Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
#51 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 2:50 AM
Yeah, I don't know what I'd do to be honest. If it were my pet cat, who I've had for 10 years..I would probably go for the cat. It's been through most of my life with me. However..It depends who the human was. A child, yes. I would save the child. But an adult..well I'd probably be a great deal smaller then them so there would be no point.

LJ♥
Call me Lily :).
I'm beginning to upload some of my sims online..please go check them out here :).
Advertisement
Alchemist
#52 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 12:15 PM
i dont know, but to me it sounds like a degree of narcissism is involved with the crowd who respond with "i cant imagine someone picking a pet over me/my beloved".


and why, why should i care about someone who has done nothing for me?
they are a stranger. that was in the topic's first post.
a stranger is someone youve never seen or talked to before in your life.


supposing that we're sticking with the stranger deal, what valid reason do i as an emotional creature have for valuing their life over my pets? because i dont have fur? because he cant speak english, he doesnt walk on two legs? i say thats bullshit. valuing another person over a beloved animal is just another form of self interest. that doesnt somehow make you a better person.


and as far as someone saving their pet instead of my relative, friend, beloved.... no doubt i would be upset. but not enough to condemn them for their choice of emotional attachment.



oh but thats another thing.
in the argument of moral high ground...
how moral is it to debate saving the life of a beloved pet over a stranger when that same pet wouldnt so much as blink before saving yours?
why are humans so much better than animals, when we're the ones sitting here going "oh i'd let my pet drown", and that pet (dog) would leap in after you without turning to their pal going "gee i dont know, puppies are worth much more".

ever see a dog go consult his doggy pals before leaping in after his master?

just thinking of people who would abandon that kind of pure love is .... sickening.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Instructor
#53 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 12:28 PM
Some people simply grow up valuing human life and act instinctively to try and save it. Not everyone thinks you should only save someone or something when you have an emotional attachment to him/it. I'm not saying such people can be found everywhere, I'm just saying there ARE people like that. And because you're asking why, with italics, I thought that perspective should be brought in, too.

People may prefer comparing an animal to a human and vice-versa. But whether you choose to save your dog or the stranger, end of the day, you end up saving one life. It's, IMHO, not about choosing which option to go for to feel like a better person.


And I wonder why you enjoy pressing three buttons after every of your post, by the way. I mean, I might be making a gross accusation, but it looks that way. Not just this once.
Alchemist
#54 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 12:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by dutch_1991
Some people simply grow up valuing human life and act instinctively to try and save it. Not everyone thinks you should only save someone or something when you have an emotional attachment to him/it. I'm not saying such people can be found everywhere, I'm just saying there ARE people like that. And because you're asking why, with italics, I thought that perspective should be brought in, too.

People may prefer comparing an animal to a human and vice-versa. But whether you choose to save your dog or the stranger, end of the day, you end up saving one life. It's, IMHO, not about choosing which option to go for to feel like a better person.


And I wonder why you enjoy pressing three buttons after every of your post, by the way.


im asking why as a method to get people to try to think about why they think what they think. growing up a certain way only stands as a good excuse for so long, especially if you learn to think for yourself earlier rather than later.

i use italics, bold, underline and even strikeout to bring more...depth? i suppose, to my posts. something more akin to how i talk in the real world.

as for feeling like a better person...the impression of that seems to stand out in a lot of "id feel bad about my pet but id save the human" posts. it feels like what theyre trying to get across is that youre a bad person if you dont automatically think about humans first. just take a look at how many people who would prefer to save an animal get judged as somehow horrible in some of the former pages of this topic.

as for the buttons.
i like buttons. >:|
what's wrong with pressing buttons?
accuse all you want, i really dont care if anyone thinks i suck because i like to press the Agree, Disagree, Funny, Helpful or Love buttons on my own posts.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Instructor
Original Poster
#55 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 12:52 PM
SP I don't necessarily think it's horrible and disgusting if someone would save their own pet - but there were several posts indicating that they would not only choose their pet, but not even feel bad that a person died whom they could have saved. As in, "fuck them, they were probably a serial killer/child molester anyway". I would expect someone to at least feel sorry that they couldn't save the person as well.
Instructor
#56 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 12:52 PM
SP Haha. Well I just said I wondered why because I haven't seen that happen too often, not that it was a distasteful thing or you suck or anything. That wasn't an attack. So yeah.

And yeah, I guess you're right on your part, although impressions are also subjective to each person. Some people may genuinely feel they should do something because it'll be the better course of action to take, which will benefit all parties rather than just themselves.

Now on one hand, some of us will decide to place trust in people and take their words for what they are, thus believing these people are selfless and brave. On the other hand, some other of us will be more critical and think there's a hidden motive behind such statements, thus suspecting these people are self-righteous.

To each his own, I guess.
Alchemist
#57 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 1:00 PM
Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
SP I don't necessarily think it's horrible and disgusting if someone would save their own pet - but there were several posts indicating that they would not only choose their pet, but not even feel bad that a person died whom they could have saved. As in, "fuck them, they were probably a serial killer/child molester anyway". I would expect someone to at least feel sorry that they couldn't save the person as well.


i am strongly tempted to say that that would be an indication of something seriously wrong with that persons' state of mental health. O_o
(and for the record, yeah, i would feel sorry for the person i didnt save, and whomever cared for them. im not the teary sort of person, but that doesnt mean i cant sympathize at least.)

though i probably wouldnt feel bad about a killer/rapist drowning. more for their family, but that's a different story...

Quote: Originally posted by dutch_1991
SP Haha. Well I just said I wondered why because I haven't seen that happen too often, not that it was a distasteful thing or you suck or anything. That wasn't an attack. So yeah.

And yeah, I guess you're right on your part, although impressions are also subjective to each person. Some people may genuinely feel they should do something because it'll be the better course of action to take, which will benefit all parties rather than just themselves.

Now on one hand, some of us will decide to place trust in people and take their words for what they are, thus believing these people are selfless and brave. On the other hand, some other of us will be more critical and think there's a hidden motive behind such statements, thus suspecting these people are self-righteous.

To each his own, I guess.


oh, it wasnt? *puts gun down*

true, impressions are subjective. though i hardly see how letting an animal drown could "benefit all parties" if we're agreeing that this pet is near and dear to the heart.

*shrug* all i know to be 100% are my own experiences, and such experiences could never supply a good enough excuse to pick a stranger over my cat. to let my cat die when i couldve saved him would be to let a chunk of my reason for existing to die.

i guess i kind of see it like letting your own baby drown for the sake of a stranger. your pet loves you, trusts you, depends on you, goes to you when its afraid and seeks refuge from danger in your arms, even comforts you when youre sad or angry or just need to talk/vent without being judged. how could anyone betray that for the sake of a few similar chromosomes?

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Mad Poster
#58 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 3:20 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
oh but thats another thing.
in the argument of moral high ground...
how moral is it to debate saving the life of a beloved pet over a stranger when that same pet wouldnt so much as blink before saving yours?
why are humans so much better than animals, when we're the ones sitting here going "oh i'd let my pet drown", and that pet (dog) would leap in after you without turning to their pal going "gee i dont know, puppies are worth much more".

ever see a dog go consult his doggy pals before leaping in after his master?


Maybe that would change the situation for me, if I thought that my pet would save me, I mean. None of my pets have ever been the life-saving kind - our dog was terrified of water, and my cat, hamsters and rats didn't think much of it either. I have yet to come across a dog (seems to be the most likely life-saving species to me) that I think would rescue me if I was drowning, but I have met humans who I think would rescue me if I was drowning.

I don't think it makes much difference to me though. I would calculate it in a purely selfish way, really - what would cause me the least grief? And in my case saving a human stranger and letting my pet drown would be (slightly!) less upsetting to me than saving my pet and letting the human drown. Either way I'd be devastated, but I'd rather save the human.

As I said though, not a situation I would ever encounter as I've yet to have a pet that wasn't scared of water! The only pets I've ever had that could even vaguely swim were my rats, and they probably could've taken care of themselves if they'd ever needed to. And if not I could've picked them up on my way to save the human - they had amazingly sharp claws and good grip, I'm sure they could've held on to my coat or something! :-)
Alchemist
#59 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 3:39 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
i dont know, but to me it sounds like a degree of narcissism is involved with the crowd who respond with "i cant imagine someone picking a pet over me/my beloved".


and why, why should i care about someone who has done nothing for me?
they are a stranger. that was in the topic's first post.
a stranger is someone youve never seen or talked to before in your life.


supposing that we're sticking with the stranger deal, what valid reason do i as an emotional creature have for valuing their life over my pets? because i dont have fur? because he cant speak english, he doesnt walk on two legs? i say thats bullshit. valuing another person over a beloved animal is just another form of self interest. that doesnt somehow make you a better person.


and as far as someone saving their pet instead of my relative, friend, beloved.... no doubt i would be upset. but not enough to condemn them for their choice of emotional attachment.



oh but thats another thing.
in the argument of moral high ground...
how moral is it to debate saving the life of a beloved pet over a stranger when that same pet wouldnt so much as blink before saving yours?
why are humans so much better than animals, when we're the ones sitting here going "oh i'd let my pet drown", and that pet (dog) would leap in after you without turning to their pal going "gee i dont know, puppies are worth much more".

ever see a dog go consult his doggy pals before leaping in after his master?

just thinking of people who would abandon that kind of pure love is .... sickening.


I completely agree. The pet would be grateful all its short and "unimportant"(for those who'd save the human) life for saving it. I heard of a dog who was in danger and was saved by a woman. The dog was loyal and loving all its life with that woman.

Just give me a logical explanation for saving someone you know NOTHING about, instead of a creature that loves you and would do ANYTHING for you in any situation.

Evil doesn't worry about not being good. - The Warden, Dragon Age Origins
Inventor
#60 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 7:13 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia

as for the buttons.
i like buttons. >
what's wrong with pressing buttons?
accuse all you want, i really dont care if anyone thinks i suck because i like to press the Agree, Disagree, Funny, Helpful or Love buttons on my own posts.


I should hope a person can agree with themselves most of the time.
Scholar
#61 Old 6th Nov 2010 at 7:50 PM
I would save the person, no question about it. One of the areas in which I do agree with Kant is in his assertion that rational beings are above non-rational beings. This has a lot to do with what HP previously said: humans have the capacity to do good.

Further, many people have argued against saving a stranger by saying that the stranger is probably a criminal. What percentage of the human species do you really think kills or rapes or what-have-you? From my experience, the vast majority of people are either good people, or self-involved, but relatively harmless to others. The majority of people have to be one of those two, due to the nature of human society. To save the animal purely based on the assumption that the stranger is a terrible person is a flawed course of reasoning.

I love my cats dearly, but the only circumstance I can think of in which I would save the animal over the human is if the human were brain dead.

Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
oh but thats another thing.
in the argument of moral high ground...
how moral is it to debate saving the life of a beloved pet over a stranger when that same pet wouldnt so much as blink before saving yours?
why are humans so much better than animals, when we're the ones sitting here going "oh i'd let my pet drown", and that pet (dog) would leap in after you without turning to their pal going "gee i dont know, puppies are worth much more".

ever see a dog go consult his doggy pals before leaping in after his master?

just thinking of people who would abandon that kind of pure love is .... sickening.


What makes an emotionally-based decision better than a rationally-based one? Your dog doesn't have the capacity to rationally decide who to save. You do. Why do you think it's more moral to make decisions based on your gut feeling than on higher principles? And if it came down to you drowning and your dog's best doggy pal drowning, how do you know he'd pick you to save? It may be that his emotional attachment is stronger to his dog buddy.
Alchemist
#62 Old 7th Nov 2010 at 7:07 AM Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 7th Nov 2010 at 9:00 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
What makes an emotionally-based decision better than a rationally-based one? Your dog doesn't have the capacity to rationally decide who to save. You do. Why do you think it's more moral to make decisions based on your gut feeling than on higher principles? And if it came down to you drowning and your dog's best doggy pal drowning, how do you know he'd pick you to save? It may be that his emotional attachment is stronger to his dog buddy.


why my good friend, for simply that they are one and the same.
what rational reason do i have to save someone ive never met before, over my pet whom ive known all its life, other than same species entitlement?
why must i value someone of the same species as automatically better, because they are the same species? what makes choosing an animal so horrible? love is worth saving, ive heard it time and time again...oh but not when its your pet homosexual interracial.

that kind of thinking walks dangerously beside the idea that its okay to side against someone/something for no good reason other than the fact that they are of different appearance, mannerisms, language, abilities, etc.

and im pretty sure my dog does have that capacity.
example: when i was little, my family and i took a trip to the beach. i was...what, 3-4 years old? so very little. my family was off doing their own thing, i was playing in the tide, and then suddenly i was under and couldnt get back up. now, i imagine this scenario would be more 'fair' if there was a puppy also drowning beside me, but alas, there was not; however, the reason i didnt drown that day was because someone--well, some dog pulled me up and out. (the bite hurt, but she let go after my head was above the water again.)

now, my parents hadnt been looking, but after i started wailing, they did help me out. the dog had seen me the entire time, and had noticed when i was in trouble; she had saved me, when my human supervisors (who also had their hands full with my brothers at the time) were otherwise predisposed. (criticism toward my parents is strongly discouraged, thank you.)

my gut has never led me wrong. principles? they've screwed many people over, many times.

in any case, my dog never had a "best doggy friend"--and that wouldnt be the same scenario, anyway, since if we're agreeing that it is my dog, we'd already know each other and the other dog would need to be a stranger dog.

that being said, difference does not always equate to inferiority. i do not regard animals as inferior to humans, or superior (before someone leaps up and accuses me of animal worship...you know, the pinnacle of human rationality). just different, and worth recognition and validity.


EDIT: and the people who listed communication as some special key, i scoff at. you know only as much as someone tells/shows you; not necessarily what that person is actually like. you might not like hearing it, but honestly i have more faith in my animals' behavior being related to truth than any humans'. we are not mind readers, nor are we a naturally pious race that only believes in telling the truth at all times. another flaw; not everyone shares the same language as you. would you let them drown for a stranger who spoke your language? because technically youre saying that because you can understand them better, you favor them. which...is...messed up.
a larger potential to do good? maybe. but when you get a peek into some of the most vile, disgusting, evil things that humanity bears the responsibility of alone....you realize that we also have the larger potential for evil. which tends to cancel each other out.
(though another thing on the "oh but MOST of us are good"--id say half of us are good, half are truly horrible. and you dont hear about at least half of those truly horrible people, because theyre too smart to get caught being truly horrible.)

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Scholar
#63 Old 7th Nov 2010 at 4:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
why my good friend, for simply that they are one and the same.
what rational reason do i have to save someone ive never met before, over my pet whom ive known all its life, other than same species entitlement?
why must i value someone of the same species as automatically better, because they are the same species? what makes choosing an animal so horrible? love is worth saving, ive heard it time and time again...oh but not when its your pet homosexual interracial.


I gave you my reason. It is because humans are moral beings. They aren't always good moral beings, but they are good more often than they are evil.

Quote:
that kind of thinking walks dangerously beside the idea that its okay to side against someone/something for no good reason other than the fact that they are of different appearance, mannerisms, language, abilities, etc.


The difference here is that I'm not siding against my pet. If it were just my pet drowning, I would definitely try to save it. I'm siding for the human, though. And rationality/morality are quite different from race/sexuality/gender/culture/etc. The latter are merely superficial differences, while rationality and morality place a being in an entirely different category. A rational being will behave entirely differently from a non-rational being. A rational being has the ability to deliberately change the world.

Quote:
and im pretty sure my dog does have that capacity.
example: when i was little, my family and i took a trip to the beach. i was...what, 3-4 years old? so very little. my family was off doing their own thing, i was playing in the tide, and then suddenly i was under and couldnt get back up. now, i imagine this scenario would be more 'fair' if there was a puppy also drowning beside me, but alas, there was not; however, the reason i didnt drown that day was because someone--well, some dog pulled me up and out. (the bite hurt, but she let go after my head was above the water again.)

now, my parents hadnt been looking, but after i started wailing, they did help me out. the dog had seen me the entire time, and had noticed when i was in trouble; she had saved me, when my human supervisors (who also had their hands full with my brothers at the time) were otherwise predisposed. (criticism toward my parents is strongly discouraged, thank you.)


The judgement to prevent needless death is different from the judgement of whom to keep from needless death. One is something that we would almost instinctively jump to, while the other requires the weighing of options. There isn't a true weighing of options in the scenario above or in any non-rational being because options can't be properly weighted without logical reasoning.

Quote:
my gut has never led me wrong. principles? they've screwed many people over, many times.


You may not have noticed the times your gut has lead you wrong. I hesitate to use the example, and you can tell me if I am crossing the line, but you have many times here said something to the effect of you having considered suicide at some point in the past. Suicide is not a rational course of action. If your cat is what prevented you from committing suicide, that, too, was an emotional reason, so both of your considered options used emotional reasons. One of them would have lead you wrong, the other lead you right. It is certainly best that you chose not to commit suicide, but the fact that you had considered it means that your emotions lead you astray on that occasion.

Quote:
in any case, my dog never had a "best doggy friend"--and that wouldnt be the same scenario, anyway, since if we're agreeing that it is my dog, we'd already know each other and the other dog would need to be a stranger dog.


You're right, I'll give you that.

Quote:
that being said, difference does not always equate to inferiority. i do not regard animals as inferior to humans, or superior (before someone leaps up and accuses me of animal worship...you know, the pinnacle of human rationality). just different, and worth recognition and validity.


I think that animals are worth recognition and validity as well, but I simply think that rational beings should be given more consideration. If it turned out that dolphins or apes are capable of rational thought, I would rush to defend them, but, so far as we can tell, humans are alone in their capacity for rationality and morality.

Quote:
a larger potential to do good? maybe. but when you get a peek into some of the most vile, disgusting, evil things that humanity bears the responsibility of alone....you realize that we also have the larger potential for evil. which tends to cancel each other out.
(though another thing on the "oh but MOST of us are good"--id say half of us are good, half are truly horrible. and you dont hear about at least half of those truly horrible people, because theyre too smart to get caught being truly horrible.)


I think that it is fairly cynical to say that humans have a larger potential for evil. Simply in terms of capability, we have an equal potential for good or evil, but in terms of personality and innate qualities, I think we are more inclined to do good. Except for sociopaths, most people feel a pang of regret/guilt when they do something wrong. Even those who don't feel very strongly for others will often do good simply because it helps you fit in with society. While it is more noble to have good intentions, actions and consequences are more important. Overall, there are far more acts of good than acts of evil.

I think that it is rather silly to say that there is a massive group of people who are too smart to get caught doing wrong. First, not everyone who does wrong can be smart. I would argue that those who do wrong are, in some sense, rather stupid because they jeopardize their ability to live within human society. But let's assume that there is a random distribution of intelligence and goodness/badness. There would be just as many intelligent good people as intelligent bad people. While it is often more difficult to catch a criminal than it is to commit a crime, most of these bad people will commit multiple crimes, increasing their odds of being caught. In the end, most of those bad people will be caught doing wrong.

I realize that there are a few very prominent examples of bad people doing wrong and getting away with it. There are dozens of dictators who suck the wealth out of their nation to live in splendor while their people suffer abject poverty. But consider how many of dictators that there are and compare it to how many people that there are. The percentage is negligible. Horrible people tend to stand out in our minds, which is why some people think that there is so much evil in the world. But when you force yourself to think about all of the good people in the world and all of the people who simply live out their daily lives, the number of evil people is a statistical fluke. That's not to say that we should ignore the presence of those evil people, but we shouldn't judge the entire human race on the actions of a few.
Inventor
#64 Old 7th Nov 2010 at 5:58 PM
Quote: Originally posted by oaktree
I think that animals are worth recognition and validity as well, but I simply think that rational beings should be given more consideration. If it turned out that dolphins or apes are capable of rational thought, I would rush to defend them, but, so far as we can tell, humans are alone in their capacity for rationality and morality.


It's been proven than many species of animals possess rationality and morality. Among them are dolphins, crows, certain parrot species, and elephants.
Scholar
#65 Old 7th Nov 2010 at 6:12 PM
Purity4: It hasn't been proven. Most of the evidence of morality is in the form of reciprocal altruism. Essentially, the animal will do something for another animal in exchange for that animal doing something for the first animal at some point in the future. While that displays a degree of intelligence, it is unclear that it is a display of true logical reasoning.

Some animals possess certain types of intelligence that were previously thought to be exclusive to humans. Magpies, for example, are capable of recognizing their own reflection in a mirror. What degree of rationality can be extrapolated from a test that shows self-recognition, though? Is self-recognition a package deal with all of the other qualities of rationality, or can it exist on its own? We simply don't know.
Lab Assistant
#66 Old 7th Nov 2010 at 11:51 PM
I feel like it depends...but I'd probably try and save both...which would be ridiculous since I can't swim anyways...so the poor drowning dog would have 2 drowning humans to pull along...I think though if people were around you could probably just call for help and everyone starts darting over to help...I'd probably grab the dog, toss them to shore then go back in, and drag the person to shore...and then almost pass out from exhaustion
Lab Assistant
#67 Old 13th Jan 2011 at 3:27 AM
Why are these people and animals drowning at once, I don't understand!? Do I have floatation devices handy? What is the wind trajectory? Dogs can swim! And people, people too can usually swim, so long as they're not wee thangs. Well maybe the dog could pull the stranger to safety, but wait, the dog is drowning...why are they drowning?

/failed the exam

It's teatime somewhere.
Theorist
#68 Old 13th Jan 2011 at 3:38 AM
Honestly it would probably depend on the situation. If possible I would call for help, ideally I would save both. I would save the human if the human was a child, if it was an adult then I would have to question the stupidity of swimming if you can't but I would still help him/her.

There are too many variables. :/

Hi I'm Paul!
Instructor
Original Poster
#69 Old 13th Jan 2011 at 9:22 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Robodl95
There are too many variables. :/


That's why I seem to have failed in asking the question more directly.

The question just really is - whose life would you save if you could save one - your dog's or a complete stranger's. Nothing else matters - why they were in the water in the first place, whether you can call for help, etc... those things don't matter.
Lab Assistant
#70 Old 13th Jan 2011 at 11:12 AM
If I'd be dying I'd sure as hell hope the closest human being would save my drowning ass,
get me back to my wife and family, give me the chance to continue existing for the next few decades.
I mean if some one would let my wife die for their pet.
I'd understand the reason, but I'd hate the fuck out of them for it.

If I want some one to save my life or the lives of my loved ones, theres no way I'd ever be selfish enough to not do the same.

In the end you just loose a lot less than any other variable in the situation.
I'd never blame some one for choosing their pet though, emotionally thats extremely understandable.

We've got the soul, we've got the honey.
Staying alive, we keep on running.
Instructor
#71 Old 16th Jan 2011 at 6:59 AM
Quote: Originally posted by ~Dee~
We don't even have regard for other human life, how many people get murdered every day, why should I save a total stranger who could be anybody (good or evil) and let my beloved pet drown?

That is not one of the reasons the human race is fucked up, we are greedy bastards and just look out for number one because the human race is flawed, none of us are perfect.


Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
Sounds a bit like pot calling the kettle black

Hardly, just admitting to being a kettle and not a different form of dishware.



As for me I'd save whomever I could save. If I had an equal chance at both it'd be my pet. But then again I'm only human. I've made mistakes.
Top Secret Researcher
#72 Old 16th Jan 2011 at 7:50 AM
Human. Plus, can't you get charged/sued if you let them die in order to save the dog? Unless it wouldn't matter anyway and it was a person I despised, maybe the pet would be saved...


ENTJ
Inventor
#73 Old 16th Jan 2011 at 1:07 PM
Doesn't it depend a tiny bit on what kind of pet you own? I mean, if I could save a child who has lots of years left to live over a gold fish, I think I would consider the child. But when it comes do dogs and cats it's maybe a bit harder to think like that... since they are more interacting pets.
Instructor
Original Poster
#74 Old 16th Jan 2011 at 4:46 PM
Quote: Originally posted by malfoya
Doesn't it depend a tiny bit on what kind of pet you own?


In the question I stated only dog or cat

I'd rather save a random dog than my own goldfish, heh.
Inventor
#75 Old 16th Jan 2011 at 7:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
In the question I stated only dog or cat

I'd rather save a random dog than my own goldfish, heh.


Oh, hehe. I was thinking pets in general.. but well then it's a totally different thing. Though I do understand that people can get commited to their fish or butterfly, that would be a very selfish thing.

I would felt a bit sad if someone decided to save their pet over me, but I guess that's just how life is sometimes. We have to make a difficult choice from time to time.
 
Page 3 of 3
Back to top