The stuff in bold is mine, in response to another poster:
> >>>> Long-term consequences not my problem, nor anything I'd consider in
> >>>>the circumstance of "wipe 'em out or your wife and kids get it".
> >>> I understand the "in-the-moment" angst of choosing mosquitoes or your
> >>> wife, but, um, long term consequences would probably conspire to make
> >>> you lose your wife anyway, to some unforeseen niggle in the
> >>> mosquitoless space time continuum.
> >> I do not accept no-win scenarios.
> >That depends on your values for the word "win"
> >I, on the other hand, do not accept scenarios where I am the last
> >living thing standing, waving what's left of the atomic bomb and
> >screaming "I won" to a world which is now devoid of ears to hear me.
> >Winning is one thing. WInning is good. Winning makes you FEEL good.
> >But winning at any cost... makes me into the sort of person I do not
> >wish to be. I'd like to believe I'd think before I shoot - and there
> >are scenarios where, if personal sacrifice was necessary, I'd like to
> >believe that I had it in me to make it. That, too, would be "winning",
> >in one sense of the word. Anyone can survive. Few people truly "win".
The discussion, for the record, was originally about whether it would be acceptable to destroy an entire species in exchange for the safety of one's wife and child.
The question, should you choose to accept it, is this: is "winning" at any cost really winning at all?
I've a chapter to finish.