TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,873
I just thought of yet another social experiment that would again prove pro-lifer hypocrisy and recently I was thinking if one were to take, suppose 1000 people from the masses, and then show them two short 3-4 minute films, X and Y respectively.
In both versions, the character of the short film is the same, however, the film slightly differs in which decision the character makes, whether it is to CTB or whether to commit heinous acts of violence. In version X, the character, C will be CTB and then nothing more while in version Y the character does not CTB but instead commits horrible crimes and then CTBs.
So this means that there are two versions of the movie, and with 1000 people, then split into two groups, A and B respectively. Group A will only watch version X while Group B will watch version Y. The two groups are currently separated, but within both groups all the people are from the same walks of life in order to keep a control variable and with the same demographics from all walks of life, this ensures consistency with equal representation of the general populace (of pro-lifers).
After the end of the short film, both versions equal in length while only differing in the outcome and action of the main character, one being just CTB'ing (no heinous acts beforehand) while the other one committing a heinous act and then CTBs (or gets killed – either way, result is death). At the conclusion of the film in both versions, the audience is then asked to take an anonymous questionnaire survey showing their reaction to the films, and one of the questions include, "Are you against MC (main character) CTB'ing?"
Interpretation of answers:
Case A: If there are more answers for yes for film X (the MC didn't commit a heinous crime, but only CTB'd), and less for film Y, then it shows hypocrisy as that more pro-lifers (majority of the populace) are against people who CTB'd on their own terms, yet wouldn't be against those who do so "if the person committed heinous acts prior."
Case B: If there are less answers for yes for film X, and more yes for film Y, then while there is some reverse hypocrisy on the pro-lifers' part, it shows that pro-lifers are pro-sufferers and value vengeance, retributive justice more than compassion, dignity, and the right to die. (However, that is a tangential point for another topic/thread).
Case C: If there are equal (or close) responses of yeses from both groups in film X and Y, from groups A and B respectively, then this proves consistency, but it is still unsettling to know that pro-lifers are pro-sufferers even if they are not hypocritical in this scenario.
Case D: Similar to Case C, but equal (or close) responses of no's, then it is rather indifferent.
Note: This is just an educational discussion about a social experiment and a hypothetical scenario. I do not encourage, condone, or glorify violence or illegal acts.
With that said, what do you think about this hypothetical social experiment? Do you think it does well to prove the double-standard, hypocritical nature of pro-lifers, meaning that they are against CTB for people who wish to die on their own terms yet they are not against the people who have done horrible deeds and heinous crimes against humanity to receive death? Are there any flaws in this experiment, and if so, how would you improve the flaws in order to make it more accurate and less skewed? Let me know your thoughts.
In both versions, the character of the short film is the same, however, the film slightly differs in which decision the character makes, whether it is to CTB or whether to commit heinous acts of violence. In version X, the character, C will be CTB and then nothing more while in version Y the character does not CTB but instead commits horrible crimes and then CTBs.
So this means that there are two versions of the movie, and with 1000 people, then split into two groups, A and B respectively. Group A will only watch version X while Group B will watch version Y. The two groups are currently separated, but within both groups all the people are from the same walks of life in order to keep a control variable and with the same demographics from all walks of life, this ensures consistency with equal representation of the general populace (of pro-lifers).
After the end of the short film, both versions equal in length while only differing in the outcome and action of the main character, one being just CTB'ing (no heinous acts beforehand) while the other one committing a heinous act and then CTBs (or gets killed – either way, result is death). At the conclusion of the film in both versions, the audience is then asked to take an anonymous questionnaire survey showing their reaction to the films, and one of the questions include, "Are you against MC (main character) CTB'ing?"
Interpretation of answers:
Case A: If there are more answers for yes for film X (the MC didn't commit a heinous crime, but only CTB'd), and less for film Y, then it shows hypocrisy as that more pro-lifers (majority of the populace) are against people who CTB'd on their own terms, yet wouldn't be against those who do so "if the person committed heinous acts prior."
Case B: If there are less answers for yes for film X, and more yes for film Y, then while there is some reverse hypocrisy on the pro-lifers' part, it shows that pro-lifers are pro-sufferers and value vengeance, retributive justice more than compassion, dignity, and the right to die. (However, that is a tangential point for another topic/thread).
Case C: If there are equal (or close) responses of yeses from both groups in film X and Y, from groups A and B respectively, then this proves consistency, but it is still unsettling to know that pro-lifers are pro-sufferers even if they are not hypocritical in this scenario.
Case D: Similar to Case C, but equal (or close) responses of no's, then it is rather indifferent.
Note: This is just an educational discussion about a social experiment and a hypothetical scenario. I do not encourage, condone, or glorify violence or illegal acts.
With that said, what do you think about this hypothetical social experiment? Do you think it does well to prove the double-standard, hypocritical nature of pro-lifers, meaning that they are against CTB for people who wish to die on their own terms yet they are not against the people who have done horrible deeds and heinous crimes against humanity to receive death? Are there any flaws in this experiment, and if so, how would you improve the flaws in order to make it more accurate and less skewed? Let me know your thoughts.
