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

[PrinceOfShapeir]

How hot is she, on a scale of 1-10?

Kidding, just figured I needed to say it since I didn't see it on the first two pages.

Assuming I had the means, I'd save the person. While it sucks that my dog has to die, she's just a dog. The fact that more people would save their dog or cat is honestly nightmarish, although not really surprising. The Escapist Forums is one step above No Mutants Allowed. I think it might say something about the Human race - we wonder why the world is so fucked up when you can watch a person die so you can save your fucking dog - but maybe not. Probably does, though, people are shitty wherever you go.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

No. He's trolling. It's not that I disagree with his viewpoint. It's that he's attempting to derail the thread by starting arguments at the periphery.
As for your question: Founder of a charity? Well, depends on what the charity is, how much the person has to do with the actual workings of it, etc. Most contemporary charities are, by their very nature, bullshit.
And as for a politician, there is no politician, in any country, who does their country any good. Ever. I'm not being facetious.
So I guess if I look at your two examples, then yes. You'd be correct. I'd pick my loved one.
But this isn't your thread, and that's not the question the OP asked. If you're interested in people's answer to that question, then perhaps you should make a thread along those lines. Otherwise, answering his question with an essentially unrelated question looks an awful lot like an attempt to derail the thread.

I disagree. Sometimes in a debate it is necessary to draw parallels from a different situation to help the opposing party to understand your point of view. He wasn't trying to derail the thread, he - like me - wanted you to consider the situation from a different perspective, and we were attempting to do that by asking you to consider a different question.

If it was someone that I thought actually added value to the world, then I might reconsider.
Well that is where we differ. I would save the person I love, over the person who adds value to the world. Every time.
And if the roles were reversed, and I were drowning, I would understand if someone chose to save the person they love, over me.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Priorities of life:
Humans > other sentient races (if they exist) > trainable non-sentient species > non-trainable species > plants.

So if we met aliens of equal intelligence to us, they're somehow inherently less important than us?

I know it's a hypothetical scenario, and that we probably wont meet sentient life in our lifetimes, but I suspect beliefs like yours are how racism started.

 

[Slayer_2]

I consider anyone who'd rather save the pet as very misguided, and part of what is wrong with people. And if you'd only save the human to avoid the rage from people like me, you're not much better. WARNING, rant incoming:

I've seen a lot of this kinda stuff recently, people who treat their pet way better than other humans. It makes me want to punch them, and I'm usually not a violent guy. It's an animal. You probably eat a shit ton of them in your daily life, or wear their skins. The point where I hear about animals getting surgeries with 5-figure price tags for their dog is the point where I almost want to pull out that Futurama meme "I don't want to live on this planet anymore". I can do that surgery for about 10 cents, all I need is somewhere behind a shed, and my mosin, cleanup and burial is your responsibility.

The fact that people will pay thousands of dollars a year to take care of an animal destined to die in a decade or two and invest hundreds of hours of time into it, while they'd ignore a fellow human in need speaks VOLUMES about their character and personality.

Also, that "animals are more innocent than humans" crap annoys me to no end. Your animal isn't innocent, it's just stupid (and you might be as well, for confusing the two). All it does is sleep, eat, piss, crap, screw, hunt, and other useless crap.

Even if it was the biggest loser, a crack addict, some guy with no life, or some guy who treated their pet better than a human, I'd save them over any animal, no hesitation. The only thing that'd make me slow up is if I knew they were a murderer/rapist/other evil thing. Then I'd let em both drown, I'm not risking my ass for either.

Anyhow, rant over, I've been saving that one for the right time, sorry if I offended you, but try to use logic and some compassion for your own kind.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

To allow the death of another Human Being, through action or inaction, is murder.

Not true, or at least not true in any legal code I've ever heard.

Inaction is never murder if risk to yourself is involved.

If you can't swim, or don't wish to risk your own life (it is VERY hard to save a drowning person by swimming out to them - it is, in fact, nearly suicidal), you are not required to do so. In fact, you are encouraged NOT to because, if you aren't a good swimmer, then you've just put a SECOND person in danger (yourself) forcing someone else to come save you.

The same thing if you see someone being murdered and you are unarmed. You are not expected to risk your life to help the person - because you'd probably only succeed in getting yourself killed too.

In both cases, you would be expected to call 911 (or your local version) and get the police/fire dept/medical teams on the scene ASAP.

Hence why I voted "call someone who can swim".

Edit: Actually, your comment there sounds like one of Asimov's Laws of Robotics. That is the only time I've ever heard of inaction being in a definition like that - and that's because, in that assumption, a Robot's "life" is worth less than a human life, so they are expected to risk themselves.

I dont care about the law, or risking my own safety. I cannot allow the death of a human being if there is a possibility that I may prevent it.

Is idealism a crime?

 

[marche45]

Personally,i would save the human.I doubt many people here would be willing to save their pets over humans either.Society inherently values a human over an animal.

However,i could understand why you would save the pet.In one case its another living creature which you love and has probably had a bigger impact in your life then this random stranger,vs someone you've never met and won't probably ever meet.

 

[Wynaro]

In the end, as much as many people hate to admit it, humans are horrible creatures. Plenty of you say that it's better to risk your life for a human than an animal, but you hardly ever hear about a person stepping up to save a stranger in need, or an animal in need. Humans focus more on self preservation than self respect, they always have and, more likely then not, always will. A person who saves anything in danger is considered a hero, be it a person's pet, a person's child, a person's parent, a bear stuck on a telephone pole. They're considered heroes because they did something no one else had the guts to do, and most people DONT have the guts to do. You can claim you'd save the human all you want, you can claim you'd save the dog all you want, but at least 90% of you know that in the end, you'd call 911, and wait for them to show up and do something while you stand there watching in awe as two living creatures drowned and died.

You don't have any right to insult each other until you've saved both a human AND a pet, and seen the effects of each. You have no right to ridicule each other, or insult each other, because the majority of you wouldn't lift a finger if you saw a group of thugs beating some defenseless kid in the park, or watched from a window as some guy stole a parked car, or slashed the tires, and broke the windshield. You'd feel bad, maybe. You'd want to do something, maybe. But most of you, and I'm not saying all, because there ARE people who would step in and risk themselves to help, but most of you would just sit there and watch them die. You can deny it online all you want, because no one here knows your face or your name, but in your heart, in the deepest part of your subconscious, you know what I say is true, and you wouldn't do a thing. I'm not trying to call anyone a monster for it. It's a basic instinct, but you can't talk about morality and ethics, or the superiority of a human to a dog, unless you know for a fact, and you HAVE for a fact, helped someone in need, just because you were there. You don't need to be successful, you just need to try.

And to be honest, a pet dog would DAMN well try to save it's owner if he/she was in danger.

So don't trash talk the animal either. They can be heroes too.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

I consider anyone who'd rather save the pet as very misguided, and part of what is wrong with people. And if you'd only save the human to avoid the rage from people like me, you're not much better. WARNING, rant incoming:

I've seen a lot of this kinda stuff recently, people who treat their pet way better than other humans. It makes me want to punch them, and I'm usually not a violent guy. It's an animal. You probably eat a shit ton of them in your daily life, or wear their skins. The point where I hear about animals getting surgeries with 5-figure price tags for their dog is the point where I almost want to pull out that Futurama meme "I don't want to live on this planet anymore". I can do that surgery for about 10 cents, all I need is somewhere behind a shed, and my mosin, cleanup and burial is your responsibility.

The fact that people will pay thousands of dollars a year to take care of an animal destined to die in a decade or two and invest hundreds of hours of time into it, while they'd ignore a fellow human in need speaks VOLUMES about their character and personality.

Also, that "animals are more innocent than humans" crap annoys me to no end. Your animal isn't innocent, it's just stupid (and you might be as well, for confusing the two). All it does is sleep, eat, piss, crap, screw, hunt, and other useless crap.

Even if it was the biggest loser, a crack addict, some guy with no life, or some guy who treated their pet better than a human, I'd save them over any animal, no hesitation. The only thing that'd make me slow up is if I knew they were a murderer/rapist/other evil thing. Then I'd let em both drown, I'm not risking my ass for either.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me as though you place virtually no value, if any, on animal life.
Below is a question similar to the OP's that I asked the OP a while ago.
<spoiler=my question>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. Just someone who'll benefit the world a great deal/

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.
I'm not arguing that animals are more important than humans. What I'm saying is that I love my dog. He is another member of my family. If he dies, I can't just go down to the pet shop and buy another one, any more than I could if anybody else I care for died. To me, he's irreplaceable. So I would choose to save him. Even though he'll most likely do less good for the world than a human might.

 

[Jopoho]

Guys, I'm a lifeguard! I totally got this!

That Being said, I would probably tend toward the human first. I think my dog can manage until I get the guy to shore or a wall or something.

 

[Ieyke]

What I've learned here is that there are numerous people posting in this thread who aren't fit to own pets.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Animals are not sentient. Look it up.

I just did. From the Oxford dictionary:

Definition of sentient:
adjective
able to perceive or feel things

Is a cat not able to feel pain?

How about a dog, aren't they able to perceive when their owner is angry at them?

Do you need me to get you the definitions of pain and perceive too?

 

[Soods]

In the heat of the moment I might save the stranger, but if I had enough time to think I might go for my pet. Also: do I have an audience? That would critically affect the result.

Time to think + no audience -> Save my pet
No time to think + no audience -> Save the stranger
Time to think + audience -> Save the stranger
No time to think + audience -> Save the stranger

I'm sorry, I just happen to make bad calls when under a lot of pressure.

 

[Fitzcaraldo]

The stranger, no question. I really don't see how you could sacrifice a person for an animal.

 

[solemnwar]

In the heat of the moment I might save the stranger, but if I had enough time to think I might go for my pet. Also: do I have an audience? That would critically affect the result.

Time to think + no audience -> Save my pet
No time to think + no audience -> Save the stranger
Time to think + audience -> Save the stranger
No time to think + audience -> Save the stranger

I'm sorry, I just happen to make bad calls when under a lot of pressure.

I find it absolutely hilarious that, whether intentional or not, you're saying that saving a person over your pet is a bad call =P (It's okay, people suck, animals are soft and fuzzy and cuddly and don't judge you).

 

[nylonshred]

I'd save my pet. If I was in that situation I'd go straight for the pet since I'm attached it the most.

 

[Nemesis729]

I just want a good reason as to why I should care about this person that much.

Further, how would -you- feel if you were drowning and someone saved a dog and left you to die? I bet you'd be pretty pissed in those last few seconds alive.

Would you really be that pissed? That you're giving up your life to save another? I'd be honored, especially if it was a dog. No human is as innocent as a canine.

 

[kommando367]

If I could swim better, I'd save the stranger. I think I could have a few uses for someone that owes me their life.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Pssh. My pets have all known how to swim, being taken to water repeatedly while they were young, and learned early. I save the dumbass drowning, and my dog is smart enough to know how to get out on her own.

 

[TKretts3]

In the heat of the moment I might save the stranger, but if I had enough time to think I might go for my pet. Also: do I have an audience? That would critically affect the result.

Time to think + no audience -> Save my pet
No time to think + no audience -> Save the stranger
Time to think + audience -> Save the stranger
No time to think + audience -> Save the stranger

I'm sorry, I just happen to make bad calls when under a lot of pressure.

Why would you change your answer based on if people are watching?
Also, "Time to think." This is exactly why this thread exists, so you can think about what you'll do when this inevitably does happen to you.

 

[Spitfire]

It's a nonsensical question. Assuming that you have the swimming skills and body strength required to carry an adult human from water, then clearly you'd be able to do so with your pet as well.