Poll of the Day > Your apartment is burning. You can only save ONE: Your dog, or a random baby.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Chaos_Echo posted...

You know what, let's just cut out all these variables. A guy has a gun and he's going to shoot either your dog or a baby you've never seen before. You tell him which or he shoots both.

That fucking baby. I'm not sacrificing my dog for some random ass baby I don't even know.
---

Chaos_Echo posted...

You know what, let's just cut out all these variables. A guy has a gun and he's going to shoot either your dog or a baby you've never seen before. You tell him which or he shoots both.

Did he bring the baby with him?
---

He is pointing the gun at one of them, or at me. I rush him and even if he shoots me in the process, break his neck.

He either shot me, the baby, or the dog, but....one way or another, the bastard is dead.
---

The baby, because I'm not horribly selfish.

I loved my pets, back when I still had some, but there's no way you could possibly justify letting a child die if you had the opportunity to save it.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Oh I know. The fact the dog is winning overwhelming speaks volumes about the state of the world, it's not in a good place.

The world is a beautiful place. The people in it? Not so much for the most part thus one less baby in the world is one step closer to a better place. Even more so if said baby ever turned out like you.
---

Chaos_Echo posted...

You know what, let's just cut out all these variables. A guy has a gun and he's going to shoot either your dog or a baby you've never seen before. You tell him which or he shoots both.

I pull out my .45 and put three holes in his chest
---

darkknight109 posted...

there's no way you could possibly justify letting a child die if you had the opportunity to save it.

There are no moral absolutes so neither choice is necessarily wrong. Judging by the poll results that seems pretty clear.

In this hypothetical situation you presumably don't even know the building is about to collapse so it's not fair to equate saving the dog with killing the baby.

I don't care that the baby is human, humans are animals too. There is no inherent sanctity in a human life that should make a rando baby more precious to you than your loyal companion. I guarantee you people would be more likely to save the baby due to social pressures rather than their own feelings.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The baby, because I'm not horribly selfish.

I loved my pets, back when I still had some, but there's no way you could possibly justify letting a child die if you had the opportunity to save it.

I most absolutely can. I don't place a greater value on Human life than I do for Animal life. I'm certainly not going put some random baby's life above the life of someone I've known for so long.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

The world is a beautiful place. The people in it? Not so much for the most part thus one less baby in the world is one step closer to a better place. Even more so if said baby ever turned out like you.

You're putting the weight of humanity on a baby?? Jesus Christ.
---

kind9 posted...

I guarantee you people would be more likely to save the baby due to social pressures rather than their own feelings.

You would think. Yet every time I see a news report where there was a fire and they report that everybody got out alright but their dog or other animals died I am reminded that most people would not sacrifice their lives for their animals.

Meanwhile....

https://people.com/human-interest/girl-killed-trying-to-save-dog-buried-with-pet/
---

Lots of shitty lonely people answering this poll.

I'm betting if they were under siege or trapped they would eat the neighbors baby before thier shitty pet too.
---

Firewood18 posted...

Lots of shitty lonely people answering this poll.

I'm betting if they were under siege or trapped they would eat the neighbors baby before thier shitty pet too.

Are you assuming people are loney because of a random poll?
---

Firewood18 posted...

Lots of shitty lonely people answering this poll.

I'm betting if they were under siege or trapped they would eat the neighbors baby before thier shitty pet too.

That was like a shit tier youtube comment. Why don't you give a reason why everyone is wrong instead of spitting out your emotional response?
---

Anybody who says the dog probably shouldnt have kids or pets.
---

kangolcone posted...

Anybody who says the dog probably shouldnt have kids or pets.

if they say the dog then that means they would be a good pet owner. it also doesn't mean they wouldn't save their own kid
---

kangolcone posted...

Anybody who says the dog probably shouldnt have kids or pets.

What kind of logic is this?
---

Firewood18 posted...

Lots of shitty lonely people answering this poll.

I'm betting if they were under siege or trapped they would eat the neighbors baby before thier shitty pet too.

Mmmmm soylent green
---

Johnny Eagle posted...

The baby, since I don't have a dog

---

kangolcone posted...

Anybody who says the dog probably shouldnt have kids or pets.

That's weird. According to the scenario, anyone who picked dog had their child in one arm, and their pet in the other. So, that means they would be a great parent and pet owner. So that statement makes no sense.

Anyone who said child probably shouldn't have kids. They would blindly rush into a neighbor's burning apartment to save another child without regard to their own child's safety (since the floor could collapse or you could put your own child into a dangerous situation). That's not good parenting. And you left you pet to burn. Not good pet ownership.
---

Seriously though... It's a dog. It probably only has 7 years left to live anyway.
---

Yellow posted...

Seriously though... It's a dog. It probably only has 7 years left to live anyway.

Random kid or my dog who is loyal and loves me. I don't care if it was seven seconds, I'd still rescue my dog instead of the kid.
---

Yellow posted...

Seriously though... It's a dog. It probably only has 7 years left to live anyway.

Some dogs live 18 years. My dog is 13 years old and in pretty good health.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Yellow posted...

Seriously though... It's a dog. It probably only has 7 years left to live anyway.

Some dogs live 18 years. My dog is 13 years old and in pretty good health.

Smaller dogs do have longer lifespans. How is Ernie, btw.

Yellow posted...

Seriously though... It's a dog. It probably only has 7 years left to live anyway.

Also, someone could have a brand new puppy. And so it could love a whole 18 years or longer, in some cases.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Smaller dogs do have longer lifespans. How is Ernie, btw.

He's doing well. He just got his haircut today!
---

kind9 posted...

In this hypothetical situation you presumably don't even know the building is about to collapse so it's not fair to equate saving the dog with killing the baby.

Yes you would and, therefore, yes it is.

Of course you know the building is about to collapse - it's listed right there in the question. It's what informed the answer of everyone answering this poll. If the question was "Your apartment is burning, which would you save first: baby or dog?" - that would imply a possibility of going back and saving the other, while still allowing for the risk that you might not have enough time to do both. In that case, going for the dog first is at least slightly more defensible.

That wasn't the question asked though - the question asked was, in essence, "Choose which one dies: baby or dog". And a disturbingly high number of people care more about their own feelings than another human life.

kind9 posted...

I don't care that the baby is human, humans are animals too. There is no inherent sanctity in a human life that should make a rando baby more precious to you than your loyal companion.

That's a really sad opinion, bro.

Question for you, though - if there's no inherent sanctity in human life, would you be OK with killing people - say, maybe poor people or condemned criminals - and using their meat as a food source? I mean, we do that with cows and pigs and chickens and fish, and you've already said that humans are animals too, so that argument seems to allow for this exact situation, unless there's some nuance you've left out of your description.

kind9 posted...

I guarantee you people would be more likely to save the baby due to social pressures rather than their own feelings.

Sure - and by the exact same logic the people going for their dog instead are basically saying that their own comfort takes precedence over the grief and anguish of a parent losing their child. Which is all kinds of fucked up.

If we're comparing someone who is caving to social pressure versus someone who is literally willing to put their own selfishness over one of the most helpless forms of human life there is, I'd say the first one is far, far more morally defensible.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Yes you would and, therefore, yes it is.

Of course you know the building is about to collapse - it's listed right there in the question. It's what informed the answer of everyone answering this poll. If the question was "Your apartment is burning, which would you save first: baby or dog?" - that would imply a possibility of going back and saving the other, while still allowing for the risk that you might not have enough time to do both. In that case, going for the dog first is at least slightly more defensible.

Actually, it just said building collapses before you can run back in. But that doesnt mean we know its going to collapse.

darkknight109 posted...

Sure - and by the exact same logic the people going for their dog instead are basically saying that their own comfort takes precedence over the grief and anguish of a parent losing their child. Which is all kinds of fucked up.

The childs parents would also be dead... According to the question. Well, it says they are passed out. So, probably going to die in the fire. Well, very likely since the building is collapsing...

darkknight109 posted...

someone who is literally willing to put their own selfishness over one of the most helpless forms of human life there is,

If were still talking about this scenario, youd be risking your childs life to save this other child, as well...
---

Jen0125 posted...

Yellow posted...

Seriously though... It's a dog. It probably only has 7 years left to live anyway.

Some dogs live 18 years. My dog is 13 years old and in pretty good health.

Yes, but the average dog lives 10-13 years. Your average dog has 6.5 years left to live.

It's a dog. I know the average person isn't very selfless, but seriously? Dogs die all the fucking time.
---

Yellow posted...

Yes, but the average dog lives 10-13 years. Your average dog has 6.5 years left to live.

It's a dog. I know the average person isn't very selfless, but seriously? Dogs die all the fucking time.

And if I can help it in this scenario my dog would continue to live for however long he has left, which hopefully is a very, very, very, very long time.
---

ThrillKillFan posted...

Random kid or my dog who is loyal and loves me.

Your dog doesn't love you. I think it's funny people believe their pets love them in a human kind of way. You're a meal ticket. Nothing more

OhhhJa posted...

ThrillKillFan posted...

Random kid or my dog who is loyal and loves me.

Your dog doesn't love you. I think it's funny people believe their pets love them in a human kind of way. You're a meal ticket. Nothing more

Actually, they might love...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/8976256
---

OhhhJa posted...

ThrillKillFan posted...

Random kid or my dog who is loyal and loves me.

Your dog doesn't love you. I think it's funny people believe their pets love them in a human kind of way. You're a meal ticket. Nothing more

I'd still pick my dog over somebody else's random kid.
---

Veedrock- posted...

You're putting the weight of humanity on a baby?? Jesus Christ.

No but as I said one less baby means one less problem.

kangolcone posted...

Anybody who says the dog probably shouldnt have kids or pets.

So you're saying anybody who saves their pet should never have pets? Huh. I guess good pet owners let their pets die. Also if it was my own kid my response would be completely different.

OhhhJa posted...

Your dog doesn't love you. I think it's funny people believe their pets love them in a human kind of way. You're a meal ticket. Nothing more

I don't know tbh. I've never asked any pets I've had if they love me. What matters though is I loved them, ok?
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Also if it was my own kid my response would be completely different.

Technically, in this scenario, you have your own kid in your arms already. So, in this scenario, whoever said dig is saving their own child and dog from the fire. Meaning the people who said dog would be the better ones to have kids and pets.

But I do also understand what you mean.
---

Yellow posted...

Jen0125 posted...

Yellow posted...

Seriously though... It's a dog. It probably only has 7 years left to live anyway.

Some dogs live 18 years. My dog is 13 years old and in pretty good health.

Yes, but the average dog lives 10-13 years. Your average dog has 6.5 years left to live.

It's a dog. I know the average person isn't very selfless, but seriously? Dogs die all the fucking time.

But why wouldn't I want him to live out his old age with me? I'm not gonna search a building for babies.
---

115 baby murderers on GameFAQS. No wonder the world is falling to shit.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Actually, it just said building collapses before you can run back in. But that doesnt mean we know its going to collapse.

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.

LinkPizza posted...

The childs parents would also be dead... According to the question

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.

LinkPizza posted...

If were still talking about this scenario, youd be risking your childs life to save this other child, as well...

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.

wwinterj25 posted...

Also if it was my own kid my response would be completely different.

By saying this, you've basically just affirmed your own selfishness.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Technically, in this scenario, you have your own kid in your arms already.

Huh. Must have missed that in the OP. Whatever the case if the choice was actually between my pet and my kid it would be my kid of course.

darkknight109 posted...

By saying this, you've basically just affirmed your own selfishness.

Well yeah if it doesn't effect me in any way I tend to not give a shit.
---

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?
---

LinkPizza posted...

But if this were real life, I wouldn't know.

But this isn't real life and you do know, as you did when you answered the question.

LinkPizza posted...

Depends on the scenario.

None of what you just postulated was given in the question - you either successfully save the dog or successfully save the child. That's all.

LinkPizza posted...

But, is there really anything wrong with that?

Do I really have to answer the question "is selfishness a bad thing"?

LinkPizza posted...

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?

Because he's elevating his own pet - an animal - to a level above someone else's child.

Yeah, if the choice was "your kid vs. someone else's kid", I'm not going to fault someone for choosing their own kid. But his statement was basically "I'd save my dog instead of someone else's child, but if it was my child I'd save them before the dog."

We all accept that people are more important than dogs; we can prove that by asking "If you had to choose between saving your child or saving the family dog", an overwhelming majority of people would pick their child. Doesn't mean the dog isn't important or isn't loved, but the child comes first, which is exactly what winter was alluding to with the post I quoted. However, if the child is someone else's, you deciding that now your dog is more important is pure selfishness - you've basically said "between this thing that's super-important to someone else, and this thing that's of lesser importance to me... well, I don't care that much about other people, so I'll save the thing that's of lesser importance to me."
---

darkknight109 posted...

Do I really have to answer the question "is selfishness a bad thing"?

Uh, yes. Selfishness isn't inherently bad.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Do I really have to answer the question "is selfishness a bad thing"?

We already know it's not psychologically.

darkknight109 posted...

Because he's elevating his own pet - an animal - to a level above someone else's child.

People aren't special, forget that nonsense and recognise the value of family.darkknight109 posted...

We all accept that people are more important than dogs; we can prove that by asking "If you had to choose between saving your child or saving the family dog", an overwhelming majority of people would pick their child.

Family comes above strangers.

darkknight109 posted...

you've basically said "between this thing that's super-important to someone else, and this thing that's of lesser importance to me... well, I don't care that much about other people, so I'll save the thing that's of lesser importance to me."

Yup, that is how you're supposed to treat strangers, you help if it's no trouble otherwise keep to yourself.
---

Jen0125 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Do I really have to answer the question "is selfishness a bad thing"?

Uh, yes. Selfishness isn't inherently bad.

Um, yeah. Yeah it is. Altruism and selflessness are good, selfishness is bad. Being a socially-functional human being - emphasis on the social part - requires you to consider the needs of people other than yourself. Hence why being selfish, self-absorbed, narcissistic, or full-blown megalomaniacal is considered bad.

Fuck me, I'm starting to understand why the world is in the state it's in if this is the predominant way of thinking these days...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

People aren't special, forget that nonsense and recognise the value of family

Your dog isn't your family, bro. You're not relatives, no matter how many times you call it your fur-baby.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yup, that is how you're supposed to treat strangers

Your world must be very sad.
---

My dog obviously lol
---

The baby.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Being a socially-functional human being - emphasis on the social part - requires you to consider the needs of people other than yourself.

I'd be risking my life in order to save a pet. While that could be viewed as being selfish as I don't want to lose said pet thus choose to save it I'm also doing a good deed by saving a life. I'm considering the needs of my pet as my pet wouldn't deserve to die in a fire.

darkknight109 posted...

Your dog isn't your family, bro. You're not relatives, no matter how many times you call it your fur-baby.

Neither is some random persons baby thus your point is irrelevant.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Your dog isn't your family, bro. You're not relatives, no matter how many times you call it your fur-baby.

A dog is as much family as an adopted sibling/child, it's part of the inner family circle.

darkknight109 posted...

Your world must be very sad.

It's a pragmatic world. Btw, I'm a stranger, why don't you fly over here and give me a hug? I know it's of massive inconvenience and cost to you but you said you're happy to do that for strangers.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Jen0125 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Do I really have to answer the question "is selfishness a bad thing"?

Uh, yes. Selfishness isn't inherently bad.

Um, yeah. Yeah it is. Altruism and selflessness are good, selfishness is bad. Being a socially-functional human being - emphasis on the social part - requires you to consider the needs of people other than yourself. Hence why being selfish, self-absorbed, narcissistic, or full-blown megalomaniacal is considered bad.

Fuck me, I'm starting to understand why the world is in the state it's in if this is the predominant way of thinking these days...

Selfishness is a form of self preservation which is a completely natural instinct. There are a ton of situations where selfishness is not inherently bad. You are completely off base.
---

darkknight109 posted...

But this isn't real life and you do know, as you did when you answered the question.

Then why does any of this matter? The reason people probably answered the way they did is because you figure out what you would do based on if this was a real life problem. That's why I use how I would react in real life. Or should I pretend I'm a superhero?

darkknight109 posted...

None of what you just postulated was given in the question - you either successfully save the dog or successfully save the child. That's all.

Except he could only put so much in the question. It's not like he could put all the things on the question. And in real life, which is why I chose the answer I chose, you don't know what could happen. You're not a fortune teller. You can only guess what might or might not happen.

darkknight109 posted...

Do I really have to answer the question "is selfishness a bad thing"?

Yeah. Mainly because it's not always bad. Helping others is good. But, for example, should I really be so selfless that I put others who need help before my own needs. If I could only carry one kid out, should I carry the random baby before my own. Or my own. The selfish part of me would want carry my own baby out. Is that bad? Or should I be selfless and let my baby burn but carry out someone's else's baby?

darkknight109 posted...

Because he's elevating his own pet - an animal - to a level above someone else's child.

Yeah, if the choice was "your kid vs. someone else's kid", I'm not going to fault someone for choosing their own kid. But his statement was basically "I'd save my dog instead of someone else's child, but if it was my child I'd save them before the dog."

We all accept that people are more important than dogs; we can prove that by asking "If you had to choose between saving your child or saving the family dog", an overwhelming majority of people would pick their child. Doesn't mean the dog isn't important or isn't loved, but the child comes first, which is exactly what winter was alluding to with the post I quoted. However, if the child is someone else's, you deciding that now your dog is more important is pure selfishness - you've basically said "between this thing that's super-important to someone else, and this thing that's of lesser importance to me... well, I don't care that much about other people, so I'll save the thing that's of lesser importance to me."

Because people care about what's close to them. I never said humans were more important than dogs. I think things through logically. It's usually more than just that. But it usually makes more sense in most cases to protect my human family first.

darkknight109 posted...

Your dog isn't your family, bro. You're not relatives, no matter how many times you call it your fur-baby.

My dog is family to me. Sure, not by blood, but does that matter. Pets are still part of your family. You're talking about how people should be selfless and how other's world must be sad we you can't understand how someone could love their pet and call them part of the family.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Being a socially-functional human being - emphasis on the social part - requires you to consider the needs of people other than yourself.

No it doesn't. You can consider other's need, but you don't always put them before yourself. Should I give up my home to the homeless so they have a place to live. I don't do that because I need a place to live. But, apparently, I should put the requirements before mine, according to you. That's stupid. You take care of yourself first, then help others. If you want to help family and friends before yourself, that's one thing. To help a stranger before helping yourself usually doesn't make sense...
---