LogFAQs > #912828560

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Your apartment is burning. You can only save ONE: Your dog, or a random baby.
LinkPizza 11/21/18 10:30:35 PM #190:	darkknight109 posted... The fact that it said that it all informs your response, though. Again, everyone answering this poll knows that in saving the dog they're condemning the baby to die or vice versa. But if this were real life, I wouldn't know. I would save my child and dog. Then, if I thought someone else was in danger, I would go back in if I thought it was safe enough to do so. It's just that in this scenario, we wouldn't get that chance. darkknight109 posted... Grandparents? Siblings? Other extended family?Hell, even if you knew for a fact that the parents were dead and the kid had no other surviving family, saving the child is still the better option. The better for only the child, if they have no family. If they have family, it would probably suck either way. But who knows how they would feel about the baby... But they might be happy... darkknight109 posted... If that's your logic, you'd be risking your own child to save the dog too. However, at no point in the question does it say you or your child are at risk from this rescue attempt, otherwise I could at least see the logic in leaving both the dog and the other child behind to ensure your own child's survival. Depends on the scenario. For example, thinking logically, the dog is probably with you and your child in your apartment. Whether you save your child or your dog & your child, you'll take the same route to escape the apartment. That means saving your dog would most likely not add any additional danger. Saving the baby would most likely alter you route. Maybe you would have to go into another burning room. Maybe the floorboards are weak. Which would make sense given the building is about to collapse. But you might not know. Maybe after saving the child, a raging fire starts to block your way. I mean, anything can happen. And even though the scenario doesn't mention there would be any danger saving the child, in real life, you don't know for sure. darkknight109 posted... By saying this, you've basically just affirmed your own selfishness. But, is there really anything wrong with that? We would normally protect our family and loved ones before protecting somebody elses. That makes perfect sense. I protect my family. Then, if I can, I would help another family. So, why would it be bad that Winter would save his family before saving another person's family? --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:912828560] in Your apart... [t:77212651]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>The fact that it said that it all informs your response, though. Again, everyone answering this poll knows that in saving the dog they're condemning the baby to die or vice versa.</quote> But if this were real life, I wouldn't know. I would save my child and dog. Then, if I thought someone else was in danger, I would go back in if I thought it was safe enough to do so. It's just that in this scenario, we wouldn't get that chance. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Grandparents? Siblings? Other extended family?Hell, even if you knew for a fact that the parents were dead and the kid had no other surviving family, saving the child is still the better option.</quote> The better for only the child, if they have no family. If they have family, it would probably suck either way. But who knows how they would feel about the baby... But they might be happy... <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>If that's your logic, you'd be risking your own child to save the dog too. However, at no point in the question does it say you or your child are at risk from this rescue attempt, otherwise I could at least see the logic in leaving both the dog and the other child behind to ensure your own child's survival.</quote> Depends on the scenario. For example, thinking logically, the dog is probably with you and your child in your apartment. Whether you save your child or your dog & your child, you'll take the same route to escape the apartment. That means saving your dog would most likely not add any additional danger. Saving the baby would most likely alter you route. Maybe you would have to go into another burning room. Maybe the floorboards are weak. Which would make sense given the building is about to collapse. But you might not know. Maybe after saving the child, a raging fire starts to block your way. I mean, anything can happen. And even though the scenario doesn't mention there would be any danger saving the child, in real life, you don't know for sure. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>By saying this, you've basically just affirmed your own selfishness.</quote> But, is there really anything wrong with that? We would normally protect our family and loved ones before protecting somebody elses. That makes perfect sense. I protect my family. Then, if I can, I would help another family. So, why would it be bad that Winter would save his family before saving another person's family? --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1