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

[SuperSamio64]

I fail to see how a fish would drown, so I'd save the stranger.

What if your fresh water fish was 'drowning' in salt water (or vice-versa)?

Due to the fact that it's a fish, I have little to no emotional attachment to it, so still the stranger.

 

[DarthSka]

I would save the person. Sure, I love my pet, but I value human life above animal life. Also, there are too many factors concerning the human to not save them, at least to me. Are they a parent for one. I know my cat doesn't have others depending on her to provide for them.

]Again, why should he care? Yeah, having a mother of three die in that situation would fucking suck. But I'm not going to have anything to do with that mother or her kids. Why should I care?

You are a shining beacon of humanity. Why can't everyone be like you?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

the idea that people like that even make up 1% of our society is ludicrous

No shit, that would mean 60,000,000 serial killers globally. That's... a lot.

 

[Basement Cat]

How old is this stranger, exactly? It's going to inevitably come up, so just get it over with.

A fair question. For the sake of this little test let's say it's a woman in her late twenties to early thirties.

----

Note: Please don't read below until you answer the poll. I don't want to tilt the results with my angry rantings.

Spoiler

So I saw this poll on MMO-Champion and it tilted 2:1 towards saving the pet. I find this disgusting on a level I can't even begin to describe. Excuses ranged from arguments from ignorance "Well the stranger might be a pedophile!" to admissions that their own feelings trump the feelings of the friends and family of the human being who is going to die due to their action (or inaction).

What bothers me most is that I remember Dennis Prager, a conservative loudmouth, talking about a poll conducted with "liberals" asking the same question. He claimed that an overwhelming majority of them would save their pet over a human, and at the time I thought that sounded like just more bullshit from a bullshit artist.
Was I wrong? Does that loudmouth imbecile actually have a valid point for once in his career? I decided to run a completely unscientific test with a fairly liberal audience (you guys) to find out.

I voted to save my pet's life. As for the stranger: "Another one bites the dust!!!"

As for your disgust with people feeling this way---learn to live with disappointment.

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.

 

[Stasisesque]

No that isn't the point I was making. My point was that when we do know someone, we know how good a person they are or how bad a person they are. If we don't know the person, we cannot judge (no, not even with the innocence of childhood, there are numerous cases of 'innocents' doing despicable things) and thus we must rely on the likelihood of a stranger being someone worth saving.

If you saw Hitler drowning but did not know it was Hitler, and you saved him, you'd have to live with the fact you saved Hitler from drowning. But you could also live with the knowledge you saved another human's life. Balancing those two extremes is not something most of us can do. Saving a life is inherently good, allowing someone to commit genocide is inherently bad. Do you see what I'm trying to say now?

When you see a stranger drowning, you immediately help. We all would, it's human nature to want to protect others. But making a conscious decision to save someone is not something most of us do - we act on instinct. All these people saying they'd save their pet because they don't know the person are only saying so because they know their pet, they understand what it would be like if they lost their pet. It is not about not knowing the stranger, but all about knowing their pet.

No, many people here are saying, "Why should I care about a stranger or the feelings of their family?" Which is frankly depressing.

Debating what kind of person the stranger is shouldn't be what's going through your head if they're drowning. What if rescue workers had that mentality? Would you feel indignant at the idea that the majority of people would consider letting you die based on the idea that they didn't know what kind of person you were?

Okay again, I said no one consciously decides to save someone or let them die. We act on instinct to save someone. Rescue workers come into that category, they save because they have to - they are just in the position to do so much more often than most. They are also, due to their line of work (most of whom do so as volunteers) much less likely to debate saving someone or not. It is simply second nature to them to save someone.

The problem arises when people are asked to make a conscious decision to save someone whilst letting someone else drown. People focus more on the latter than the former. Saving is positive, drowning is negative - we focus on the bad, and that bad would be our pets, animals we love and cherish, die. In this sort of situation, even thinking "but a stranger would live" doesn't change the fact something we love has had to die.

If you put every single person in this thread in the position mentioned, most would save the stranger and leave the pet. Wanting to save the pet over the stranger in a safe environment wherein nobody will be hurt is natural, it does not make anyone (even those people who are revelling in their hatred of humanity) here a bad person.

We are only debating this because we can. It is no different to the endless debates about killing one to save a thousand, or killing someone if you are guaranteed not to get caught. If these scenarios were playing out in front of us, most wouldn't kill one to save a thousand as killing is not in our nature. Most would not commit murder if they were guaranteed to get away scot free, either, for the same reasons. And most would save a human's life over an animal's.

 

[ZeroMachine]

The results of this poll reminded me why I don't come on here as much anymore.

 

[the December King]

I understand everybody in this thread who says that they'd save their pet. I had several pets that I grew up with that I viewed as true family members. And in that way I cannot judge anybody who would choose such a pet over a stranger.

But, I dunno, I'm reading through the responses and seeing a lot of language of justification, often to the tune of "Humans don't have a choice to rescue the thing that's actually important to them."

Don't say that. You're making a choice. That's what this poll is about, the idea is "If you were forced to choose between your pet or a stranger who would you choose." My choice was a person. That's it. That's my choice. I don't need to justify or defend my position beyond "I value human life above other forms of life, regardless of what that person might be".

Granted, I understand the defensive posture many of you pro-pet guys are adopting: the OP basically attacked anybody who was pro-pet at the beginning. But you don't need more than "I don't see my pet as worth less than a human, not after I've bonded with it much closer than most other humans I've known." Anything else sounds like you're trying to convince yourselves as much as us. And that's where I see people shoot themselves in the foot, like with the "I don't care about strangers" stuff.

EDIT: Also, the people trying to dissect this scenario and saying stupid shit like "I can't swim, it's the person's fault for not being able to swim" are assholes. The situation isn't important, it's the choice the situation is trying to force you to make.

Well, put, Kevka. Your choice is your own- it's not the choice I 'd necessarily make, but that's okay, too.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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.

Are you suggesting that something in the methodology or interpretation of the collected data may have been biased in order to show a particular group in a negative light?

I AM SHOCKED THAT SOMEONE WOULD EVEN CONCEIVE SUCH A THING.

 

[nathan-dts]

Save the pet; emotional attachment and the fact that I see animals as equal to humans in terms of worth, if not slightly more valuable.

 

[White Lightning]

Depends, do I get a reward for saving the person? If not than I'm saving my Cat as she will reward me with cuddles.

 

[Schadrach]

I'd save my pet. Simple reasoning: I'm a moderate swimmer, but I'm pretty another human being puts me over my weight capacity, a house cat is another story.

If suddenly blessed with the strength to make it a real choice (and not a "save your pet, or probably join the stranger" choice), I'd probably choose the stranger.

 

[an874]

Well I can't swim, so I guess I'd yell for someone to help. My first instinct though if I COULD swim, would be to save my pet. I'm sorry, but people/things I care about come before things I don't.

I bet you'd find that a little hard to explain to the family of the dead human.

Fuck 'em, they would would have saved the thing they care about more and left my pet to die. I and and the person you're quoting don't owe them anything.

 

[Sande45]

I think this dilemma is inherently flawed. First of all as many people have pointed out, trying to save someone who's drowning can be downright suicidal, unless they're in a pool or the like. So are they? Unspecified. Next there's the problem of "well my pet is a seal or a fish or some other animal that's pretty much just not gonna drown". And finally there's the 'how drowning are they' factor. For the sake of the dilemma I suppose both are seconds away from going under but in reality this would be something to consider because you might try saving both starting with the one in more critical condition.

But playing along with the premise, I really can't say what I'd do in that situation. I know that ideally I should save the human being but seeing my dear cat crying in panic might be too much to bear and I might do anything to save it. I just hope I never have to make that decision.

Edit: Oh wait, it's in the poll. So it's a whirlpool and no time for both. But the point still stands that making it about water partially nullifies the underlying question of which would you save.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Is this basically the PETA question? I heard at some point that PETA or some such similar organization was going around being like "you should prioritize saving your pets' lives on the same level of humans' lives."

I personally would save the human. Morally, I simply put humans above animals in all circumstances. Even if my cat had once saved my life, honestly, it's a cat, it will live maybe 15 years and die anyway, and it had a much happier and less free-willed life than any human would. I love my cats like members of my own family, but really, there are differences that most humans acknowledge. We are willing to put down cats when they are sick and in pain, but not humans, for example, and this is basically the same principle. Human lives are to be saved at almost any cost. Animal lives are pretty expendable. Odds are very high that you will get over the death of your cat way before you will get over, say, the death of your mother or other close parental figure type.

Taking away the squishy moral part, humans are simply more valuable than pet animals, or even work animals for the most part. They are intelligent, creative, and capable on a level that animals simply aren't.

In the end, save the human, either because you value their lives more, or because they contribute more to society.

You could make a point that there is an edge case here for hardcore criminals or such, but...well, at that point, I don't even know.

 

[[REDACTED]]

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.

Well, likewise it's a little jarring to me that so many are saying they really don't give a damn about their pet's life at all and that anyone who does doesn't have their priorities straight. I am afraid that the extreme end of that sort of thinking leads to people like Michael Vick who took great pleasure in hanging dogs from trees and smashing their heads into the pavement because they didn't fight well enough.

So I guess that's different minds, different morals.

So valuing human life over animal life makes you an animal-hating sociopath. The things you learn in a day, eh? The slippery slope fallacy goes both ways; by the same logic, valuing animal life over human life leads to serial murder.

 

[Overusedname]

I wouldn't be physically able to save a human. Too heavy. I'd love to try and save both. In that situation a human is much more likely to save him/herself than an animal that isn't a fish.

Also, hate to brake the news, but this poll is entirely determined by whose an animal lover and who isn't. My dogs helped me recover from depression. I'd be unspeakably ashamed of myself for the rest of my life if I abandoned them.

Don't throw your judgements around so easily. It's not exactly charming. Our 'worth scale' means nothing in nature, and this whirlpool seems to agree. To apply this situation to my dogs, if one of them died so tragically, it would effect my immediate family, extended family, and all my friends in a profound and terrible way. One of them is essentially a therapy dog.

And again: unless you're michael phelps, you're gonna die with the stranger you're trying to save. It's best to save the lightweight thing you know you have a chance to protect.

I don't judge people who save the stranger. It's a matter of how much positive impact they know the pet has in the world. To be blunt: I know jackshit about the person. I know my dog helps people, and I fucking OWE him.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Fuck 'em, they would would have saved the thing they care about more and left my pet to die. I and and the person you're quoting don't owe them anything.

In the event you were drowning would you waste your time calling for help on that basis? I mean if you were the stranger and they saved their pet you'd die with the happy knowledge that what they did was morally right yeah?

 

[Burst6]

So you're walking along a dirt path next to a river that's about 3 meters down. with one random stranger and his dog. While you're walking ahead of him his dog comes closer to you. Suddenly part of the road gives away and you and the dog fall down into a nearby river. Normally you would be able to swim out but the fall broke something. The river is deep and you're being carried away to drown. The guy climbs down and goes into the river but saves his dog while you float off hitting rocks and such screaming for help. Your life flashes before your eyes as you see all the good times you had with friends and your relations with your family. Maybe you have your own pet that loves you too at home. They'll all never see you again. You get carried away as the freezing water hurts your wounds and the current crashes you against hard rocks. You now no longer exist as your lifeless carcass floats down the river.


Yeah i doubt most of you would actually go for your pets. It's similar to the whole video game debate. You can murder hundreds of people in a game but you probably won't be able to kill anyone in real life because when the situation comes up you will think differently. All sorts of things you never expected happen and suddenly your ideals change.

 

[jordanredd]

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.

Well, likewise it's a little jarring to me that so many are saying they really don't give a damn about their pet's life at all and that anyone who does doesn't have their priorities straight. I am afraid that the extreme end of that sort of thinking leads to people like Michael Vick who took great pleasure in hanging dogs from trees and smashing their heads into the pavement because they didn't fight well enough.

So I guess that's different minds, different morals.

So valuing human life over animal life makes you an animal-hating sociopath. The things you learn in a day, eh? The slippery slope fallacy goes both ways; by the same logic, valuing animal life over human life leads to serial murder.

You're the second person to misrepresent this statement, either deliberately or because you're a pretty terrible reader. Please retry and then come back and describe where I implied that people who value human life over animal life (which would include me, as I've also said in this very thread) are animal-hating sociopaths.

 

[[REDACTED]]

I am afraid that the extreme end of that sort of thinking leads to people like Michael Vick who took great pleasure in hanging dogs from trees and smashing their heads into the pavement because they didn't fight well enough.

That part right there. Any questions?

Edit: Shit! You're right, I'm wrong, and I'm an idiot. Sorry about that.

So, uh... nice weather here on the internet, isn't it?