Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.

[Ryotknife]

P.S.: Did Prager consider the fact that plenty of conservatives love their pets, too? Did the poll he was condemning ask people to identify themselves as libs/cons in the course of answering whether they would go for their pet or the stranger?

These are legitimate questions.

His assertion, if I recall correctly (it has been a long time), was that the poll was conducted among liberal college students, and the results were proof of the moral superiority of Christianity because the 'libs' would let the human die to save Fido.

He was apparently right, and this is the first time I've ever, -EVER- heard a conservative talk show host make a strong, effective, factually-accurate argument.

course, this brings up a different issue. are the college students really liberal, or does he assume they are liberal because they are college students.

I can only speak from my own perspective, but my college was probably leaned toward the republican side (and this college was in NY), but overall was probably close to 50/50. If you wanted to start a debate that sent fists flying, start a Red Sox vs White Sox argument or pop vs soda.

 

[Filiecs]

The person. Pets die all the time and are simply cosmetic. They only contribute happiness to some people in society.
The person, as opposed to an animal, has potential to be so much more. That is all the reason I need to save him.

Lots of people are so blinded by their short term greed that they fail to see the long-term benefit of being kind.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

This is a stupid question. It depends on many factors. My first instinct would be to save the stranger, but a lot depends on how attached I am to the pet as well. Let's say for example that you have a dog who once saved your life. Would you let your life saving dog die?

 

[DugMachine]

The person. Pets die all the time and are simply cosmetic. They only contribute happiness to some people in society.
The person, as opposed to an animal, has potential to be so much more. That is all the reason I need to save him.

Lots of people are so blinded by their short term greed that they fail to see the long-term benefit of being kind.

Also has the potential to be a worthless sack of shit so what's your point? If you can be optimistic about the person and whatever it is they do we can be equally pessimistic and assume they're hitler.

That's not the point though. You save the ones you love and in split second decisions like this you don't think straight and will act on impulse (most likely freeze up actually).

 

[Pandabearparade]

I'd save the stranger. Unless that pet actually saved my life. If that's the case, how could I let my life saving pet die?

This is why you're a bad ass hero, Adam Jensen. Even if you didn't ask for this.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

snip

My pet. I love my dog, to me, he is another member of the family.

A stranger is just that - a stranger. I don't love him, and while I'd rather he not die, to me, my dog comes first.

I have a question for you, seeing as you seem to be strongly rooted in the "save the stranger" side of the argument:

Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.

So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter.

Who do you save?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you'd save the person you care about most. Even though person B is a more important person, who'll do the world a lot more good than the person you love, you choose the person you love over the person you don't know. This doesn't mean you don't have empathy. It just means you have more empathy for the person you love than the other person.

 

[deathninja]

poll was conducted among liberal college students

proof of the moral superiority of Christianity

Strong, effective, factually-accurate argument.

Narrow sample with radically different views to the group used in the null hypothesis...nope, no bias there at all.

 

[RaNDM G]

As much as I would want to jump in there and save one of them, I can't swim. It would quickly change from "Who would you save?" to "Who would drown first?"

The poll seems kinda dumb anyway. Humans are the only animals that have to learn how to swim. Your dog or cat are just fine in the water.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I can't swim. However, if I had a rope or some other way to save one, I'd save the stranger. I love my animals but I can always get another dog.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

Almost all mammals, and all that are common household pets, can swim instinctively. If it can't get itself out, then there is no way I am jumping in, I'll only get myself killed.

also human life > animal life.

Therefore, I save the stranger. And since they have opposable thumbs, I can do this by throwing a rope to them, whilst not endangering my own life.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Narrow sample with radically different views to the group used in the null hypothesis...nope, no bias there at all.

Just to be clear if you're suggesting I have a bias, you're completely right -- I actually have a strong bias in the exact opposite direction of Mr. Prager. I'm strongly libertarian-left on the political compass, and on the political compass Mr. Prager lands smack-dab in the middle of 'douchebag' territory.

 

[Lightning Delight]

I would save my dog. I love her and she is a part of my family, regardless of the fact that she is as dumb as a sack of hammers. (Seriously, she hasn't figured out how to use a bed yet.) That doesn't make her worth any more or less than a human. I value her as much as the stranger's family would value said stranger. The choice basically comes down to whether I would go through the pain of losing a family member myself and or make someone else do it. Given that I value my own happiness over that of a random stranger, I would save my pet.

 

[baron164]

I'd rescue my dog over a complete stranger, and even some... a lot, of people that I do know. If possible I would try to save both but the dog would be my priority.

 

[jordanredd]

We already know, more or less, that most people would happily consider letting me or you or any other stranger die without a second thought. We know this because there is an ample amount of video evidence showing some poor bastard dying on the street somewhere while hundreds of people walk by and do nothing.

You think that would justify such behavior in yourself?

No, jackass. That's why I've said I would very eagerly save BOTH my pet and the stranger. I value all life. But since this silly poll requires that I prioritize one or the other - family comes first. Period.

I'm sorry if such "behavior" does not meet with your approval.

 

[DugMachine]

snip

My pet. I love my dog, to me, he is another member of the family.

A stranger is just that - a stranger. I don't love him, and while I'd rather he not die, to me, my dog comes first.

I have a question for you, seeing as you seem to be strongly rooted in the "save the stranger" side of the argument:

Person A is your mother/girlfriend/brother/someone else who you love and are close to, they're drowning.

So is person B; somebody who does the world a lot of good. This could be the founder of a charity, or a politician who is doing great things for his country. It doesn't really matter.

Who do you save?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you'd save the person you care about most. Even though person B is a more important person, who'll do the world a lot more good than the person you love, you choose the person you love over the person you don't know. This doesn't mean you don't have empathy. It just means you have more empathy for the person you love than the other person.

Don't even bother. According to him asking that is just going off topic and TOTALLY NOT SIMILAR to what we're discussing because y'know our pets are just disposable.

I kill a cat I rescue from the shelter every week for shits n giggles.

 

[Kuroneko97]

So if I'd rather save the pet I know over a complete stranger, I'm a monster?

I get that you can have different views than me, but it kind of seems like you're calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a monstrous sociopath of a human.

That person is a complete stranger. Their family and friends will probably never see me after that day. I might feel bad for having to choose at that point, but that pet is probably gonna show me more affection than that person or their family ever will. If it was the other way around, and it was a person I knew and loved and a random animal, I'd save my family member, because I have stronger feelings for them. If it was my sister and some random stranger, I'd save my sister. The scar of losing someone I love, whether human or not, would feel bigger than the guilt of letting someone die.

If I asked my sister this, she'd probably say the same, because she tells me all the time that her pets are her family, and since she lives alone they're the only ones to provide her company. She spent a week crying when one of her dogs was run over. To her, it was like one of her children being run over.

To ME, saving my pet was the right thing, because I saved the one I loved and likely loved me back. Of course, the size of the pet should be taken into consideration as well, but I'd bet it'd be very easy to save the stranger and your pet hamster at the same time. Put the hamster on the guy's head and hope he's not afraid of rodents.

However, this is a forum, and we should be able to debate this. There seems to be no room for debate for you. Nope. If I didn't agree, I'm a cold-blooded fucker. No arguments.

I suddenly had a thought. What if you grabbed the stranger, and then told them to grab your pet?
Just a possibility.

I voted for my pet, because fuck your poll.

Pffft. Also, what you said.

 

[Pandabearparade]

or a politician

One moment, I'm having trouble not laughing.

Okay! Okay! I have to admit that if you know the person in the water is a politician (or lawyer), it is your moral duty to save the dog.

 

[babinro]

Stranger.

I value human life over the life of an animal.
Even though I love the animal and don't care about the random stranger.

Call it instinctive.

 

[deathninja]

Just to be clear if you're suggest I have a bias, you're completely right -- I actually have a strong bias in the exact opposite direction of Mr. Prager. I'm strongly libertarian-left on the political compass, and on the political compass Mr. Prager lands smack-dab in the middle of 'douchebag' territory.

Not questioning you on this at all; I'm highlighting that Prager's example is laughably flawed, and parallels with a poll here aren't likely to be linked (though given the level of general misanthropy on here, results from the forum are likely also biased).