PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO EMBED THIS VIDEO CONDITIONED UPON INCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN ATTRIBUTION: Video courtesy of Little Bonanza Productions. For more information, please contact: email@example.com
"hypothetical situation, might help me in smaller matters - say your the leader of a country. it flourished for awhile but its fallen into desperate times. the population is growing very rapidly. the amout of babies being born is at the highest rate its ever been and immigrants are flooding into the land. the food is extremely scarce and if it keeps up you'll go bankrupt. the people would literally have to eat each other to survive. you have the option of enforcing a vaccine that would ultimately weed out the weak and leave the strong ill, but alive. this is your only option to survive ... what choice do you make? is it more morally correct to ensure a few some survival, or to not cross the line of inhumanity at the cost of everything ... in this instance the strong will get better, life will go on but with a dramatically reduced populace. the question remains ... " (from Yahoo Answers! May 2008)
This seemed to me like an educated person trying to hide his educational status. Anyone who can spell "hypothetical" can presumably spell "you're" and "amount," etc.
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. ~2Thes.2:10-12.