Save your dog or a stranger (1 Viewer)

[glock]

Dogs are awesome.People suck.Save MY dog, no question about it for me. I'm a loser, but my dog is my closest companion.

Try becoming less of a loser and the real answer might become a little more clear.

 

[FatMax]

I've had a few dogs and still wonder about anyone that would not save another human being.

The human mind is a weird and strange place. I personally have a dog and would save my dog over a stranger without a moment's hesitation.

Just like I would save a friend or family member over a stranger.By owning our dogs I have taken the responsibility to care the best for them and they reciprocate that with unconditional love.Stranger loses.

Right. Just like if I had to make a decision between swerving and possibly spilling soda on my car seat or plowing your dog, your dog loses.

Well if Max is drowning I'm not saving him even if my dog is sitting there with me.

Don't get me wrong, I would swerve to miss your dog, just not if it means spilling a soda. Unless of course it is a really big dog and would possibly do damage to the front of my car. Thankfully I can make pretty quick assessments on whether or not the dog will go under the bumper. All of these things have to be taken into consideration.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Dog. No doubt and wouldn't even think twice.

 

[General Malaise]

does the stranger have a gina?

 

[Clayton Gray]

Answering on a message board is not the same as real life either. Id be willing to bet that the number of people who would actually save an animal over a human if they were in that situation is MUCH smaller than the percentage of people voting dog here.

Let's certainly hope so.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Please place human stranger in the correct order of save-worthiness:

dog, cat, gerbil, hermit crab, goldfish, ant, rock

 

[NCCommish]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

 

[NCCommish]

Please place human stranger in the correct order of save-worthiness:dog, cat, gerbil, hermit crab, goldfish, ant, rock

Family(including cats or dogs) over stranger, child over adult stranger, female adult over adult male stranger. Anymore hypotheticals?

 

[FatMax]

Please place human stranger in the correct order of save-worthiness:

dog, cat, gerbil, hermit crab, goldfish, ant, rock

It depends. Is it my rock?

 

[Clayton Gray]

Please place human stranger in the correct order of save-worthiness:dog, cat, gerbil, hermit crab, goldfish, ant, rock

Family(including cats or dogs) over stranger, child over adult stranger, female adult over adult male stranger. Anymore hypotheticals?

So the gerbil dies in favor of person X?

 

[Clayton Gray]

Please place human stranger in the correct order of save-worthiness:

dog, cat, gerbil, hermit crab, goldfish, ant, rock

It depends. Is it my rock?

Your pet rock of course.

 

[FatMax]

Anymore hypotheticals?

I don't, but if you're interested, you could answer the one Fred posed to you with a little more honesty.

 

[valhallan]

Please place human stranger in the correct order of save-worthiness:dog, cat, gerbil, hermit crab, goldfish, ant, rock

Family(including cats or dogs) over stranger, child over adult stranger, female adult over adult male stranger. Anymore hypotheticals?

Your dog or your cousin who you haven't seen since childhood?

 

[NCCommish]

Anymore hypotheticals?

I don't, but if you're interested, you could answer the one Fred posed to you with a little more honesty.

I answered the stilted question as honestly as it deserved.

 

[John Mamula]

If we're going to debate the value of human life vs the life of a dog, we have to do so objectively, not from the viewpoint of a human.

No we don't. We're humans. If we're asking what a dog would do, that would be a different question. I would expect an educated human to make a better decision than a dog would. And if that educated human did not pick the stranger, I would expect them to go to jail.

You can go to jail for not saving someone?OK.

In this case, yes. It's provable negligence. If I choose not to save someone, the generally assumed defense is that I would have to risk my own life to do so, and the state cannot compel me to risk my life for someone else. But in this case, I cannot make that defense. I'm at no greater risk in saving one vs. the other.

lol you'd have a hard time proving that.I could easily prove I have a bigger responsibility to save something of my own compared to a stranger.

 

[NCCommish]

Please place human stranger in the correct order of save-worthiness:dog, cat, gerbil, hermit crab, goldfish, ant, rock

Family(including cats or dogs) over stranger, child over adult stranger, female adult over adult male stranger. Anymore hypotheticals?

Your dog or your cousin who you haven't seen since childhood?

Cousin isn't stranger. Human family over pet family. But you can bet I'd try for both.

 

[FatMax]

Anymore hypotheticals?

I don't, but if you're interested, you could answer the one Fred posed to you with a little more honesty.

I answered the stilted question as honestly as it deserved.

You didn't, but whatever. I get your point.How about a four year old girl vs. your aging cat?

 

[Veni Vidi Vici]

I love animals, though I'm not a 'dog' person, still, I'd have to save my fellow man before any other animal.

Question: How would you feel if someone chose saving their dog rather than saving your Mom, Dad, wife, child?

I would quite possibly (actually probably) kill someone if they saved their pet instead of one of my loved ones.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Please place human stranger in the correct order of save-worthiness:dog, cat, gerbil, hermit crab, goldfish, ant, rock

Family(including cats or dogs) over stranger, child over adult stranger, female adult over adult male stranger. Anymore hypotheticals?

Your dog or your cousin who you haven't seen since childhood?

Cousin isn't stranger. Human family over pet family. But you can bet I'd try for both.

Your dog or that dude at work that you've met but rarely see more than a couple times a month (I think he's name is Dave)?

 

[bostonfred]

If we're going to debate the value of human life vs the life of a dog, we have to do so objectively, not from the viewpoint of a human.

No we don't. We're humans. If we're asking what a dog would do, that would be a different question. I would expect an educated human to make a better decision than a dog would. And if that educated human did not pick the stranger, I would expect them to go to jail.

You can go to jail for not saving someone?OK.

In this case, yes. It's provable negligence. If I choose not to save someone, the generally assumed defense is that I would have to risk my own life to do so, and the state cannot compel me to risk my life for someone else. But in this case, I cannot make that defense. I'm at no greater risk in saving one vs. the other.

lol you'd have a hard time proving that.I could easily prove I have a bigger responsibility to save something of my own compared to a stranger.

I've as much a lawyer as half of the people here claiming to be lawyers, and I can tell you as a fact you're going to jail if you save the dog.

 

[bostonfred]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

The purpose of my question was to isolate the part that I care about - the value of one life vs. the other. Every time someone answers, they seem so add in extraneous variables like "If I'm risking my life...", or "it's their fault their life is in danger in the first place", or "the human has a better chance of surviving without my help". But that's not what we're talking about. The question is whether your dog's life is more valuable than the human's. The purpose of your question was to avoid my question.

 

[valhallan]

How about your dog gets nailed by a car and at the same time you notice someone who is obviously about to drown. The dog is clearly still alive, but badly injured. You know for sure the person will die if you don't save him, but it's dicey as to whether the dog will survive if you to leave him for a few minutes. Then what?

 

[GregR_2]

I'd probably try to save both, the stranger first. I realize the poll says you can save only one, but I'd still try.

 

[bostonfred]

How about your dog gets nailed by a car and at the same time you notice someone who is obviously about to drown. The dog is clearly still alive, but badly injured. You know for sure the person will die if you don't save him, but it's dicey as to whether the dog will survive if you to leave him for a few minutes. Then what?

Throw my dying dog to them. Dead dogs float.

 

[bigbottom]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

Well, you're the one that mentioned the fact that the person doing the saving is risking his or her life. The hypothetical is merely meant to test whether that is a relevant or irrelevant factor in your decision-making process. If you don't like the frozen pond example, how about you're in a room with a killer who will shoot and kill either your dog or the woman he has bound to a chair in front of you. He gives you the choice. Do you still pick the dog?

 

[Veni Vidi Vici]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

Well, you're the one that mentioned the fact that the person doing the saving is risking his or her life. The hypothetical is merely meant to test whether that is a relevant or irrelevant factor in your decision-making process. If you don't like the frozen pond example, how about you're in a room with a killer who will shoot and kill either your dog or the woman he has bound to a chair in front of you. He gives you the choice. Do you still pick the dog?

...also, think about those left. In my case, if my cat dies, I'm the only one who will feel sad, but the stranger will most likely have Several people grieving for -who-knows-how-long.I say it would be selfish to save your pet.

 

[jonessed]

Answering on a message board is not the same as real life either. Id be willing to bet that the number of people who would actually save an animal over a human if they were in that situation is MUCH smaller than the percentage of people voting dog here.

I doubt it. Quite a few self-absorbed people on this board.

 

[jonessed]

Anymore hypotheticals?

I don't, but if you're interested, you could answer the one Fred posed to you with a little more honesty.

I answered the stilted question as honestly as it deserved.

You didn't, but whatever. I get your point.How about a four year old girl vs. your aging cat?

He said children first, although if she is 19 she drowns.

 

[bigbottom]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

Well, you're the one that mentioned the fact that the person doing the saving is risking his or her life. The hypothetical is merely meant to test whether that is a relevant or irrelevant factor in your decision-making process. If you don't like the frozen pond example, how about you're in a room with a killer who will shoot and kill either your dog or the woman he has bound to a chair in front of you. He gives you the choice. Do you still pick the dog?

...also, think about those left. In my case, if my cat dies, I'm the only one who will feel sad, but the stranger will most likely have Several people grieving for -who-knows-how-long.I say it would be selfish to save your pet.

Good point. The death of the stranger may leave a child without a mother, a husband without a wife, parents without a daughter. I can't imagine making a choice with the possibility, if not probability, of causing such grief to others, even if it does mean that I lose my dog.

 

[FatMax]

Anymore hypotheticals?

I don't, but if you're interested, you could answer the one Fred posed to you with a little more honesty.

I answered the stilted question as honestly as it deserved.

You didn't, but whatever. I get your point.How about a four year old girl vs. your aging cat?

He said children first, although if she is 19 she drowns.

No, he said family first (including cats and dogs), then strangers. He put the order on the strangers. Children happened to be first in the stranger group. I should have specified that the four year old girl is a stranger that he has no connection to. Other than being another human being, I mean.

 

[jonessed]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

Well, you're the one that mentioned the fact that the person doing the saving is risking his or her life. The hypothetical is merely meant to test whether that is a relevant or irrelevant factor in your decision-making process. If you don't like the frozen pond example, how about you're in a room with a killer who will shoot and kill either your dog or the woman he has bound to a chair in front of you. He gives you the choice. Do you still pick the dog?

...also, think about those left. In my case, if my cat dies, I'm the only one who will feel sad, but the stranger will most likely have Several people grieving for -who-knows-how-long.I say it would be selfish to save your pet.

Good point. The death of the stranger may leave a child without a mother, a husband without a wife, parents without a daughter. I can't imagine making a choice with the possibility, if not probability, of causing such grief to others, even if it does mean that I lose my dog.

I mentioned this in the first page. There is so much more to lose in a human life that the idea of rescuing a pet first is completely foreign to me. To be honest, I would rescue a child before any of my grandparents. Their life is ending, the child's is just beginning. This thread is quite eye opening on where people really stand with regard to their fellow man.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I have owned a dog in the past. Dogs are great, but people are better. A human that would rather another human die so a dog could live deserves a fate worse than death.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's like wandering into a thread where half the people think 3+3=200. Truly bizarre from my subjective experience. Although, as I said, I've never owned a dog.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

My dog can catch a frisbee so this would be a tough choice.

Well she could before she went blind.

So a blind dog, that no longer catches frisbees, would rather sleep than guard the house and runs into walls all the time

or

a stranger

Let me think about this one.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Where's the option for saving a stranger's dog?

 

[Capella]

If we're going to debate the value of human life vs the life of a dog, we have to do so objectively, not from the viewpoint of a human.

No we don't. We're humans. If we're asking what a dog would do, that would be a different question. I would expect an educated human to make a better decision than a dog would. And if that educated human did not pick the stranger, I would expect them to go to jail.

You can go to jail for not saving someone?OK.

In this case, yes. It's provable negligence. If I choose not to save someone, the generally assumed defense is that I would have to risk my own life to do so, and the state cannot compel me to risk my life for someone else. But in this case, I cannot make that defense. I'm at no greater risk in saving one vs. the other.

lol you'd have a hard time proving that.I could easily prove I have a bigger responsibility to save something of my own compared to a stranger.

I've as much a lawyer as half of the people here claiming to be lawyers, and I can tell you as a fact you're going to jail if you save the dog.

you sure about that?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I have had my dog for almost 11 years and we have been through thick and thick. Save the dog, hands down!

Agreed. This sholdn't even be close.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

It's like wandering into a thread where half the people think 3+3=200. Truly bizarre from my subjective experience. Although, as I said, I've never owned a dog.

I do own a dog, and have the same reaction.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

Well, you're the one that mentioned the fact that the person doing the saving is risking his or her life. The hypothetical is merely meant to test whether that is a relevant or irrelevant factor in your decision-making process. If you don't like the frozen pond example, how about you're in a room with a killer who will shoot and kill either your dog or the woman he has bound to a chair in front of you. He gives you the choice. Do you still pick the dog?

...also, think about those left. In my case, if my cat dies, I'm the only one who will feel sad, but the stranger will most likely have Several people grieving for -who-knows-how-long.I say it would be selfish to save your pet.

Good point. The death of the stranger may leave a child without a mother, a husband without a wife, parents without a daughter. I can't imagine making a choice with the possibility, if not probability, of causing such grief to others, even if it does mean that I lose my dog.

I mentioned this in the first page. There is so much more to lose in a human life that the idea of rescuing a pet first is completely foreign to me. To be honest, I would rescue a child before any of my grandparents. Their life is ending, the child's is just beginning. This thread is quite eye opening on where people really stand with regard to their fellow man.

It's a FFA forum on a football website. If you want reality get some fresh air and get off the computer. These are entertainment questions. Does anybody really know what they'd do in this situation? Wouldn't you have like a millisecond to decide what you were going to do? You'd probably save the person and never forgive yourself for letting your pet die. Meh...

 

[tommyboy]

anyone that would save a dog over a human being has pretty bad priorities.

 

[bostonfred]

If we're going to debate the value of human life vs the life of a dog, we have to do so objectively, not from the viewpoint of a human.

No we don't. We're humans. If we're asking what a dog would do, that would be a different question. I would expect an educated human to make a better decision than a dog would. And if that educated human did not pick the stranger, I would expect them to go to jail.

You can go to jail for not saving someone?OK.

In this case, yes. It's provable negligence. If I choose not to save someone, the generally assumed defense is that I would have to risk my own life to do so, and the state cannot compel me to risk my life for someone else. But in this case, I cannot make that defense. I'm at no greater risk in saving one vs. the other.

lol you'd have a hard time proving that.I could easily prove I have a bigger responsibility to save something of my own compared to a stranger.

I've as much a lawyer as half of the people here claiming to be lawyers, and I can tell you as a fact you're going to jail if you save the dog.

you sure about that?

That I'm as much a lawyer as half of the people here claiming to be lawyers? Sure. That you'd actually go to jail if you saved the dog? Of course not. In all seriousness I wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone did, though.

 

[NCCommish]

Anymore hypotheticals?

I don't, but if you're interested, you could answer the one Fred posed to you with a little more honesty.

I answered the stilted question as honestly as it deserved.

You didn't, but whatever. I get your point.How about a four year old girl vs. your aging cat?

Already said children before pet.

 

[NCCommish]

Anymore hypotheticals?

I don't, but if you're interested, you could answer the one Fred posed to you with a little more honesty.

I answered the stilted question as honestly as it deserved.

You didn't, but whatever. I get your point.How about a four year old girl vs. your aging cat?

He said children first, although if she is 19 she drowns.

No, he said family first (including cats and dogs), then strangers. He put the order on the strangers. Children happened to be first in the stranger group. I should have specified that the four year old girl is a stranger that he has no connection to. Other than being another human being, I mean.

He was right. Although the cutoff was 18. I already said I couldn't let a stranger child drown while I saved a pet. Adults should know better than kids and dogs.

 

[NCCommish]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

The purpose of my question was to isolate the part that I care about - the value of one life vs. the other. Every time someone answers, they seem so add in extraneous variables like "If I'm risking my life...", or "it's their fault their life is in danger in the first place", or "the human has a better chance of surviving without my help". But that's not what we're talking about. The question is whether your dog's life is more valuable than the human's. The purpose of your question was to avoid my question.

You have changed the question when do I get to change the circumstance?

 

[bostonfred]

If someone saw your dog drowning and allowed them to die while they saved another human, would you be upset? If someone let your wife die so they could save their dog, would you be more or less upset? What if it were your sister, or brother?

We've been through this in the other thread. If someone is throwing their life on the line it is their choice to make. And to live with.

OK, so let's assume that there was a car accident on a bridge over a frozen river. Your dog was out on the ice, running around having fun, when a man was knocked off the bridge and cracked the ice below. He appeared stunned at first, but now is aware that he has moments to live. Your dog fell into the water at a separate spot on the ice during the fray. You have your truck parked nearby, and it has a tow cable you can use to save one of them, but not both of them. There's nobody else close enough to help, and at the current water temperatures, one of them will certainly - not probably - die. The other will certainly - not probably - live. And using the tow cable, you are not putting your life or car or anything or anyone else at risk in any way. At this point, there's no blame, no risk to you, and no chance that one lives if you save the other. You still save your dog?

What if a unicorn would magically save one or the other?

The purpose of my question was to isolate the part that I care about - the value of one life vs. the other. Every time someone answers, they seem so add in extraneous variables like "If I'm risking my life...", or "it's their fault their life is in danger in the first place", or "the human has a better chance of surviving without my help". But that's not what we're talking about. The question is whether your dog's life is more valuable than the human's. The purpose of your question was to avoid my question.

You have changed the question when do I get to change the circumstance?

The question is save your dog or a stranger. It was never "risk your life to save one". That was all your inference.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

By the way, this may be the best topic in the history of teh FBG.

as if 58 pages of people getting indignant wasn't enough in the last thread ... LETS DO IT AGAIN

And I'd save my dog.

 

[bostonfred]

I honestly thought the last 58 pages were shtick. I thought every single person in there was just fishing and that nobody could be sociopathic enough to seriously choose dog. I then asked some brick and mortar people the question and found that some of them were seriously defending the choice to save their dog.

I'm willing to end the democracy experiment now.

 

[top dog]

I love dogs. I have 3 good dogs that are a big part of our family. I have more dogs than kids actually.... I also think dogs are way cooler than most people. Dogs are awesome because they are loyal and love you unconditionally. Humans will stab you in the back the first chance they get.

All that being said, I would still save the stranger over my dog. To me, Human life > Dog life... even if most humans are jerks. I couldn't live with myself if I let another person die because I saved my dog.

 

[prosopis]

I've had a few dogs and still wonder about anyone that would not save another human being.

That is my answer as well.

 

[prosopis]

I've had a few dogs and still wonder about anyone that would not save another human being.

Pretty scary, huh? Maybe a better question would be "how many pro-lifers would save their dog over a human being"? I bet it's close to 100%This question IMO boils down to a person's view of the sanctity of human life. Someone choosing to save a dog over a human would have no problem aborting a baby as they would have no emotional connection to the unborn child.

Uh-oh ...