I fear we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. He's no Rush Limbaugh, but he's still a completely disingenuous douche (in my opinion).TheMann said:
Oh thank God. I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Poll: Your Pet is Drowning, and so is a Stranger.
- Thread starter Pandabearparade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not sure how this conversation goes on for so long in a world where you can be better off not rendering assistance to an accident victim because of possible legal liabilities. We can be cynical fucks, that's how it is and it shouldn't surprise anybody.
I love how nerds talk about having "no faith in humanity" and then would rather save a pet than an actual human being. I find it completely disgusting and another reason I should probably stop coming here. I mean, fuck me, the poll results are nearly even right now, and we're 25 pages in, I can't even wrap my head around this. In truth, I can't swim well, but I feel that poll option is a bit of a cop-out because its supposed to be a moral "dilemma".
As for political leanings, I'm a liberal, and I love my cat, but humans have more worth than animals, simple truth.
As for political leanings, I'm a liberal, and I love my cat, but humans have more worth than animals, simple truth.
i find it odd that, according to this poll, something that the majority of us would do is somehow immoral
You know anyone can chastise anyone right? It's not like some privilege you have to earn or something.Slayer_2 said:
I'm a little insulted that you think I'd only save someone because I'm pressured by society to do so. Look, if your only concern is how things affect you, the rest of the universe be damned, fine; but call it what it is. It's not "practicality", it's selfishness. You are putting that which matters to you before that which matters to others.Slayer_2 said:
And people with your mindset are bad for humanity as a whole.
Not that you'd care about that.
What is right is not decided by popular opinion. If it was, the Na-Fodder Aplenty said:
No, bad Panda!
Anyway, argumentum ad populum fallacy. Popular does not equal true.
erm, considering morals are a completely man made thing, what is right IS decided by popular opinionPandabearparade said:
No.Fodder Aplenty said:
Genghis Khan wiped out entire cities of far better people than he or his horde of horse riding fuckheads. Was it moral? No. Was it approved of? Yes. Everyone still alive after the Mongols sacked a city very enthusiastically approved of the Khan. Except for the women they kept alive to rape, but they were the minority and thus wrong by your logic.
yes.Pandabearparade said:
morals are not set in stone. they are decided by whatever the community decides. if they were set in stone, why are there still moral debates? why are we having this converstion? why do so many disagree with you?
Around the same number disagree with evolution and climate change. The truth isn't up for a vote.Fodder Aplenty said:
i didn't know that you could scientifically determine what is morally correct. the cannibalist alien species of azhnarfians will be horrfied to learn that they have been proved by science to be evil.Pandabearparade said:
Too many 'if's' come into play for me to save the stranger. My dog is my dog. I know what it is, what it means to me, and how heavy it is.
For the stranger I have to ask myself several questions;
-Is it a girl? is she hot? What are my odds of sexual favours afterwards?
-Is it a Dude? is he fat? What are my odds of collecting a large sum of money for my heroism?
These questions and more, by the time I'm done assessing the stranger he/she likely would've drowned...
For the stranger I have to ask myself several questions;
-Is it a girl? is she hot? What are my odds of sexual favours afterwards?
-Is it a Dude? is he fat? What are my odds of collecting a large sum of money for my heroism?
These questions and more, by the time I'm done assessing the stranger he/she likely would've drowned...
Just jumping back in to say that saving drowning people is no easy task and was pulled under once by a man drowning at the beach when I was the only life guard around. Scary stuff man.
Pet. I prefer animals most of the time anyways, and I'd have a personal attachment to the pet. None to the human.
I don't see why people are talking like it's a given that human life is more valuable than animal life though.
Although this is never going to happen (and if it did - which it really, really wouldn't - there's things to think about like "I'm not that strong a swimmer anyway, there's no point in us all dying"), so I don't get the outrage either.
I don't see why people are talking like it's a given that human life is more valuable than animal life though.
Although this is never going to happen (and if it did - which it really, really wouldn't - there's things to think about like "I'm not that strong a swimmer anyway, there's no point in us all dying"), so I don't get the outrage either.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. Even though I disagree.Pandabearparade said:
Its just hard to understand that normally reasonable, accepting people are driven to such vitriol and ill-will towards others based on a difference of opinions. As a rule, you can't judge someone inferior for the values they hold. THAT is what causes the trouble in this world, not apathy for total fucking strangers. Which is only natural.
I'd obviously save my pet, I hate people. People have treated me like crap my whole life but I know whenever I come home from work my 3 dogs will run to me tails wagging.