I think the fact that we are all still alive proves reality cant be like you assume it isGunsmithKitten said:
Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.
- Thread starter Pandabearparade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, obviously the first thing you do when you see someone drowning is to yell out and ask if they have been awarded any world recognised accolades in their field.GunsmithKitten said:
I chose the stranger. I misread the topic post and decided to delete what I had wrote.Pandabearparade said:
i don't have a pet
well there is fish in my house but i don't count it as my pet
but it's the closest i got to a pet
fishes can't drown so i would save the human
also i could careless if the fish lives or dies
well there is fish in my house but i don't count it as my pet
but it's the closest i got to a pet
fishes can't drown so i would save the human
also i could careless if the fish lives or dies
that is a weird avatar. were is it from?Tony said:
Goddammit, why do you have to make me choose?
On one hand, it's my pet. Something that's near and dear to my heart. On the other hand, this person could be someone important,(by that I mean a parent, someone who has cured or is going to cure an illness) not to mention I'd probably look like a horrible person for not saving a human being.
...
I'll save my pet. I'll deal with the consequences afterwards.
On one hand, it's my pet. Something that's near and dear to my heart. On the other hand, this person could be someone important,(by that I mean a parent, someone who has cured or is going to cure an illness) not to mention I'd probably look like a horrible person for not saving a human being.
...
I'll save my pet. I'll deal with the consequences afterwards.
Don't fall in that trap, please. "If you're not an apple you're a bannana."BiscuitTrouser said:
I think that is your mistake right there. You believe people can be cornered into an a+b=c statement.
I'm leaning more toward the "lazy" verdict.
Humans are host to condraditions aplenty. It is in our nature.
However, I think you're getting your concepts mixed. It is not impossible to for something to "suck to you" if you do not care. It is possible to have an emotional reaction to something while not having any real investment in it. It's called empathy.
You don't have to care about people to not want to see harm come to them.
Here's a concept you may have heard before: "There is no black and white, but infinite shades of grey." Your mistake here is that you're trying to work with black and white, while the subject is most certainly grey, or perhaps many shades thereof.
You don't want to work out how his statement might be true, but instead endeavour to fit it into your black and white box.
Yeah, the lazy verdict is more accurate. You don't look as though you'd be willing to put in the effort of being disingenuous.
I would save my pet. I know that, objectively speaking, saving another person is more important.
But in the heat of the moment, how could I not go for what means more to me personally? Kinda like how you'd probably go for heirlooms or items of sentiment in a fire before you go for your wallet. Not the smartest choice, but it's the most personally significant.
But in the heat of the moment, how could I not go for what means more to me personally? Kinda like how you'd probably go for heirlooms or items of sentiment in a fire before you go for your wallet. Not the smartest choice, but it's the most personally significant.
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I seem to recall that, should you choose to save your pet, you'd be punishable by law.
Again, it was a long time ago when this came up, but I seem to recall that the law requires you to lend aid to any person in mortal peril. Now, lending aid can be running for help. But "I was busy looking after my pet." does not constitute a legal defence, in this case. And no, your pet isn't a person sadly.
Now, I love my pet. I really do. But even so, I don't think my conscience could bear the knowledge that I let someone die. Who that person would turn out to be afterwards really does not matter. When you make your decision you're saving "a human being." Afterwards, whether that person turns out to be Mother Teresa or Hitler does not matter, when you made your decision it was "a human being". Whether your decision was an ethical or morally correct one does not change with facts supplied after the call was made.
Hence, I would *hope* I go for the person. But as I have never been in this situation or anything similar, I can't say with any amount of certainty.
Again, it was a long time ago when this came up, but I seem to recall that the law requires you to lend aid to any person in mortal peril. Now, lending aid can be running for help. But "I was busy looking after my pet." does not constitute a legal defence, in this case. And no, your pet isn't a person sadly.
Now, I love my pet. I really do. But even so, I don't think my conscience could bear the knowledge that I let someone die. Who that person would turn out to be afterwards really does not matter. When you make your decision you're saving "a human being." Afterwards, whether that person turns out to be Mother Teresa or Hitler does not matter, when you made your decision it was "a human being". Whether your decision was an ethical or morally correct one does not change with facts supplied after the call was made.
Hence, I would *hope* I go for the person. But as I have never been in this situation or anything similar, I can't say with any amount of certainty.
That would be the sum of it, for me, I think.Dryk said:
Alot of people are calling each other monsters, here. But love is a strange and irrational beast, isn't it? I don't care what the stranger is, or could be. I'd feel bad, but you know what? You're going to feel bad either way, aren't you? This silly moral quandry has no win- the OP has already made it clear that someone, or something you love, is going to die. There are alot of people I don't know in the world that die every day- I don't perpetually bawl because of it. But when I lose a pet, I am deeply effected by the loss. The pet is a loved one- adopted to the family, and now a full member- and that is clearly hard to bear.
And as to all of that judging, from both sides of the poll, it's just sad that it seems like the name-callers aren't really trying to understand the other side.
I don't love animals more than people. I DO love my own family members more than someone else's family members. If a member of my family is able to care enough about me that they would give their life to save mine (as my dog would), then I will absolutely do the same for them.excalipoor said:
My mother is as equally likely to die before me as my dog. That would not stop me from prioritizing her life over a stranger's.excalipoor said:
If I saved my dog's life instead of a stranger's, I would NOT be the reason that person died. That person died because of however they ended up in the damn whirlpool, which has absolutely nothing to do with me. There is a massive moral difference between murdering someone and not giving their life priority over a family member.
Well that's great. I don't think your a monster or immature because you would not save your pet's life over a stranger's. Isn't it nice that we can respectfully disagree without hurdling invectives back and forth at each other?excalipoor said:
If there is a law somewhere that would actually put me in jail for not risking my own life to save someone else's, then holy shit that is the dumbest law in existence.PH3NOmenon said:
In other news, that law doesn't exist (not in the U.S. anyway). There is a law that protects people who try to save someone's life but end up doing harm in the process (it's called the "Good Samaritan law" or something similar). That may be the one you're thinking of.
It's nuts to save the person. I have no attachment to them whatsoever, and chances are, if they're stupid enough to wander into a whirlpool, they'd have died soon anyway.
Of course not, all I know is it's not baggage I want to carry. I'm still the one who made the choice.jordanredd said: