I'd save the dog. Without a dog to pull my sled how in the world am I supposed to get back to my igloo in time to harvest the maple syrup? In all seriousness, I would save the person without a second thought. I just wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I could have helped but chose not to. The guilt would haunt me for the rest of my life.
That's such a morally bankrupt way of looking at it. If you're truly a good person you'd sacrifice the dog so you could put your foot on Farve's head, just to be sure. It's for the sake of humanity and this could be our only shot.
Alright, I left you a red dot, but the stupidity of this statement needs to be explained. Saving a bomb sniffing dog over a civilian is far, far more than a matter of someone being selfish and preferring their pet's life over that of a human being. A bomb sniffing dog is critical to achieving a mission, for one thing, while a family pet is not. Further, achieving that mission results in many more people not being blown up; the aftermath of saving a civilian over a bomb-sniffing dog isn't "Boy, I sure did a good job saving that person's life!" but "Holy crap all my buddies just got blown up because I wasn't doing my fucking job". The moral calculus of that situation is so far removed from the question of "one dog vs. one person" that it has no place here.
But people are stupid, and I probably at least like my dog. Actually, wait hold the fucking phone! If I save the person will he by me a case of beer? Or is she a real life Jessica Rabbit, or Angel, look a like who will do naughty things to my naughty parts in her effusive gratitude? If so the order of which I go about life saving Hot woman who makes with the hanky panky once she's safe Thankful man who buys me fancy imported booze Good dog Thankful man who buys domestic (seriously I just saved your life) Dog that I just happen to own Ungrateful hot woman who I can at least feel up in the process of saving her Ungrateful Ugly woman (You know if I'm not busy doing something else) Ungrateful man (If I'm not busy and he's not going to be inconvenient about it...or jewish) Drown Brett Favre, and Patrick Roy as well.
If you think that the reason combat dog handlers will save their dogs in preference to a human stranger is utilitarian, I can only assume you haven't spent much time around dog handlers. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with how useful those dogs are. It has EVERYTHING to do with the emotional connection between handler and dog. Imagine you felt what DCC feels about her dog, so much so that someone found a career working with dogs. That person spend every minute of every day with that dog as part of their job. Then imagine that dog had saved their life dozens or hundreds of times. Literally saved their life and the lives of their buddies. Imagine that that same dog had been essentially a therapy dog while they're in a combat zone. A source of comfort and relief through combat situations and had been true, loyal and reliable; always there for them. When the people around those handlers are at best, engaged in the horror of war and killing the enemy, or all too often not doing their job or just frustrating them the way people do when everyone is under that much stress. When their view of humanity is tainted by the actions of the enemy during a war. Fuck the utility of the dog as a tool. Combat handlers almost always just care more about the dog then they do about people.
A fair point, but one that complements rather than antagonizes my previous one. Everyone on this thread who has said that they'd prefer to save their dog over that of a human being is excused if they have been through a war with that dog. I don't mean that sarcastically. Everyone else still has some explaining to do. And I don't mean to be presumptive here, but I don't think anyone advocating saving the dog's life has been covered by the above proviso.
So the only way someone can have an emotional connection to a dog, is if they have been to war with one? Isn't that being presumptive?
Hey, zip up your fly before you venture forth on the internet. Your stupid is showing. Clearly the lion wins!
Where did I say that the only way you can have an emotional connection to a dog is through war? If you want to justify the decision to save a dog over that of a human being, I'm pretty sympathetic if you've been to war with the dog. Maybe it's not what I would do, maybe I don't entirely approve of it, and it doesn't necessarily make it more moral that a human life was lost in favour of a dog (unless this is the kind of situation where the further survival of the dog was vital to saving more lives), but seeing as I'm unlikely to face being blown up in the course of my job, I'll give them some slack there. I work with (and depending on the day, for) a lot of veterans, if anyone was wondering. But let's face it, most of the people in this thread on the side of saving the dog? Yeah, sure, they're close with their dog. The dog is their best friend, or a surrogate for a child, or what have you. As if they were the only people on the planet to have a special relationship with an animal because they take it for walks and are greeted with affection when they come home from work. Like I said before, maybe it's something to do with my mindset and job, but doing the right thing by someone else takes precedence over self-interest.
Jesus Christ, this entire fucking retard of a thread is making me sick. It's an unlikely, hypothetical scenario, with so little information behind it that it's not worth discussing in the first place. So I ask, how the fuck are you halfwits still trying to one-up each other over who's a better person in an argument like this? There are a million different circumstances to consider, and zero fucking information! Someone do my blood pressure a favor and shut this circle-jerk down.
Thank you for piling onto the spiraling dissection of this, what should have been, an amusing and insightful debate. I'll answer your question (while playing by the rules, which seem to need repeated) I would be fine with their decision. Clearly I wasn't there. It was their decision and it cannot be changed. I would just have to accept that. Valid point and I am at fault of this. My only defense is that I grew up (and still live) in a snow-belt area where there's a lot of pond skating, snowmobiling, skiing, etc., etc. We're very aware of ice conditions and ice safety. However the fact remains that its ice and ice has an inherent danger. A danger that I would hope the average adult would know about and heed. Here's my unsolicited opinion — I think this whole thread may have gone quite differently if it was a burning building instead of falling through ice to remove the human stupidity factor. But still, it is difficult to speak to any scenario like this without drawing from your own life. Everyone's life experiences and priorities are bound to be significantly different — hence a train wreck. Whoo'o'Whoo !!!!!!!!!
This best part about this thread was when I red-dotted KiMaster (and we all know what happens should you dissent the Master), and expressed my feeling that he has a holier than thou opininon of himself. His response was along the lines of, no I do not I care about people and you don't. Glad we could have intelligent discourse about a fairytale. Next question: If you could only save Tinkerbell or Peter-Pan from walking the plank, who would you save and why? If you don't save Peter Pan the greenwearing fag with the little knife by his side you hope all kids die of aids.
I find it interesting and disturbing that some people here place a higher value on the life of a dog than the life of a human, with one person actually going so far to say that this is evolutionary thinking. This thread has given a whole new and much more literal meaning to the name The Idiot Board.
I'll say it again. It's an unlikely, hypothetical scenario, with too little information behind it. There's zero background on either living being, nothing. Not all situations are cut and paste. When it's concerning the life of a human or a pet, both loved by someone, somewhere, some individual and situational thought needs to be put into it. Knee-jerking this shit is ridiculous. Not all life, whether animal or human, is created equal.
To be honest, I'd let them both drown and save the polar bear instead. Where's that poll option? The only people who seem to have the right idea in this thread are the 5 people who voted to fuck Chater. Everyone else can go fall through some ice.
I believe this is an extremely dishonest response (who would be fine with their parent/spouse/child dying because a stranger chose to save their pet instead?! Seriously think about that for a second), but at least you're the first person that actually answered it. It's always hilarious when someone writes me a pissy, passive-aggressive rep, and then whines publicly if I reply. In this case, it's especially funny considering what I wrote back. Judge for yourself; And here is what I responded with, off the top of my head; If you think not wanting to see one's fellow humans die makes me "holier than thou", than what can I say; you're simply fucked-up. And for the record, yes, I would save dewersc from sinking ice over my favorite, most beloved dog growing up. Sure, I might give him a kick in the ribs on the way up, but I wouldn't let that motherfucker drown.
The awesome thing about your response is the superiority it implies. I do, however appreciate you saving me from the imaginary "ice", I would however block your kick to my ribs.