aid from the poor, to the poor, is a bandaid solution that addresses symptoms not cause'
You could say 'because my time is better spent convincing people with the funds to meaningfully address world hunger to do that instead of blowing it on failed fighter jets' (F-35 a shit)
You could say 'because unlike the trolley problem, I have no way of knowing how much of my aid actually aids people and isn't hoovered up by embezzlers on the American side and warlords on the African side'
There are a ton of viable answers, the point of that post was that people have unexamined moral codes.
Which is the point of the trolley problem- to get people to examine their unexamined moral codes. It's not really a serious answer, and people who take it super seriously are missing the forest for the trees.
>>7808754
Each of those has a consequence/corollary that would "undesirable"
>You could say 'because I'm trying to get rich before donating because if I lose all my funds to charity now I would be unable to donate in the future'
this is the same as saving 5 people as opposed to 1, people are dying while you amass your fortune
>>7808754
>You could say 'because charity aid from the poor, to the poor, is a bandaid solution that addresses symptoms not cause'
So you wouldn't pull the lever unless no-one ever died from a train again if you did?
>>7808754
>You could say 'because unlike the trolley problem, I have no way of knowing how much of my aid actually aids people and isn't hoovered up by embezzlers on the American side and warlords on the African side'
but if lives are at stake isn't it your moral obligation to find out, and find the charities that do help people and give them as much as you conceivably can
etc...
>>7807669
GRRM
>>7808708
Why is human nature so confusing and full of contradictions
>>7808759
>obviously theres some hypocrisy to it but you must recognise that its easier to emotionally distance yourself from things that are actually distant
The hypocrisy is all that matters, it's a question of how rational are your beliefs? It proves that most morality is little more than a sort of vestigial tribal inclination.
>>7807651
This is why I think philosophy is a waste of fucking time. Of course you pull the lever. The idea that you would be more responsible for the death of the one you killed, when someone dying was inevitable anyway, is a bunch of emotional horseshit and doesn't even deserve to be considered.
>>7808769
>people who take it super seriously are missing the forest for the trees.
People like you, for instance.
(Also your analogies are shit, as can be expected of anyone seriously trying to relate a highly abstract thought experiment to the complexity of the real world)
>>7808378
>On the same track
That wasn't nearly as witty as you thought it was.
>>7808787
Care to explain yourself?
>>7808787
Not all philosophy deals with this kind of nonsense, friend. Some of it is quite practical.
>>7808787
Philosophy might make people stop that emotional horseshit though. You think 'of course you pull the lever' but the majority of people in my philosophy class didn't save the 5 for the exact emotional horseshit you mentioned.
>>7808782
>the hypocrisy is all that matters
You do know that an appeal to hypocrisy is a classical logical fallacy, right? It's the same damn thing as "tu quoque".
>>7808809
You do realize that you're completely failing to understand what the person you're responding to is saying, right?
>>7808686
>why don't they spend their time trying to save starving Ethiopians or whatever
Because people aren't perfect?
>>7808814
>Mr. President we have to do something, Hitler is killing millions and the Japanese have bombed pearl harbor!
'Oh well, people aren't perfect :^)'
>>7808818
this was basically the american attitude to world war 1 though
>>7808813
That's a classical logical fallacy.
The classic "tu nimium stupidi intellegat stercore" fallacy.
>>7808754
Good point. I have like no respect for the field of philosophy, because I have a succinct and simple moral code that has answers to pretty much everything, and a pretty nice model for explaining conscious decisions and behavior. You don't really need to spend serious time thinking about that stuff unless you suck at thinking.
>>7808843
>i dont need philosophy ive figured all the worlds problems out
>>7808733
this is insane. well done.
>>7808787
>lol all these entry level ethical quandaries are so easy to answer lol i'm so smart look at me
nice double fore tho
>>7808346
>not being a hardcore consequentialist
>>7808843
>>/b/
>>7808806
People always say that, but no one has given me a good example yet.
>>7808809
>You do know that an appeal to hypocrisy is a classical logical fallacy, right? It's the same damn thing as "tu quoque".
You should go back to your wiki article, it has everything to do with the difference between a formal and informal fallacy, you dunce.
>>7808889
Sounds more than anything like you can't deal with abstract thinking
>>7808809
It's not an appeal to anyone though. Are you confused because both involve the word hypocrisy?
>>7807651
Morality is a spook.
Just go steal those five guys' wallets and run off.
>>7808389
Giggled
No. This is just a very manipulative way to get you thinking like an amoral utilitarian schemer. Another way to frame the whole question is: would you shoot an innocent person in the head to save the lives of five innocent people?
>>7807829
>4 people are not worth more than 1
Also imagine 1000 people on the first track and 994 on the second one.
If you let the single man live, he will be weighed down by survivor's guilt the rest of his life. If you sacrifice him, he will be honored as a hero and a martyr.
>>7809387
that's interesting
>>7809117
>A trigger is different from a lever
anyone who answered one way to the lever but differently for the gun is retarded
Also
>Implying there is ANY morality that ISN'T utilitarian scheming
Debate me plebs
>>7808378
I didn't expect that many people to comment on how autistic I was in my freshman philo class, but I'll blame myself for that one. /lit/ is a part of 4chan.
Further clarification, in my defense here is that although my point stayed the same in essence "It's not my business, pulling the lever is murder, not pulling the lever is being willfully apathetic towards circumstances"
I agree the whole affront to god thing was retarded, but it was years ago so whatever now I guess.
>>7809487
Of course it's different, because the trolley problem frames this bullshit moral "scenario" in a way that seems to insulate you from the personal responsibility of murder. How many people that say "pull the lever" would be willing to smother a man so that his organs could be harvested to save 4 people in need? The honest, consistent, and yes, moral response is to do nothing. Everyone that advocates utilitarianism ought to be executed for the good of the many.
>>7809530
>How many people that say "pull the lever" would be willing to smother a man so that his organs could be harvested to save 4 people in need?
Everyone with a logical and consistent moral code that holds human life as valuable?
>Muh feels don't give me a good argument against utilitarianism so I'll kill them all!
Literally you, right now.
When one person dies, it's a tragedy. When thousands die, it's a statistic.
Therefore I would elect to kill the 5 simply because no one would give a fuck after the fact.
>>7809441
I wouldn't
>>7809544
Morally bankrupt garbage. 4chan has poisoned your mind if you think meme arrowing "muh feels" is an adequate response. Take it up with Immanuel Kant.
>>7809544
Human life can be held as a valuable but having a moral imperative to not kill anyone is part of many moral codes as well.
You can say "muh inaction is killing" but by that logic no one on this Earth is moral because at some point they are not going out of their way to better society. Why is it not okay to better oneself in a way harmonious with society instead? If that means retaining one's conscience by choosing to not pull the lever, so be it.
It's a lot easier to treat human life as quantifiable when you're detached from the method of executing someone. It's a lot easier on a person to gun someone down with a machine gun than stab them with a sword.
>>7809579
>but by that logic no one on this Earth is moral because at some point they are not going out of their way to better society.
I agree entirely. Luckily, Utilitarianism does not demand perfection or universal compliance for a better world to be carved out of the evil of man.
>>7809573
Your shit response evoked a shit one from me. If you honestly think your empty nonsense holds weight, I have nothing to say to you.
And as for your blatant namedropping, Kant is a poor choice to argue against utilitarianism. Utilitarians look at Kant's first Formulation and discard him as a delusional in an ivory tower, who abandons the context of reality in favor of an imagined humanity that cares about his pointless maxims.
Utilitarianism addresses the existence of people outside their viewpoint. Kant can only mumble 'well if everyone thought like me everything would be great!' which is certainly true, but will never be true in practice. And so, the Utilitarian finds Kant useless.
>>7807651
No.
I jump in front of the trolley because my weight will stop it before it reaches anyone else.
>>7809703
You know that's actually is a variant of the Trolley known as Fat Man, where you have to push a fat man off a bridge to stop the trolley?Book about characters from various thought experiments and philosophical works banding together to shut them down down and rage against the cruel philosophers that created them when?
We can call it 'The Good, the Bad, and Omelas
>>7809487
>>Implying there is ANY morality that ISN'T utilitarian scheming
go the fuck away you brit asshole
>>7809698
>discard him as a delusional in an ivory tower,
jesus christ
>>7809748
Kant unironically argues that if ISIS asks for the nuclear launch codes, it's wrong to lie to them, because lying is ALWAYS wrong, because lying being permitted makes itself irrational when applied as a universal maxim. Which is logically very clever and a great case against the purpose of lying, and yet when practically applied, to the real world, becomes stupid as fuck.
It's no wonder Kant got so triggered by context, because the context of reality immediately exposes him as pointless nonsense.
>>7809698
You're a smug prick and not nearly as smart as you fantasize yourself to be.
>>7807856
inaction =/= indecision
>>7807729
you get that edge at house of knives?
>>7807792
whoa
>>7807832
the choice of inaction is an action deliberately taken. you are responsible for all of the deaths that occur
>>7810291
That's not really edge.
Modern day edge is like,
>Set it to kill the 5 and hope the lone survivor kills himself out of shame.
>>7807659
>left
>middle
>left
Kills 16 people
>>7807651
who said that the lever even does anything.
>>7807651
I would evade all responsibility for the matter by jumping in front of the train.
I'm a misanthrope. My own simple solution is to pursue the course of action which results in the greatest number of human lives being destroyed before approaching the helpless soul powerless to save themselves and stamping my boot into their head. Mother Earth will thank me.
>>7807651
I'd leave the track as-is because I want the highest score.
>>7807856
Yeah, but I saved 5... or 4.
>>7807651
i would pull the lever
being in charge of it makes me responsible either way
Guys
How do we know the lever does anything to the tracks? What if it just kills someone like that film "the box"?
>>7807778
>what should the brain do?
Its best.
>>7810665
What if it just kills someone if you don't press it?Thinking outside the box here.
This is the real dilemma
>>7810897
>thinking outside the box
>>7808787
Another version which helps illustrate the point of not pulling the lever goes like this: Assume you are a doctor who has five patients with rare immune system standards in dire need of organs or they will die. A healthy person comes in who is a perfect match for all five. Do you carve up the single person to save all five?
Most people would certainly say no but it is the same as the trolley, the only thing different is your level of direct involvement which is the whole argument of the non-lever-pulling camp
>>7810927
/lit/ posters are the worst type of scum, the only moral thing to do would be jump onto the tracks
>>7810927
>dilemma
how
kill the degenerates
>>7808389
What he meant is that people say that is an undesirable implication and therefore it can't be true, but that it is, in fact, true.
Reading comprehension is important.
>>7807716
The people will understand, it's a loop-da-loop
>>7807778
RIP
Set track to track 1 as first set wheels passes set to track 2. Derail tram.
>>7809786
> lying is always wrong
lol
I would prefer not to.
>>7809786
We could just not say anything, you know. Also not acting ethical is not the same as acting unethical.
>>7809786
>believes Kant was telling the truth when he said lying was always wrong
>2016
Does it make a difference?
>>7811298
no Nietzsche, it doesn't
Id do nothing and walk away desu
A hypothetical question to the hypothetical scenario, what if those tracks and people continue infinitely (like this >>7811298)
what do you choose then?
>>7811349
>if they continue infinitely
Then the one that allows me to live longer you goon.
>>7807651
Yes. It's no different than if there was a rail worker on the other track. You don't let 5 people die because you're afraid of the consequences.
>>7811349
You choose the one where the most people get run over. So at least they can find comfort in being in a group
>>7811391
But both are infinite though
>>7809387
our mind trick utself with these number
>>7807651
>see trolley on approach
>pull lever to set trolley on single hostage path
>quickly remove person from rails
>trolley passes harmlessly by
>if possible, chase and board to look for brake to prevent any further mishap
If the trolley is approaching too fast for this then pull the lever anyway; it'll either de-rail trying to make that corner and might miss everybody or kill a few hostages anyway, or it'll make the corner and only kill the one hostage.
Also the numbers game makes it a shit moral quandary; the image should be 5 randoms versus 1 person important to you, not 5 randoms versus 1 random.
>>7807716
kek
>>7807778
>never specifies that the brain is clairvoyant/aware with certainty what the chosen saved railroad worker will do after being saved
It's all speculation then. The brain cannot know nor be expected to know what those men will do after not being killed by the trolley. The brain is not responsible for the willful, sovereign actions of that man. Describing the aftermath of the choice beyond "Left/Right survives" is irrelevant for the purposes and criteria of the choice.
- The brain should not choose at all. -
If the trolley is not currently on track to kill either, choosing any course is actively choosing to kill either unnecessarily.
If the trolley is on track to kill one man, switching the course is actively choosing to kill the other.
If the trolley is on track to kill one man and there is nothing in the brain's power to save both men, the tragedy plays out and the one man dies as a consequence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The survivor re-evaluates rail safety practices and prevents such a scenario in the future.
>>7807832
Wouldn't refusing to act and save four lives be considered directly responsible for those losses?
>>7808686
The answer is even simpler than that. Pull the lever, then tell the teacher that the reason you don't help the rest of the world is simply because it's not as easy as pulling a lever.
Your money has more value than an intangible unexperiencable reward.
Pulling a lever has an immediate reaction and reward.
Then at least the conversation would go somewhere interesting.
I dont pull the lever so that it's only one guy that's fucked in the head instead of 5 guys fucked in the head free tp do whatever they want.
>>7811417
>missing the point of this simple thought experiment so hard
>>7811394
The people wouldnt percieve it like that
>>7811786
How do you perceive it?
>>7808527
Obviously bottom, not even a question
>>7807651
break the lever off with my hands and pop each tire on the trean before it gets to the five
>>7807651
no, let the 5 people die and then beat the other guy to death and hang myself using the rope
>>7807651
>kill five people
>or kill one
There's absolutely no logical reason to choose the bottom track without any other context.
None.
>>7807651
i lack the physical strength to pull the lever
Why aren't we questioning the ethics behind the person who placed those people there in the first place and the ethics behind the transportation system?
>>7811841
>pop train tire
Hilarious
>>7811863
I think the assumed context is that the train is on track to hit the 5. you could either pull the trigger and be personally responsible for one death or allow it to happen and have no responsibility in the 5 deaths
>>7811898
I think lack of action is still proof of guilt, at least I would feel more guilty.
>>7809786
No telling them "no I can't give you the codes because you will do sum bad" is a choice in Kantian ethics. Withholding information is not a lie.
This also anwers the common murderer argument. When he asks for your son you say "sorry man, I can't tell you because I know you will use this information to murder my son"
>>7807651
no. There's no indication that the train will continue on its intended path, hit the people, or even harm them if it did indeed hit them.
>>7811841
first hearty lol of the day. thanks, m8
>>7811863
I guess you are not familiar with this thing. The bottom is the set default. The agent comes across the choice to switch the tracks. If he switches them, the person who dies and the agent is co-responsible with an act he directly commited. If he doesn't do anything and five people die he can just blame whoever put the people on the tracks.
The point is to encourage thinking about not only what is the right thing to do, but also to what extent the agent is responsible for what happens, and also to what extent the choice to not get involved can be an act itself.
I like the shooting squad example more, though it's less known: So 20 injuns got caught stealing and a bunch of soldiers is preparing to shoot them. You are an esteemed naturalist who visits the town where this happens, and the captain recognizes you and suggest you get to shoot one injun and let the other 19 go to honour your arrival. One injun volunteers to save his brothers.
If you chose not to do it, you didn't murder anyone, but are still responsible for the death of 19 more people than if you directly killed one of the 20 in a way. Of course most people would just shoot him. But these thought experiments are about the ethics and action theory behind it, basically just something philosophers wank their brains over.
>>7811937
>agent
why would a spy even approach the lever?
WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL HAVING THIS ARGUMENT
PULL THE FUCKING SWITCH
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU "KILLED" ANYONE OR NOT YOU FAGGOTS
>>7812015
Holy shit he's right
>>7812015
Thank you for letting me see the error in my ways
>>7811988
good one
>>7812015
ETHICS STATUS : SOLVED
>>7812015
i wouldve never expected a random frogposter to convince me with such ease!
i don't really want to interfere
i presume that those guys are tied to the track for a reason
>>7811793
How do I perceive infinity?
>>7812096
And the reason is that you should be there to choose which one of them lives.
>>7808071
just turn it around to auschwitz, it's not that difficult
what do you do?
>>7812096
this tbqh. people dont get tied to the tracks these days, theyre probably filming for a movie or something. just jog on
>>7808378
>america
In my class we had about an equal number of people who voted for pull and not pull.
>>7808040
It's satire written by a proffessor.
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm
>>7811937
>pick one or all 20 are killed
False dichotomy, without any special circumstances or hardships introduced to the scenario the soldiers could simply NOT shoot (whether through refusal, incapacity of person, incapacity of gun, you convincing the captain to order them not to shoot, whatever) and kill any injuns and all 20 survive the encounter.
>>7812303
Save the chinks, start up a HFT firm, buy all the hookers in NYC.
>>7811349
>I want to get off Mr. Trolley's Wild Ride.
>>7812303
Pull the lever. Three Chinks are more useful to society than your average White woman.
If I volunteer for a position on the track, please pull the lever.
>>7812955
>CRAWLING
>>7812958
I won't deny it.
>>7807768
What if the one guy is a serial killer?
>>7814016
What if the five are all serial killers?
>>7812303
Who is that cowboy? Is he part of this task? Am I the cowboy?
>>7807792
Alright alright alright
Not so easy now, is it?
>>7808527
Fuck kirkagard
>>7814045
Damn son
>>7807651
I wouldnt do anything and try to get away without anyone noticing me, because i dont like to get involved with people
>>7808616
>guilt by association
I know this post is 2 days old but this post is still 2 days wrong
>>7810889
KeK
>>7807829
Pretty much this, even if the 5 people are 70 year old convicts, and the one person is the second coming of Jesus, it's 5 lives compared to one. Even if the one person holds more possibilities, it's just that, a prospect.
![MultiTrackDrifting[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Z9qelGl.jpg "MultiTrackDrifting[1].jpg")
>>7807651
