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

Recommended Videos

OmniscientOstrich

New member
Jan 6, 2011
2,879
0
0
As much as I'd like to spite the OP's sanctimonious attitude and as much as I love my cat, I'd save the human (well, actually if it really was a whirlpool we'd all be dead, so I'll just interpret this hypothetical as simply being the person can't swim to make up for the OP's stupidity). My cat is going to be 11 in a couple of weeks, he's going to die in a few years anyway and as callously indifferent/apathetic I can be in the grand scheme of things, that person has a full life ahead of them and I can't just watch someone die right before me.
 

game-lover

New member
Dec 1, 2010
1,447
1
0
Oh, hold up. A whirlpool?

My vote doesn't change because I still can't swim but the whirlpool definitely makes my option stronger.

If I could swim... I honestly don't know. Chances are, if I have a pet, I love it. It's my companion. My best friend. My family. It would devastate me to lose it, most certainly. But then a human life...

Now I will say if it was a random animal, it'd be a cakewalk to decide.

And it'd probably make it easier because depending on the animal, I wouldn't be able to hear its frantic pleas of fear as opposed to the human yelling for help.

Honestly, no matter who I ended up saving, I'd have some degree of regret in there. So I just need to figure out which one would make the regret the strongest.
 

Blazing Steel

New member
Sep 22, 2008
646
0
0
Screw the stranger, I'm getting my pet. I would happily risk my life for someone I don't know, but if something I have feelings for is at stake, then I'm going for that. Hell I might even let the stranger go if their was I big pile of money. Loved One > Something I value highly > Anyone/anything else.
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,914
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
GunsmithKitten said:
Keeping a potential killer out of my house.
You do realise that both your house and yourself are far, far more likely (several hundreds of orders of magnitude so) to kill you than a serial killer. Statistically, you're more likely to drown in a puddle.
 

TorchofThanatos

New member
Dec 6, 2010
163
0
0
Pet, I would save my pet over the stranger.
I value my pet's life over that of some stranger.
Really I suck at swimming so I couldn't save either but if I could that is what I would do.
 

The Event

New member
Aug 16, 2012
105
0
0
NotALiberal said:
I'd rightfully call you a shitty human being, and further expand on this by saying not a single fuck would be given if you were to drop dead right now. The world needs less selfish assholes.
But would you still save him instead of your dog if they were both drowning?
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
I find these types of questions extremely insignificant and ridiculous. The amount of hypothetical circumstances that would lead to such an event is too high for me to be able to answer this question normally and for my answer to be taken into some kind of a relevant statistic.

First of all, a whirlpool? How did I find myself in a threatening situation involving a whirlpool, along with my pet and a stranger? What happened? What's the state of us? Where are we? Why are we alone? And if we're not, where are other people, why are they here, what are we all doing together? Thing is, getting into a situation where you have to choose whether you'll save a stranger or your pet is one of those situations that probably no one has ever gotten into and probably never will. And if we're trying to invent a situation like that for the sake of discussion, I can answer whatever I want and it doesn't mean I'd actually do that if the situation was real. I'd save my cat. There, I said it. But it doesn't mean shit because I've never been in that situation and I never will.

Also, let's say that for some inexplicable reason my cat and a stranger fell into a whirlpool and I'm the only person around that's able to save them. I'd run away and save myself. I don't have the skills or the courage to jump into a whirlpool. And if I did, I still don't have the strength to carry a fully grown person out of it. We'd all drown, so no thanks. I'm not jumping into any whirlpools, not for a stranger, not for my pet. It may sound horrible, but unless you are a professional, you won't be able to help. So, this scenario means nothing, and the results mean nothing.
 

jordanredd

New member
Aug 27, 2012
21
0
0
The Event said:
NotALiberal said:
I'd rightfully call you a shitty human being, and further expand on this by saying not a single fuck would be given if you were to drop dead right now. The world needs less selfish assholes.
But would you still save him instead of your dog if they were both drowning?
Dammit why can't I have that kind of wit in my posts?
 

freakymojo

New member
Nov 18, 2009
77
0
0
i would probably be compelled to attempt to save the stranger. but after the initial "oh my god thank you!" was over, and they went on their way to do whatever strangers do. it would be followed by depression. and i would probably rememmber the person as "that asshole who killed my pet" but atleast i wouldnt live to regret it in the future. and you get to be hailed as a hero, thats always something.
 

PH3NOmenon

New member
Oct 23, 2009
294
0
0
GunsmithKitten said:
Unless the person I save then kills me. I'd say it mattered a great deal then.
Well, no. that's the thing. If that person then kills you and murders your entire family, that doesn't affect the morality of your original choice. Ethical matters do not take hindsight into account. It'd be frightfully odd if they could.


Also,

jordanredd 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.
Nono, you misread. You don't have to actually risk your own life. You can stand there and shout "Help" and you'd be "aiding" the person. You're not forced to risk your life in any way whatsoever.



Also, I feel like I should add that if I ever heard about a person choosing their pet over a person after the fact, then I would not judge that person for it. Snap decisions can be weird like that. But hearing people trying to defend the standpoint that they value their own pet's life more than an actual person's is somewhat jarring, I think.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Thistlehart said:
1.Don't fall in that trap, please. "If you're not an apple you're a bannana."

2.I think that is your mistake right there. You believe people can be cornered into an a+b=c statement.

3.I'm leaning more toward the "lazy" verdict.

4.Humans are host to condraditions aplenty. It is in our nature.

5.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.

6.You don't have to care about people to not want to see harm come to them.

7.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.

8.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.

9.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.
In order.

1. Alright, ill try my best not to.

2. I have yet to see valid justification for why someone holding these values wouldnt be cornered by them into caring more about something they deem to have value (money) over something they deem to have no value (other people).

3. Insulting me doesnt get us anywhere. Dont waste your time with it.

4. I can agree with that. Hypocracy exists and is perfectly able to exist in people. Everyone in fact.

5. It is impossible for something to suck for you if you dont care about it. For something to hurt you you need to have emotional investment in it. It needs to matter. If it doesnt matter at all to you it wont invoke an emotional response or even any response.

6. If you dont care about something at all. like a box. You dont care if it is destroyed. If you care about something you dont want it to suffer or for something to come to hurt it. if you care ZERO for something then its passing or existence in the world is irrelevant to you so it shouldn't make you sad or happy that something befalls it.

7. Yep i agree with that. Not really sure how it applies to my point though. What im talking about really doesnt have a lot to do with the scenario at hand.

8. Thats a little presumptuous. Dont try and psyco analyse me... it probably wont be as accurate as you think it is. It isnt even very well explained as to what you mean by that.

9. More passive aggressive insults. Those arnt very useful, can we refrain from those please?
 

Crayven

Plum tickler
Mar 28, 2011
81
0
0
My cat would rip me to shreds, save the person if anyone. the cat will die or she will get out.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
GunsmithKitten said:
Tell that to Sharon Tate.
EDIT BECAUSE RESPONSE WAS PRETTY HORRIBLE.

Id ask her, although her death was horrible and tragic, if she could choose what her impact her death had on the world what would it be? I dont think it would be "I wish it would make all women too scared to live a real social life". I think someone like that wouldnt want the end of their life to have negative effects on people.
 

mgirl

New member
Mar 29, 2011
177
0
0
My pets consist entirely of birds that swim all the time, ducks, geese, etc. So it wouldn't really be an issue. They can swim. Well. Plus, a human being over a duck? It's pretty easy to say I'd save the stranger every time.
 

burningdragoon

Warrior without Weapons
Jul 27, 2009
1,935
0
0
Edl01 said:
To all you people confused just ask yourselves...what would Batman do???
Set out to save the pet, but through misinformation accidentally save the stranger instead?
 

TorchofThanatos

New member
Dec 6, 2010
163
0
0
freakymojo said:
i would probably be compelled to attempt to save the stranger. but after the initial "oh my god thank you!" was over, and they went on their way to do whatever strangers do. it would be followed by depression. and i would probably rememmber the person as "that asshole who killed my pet" but atleast i wouldnt live to regret it in the future. and you get to be hailed as a hero, thats always something.
In the words of Terry Pratchett in Going Postal: "You are not a true hero until you save a cat!" (or something like that)

With everyone calling everyone else monster I figured this thread could use a joke.