This test only has the one question, but it's a very important one.

By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision.
Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please give due consideration to each line.

You are in Florida, Miami, to be specific There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you...some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury Suddenly you see a man floundering in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer...somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is.

It's George W. Bush!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under... forever. You have the two options You can save the life of G.W. Bush, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful men.

So here's the question, and please give an honest answer.....

Would you select high contrast colour film,
or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

Black and white - it's classier.

Black and White for sure, as long as the lighting is really good. Otherwise Full colour.

Sorry i would be to busy looting and raping and shooting people to care.

Colour, because you can turn them into B&W easily in photoshop later on.

Colour digital and than have both options thanks to Image\Adjust\Desaturate.

*edit* Bah, beaten by Opec.

last edited by eu4ia at 10:13:17 26/Sep/05

There should have been an avi option with Benny Hill music inserted.

^^ that's what one of the mates said as well =)

Id save Bush! You would get heaps more recognition for saving the President of the United States rather than taking a photo of him dying.

Id save Bush! You would get heaps more recognition for saving the President of the United States rather than taking a photo of him dying.

Yeah, you'd also have half the world on your doorstep, ready to smack you up.

sorry pingu, that option just isn't allowed

You have the two options You can save the life of G.W. Bush, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful men.

It should say you realise you can't reach him to save him or something.

But it's not really a morality test if the decision has already been made for us, is it.

You have a hammer!

Why the f*** does everyone always have to analyse s***....

Goddamn uni students..
Just for once in your lifes (even though none of you have had one as yet) just accept something because it's kinda funny...

lol bush

because it's kinda funny...

Apart from the fact that it's Georgy, how is taking a picture, and the colour of the picture, of a soon-to-be deceased person funny ? Even so, Bush jokes haven't been funny for a while now.

forget the photo, it's your duty as a citizen of earth to ensure he actually drowns

eXemplar, if you're serious, the joke is that it makes you think it's an actual morality test, so all along you're expecting it to say "would you save bush and be a good citerzen, or take the picture that would excel your career?" but instead it says "which type of photo would you use?", because it's not a question of morale saving bush, it's obvious you'd just let him die (by the opinion of the person who wrote the joke obviously)

very similar to that joke, what should you do if a 'nip' (jap) is drowning? answer: take your foot off his head

the humour is surprise combined with careless neglect (pushing the limits) and exaggeration, of course not to be taken seriously ... that's why it's humour

save him, ransom him, get loot, kill him

that's why it's QGL

I was serious.

When I read George Bush, I was expecting a punch line in the question about saving him or letting him die, then read the bit about the Pulitzer pic and the following wasn't so much a punch line as a :-/ line, much less surprise.
I wasn't expecting the colour of the photo, but it wasn't funny.
Neither was it funny because it was Bush.

Apart from the fact that it's Georgy, how is taking a picture, and the colour of the picture, of a soon-to-be deceased person funny ? Even so, Bush jokes haven't been funny for a while now.

If you dont understand why people find it funny then you aint that smart ;)
You dont have to think it is funny, but surly you would understand why others would?

also i'm a uni student and generalisations hurt :o(

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones
But it's the whips an chains that excite me =)

I can understand why people find it funny, myself I don't find a puppet figurehead that funny.

shutup

colour.

The Next part HERMITech,

So throw me down and tie me up and show me how much u like me!




It made me laugh. You guys really gotta chill sometimes.

heh, I never knew the next part of it :/

im wearing this t atm http://www.funny-tshirts.biz/store/images/t_16337.jpg

So regardless, I chose black and white.

Where do I stand morally?

When I read George Bush, I was expecting a punch line in the question about saving him or letting him die, then read the bit about the Pulitzer pic and the following wasn't so much a punch line as a :-/ line

It's funny because it's assumed that everyone would let him die... They could have asked what speed of film or whether to get it on video.

Sheesh!

the pennys are dropping in this thread real fast.















not

if you found it funny, chances are you voted for Latham. nice one!

also, what Predator said.

if you found it funny, chances are you voted for Latham. nice one!

Nah, I didn't. Nice one!