phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Can we have a roll call vote on this?
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
IDrinkyourMilkshake
Footballguy
You can eat the dog, but you can't really eat human. Dog is the answer.
GTBilly
Footballguy
This is incorrect. You can eat the human, just add a little garlic powder and grill to mid rare.
dgreen
Footballguy
PitbullTD
Footballguy
My dog ftw. I know my dog, I don't know that ####### that thought he could swim, or got drunk at a frat party and "walked into the river"
My dog is good people. He's just too dumb to know he cant chase a ball/leaf/bird too far into the water.
He likely ended up in the water trying to please me in the first place. The stranger however.....
My dog is good people. He's just too dumb to know he cant chase a ball/leaf/bird too far into the water.
He likely ended up in the water trying to please me in the first place. The stranger however.....
Follows Closely
Footballguy
Wow, I have been wasting time here way too long.I will still beat 1000 dogs to death with a bat to save a stranger.
GTBilly
Footballguy
I agree with your sentiment and I would also save a random stranger over a random dog or a group of dogs. That is not the issue as it is being bandied about, it is "Your Dog" and a random stranger. I would love to know what number dog out of the 1000 is quicker than the bat, I'd put the O/U at 4.5.Wow, I have been wasting time here way too long.I will still beat 1000 dogs to death with a bat to save a stranger.
IDrinkyourMilkshake
Footballguy
##### Cat vs. Stranger would be more appropriate.
desert rose
Footballguy
Why can't the dog swim again? Dogs know how to do that naturually.
GTBilly
Footballguy
It's exactly your call to make there sparky that's the whole point of the argument/poll. You obviously don't care for your dog nearly as much as you think you do.
the moops
Footballguy
Also dogs tend to be lighter than humans. So it is an easier save as well.
desert rose
Footballguy
Well, it's a good thing that my dogs aren't' basset hounds. If I had a basset hound, I'd make him wear a life jacket just in case he a stranger were both drowning.
Parrothead
Footballguy
still the dog
AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
HERBERT THE HIPPO
REAL Ultimate Power
I'm pretty sure I would drown the stranger myself if it meant my dog would live........
It took six years, but I'm changing my mind.
To be sure, I'd still save the human, and to me that's still an easy decision.
But I no longer feel comfortable criticizing people who'd choose the opposite. No, I haven't become a moral relativist or anything. But I've come to realize that "near" thinking must sometimes trump "far" thinking if we are, as humans, to remain sane.
More specifically, I've come to realize that all my friends who own dogs face a slightly different version of this dilemma every day. For the amount it costs to feed a dog in the U.S., a person could be kept from starving in Haiti or Cambodia. Yet I don't begrudge any of my friends for feeding their dogs instead of feeding Haitians or Cambodians. And I hope they don't begrudge me for buying movie tickets or awesome shoes instead of sending the money to third-worlders.
As long as someone spends $500 on her dog when there are dying humans who could be saved for $500, it is fair to say that, in that sense, she is valuing a dog's life above a human's. But that's understandable — her dog is her friend, and a normal part of human morality is to value friendships over non-acquaintances.
In the abstract, I might say that human life should always be valued more highly than canine life. In the abstract, I might even go further and say that no dog should be fed while a human is starving. But while some people may pay lip-service to that kind of abstract philosophical pronouncement, nobody really believes it. Or at least, nobody behaves as if he really believes it. While I think that we can generally do good by widening the group of conscious others we care about to include not just our family and friends, but strangers as well, I also recognize that there are practical limits on how far anyone can go in that regard. For nearly all of us, those practical limits cause us to value the starving dog we can see over the starving human we can't see. (Out-of-sight out-of-mind is how humans avoid going mad.) For many others, those practical limits cause them to value the drowning dog they know over the drowning human they don't know.
I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn demarcating where "near" thinking may properly trump "far" thinking — but I'm no longer positive that the people who voted dog are on the wrong side of it. We all fail to save human lives every day, often for reasons much less noble than rescuing our dogs. I won't cast the first stone.
To be sure, I'd still save the human, and to me that's still an easy decision.
But I no longer feel comfortable criticizing people who'd choose the opposite. No, I haven't become a moral relativist or anything. But I've come to realize that "near" thinking must sometimes trump "far" thinking if we are, as humans, to remain sane.
More specifically, I've come to realize that all my friends who own dogs face a slightly different version of this dilemma every day. For the amount it costs to feed a dog in the U.S., a person could be kept from starving in Haiti or Cambodia. Yet I don't begrudge any of my friends for feeding their dogs instead of feeding Haitians or Cambodians. And I hope they don't begrudge me for buying movie tickets or awesome shoes instead of sending the money to third-worlders.
As long as someone spends $500 on her dog when there are dying humans who could be saved for $500, it is fair to say that, in that sense, she is valuing a dog's life above a human's. But that's understandable — her dog is her friend, and a normal part of human morality is to value friendships over non-acquaintances.
In the abstract, I might say that human life should always be valued more highly than canine life. In the abstract, I might even go further and say that no dog should be fed while a human is starving. But while some people may pay lip-service to that kind of abstract philosophical pronouncement, nobody really believes it. Or at least, nobody behaves as if he really believes it. While I think that we can generally do good by widening the group of conscious others we care about to include not just our family and friends, but strangers as well, I also recognize that there are practical limits on how far anyone can go in that regard. For nearly all of us, those practical limits cause us to value the starving dog we can see over the starving human we can't see. (Out-of-sight out-of-mind is how humans avoid going mad.) For many others, those practical limits cause them to value the drowning dog they know over the drowning human they don't know.
I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn demarcating where "near" thinking may properly trump "far" thinking — but I'm no longer positive that the people who voted dog are on the wrong side of it. We all fail to save human lives every day, often for reasons much less noble than rescuing our dogs. I won't cast the first stone.
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno
In a class by himself
Very nice line of thinking Maurile. It can in fact, be applied to any discretionary expenditure we care to make, from dog food to a pedicure.My line of thinking is that I can't save everyone, nor should we be expected to. So I just try to help the ones I love. I might add that I would have rather helped out my mother-in-law more when she was alive than see my tax dollars go to strangers, both foreign and domestic, who I did not know, nor felt any obligation to help.
Rereading this thread makes me miss Vivian Darkbloom.
Voice Of Reason
Footballguy
Maurile Tremblay said:
That guy nailed it out of the park on this one. Bravo.
Chaka
Footballguy
Worst person > best dog?
Parrothead
Footballguy
I'd still save my dog..
Sweatpants
Footballguy
Is this the oldest thread left?
Parrothead
Footballguy
still the dog
Ned
Footballguy
Psychopav
Help us, Joebi-Wan Brynobi, you're our only ho
I love what you've done here with your "near thinking" and "far thinking" paradigm, MT. I know that a lot of people pooh pooh these kinds of hypothetical threads, but is a great opportunity to highlight why they are, imo, so important.
I agree with you that, "in the heat of the moment", near thinking usually trumps anything else. But everyone knows that the heat of the moment is called that in part because judgement is clouded by emotions. This is why "far thinking" proactively is different from retrospective far thinking.
Because of this thread, I have a good degree of certainty that I would indeed save the stranger in the situation described. I've had a chance to think this situation through with a clinical moral eye, and have reached a conclusion which I believe to be not just morally sound but absolute: there is no situation in which saving the dog, imo, would be proper.
So my conscience is now adequately informed in the matter, and I can sleep soundly knowing that I have made this decision absent any muddying of the judgement which might arise in the heat of the moment.
In fact, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that, should this situation arise, I will be able to experience grief without regret - most likely even in the heat of the moment - allowing me to heal from the emotional trauma which would be inflicted by such a tragedy better than I would if I had not thought this through at all.
And the best part is that this kind of far thinking to establish moral foundation, absent judgement clouding heat, is that it is expandable to other situations and scenarios, both much bigger and much smaller than this one in terms of impact.
I know of the benefits of an informed conscience and I reap the rewards on a daily basis. It is a great way to travel through life, allowing one to experience the joys and sorrows of a life well lived without all the regrets of being ill prepared.
Thanks MT.
And it's still save the person and mourn the loss of the dog.
I agree with you that, "in the heat of the moment", near thinking usually trumps anything else. But everyone knows that the heat of the moment is called that in part because judgement is clouded by emotions. This is why "far thinking" proactively is different from retrospective far thinking.
Because of this thread, I have a good degree of certainty that I would indeed save the stranger in the situation described. I've had a chance to think this situation through with a clinical moral eye, and have reached a conclusion which I believe to be not just morally sound but absolute: there is no situation in which saving the dog, imo, would be proper.
So my conscience is now adequately informed in the matter, and I can sleep soundly knowing that I have made this decision absent any muddying of the judgement which might arise in the heat of the moment.
In fact, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that, should this situation arise, I will be able to experience grief without regret - most likely even in the heat of the moment - allowing me to heal from the emotional trauma which would be inflicted by such a tragedy better than I would if I had not thought this through at all.
And the best part is that this kind of far thinking to establish moral foundation, absent judgement clouding heat, is that it is expandable to other situations and scenarios, both much bigger and much smaller than this one in terms of impact.
I know of the benefits of an informed conscience and I reap the rewards on a daily basis. It is a great way to travel through life, allowing one to experience the joys and sorrows of a life well lived without all the regrets of being ill prepared.
Thanks MT.
And it's still save the person and mourn the loss of the dog.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
I would save one of my dogs. Sadly if I save a stranger I am sure I would be liable for something and have to spend the rest of my life paying for some strangers broken back that I didnt pay enough attention to as I pulled him out of his burning car.
ShaqAttaq
Morally Ambiguous
i'm still solidly in the Dog camp. There a zillion strangers out there. i have only one dog.Wow. This is one scary thread.We've really lost this much respect for human life?
I'm going to assume most of those saying "dog" are just messing with us.
For those saying save the stranger, I think you might be thinking that the typical stranger is the type of person that you are used to associating with. You know....family, friends, etc. What you don't realize is that the the average stranger is dumb, only out for themselves, and isn't really that nice of a person. It's not like you are a saving a fellow FBG. There are a lot of bad people out there and there's no guarantee that the stranger you are saving isn't one of them. And as Buddy pointed out, how do you know that you won't have a liability now by trying to save the stranger? A dog can't sue you. A dog loves you. A dog farts while you are laying on the couch and then looks up and says, "Hey, it wasn't me". A good dog would protect you if someone was attacking you. Would an average stranger do that? I doubt it.
Parrothead
Footballguy
I love my dog, and don't like people.. sorry stranger.Happy Ragnarok
Footballguy
Trippy.
I'd save my dog, but then I always rooted for the Joker in the Batman movies, so maybe I just hate humanity.
I'd save my dog, but then I always rooted for the Joker in the Batman movies, so maybe I just hate humanity.
oneohh
Footballguy
A gay one.
guest 54788
Prince of ShantyTown
dog vs John Mayer. which do you save Oat?
GTBilly
Footballguy
You realize that us animal owner's think exactly the same way about those that voted for the stranger. I think an interesting addendum to this poll would be to ask the people that voted for THEIR DOG how they would vote if it was just would you save the stranger or not without the Dog clouding the issue.
Similar threads
