What Would Be Worse For A Man

Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.Hitler thought he was doing the “right thing,” that he was a good guy.The victors write the history books.America used an atom bomb to kill 129,000+ Japanese people at the end of World War II.Sure, we don’t celebrate that fact. But we do justify it.On September 11th, 2001, some 2,996 people were killed.It is a national tragedy to us.Yet our government killed 40 times that many people with just two bombs.I guess the point is: Be the last victor, and you will never live or die as a monster, but rather will always be seen as a good person.

If a man hits a woman, is it worse than if a woman hits a man all things being equal?

I hate the way this conversation is framed (not by OP, just in general). People have had it drilled into their head to not hit women, but have not been taught why it is so bad to hit them. In our society, as in most, women are not often combatants. Men are assumed to bear the responsibility of protecting themselves and their loved ones. So they are combatants. Women are assumed to be in a much larger class of people who are not a threat to men and therefore you shouldn't hit. This class includes, the elderly, the disabled, clergy, people much smaller than you and even community leaders. Truth be told, in America, men are very unlikely to face injury at the hands of anyone. What threat there is generally comes from a very small demographic. If you hit anyone outside of that group of capably violent men, you are probably, (but not definitely) doing something wrong. That is what is meant by “Don't hit women. “These people are very unlikely to attack, so you should not attack them. However, if a member of any of these groups DOES attack someone, say a child, then of course it is okay to do what you need to stop them. Usually people in these groups are incapable of significant violence, so significant violence is not a relevant response. However, if that 8 year old is trying to get to a gun, then basically all options are on the table. This doesn't happen much, to put it mildly, so you shouldn't hit kids.It all comes down to not hurting people unless there are no other options. If you find yourself, as a man, in the unlikely scenario that a woman is going to injure you and escape is not possible, then defend yourself. Until then, people should stop acting like not getting hit is some privilege that women have to justify.

Which fate would be worse, being the last female or the last male on earth?

Looking at it from a survival of the species perspective, having a single female left would lead to a genetic bottleneck. She would have to be willing to sleep with a different male every year during her childbearing years. And what if she wasn't young? Or what would happen if she died during childbirth? Game over.If there were only a single male though, he could singlehandedly repopulate the planet as long as the females were willing.Childbirth is painful and having to go through this year after year, wouldn't be a pleasant experience. The male doesn't suffer any consequences at all from reproducing, and likely wouldn't complain at having a variety of partners.So I’d say that the females fate would be a lot worse than the males. Of course, she would have the chance of completely changing society. She would create a universal matriarchal society, geared towards serving the needs of women rather than men. Something like the queen bee with its workers and drones.

What do you think is worse, to convict an innocent man or set the guilty free?

I believe the Christian response would be that it is worse to condemn the innocent. Judgment and condemnation is a very serious matter that someone should not lightly take upon for themselves. God has given the magistrate the authority to make judgment in situations of crime, and they are responsible to take that position very seriously. Yes, mistakes are made in condemning the innocent and setting free the guilty, but man is limited in his knowledge. If due process is followed, one can only do so much. Restitution is much better than other forms of punishment, as the victim receives back what he/she has lost. In cases where a wrong judgment has been passed, the restitution can be reversed.This question may be leading up to a discussion of the death penalty, which obviously cannot be reversed later on in the face of new information. But that is a much larger, specific discussion.