Natural selection in action

[AntiAntagonist]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090511/tuk-couple-die-trying-to-save-pet-dogs-dba1618.html

I have no sympathy for these two. What parents in their right minds would do this? Do you think what they did was logical in any way?

Guy goes in to save his dog(s). Wife goes in to save the husband.

What are you trying to tell me?

Just a hypothetical situation that partially answers the second question & explains the situation.

I would be very surprised if both people jumped in the water at the same time after the dogs. The article mentions no evidence or witnesses other than the bodies washing up on shore. Any situation that the article mentions is hypothetical, even if the journo doesn't mention it.

 

[Flour]

Ahahahahahahaha! You, sir, have made my day.
*skips off into the sunset*
More retards outta the gene pool...

Except that they left a kid so their genes survived.

 

[Neonbob]

Ahahahahahahaha! You, sir, have made my day.
*skips off into the sunset*
More retards outta the gene pool...

Except that they left a kid so their genes survived.

Hopefully, the kid will grow up knowing his parents were asstards, and do his/her best to avoid falling into the same trap.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090511/tuk-couple-die-trying-to-save-pet-dogs-dba1618.html

I have no sympathy for these two. What parents in their right minds would do this? Do you think what they did was logical in any way?

Guy goes in to save his dog(s). Wife goes in to save the husband.

What are you trying to tell me?

Just a hypothetical situation that partially answers the second question & explains the situation.

I would be very surprised if both people jumped in the water at the same time after the dogs. The article mentions no evidence or witnesses other than the bodies washing up on shore. Any situation that the article mentions is hypothetical, even if the journo doesn't mention it.

This is true but they still left the child by the river, and that is the utmost peak of their idiocy.

 

[Legion]

I can understand how people would go into a river to save their pets from drowning. But, if you aren't sure that you can survive a river, especially while carrying a dog, don't go in.

This. Logically I'd have thought one of them would stay with the baby and the other if they could swim would try and help the dogs.

What saddens me more is the callous replies from the idiots in this thread who are making assumptions such as "they deserved it" even though all the facts are as follows:

A baby was left alone on a river bank.
The two parents were found drowned in the river
Two of the three dogs were found drowned in the river.

As somebody else already said, maybe the husband/wife went in, and when they got into trouble their partner tried to save them.

Anyone who says they'd let their partner drown just so the baby could guarantee a parent doesn't deserve one.

 

[zauxz]

Well if you wouldnt jump affter your pet, you arent smart. You are a pussy.

 

[D_987]

Jeez, you guys are abysmal. You insult the dead based on a little news story by which you know next to nothing about - bearing in mind we should all know about the way media spins stories and sensationalizes them.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Yeah, I think if you've had a pet, or at least a dog, you do feel a genuine connection to them, and they end up feeling like family.

I'm sure the parents didn't think 'lets get ourselves killed and leave an orphan' they just couldn't stand by and see their beloved pets die without trying to help.

Damn and this is coming from me who usually loves the idiot death tales, and the Darwin Awards in general.

Bet the dog that survived was found next to the kid tho.

 

[Magical Hans]

Wow that was....just wow

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Well if you wouldnt jump affter your pet, you arent smart. You are a pussy.

If you leave a human child alone on a river bank to save an animal from a river that it clearly can't survive in, then you aren't smart. Staying out of the river is the most intelligent thing to do. Self preservation does not equal cowardice.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

Kinda a stupid thing to do.

While dogs, or any type of pet, eventually become part of the family, I think human lives would be more than animal lives.

Though it was a noble attempt to save their dogs.

 

[-IT-]

Dogs are excellent swimmers, so if the water is to rough for them, don't go in there yourself.

 

[shadowbird]

How exaclty is this "natural selection" or "improving the gene pool"? The kid was the only one who survived ? the parent's genes live on.

 

[Doug]

Well if you wouldnt jump affter your pet, you arent smart. You are a pussy.

If you leave a human child alone on a river bank to save an animal from a river that it clearly can't survive in, then you aren't smart. Staying out of the river is the most intelligent thing to do. Self preservation does not equal cowardice.

As has been mention before, there are no witnesses to the event, so its unknown if that is what happened.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Well if you wouldnt jump affter your pet, you arent smart. You are a pussy.

If you leave a human child alone on a river bank to save an animal from a river that it clearly can't survive in, then you aren't smart. Staying out of the river is the most intelligent thing to do. Self preservation does not equal cowardice.

As has been mention before, there are no witnesses to the event, so its unknown if that is what happened.

While this is true I'm pretty sure they wouldn't exaggerate this story to the point of lying about the deaths of the parents or the condition of the child.

EDIT: I've just thought about it deeper and realised what you mean. I'm having a hard time imagining an alternative scenario though. Can you think of one?

EDIT NUMERO 2: My point still stands against that idiot who claimed that not jumping in after the dogs makes you a pussy.

 

[Doug]

Well if you wouldnt jump affter your pet, you arent smart. You are a pussy.

If you leave a human child alone on a river bank to save an animal from a river that it clearly can't survive in, then you aren't smart. Staying out of the river is the most intelligent thing to do. Self preservation does not equal cowardice.

As has been mention before, there are no witnesses to the event, so its unknown if that is what happened.

While this is true I'm pretty sure they wouldn't exaggerate this story to the point of lying about the deaths of the parents or the condition of the child.

EDIT: I've just thought about it deeper and realised what you mean. I'm having a hard time imagining an alternative scenario though. Can you think of one?

EDIT NUMERO 2: My point still stands against that idiot who claimed that not jumping in after the dogs makes you a pussy.

True, I can't think of an alternative scenario, or at least a likely one.

I suspect whatever happened, happened fast, and that by the time they realised they couldn't help their dogs, they were already in danger and too late.

Its pretty sad really. Their baby has no parents, and the 1 surviving dog has lost its owners.

 

[Grimm91]

I don't know what to say. I should be happy that two rather stupid people have died, yet, I feel so bad for that poor kid.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Well if you wouldnt jump affter your pet, you arent smart. You are a pussy.

If you leave a human child alone on a river bank to save an animal from a river that it clearly can't survive in, then you aren't smart. Staying out of the river is the most intelligent thing to do. Self preservation does not equal cowardice.

As has been mention before, there are no witnesses to the event, so its unknown if that is what happened.

While this is true I'm pretty sure they wouldn't exaggerate this story to the point of lying about the deaths of the parents or the condition of the child.

EDIT: I've just thought about it deeper and realised what you mean. I'm having a hard time imagining an alternative scenario though. Can you think of one?

EDIT NUMERO 2: My point still stands against that idiot who claimed that not jumping in after the dogs makes you a pussy.

True, I can't think of an alternative scenario, or at least a likely one.

I suspect whatever happened, happened fast, and that by the time they realised they couldn't help their dogs, they were already in danger and too late.

Its pretty sad really. Their baby has no parents, and the 1 surviving dog has lost its owners.

Yeah, they probably just reacted before assessing the situation. I just pray that the child doesn't remember seeing or hearing it.

 

[Nimbus]

True, I can't think of an alternative scenario, or at least a likely one.

Hmmm... How about this: The dogs were on leashes and pulled one spouse in. The second spouse jumped in to save the second.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

Wow, most of you guys are being really harsh! Seriously, these people were just trying to save some pets, most of you should know that any pet, especially dogs I find, can become one of the family. They were just acting on impulse, I know I wouldn't just watch any of my dogs drown, I'd have to do something, no matter how stupid it might seem in hindsight.