Grackle Squad
Ninjas are so sweet
No hesitation.I'd save my basset hound. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but oh well.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter satch
- Start date
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I'd save the stranger, but I'd expect him to get out in the field with me for the next three autumns to flush and retrieve birds until I could have my new dog fully trained.
Grackle Squad
Ninjas are so sweet
No. They could wind up being a Packer fan, and then I lost a perfectly good dog.
Domepatrol
Footballguy
Man, this is disturbing.
General Malaise
Footballguy
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Boxy Brown
Footballguy
That make you worse than any of us, now doesn't it? None of us were wishing harm on the stranger or our dog.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
While drowning, I'd probably still try and help the dog.I know what I've done in life, and I certainly don't need to be saved. I hope I rot in hell, *******.
Jeebus, I agree wif JoeB here and anyone who voted dog is crazy and is probably going to hell.
This all comes down to one central theme. Doing what makes you happy or doing the "right" thing. Saving the dog will make you happy, but saving a human is the right thing. When people stop thinking about themselves, and their wants and needs, maybe society as a whole will become a better place.
PS, I used to have a dog. It died. I know how it feels.
This all comes down to one central theme. Doing what makes you happy or doing the "right" thing. Saving the dog will make you happy, but saving a human is the right thing. When people stop thinking about themselves, and their wants and needs, maybe society as a whole will become a better place.
PS, I used to have a dog. It died. I know how it feels.
Smoo
Fear the Beaver
I don't know about worse, but it certainly makes me lazier. I'm not going to risk my own life for a stranger or a dog. My point is simply that if you aren't that lazy and are willing to risk your life for one of the two, and you choose the dog, then I think it would be karmically appropriate to see the tables turned one day. Just like it would be karmically amusing to have somebody refuse to save me because they couldn't be bothered.I don't believe in karma, but it sure is fun.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
So your mother and Bush are drowning. Which do you save?Or are you going to hell with the rest of us?
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Spike Lee. I have no idea why. I'll be right back. I feel compelled to go throw a trash can through a pizzeria joint window. Shouldn't be gone for more than 10 minutes.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
If I ever find myself drowning next to a dog I plan on grabbing onto his leash with a death grip. Best way to get dragged to safety.
Shek, excellent question, but let me answer Smoo's first.Smoo, I am thinking more along the lines of religious terms. By saying that, this thread will resort into a religious themed thread and will spawn numerous arguments and questions regarding morality and the repercussions of it. This is my choice and my choice alone. We think differently, and I accept that. My viewpoint, and in that situation, I would do as such based on my religious views.And Shek, this may seem cold, but I don't have the answer to that question. It is an insult to the president and the mother who sacrificed much for me that I would put them on the same level. The dog and human argument is easy; the President and Mother argument is not.For comedy purposes, let's say I would choose my mother. I voted for Kerry. 
Smoo
Fear the Beaver
I figured as much.From a secular perspective, though, I'd be interesting in hearing if anybody can come up with a reason why saving a human over a dog is the "right" thing to do. I imagine it has something to do with genetic propagation and species-preferentiality, but even then, does that make it the right thing to do, or just the natural thing to do?
Anyway, the point is, I'm not convinced that "right" is the correct word to use here, but that's just semantic.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with the Bryant assessment. Hiding behind their computers, with no fear of the judgment of society it is easy to choose the dog. But in real life, with the world watching, it would be quite obvious that a fair amount of these "dog people" would choose the human.The human mind factors in many scenarios and data on every subject. The ridicule of society for choosing the dog and the loss of social favor may tip the scales into choosing the stranger. You'll be happy at home with your dog, but it may come at the cost of some friends and people you love.With that said, people are stupid. They will probably forget in a year and you will have all your friends back and will have your dog alive in well.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I would save them both.Someone here mentioned ice. If it was ice, then neither.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I was just asking because, as I stated before, I don't think this is a question that has a solid answer. Take for example me. When I first moved to America, I had a tough time making friends. I didn't just move to a new area, I moved to a new country, with a new belief system, and a new everything. My dog was my best friend for a year or so. Without that dog, there were days where I felt very alone in the world. Without that dog, there really was no reason to put forth an effort every day. But knowing that when I came home from work, he was there, tail wagging, happy as a pig in slop, made me happy. He was as real as any person was.He saved me. And in turn, deserves to be saved just like any other best friend.Would you save your best friend or a stranger? What if the dog is your best friend?You're not morally wrong for choosing one over the other. Each person has a reason to why they would do whatever they choose. Your reasons may be just as good as another's, but I don't think either would be wrong. Would you save a stranger over a friend? And if you saved your friend over a stranger, would you go to hell?And it's Sheik, not Shek. Now people are picturing a Disney character with turban.Shek, excellent question, but let me answer Smoo's first.Smoo, I am thinking more along the lines of religious terms. By saying that, this thread will resort into a religious themed thread and will spawn numerous arguments and questions regarding morality and the repercussions of it. This is my choice and my choice alone. We think differently, and I accept that. My viewpoint, and in that situation, I would do as such based on my religious views.And Shek, this may seem cold, but I don't have the answer to that question. It is an insult to the president and the mother who sacrificed much for me that I would put them on the same level. The dog and human argument is easy; the President and Mother argument is not.For comedy purposes, let's say I would choose my mother. I voted for Kerry.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
If I push them under while I'm saving the dog, I won't hear them scream anymore.
Gringoloco
Footballguy
Does the fact that it's a dog make any difference? What if it were a beloved pet cow or pet chicken? Would that be the same? I suppose it would have to be, as the argument here is simply that it is a beloved, living pet.Some ask what the difference is between a human and a pet, if not for the moral and/or religious implications. I don't have an immediate good answer to that, but I know most of you eat meat and poultry. They are killed for the specific purpose of us eating them. I doubt those of you who voted for saving the dog would also think that eating other humans is equal to eating chickens or cows (other than tasting a bit gamier).For me, that's where some common sense leaps out and shows the difference between humans and animals.
Death Bytes
Footballguy
If I save the human, and the dog dies, and the human was blind and the dog was the human's seeing eye dog, do I owe the human a new seeing eye dog? I hear those are very expensive.
I'll agree with hat. I just chose the word right as it would add more of a "burst" to my post and open the door for more responses and allow the conversation and debate to develop from a different perspective.From a secular perspective, things get murky. When I evaluate human choice, I typically resort to explaining it from Darwin's point of view.
_______________________________________________
EX: People cheat on the people they are married to because they are executing deep rooted evolutionary traits of spreading genes to as many other people of the opposite sex as possible. Even though sacred vows are made, the deep rooted Darwinistic tendencies override other choices you have made.
_______________________________________________
When someone feels the need to save the dog, they would be executing the Darwin theme of choosing yourself over others. A happy, healthy, and satisfied John Smith has a better chance of reproducing then a broken, unsure, and lost John Smith. Saving the dog gives you a better chance of staying mentally and emotionally stable for some people, thus they choose the dog.
What I am saying probably sounds wild, confusing, and outrageous, but if you look at things from a survival of the fittest/social Darwinism perspective, it surprisingly helps you understand the choices people make.
Also of note, any corrections with regards to syntax would be appreciated. Darwinistic is a word that Microsoft Word hates, but it seems correct.
Hi Gringo,I think it does make some difference on the scale. Dog is the top animal for me.I still wouldn't save it over a human but it would rate on the "scale". My Rhodesian Ridgeback? Yeah, I'd think about it and then save the human.Big Yellow Lab? A thought.Yappy terrier? No thought.Cat? Less than no thought.And on it goes down the scale.J
drpill
Footballguy
I agree. You can't argue morality if you start thinking in these terms. But if we are talking evolution here, wouldn't it be best to save the dog? Natural selection = let the ******* save himself, and if he can't, so much the better for me and my spermatozoa.
If the stranger is a hot chick who will be extremely grateful, well, that's another story...
DreadedParms
Footballguy
If you seriously answered that you'd save the dog over a random person, your values are severely out of whack. I'd suggest you do some time reflecting on them. And the guy who said 99 out of 100 people deserve to drown, you've got issues as well. People aren't perfect, but they don't deserve to die. :( 
I would save the friend. From what I can deduce as they are drowning, I would measure up that they are relatively equal. However, my friend posses a tangible and emotional connection to me, and thus I would save the friend. Does that make me hypocritical? Hopefully not, I try to practice what I preach.The funny thing is this "dog vs. stranger" situation takes place every single day, all the time but it manifests itself in different forms.I was just asking because, as I stated before, I don't think this is a question that has a solid answer. Take for example me. When I first moved to America, I had a tough time making friends. I didn't just move to a new area, I moved to a new country, with a new belief system, and a new everything. My dog was my best friend for a year or so. Without that dog, there were days where I felt very alone in the world. Without that dog, there really was no reason to put forth an effort every day. But knowing that when I came home from work, he was there, tail wagging, happy as a pig in slop, made me happy. He was as real as any person was.He saved me. And in turn, deserves to be saved just like any other best friend.Would you save your best friend or a stranger? What if the dog is your best friend?You're not morally wrong for choosing one over the other. Each person has a reason to why they would do whatever they choose. Your reasons may be just as good as another's, but I don't think either would be wrong. Would you save a stranger over a friend? And if you saved your friend over a stranger, would you go to hell?And it's Sheik, not Shek. Now people are picturing a Disney character with turban.Shek, excellent question, but let me answer Smoo's first.Smoo, I am thinking more along the lines of religious terms. By saying that, this thread will resort into a religious themed thread and will spawn numerous arguments and questions regarding morality and the repercussions of it. This is my choice and my choice alone. We think differently, and I accept that. My viewpoint, and in that situation, I would do as such based on my religious views.And Shek, this may seem cold, but I don't have the answer to that question. It is an insult to the president and the mother who sacrificed much for me that I would put them on the same level. The dog and human argument is easy; the President and Mother argument is not.For comedy purposes, let's say I would choose my mother. I voted for Kerry.
And to add, I think religion has zero to do with this.J
Politician Spock
Footballguy
:rotflmao: This is a Persian missle, Chip!
It's Chet, my name is Chet! And I didn't think it was a whale's ****, honey!
And you are not the first person to mention "Hot chick" as a breaking point to save the stranger. It all comes back down to Darwinism and survival of the fittest. What can you do for me? The hot chick gives you the chance for sex=spreading of genes, the dog gives you happiness and a content heart. You may never see the stranger again.In religious terms, this is a no-brainer save the stranger. But in survival of the fittest terms......let's just say you don't want to be the stranger in the water.
Hi MrH,Maybe on some deeper level I guess. But this seems like the "right thing" to me and not connected at all to my religious beliefs.J
drpill
Footballguy
Some developmental psychologists who study moral development show that as a person develops morally, what they call the "circle of concern" grows and is extended further and further. So someone who is relatively undeveloped morally only extends their concern to immediate family or tribe, and as you move up the developmental hierarchy you become more and more inclusive: all the people of my ethnicity or religion, all the people in my country, all people regardless of nationality or ethnicity... Eventually those who are more highly developed morally have a "circle of concern" which includes non-humans as well.Following this line of reasoning one could argue that someone who considers the dog's life as worthy of saving as the human's is more moral, not less.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
More like a moral imperative.
Similar threads
