Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.
- Thread starter Pandabearparade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If the friend is a dog, yes. The dog isn't equal to a human friend.Zachary Amaranth said:
No argument there.
It's not relevant, the scenario is about comparing the life of a dog (or cat) to the life of a human. You seem to think throwing a red herring is an airtight argument, but it's really not.DugMachine said:
I would save my pet. I care about my pet, and I don't care about the stranger. I'm not going to save somebody just on the merit that they're human. That being said, if it were only a person in trouble, I would definitely save them.
Who cares if it's relevant or not? Your poll suggests people think your view is shite so why even bother entertaining the scenario anymore? Next flavor, how much value do your loved ones have over strangers?Pandabearparade said:
First off, you know nothing about me, so you hardly have the right to look down on me.jordanredd said:
Secondly, giving up all I've worked for to live in a tent is no long term solution to solving problems of mass starvation. I'm sooner to work with more relief organizations.
Lastly, where are you even getting this argument from? You're going from telling me that a cat's life has the same value as a child, to berating me for not giving up all I own to be able to say that I value life. And you're doing this over your computer. See the hypocrisy there mate?
Oh for the love of god, thank you sir or madame. This is a better response than I could've ever come up with. The constant barrage of self-congratulating by Panda and others here was getting to be too much.LifeCharacter said:
I live by the general rule "Expect the best, but prepare for the worst." That way, I don't seem like a judgmental prick but am still rarely caught off guard when things go wrong.DugMachine said:
A pet is stuck being a pet. It can never become anything more a non-sapient animal, a slave to its instincts.
It will never found and run it's own company because it can't.
It will never make great breakthroughs in science or medicine because it can't.
A pet can't help change the world.
A pet could also become a murderer. Dogs, for example, have killed many humans in the past.
They can also become a leeching slob. Providing no enjoyment to you and taking your resources and money.
However, a human CAN change the world.
A human CAN become a great scientist, a great engineer, a great philosopher.
A human can reach the stars on his own.
Sure they could also become a leeching slob or a murderer, just like the dog could, but the fact of the matter is that a human with a working human brain will always have more potential than a dog with a working dog brain.
Saving the human would be the most logical thing to do. Saving the pet would be an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Now, If I had to choose between saving my friend or saving a stranger?
The playing fields are level. I have more stake in my friend.
Of course I would save my friend.
In my experience people are mostly jerks. Animals, as they cannot by their very nature be anything but pure and innocent, have more intrinsic value to me.
That said, not all people suck, and since this person is a stranger and we don't know them we can't determine if they're a terrible monster or a decent person and potentially worth more than the animal in question. Thus, we need to create a system for approximating the value of a person relative to our beloved animals.
Dick Cheney: Would not save
Small child: Would save
Old Grandpa: Would not save
20-year-old: Would save
Convict: Would not save
Batman: Would save
Hipsters: Would not save
Escapist staff: Would definitely save
Damsel tied to railroad track: Will save only if soundtrack is playing rapidly ascending diminished seventh chords. If not, come back when it is.
Also, if your cat is animated in the Hanna-Barbara style you will automatically save the other party, because the cat can definitely handle it.
Seriously, though, I'm not sure whether it's a fair question to ask. Societal pressure forces you have to make the assumption that this stranger, an unknown quantity, has more intrinsic value than a beloved animal companion, and I don't think that human life is inherently better than anything else. We just happened to be lucky and get opposable thumbs and learned how to eat meat. That could happen to anything else if the evolutionary stimulus is presented and it successfully adapts. I know a number of people I value much less than I valued my late dog, but if you fail to take action you will be judged, persecuted and possibly prosecuted. It's a loaded question.
That said, not all people suck, and since this person is a stranger and we don't know them we can't determine if they're a terrible monster or a decent person and potentially worth more than the animal in question. Thus, we need to create a system for approximating the value of a person relative to our beloved animals.
Dick Cheney: Would not save
Small child: Would save
Old Grandpa: Would not save
20-year-old: Would save
Convict: Would not save
Batman: Would save
Hipsters: Would not save
Escapist staff: Would definitely save
Damsel tied to railroad track: Will save only if soundtrack is playing rapidly ascending diminished seventh chords. If not, come back when it is.
Also, if your cat is animated in the Hanna-Barbara style you will automatically save the other party, because the cat can definitely handle it.
Seriously, though, I'm not sure whether it's a fair question to ask. Societal pressure forces you have to make the assumption that this stranger, an unknown quantity, has more intrinsic value than a beloved animal companion, and I don't think that human life is inherently better than anything else. We just happened to be lucky and get opposable thumbs and learned how to eat meat. That could happen to anything else if the evolutionary stimulus is presented and it successfully adapts. I know a number of people I value much less than I valued my late dog, but if you fail to take action you will be judged, persecuted and possibly prosecuted. It's a loaded question.
I can respect that. Hell, I wouldn't save Dick Cheney even if no dog was present.Eppy (Bored) said:
First, i'd like to thank you for replying in a civilized manner and not hurling insults of 'monstrous' or 'immature'... even though my reply to you was a bit aggressive, sorryFiliecs said:
I do see your point. I value humans and even when they're scum of the earth, if they're not about to kill me I would rather them just be in prison and not a danger to society. I don't believe executions solve anything except some slight satisfaction that goes away after awhile.
And honestly same with pets, I've had many pets and over the years a few have died. I loved all my animals dearly and went through serious bouts of depression cause I always felt that it was my fault, but it passes so no losing your pet will not cause this giant hole in your life that will never be filled again.
But in a spur of the moment my instincts would tell me to jump in for my pet. If I could i'd save the stranger but seeing as this scenario makes us choose one or the other i'm just going with what i'd realistically do. Now how I coped with it after the fact is a different story.
Anyways, I like your take on things. You're nice
edit: When I read my post to myself it sounds strange. Next shift starts soon so no time to edit, hope you got my meaning :3
The results of this poll disgust me. I know that people love their pets and that's fine by me but I will never understand how someone can justify sacrificing a human for an animal. Of course people say well that person could be worthless, but then again, how valuable is some animal. At best, an animal is a friend for a decade until they die. A single human can make a difference in thousands of peoples lives. Until every single human in the world is well-fed, protected and somewhat prosperous, I don't understand how you can start saving other species. (Exceptions made to dieing species that are dieing because of human involvement) But to value some worthless mutt that you hugged and played ball with for a few years over a human who could have anywhere from 10 to 80 years left to live, left to make a difference in the world... it disgusts me. Come on, I'm waiting for the flameing. I don't care how precious your dog or cat is. That human is someone's child, or someone's father, or someone's wife. All that dog knows is you and it couldn't care less whose owner it is (as long as they're not abusive) if their fed and cared for.
How do you figure?Pandabearparade said:
jordanredd said:
Anyway... I'd save my pet. I'm the one risking my ass, so I'm gonna save the person or animal that I have the connection with. If I saved the person, their family would be grateful, but I'd be heartbroken. Or they can be heartbroken. Either way, hearts will ache. In the end, I'm the one swimming into a FUCKING WHIRLPOOL to drag someone out, so I think I'm gonna treat myself to a nice cup of not letting a loved one die.
If I could save two people or my pet, I'd save the two people. But one life for one life, it's always gonna be the pet. I don't think that makes me a disgusting monster, but to each their own.
Ah, the ol' Batman Fallacy. I never tire of it. Batman would never be caught in a whirlpool. Stop throwing out your red herring eating strawmen.Eppy (Bored) said: