What's new
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)

If they were both drowning & you could save only one would you save your dog or a stranger (huma

  • I'd save my dog

    Votes: 97 49.2%

  • I'd save the stranger

    Votes: 100 50.8%
  • Total voters
    197
After much thought, I might save Billie Joe Macallister just to find out why the #### he jumped and what the #### they threw off that ### #### bridge. Its been bugging me for 30 years.

 
And that works well for explaining what someone should do, but it's less clear when it becomes something you should do, because the question "how can I most benefit from this situation?" will never be fully factored out of any scenario.
Click to expand...
It won't be. But "How can I most benefit from this situation?" isn't really a moral question. So I don't think the answer, whatever it is, can turn an otherwise immoral act into a moral (or morally neutral) one.
 
And that works well for explaining what someone should do, but it's less clear when it becomes something you should do, because the question "how can I most benefit from this situation?" will never be fully factored out of any scenario.
Click to expand...
It won't be. But "How can I most benefit from this situation?" isn't really a moral question. So I don't think the answer, whatever it is, can turn an otherwise immoral act into a moral (or morally neutral) one.
Click to expand...
Okay. So let's, for the sake of asking a follow-up question, assume that saving the stranger is a "moral" act and saving the dog is a "less moral" act (because I don't think saving a dog should ever be considered immoral (unless it was one of those zombie dogs from Resident Evil)), but the person chooses to save the dog, because of all these non-moral love feelings. You have previously stated that the person is a schmuck. Is the simple act of choosing a less moral action over a more moral action your criterion for schmuckiness?
 
So let's, for the sake of asking a follow-up question, assume that saving the stranger is a "moral" act and saving the dog is a "less moral" act (because I don't think saving a dog should ever be considered immoral (unless it was one of those zombie dogs from Resident Evil)), but the person chooses to save the dog, because of all these non-moral love feelings.
Click to expand...
Saving the dog isn't immoral. Not saving the human may be. (Likewise, there's nothing immoral about tying my shoes. But if I sit there tying my shoes instead of lifting a finger to easily save someone's life . . .)
Is the simple act of choosing a less moral action over a more moral action your criterion for schmuckiness?
Click to expand...
Sometimes.I don't think giving $500 instead of $600 to Children Incorporated makes somebody a schmuck.

But if six people are asleep in wheel chairs resting on a train track, and you have the ability to save either all six of them or just five, without even sweating, I think you'd be a schmuck for saving just five. (Unless the sixth person was evil.)

 
So let's, for the sake of asking a follow-up question, assume that saving the stranger is a "moral" act and saving the dog is a "less moral" act (because I don't think saving a dog should ever be considered immoral (unless it was one of those zombie dogs from Resident Evil)), but the person chooses to save the dog, because of all these non-moral love feelings.
Click to expand...
Saving the dog isn't immoral. Not saving the human may be. (Likewise, there's nothing immoral about tying my shoes. But if I sit there tying my shoes instead of lifting a finger to easily save someone's life . . .)
Is the simple act of choosing a less moral action over a more moral action your criterion for schmuckiness?
Click to expand...
Sometimes.I don't think giving $500 instead of $600 to Children Incorporated makes somebody a schmuck.

But if six people are asleep in wheel chairs resting on a train track, and you have the ability to save either all six of them or just five, without even sweating, I think you'd be a schmuck for saving just five. (Unless the sixth person was evil.)
Click to expand...
Maybe this is the misanthropy talking, but I think by your criteria there are far more schmucks in the world than non-schmucks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe this is the misanthropy talking, but I think by your criteria there are far more schmucks in the world than non-schmucks.
Click to expand...
How so? You think there are a lot of people who wouldn't save all six people in wheelchairs? (Keep in mind that there's not even any sweating involved.)
 
Maybe this is the misanthropy talking, but I think by your criteria there are far more schmucks in the world than non-schmucks.
Click to expand...
How so? You think there are a lot of people who wouldn't save all six people in wheelchairs? (Keep in mind that there's not even any sweating involved.)
Click to expand...
What if they're watching Richard Simmons: Sweatin' to the Oldies?
 
Its one of the problems I have with objective rules such as the Ten Commandments.

Honor your mother and father sounds great. But what if the father has sexually abused his child?
Click to expand...
Then he shouldn't be honored. The problem with that commandment isn't the objectivity; it's the inflexibility.All finite lists of rules suffer from this same defect, which is why I would tell you to consult your brain instead of following a list of rules. (But keep in mind that a brain is functionally equivalent to a list of rules. :turing: )

You have stated that one of the important factors in your decision would be the capacity for higher thought. This is an objective rule. But in the case where a chimpanzee and a human with dementia were drowning, I wouldn't be able to follow that rule and save the chimpanzee out of hand. I would save the one that I had feelings for. I also wouldn't be able to save the human if the objective rule were "humans should always be saved over animals" if I had personal feelings for the chimp.
Click to expand...
Capacity for higher thought isn't the only relevant factor. It's one of many.Apparently, figuring out all the factors that are relevant and trying to weigh them all against each other is a more difficult exercise than I was initially giving it credit for. If it were as easy or as obvious as it seems to be to me, the poll results would reflect that. So I misjudged the difficulty of this question. Maybe it's like the Monty Hall problem, whose answer is obvious to me but apparently pretty blurry for a great number of people. Or maybe I'm the one who is failing to appreciate all the nuances of the issue: it really is blurry, and the answer seems obvious to me only because I haven't considered it from all the angles yet.

In any event, I would never try to talk you into ignoring whatever emotional feelings you have toward the dog or the monkey. Feelings like love and empathy are exactly what drive moral behavior. I would only try to talk you into keeping those emotional feelings in perspective -- realizing, for example, that whatever feelings you have toward your dog, the stranger's wife has those same feelings many times over for her husband. And your feelings aren't the only ones that count.
Click to expand...
I find all objective rules of moral behavior inflexible. I don't think you should be trying to talk me into anything.

We all have a hierarchy of factors in moral decisions. One's own personal feelings of value seems to rank low in your thinking. Unless you can't imagine having great feelings for a dog. That may be the case here.

Its my thought that we have merely have different values. Its not a correct or incorrect situation. And that's why the poll results differ.

 
Maybe this is the misanthropy talking, but I think by your criteria there are far more schmucks in the world than non-schmucks.
Click to expand...
How so? You think there are a lot of people who wouldn't save all six people in wheelchairs? (Keep in mind that there's not even any sweating involved.)
Click to expand...
Yes, I do.
 
Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.
Click to expand...
So? What's wrong with being oppressive and overbearing?You're not going to tell me it's morally wrong are you? How oppressive that would be! Also, overbearing.
Click to expand...
It's not immoral. But it can lead to a lot of hatred for another person. Hatred that can turn to violence, or mass murder. Even genocide. All because one person's belief was different. Hitler believed his way was correct, and tried to point the world to the magnetic north. Look at all the people in this world who have suffered because of fighting over beliefs. I just think, until we know for sure what the absolute morals are, we should let each other side go about their business.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what Hitler did? He went about his business. Was what he did immoral to him?
Click to expand...
Look, since we're so far off on a tangent of what I said that the road is no longer even paved, let me get back to what I'm saying.1. I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone. Therefore, I'm not being oppressive. I'm not judging anyone for the decision they make.2. There is a HUGE difference between killing someone and choosing your dog over a stranger. You are not killing that person. Please show me where in any country on Earth, where someone has been convicted for helping their dog over a human. While some people may find this morally reprehensible, it is not a crime. Therefore, don't compare it to the morality of killing someone, or for God's sake, genocide. That is just asinine. I think the bible state, "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged". And that only God is allowed to pass judgment on another human being. Is going against the word of the Bible if your Christian morally wrong? Because if so, those penalties offset.(Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply. I was off from work and only visit here when I'm supposed to be working.)
 
I think the bible state, "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged". And that only God is allowed to pass judgment on another human being. Is going against the word of the Bible if your Christian morally wrong? Because if so, those penalties offset.
Click to expand...
Please stop misusing this verse. Every person who knows very little about the bible throws out "Judge not lest you be judged" and it's often one of the ONLY verses people who dont know much about the bible actually know. They think somehow this should prevent christians from being able to point out bad behavior, which would be to their liking because they dont want to be told they're doing something wrong. Well, I'm here to tell you to either stop misusing the verse out of ignorance and learn what it really means...or continue using it with full knowledge that whenever you try to use it in this situation again, you're not being honest and are trying to manipulate its true meaning to fit your needs. Here is the verse: Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Then it goes on to talk about not worrying about pointing out problems with other people when you have a HUGE problem in your life. MT : 2-5 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye." So look, the point isn't that you shouldn't correct your brother when he's wrong...it's just saying dont correct hypocritically. Dont be so quick to point out error in other peoples lives when you have HUGE problems in your own. Deal with your problems first, then you can help with your brothers problems. The new testament is rife with examples of instructing people to correct a brother when they're wrong, or to preach "the truth" and even sets up guidelines for doing both (primarily out of love).

Anyhow, i've seen this referenced a few times in this thread and I'm getting tired of people misusing the Judge not bible verse. SO, now you know the context it's in, what it really means (dont judge hypocritically, be sure to fix yourself before you help others) and what it really DOESNT mean (dont ever call anyone else wrong for doing anything).

The bible sets up clear moral lines on most issues, and if someone simply repeats what the bible says...it's not them doing the talking, they believe it'd God doing the talking...because they're simply retelling what they believe God told them through the bible. Just like if you say you're going to kill somoene, i'll say dont do it or you'll go to jail. I'm not going to put you in jail, but I know according to the law that is your fate...so i'm just relaying what i've been told is proper conduct (not killing) and what might happen if you do (go to jail).

Anyhow, this is a tangent and i'll be happy to discuss it over PM's with anyone who still disagrees, but i'm just tired of seeing this misrepresented here.

 
I would save my dog over a stranger. He's a member of my family! Of course, my dog hates being in water, so this point is moot. :yes:
Click to expand...
It's only moot if no one throws him in :) ...could've been the stranger doing this, who knows.
 
I think the bible state, "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged". And that only God is allowed to pass judgment on another human being. Is going against the word of the Bible if your Christian morally wrong? Because if so, those penalties offset.
Click to expand...
Please stop misusing this verse. Every person who knows very little about the bible throws out "Judge not lest you be judged" and it's often one of the ONLY verses people who dont know much about the bible actually know. They think somehow this should prevent christians from being able to point out bad behavior, which would be to their liking because they dont want to be told they're doing something wrong. Well, I'm here to tell you to either stop misusing the verse out of ignorance and learn what it really means...or continue using it with full knowledge that whenever you try to use it in this situation again, you're not being honest and are trying to manipulate its true meaning to fit your needs. Here is the verse: Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Then it goes on to talk about not worrying about pointing out problems with other people when you have a HUGE problem in your life. MT : 2-5 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye." So look, the point isn't that you shouldn't correct your brother when he's wrong...it's just saying dont correct hypocritically. Dont be so quick to point out error in other peoples lives when you have HUGE problems in your own. Deal with your problems first, then you can help with your brothers problems. The new testament is rife with examples of instructing people to correct a brother when they're wrong, or to preach "the truth" and even sets up guidelines for doing both (primarily out of love).

Anyhow, i've seen this referenced a few times in this thread and I'm getting tired of people misusing the Judge not bible verse. SO, now you know the context it's in, what it really means (dont judge hypocritically, be sure to fix yourself before you help others) and what it really DOESNT mean (dont ever call anyone else wrong for doing anything).

The bible sets up clear moral lines on most issues, and if someone simply repeats what the bible says...it's not them doing the talking, they believe it'd God doing the talking...because they're simply retelling what they believe God told them through the bible. Just like if you say you're going to kill somoene, i'll say dont do it or you'll go to jail. I'm not going to put you in jail, but I know according to the law that is your fate...so i'm just relaying what i've been told is proper conduct (not killing) and what might happen if you do (go to jail).

Anyhow, this is a tangent and i'll be happy to discuss it over PM's with anyone who still disagrees, but i'm just tired of seeing this misrepresented here.
Click to expand...
So you're saying the Bible says one thing but means the other?Look, my point is in the Bible, all are forgiven if they repent their sins. God doesn't hate the sinner, he hates the sin. He realizes that even good people can have a lapse of judgment and do something that others consider a sin. And that's why the Bible states that man should not judge others. Because God forgives.

That is why, when reading a thread like this, you should not condemn your fellow man. If God can look upon our act and realize that what we did can be forgiven, then why can't FBGers? Is their judgment greater than that of God?

 
That is why, when reading a thread like this, you should not condemn your fellow man. If God can look upon our act and realize that what we did can be forgiven, then why can't FBGers? Is their judgment greater than that of God?
Click to expand...
Who's condemning the man? Condemning the action is all that's gone on here and if you need more of an explanation of why this is acceptable in Christianity, PM me and i'll be happy to explain. I'd suggest we leave doctrinal/religious debates out of this convo.
 
That is why, when reading a thread like this, you should not condemn your fellow man. If God can look upon our act and realize that what we did can be forgiven, then why can't FBGers? Is their judgment greater than that of God?
Click to expand...
Who's condemning the man? Condemning the action is all that's gone on here and if you need more of an explanation of why this is acceptable in Christianity, PM me and i'll be happy to explain. I'd suggest we leave doctrinal/religious debates out of this convo.
Click to expand...
rolyaty- I'm not trying to argue. I'm just asking questions and debating. Please don't take anything I say as a jab at your beliefs or anything like that.On a message board, a lot of times the word 'you' is used and is meant in a general sense. But when read on the other end, it comes across as having the finger pointed at you. When I say you, it is the general sense.But as far leaving religion out of this, I think that would be impossible, solely on the fact that you (the general you) tend to base your beliefs and morals on your religious beliefs And that's not bad. But as much as we all have our own religious beliefs, it should be evident that people's morals can differ as well. I apologize again if you thought I was attacking your beliefs or your religion. I was just debating on the internet.
 
That is why, when reading a thread like this, you should not condemn your fellow man.  If God can look upon our act and realize that what we did can be forgiven, then why can't FBGers?  Is their judgment greater than that of God?
Click to expand...
Who's condemning the man? Condemning the action is all that's gone on here and if you need more of an explanation of why this is acceptable in Christianity, PM me and i'll be happy to explain. I'd suggest we leave doctrinal/religious debates out of this convo.
Click to expand...
rolyaty- I'm not trying to argue. I'm just asking questions and debating. Please don't take anything I say as a jab at your beliefs or anything like that.On a message board, a lot of times the word 'you' is used and is meant in a general sense. But when read on the other end, it comes across as having the finger pointed at you. When I say you, it is the general sense.But as far leaving religion out of this, I think that would be impossible, solely on the fact that you (the general you) tend to base your beliefs and morals on your religious beliefs And that's not bad. But as much as we all have our own religious beliefs, it should be evident that people's morals can differ as well. I apologize again if you thought I was attacking your beliefs or your religion. I was just debating on the internet.
Click to expand...
Hey, no offense taken...just dont want this thread to be a debate over doctrinal christian stuff (which is what it could be if we go on debating whether a christian can "judge" or not)Anyhow, I originally replied to your post about christians not judging. I did and thought I made my point pretty clear - judging wasn't what was being condemned, hypocritical judging was. I basically tried to show that a christian has the ability to point out when someone else does something they believe to be wrong and that the "Thou shalt not judge" thing is taken woefully out of context. This seemed to be your main sticking issue and it also seems that you believe that christians dont have the right to call any action/behavior wrong. I dont believe this is correct based on many things...but odds are if I listed them here, we'd go off onto a religious conversation and what the bible does or doesn't say about pointing out when someone does something wrong...rather than talking about peoples morality and whether or not choosing the dog over the stranger is acceptable.So like I said, if you want to have a good discussion about judging and whether a christian can do that in good faith...either IM me or start a new thread...or you could take my word for it and believe that a christian is well within his boundaries in calling certain actions WRONG and that the bible not only doesn't prohibit this, but actually encourages it in situations. Anyhow, I didn't start this thread but i'm kinda hoping it stays more closely on topic than this would take it.
 
I guess the reason I bring religion into this discussion is because when I think of morals, I, myself, rely a lot on my religious upbringing. I'm not trying to turn it into a debate of which religion is allowed to do what or who's religion is morally correct, but instead use it to help people understand.And the main reason I brought it up originally was because I thought it was a good comparisson to the point I was tryign to make, which was:Many people have different beliefs, whether it be religion, politics, schooling, football, or what have you. I just hate to see people get on other people for having different views. And, I am by no means saying that's what you did. Call me what you will, but I hate to see people fight over things like this. Like I said, I've seen first hand in my own backyard what happens when people fight over beliefs. And if me coming on a message board and even just convincing one person not to pass judgement on someone else, I feel that I've done my job to maybe help out in this world.I know that's stupid, but its got to start somewhere. I'll get off my :soap:

 
Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.
Click to expand...
So? What's wrong with being oppressive and overbearing?You're not going to tell me it's morally wrong are you? How oppressive that would be! Also, overbearing.
Click to expand...
It's not immoral. But it can lead to a lot of hatred for another person. Hatred that can turn to violence, or mass murder. Even genocide. All because one person's belief was different. Hitler believed his way was correct, and tried to point the world to the magnetic north. Look at all the people in this world who have suffered because of fighting over beliefs. I just think, until we know for sure what the absolute morals are, we should let each other side go about their business.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what Hitler did? He went about his business. Was what he did immoral to him?
Click to expand...
Look, since we're so far off on a tangent of what I said that the road is no longer even paved, let me get back to what I'm saying.1. I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone. Therefore, I'm not being oppressive.
Click to expand...
This is false logic. You can be oppressive without pushing your beliefs on anyone.
I'm not judging anyone for the decision they make.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you aren't judging the person but are judging the decision.
2. There is a HUGE difference between killing someone and choosing your dog over a stranger. You are not killing that person. Please show me where in any country on Earth, where someone has been convicted for helping their dog over a human. While some people may find this morally reprehensible, it is not a crime. Therefore, don't compare it to the morality of killing someone, or for God's sake, genocide. That is just asinine.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you here.
I think the bible state, "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged". And that only God is allowed to pass judgment on another human being.
Click to expand...
The Bible states "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" = TRUE.Only God is allowed to pass judgement on another human being = FALSEThe Bible says everyone will be judged by Jesus, so it makes no sense to believe that if you "judge not" then you you won't be judged. The key in interpretting that verse is in the "lest ye be". It means you will be judged by the standards you judge others. If you read the versus following "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" you will see it explains how we are to judge others.
Is going against the word of the Bible if your Christian morally wrong? Because if so, those penalties offset.
Click to expand...
Being judged is not a penalty. There are people who are judged who aren't penalized at all.
(Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply. I was off from work and only visit here when I'm supposed to be working.)
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
 
I guess the reason I bring religion into this discussion is because when I think of morals, I, myself, rely a lot on my religious upbringing. I'm not trying to turn it into a debate of which religion is allowed to do what or who's religion is morally correct, but instead use it to help people understand.And the main reason I brought it up originally was because I thought it was a good comparisson to the point I was tryign to make, which was:Many people have different beliefs, whether it be religion, politics, schooling, football, or what have you. I just hate to see people get on other people for having different views. And, I am by no means saying that's what you did. Call me what you will, but I hate to see people fight over things like this. Like I said, I've seen first hand in my own backyard what happens when people fight over beliefs. And if me coming on a message board and even just convincing one person not to pass judgement on someone else, I feel that I've done my job to maybe help out in this world.I know that's stupid, but its got to start somewhere. I'll get off my :soap:
Click to expand...
I only pass judgement of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians. Ocassionally I'll take jabs at cult groups and various other fringe religions, but no judgement is involved. I leave the Jews alone, because Jesus was Jewish and it is almost his birthday.
 
I hear that not that many dogs died in the recent floods...not just dogs, but most animals. Apparently they have a sixth sesnse and were able to get to higher ground before the waves came in.Anyhow, this leads me to believe that the dog will be able to take care of himself, save the stranger.

 
I hear that not that many dogs died in the recent floods...not just dogs, but most animals. Apparently they have a sixth sesnse and were able to get to higher ground before the waves came in.Anyhow, this leads me to believe that the dog will be able to take care of himself, save the stranger.
Click to expand...
This IS Asia we're talking about.They ate the dogs loooooong before the flood.
 
I only pass judgement of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians. Ocassionally I'll take jabs at cult groups and various other fringe religions, but no judgement is involved. I leave the Jews alone, because Jesus was Jewish and it is almost his birthday.
Click to expand...
:angry: Lousy Zoroastrians. :thumbdown:
 
I only pass judgement of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians. Ocassionally I'll take jabs at cult groups and various other fringe religions, but no judgement is involved. I leave the Jews alone, because Jesus was Jewish and it is almost his birthday.
Click to expand...
:angry: Lousy Zoroastrians. :thumbdown:
Click to expand...
WTF is a Zorroastrian anyway? A Latino with a big "Z" carved into his butt?
 
How about Osama bin Laden or your dog?
Click to expand...
First I'd save the dog. Then I'd stay there and watch to make sure bin Laden really drowns. We don't want him pulling a Jason Voorhies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been thinking.....The more people who vote STRANGER, the better my chance of survival. And of course, I'm not changing my vote, so with everyone else voting stranger, I draw closer to a win-win situation. I'm changing my stumping and grass roots campaign.

 
Sounds like a bunch of sheltered computer geeks that hide behind their screen name, lock themselves away from society, and keep pets as friends so they dont have to function normally around other people.Maybe you should try walking outside sometime, make a friend, function in the world alittle.Saving an animal over a fellow human being is a disgrace to mankind.Sure hope some day Im not in a foxhole with any of you people.

 
Dunno if this was covered, but if you chose to rescue your dog, would your decision change if you had to choose between a dog and a stranger if the stranger was a child?

 
Maybe you should try walking outside sometime, make a friend, function in the world alittle.
Click to expand...
Actually if I go out an make a friend this person is no longer a stranger and thus would not qualify in this discussion.
 
I bet if this were a Stranger vs. Cat debate, the Stranger would win by a huge margin.Edit to add: I secretly want this thread to get locked, and I've provided plenty of ammunition in the sentence above.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
~groan~This thread isn't dead yet? If I had to choose between saving this thread and saving my dog.................well, paws down, my dog is on the raft. Die already! :angry:

 
Sounds like a bunch of sheltered computer geeks that hide behind their screen name, lock themselves away from society, and keep pets as friends so they dont have to function normally around other people.Maybe you should try walking outside sometime, make a friend, function in the world alittle.Saving an animal over a fellow human being is a disgrace to mankind.Sure hope some day Im not in a foxhole with any of you people.
Click to expand...
:rotflmao: Maybe you didn't notice but you're one of the geeks hiding behing your screen name just like the rest of us. :rotflmao: "GOD HATES US ALL" :rotflmao:
 
Saving an animal over a fellow human being is a disgrace to mankind.Sure hope some day Im not in a foxhole with any of you people.
Click to expand...
Hmm.. foxhole huh... So assuming you were in the army and took your dog with you to war, who would you save? Your drowning dog, or a drowning enemy combatant? I mean you're trying to kill the enemy, but saving your dog would be a disgrace to humanity.
 
What if your hamster and a stranger's dog were both drowning?
Click to expand...
Dog trumps hamster.How about Osama bin Laden or your dog?
Click to expand...
I'd drag him to shore, then kill him. I'd sleep better knowing that he died at my hands and not by an act of nature.
Click to expand...
Wow you must really hate your dog. Did he poop on the carpet or something?
Click to expand...
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: I have to admit, I had to read that one a bunch of times before I realized he wasn't talking about the dog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zow
  • Poll Poll
Awkward social situation re: group winnings
Replies
23
Views
1K
Nathan R. Jessep
Nathan R. Jessep
John Maddens Lunchbox
U2 - Community rankings - FIN - #4 Sunday Bloody Sunday, #3 - One, #2 - Bad, #1 - Where the Streets Have No Name -Spotify links, thanks to Krista4
89 90 91
Replies
5K
Views
129K
Anarchy99
Anarchy99
Ministry of Pain
Double Feature: MOP vs JP Morgan Chase/Banks in a Steel Cage
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top