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

(+) Yeah! (+)

JanwayDaahl posted...

because they don't value the sanctity of life as much

JanwayDaahl posted...

but they are just animals at the end of the day.

News just in Animals are not alive folks!
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Why do you think it works this way? Why does anyone? The kid would be put right into the system and although you can try and adopt or the like chances are extremely slim you'll ever see the kid again.

Probably because of movies. Also, it might be possible that they go to family, or Godfamily, before the system.
---

A dog would save the baby.
---

Veedrock- posted...

A dog would save the baby.

Though it would try to save its owner, or other dog it knows, first.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Probably because of movies. Also, it might be possible that they go to family, or Godfamily, before the system.

Yeah next of kin if possible would be a option sure. Some random stranger who saved the kids life? Lol no.
---

It'll be a disco inferno.

Burn, baby, burn

LinkPizza posted...

Veedrock- posted...

A dog would save the baby.

Though it would try to save its owner, or other dog it knows, first.

What? No it wouldn't. Your dog is by the baby, it's clearly trying to save it.
---

I don't know that baby, fuck that baby, I'm saving my dog.
---

Why tf would I save my pet over a baby?

This is why most of you are alone now.
---

EvilMegas posted...

Why tf would I save my pet over a baby?

This is why most of you are alone now.

Yes, we're alone because we'll save our loyal pet over someone else's baby we don't know?

The fuck even is this logic? If it was my baby, I'm saving both the pet and baby, since they should be in the same vicinity.
---

InhumaneRaider posted...

EvilMegas posted...

Why tf would I save my pet over a baby?

This is why most of you are alone now.

Yes, we're alone because we'll save our loyal pet over someone else's baby we don't know?

The fuck even is this logic? If it was my baby, I'm saving both the pet and baby, since they should be in the same vicinity.

How is that logical in any sense of the word?
Then you didn't even read the op
---

EvilMegas posted...

InhumaneRaider posted...

EvilMegas posted...

Why tf would I save my pet over a baby?

This is why most of you are alone now.

Yes, we're alone because we'll save our loyal pet over someone else's baby we don't know?

The fuck even is this logic? If it was my baby, I'm saving both the pet and baby, since they should be in the same vicinity.

How is that logical in any sense of the word?
Then you didn't even read the op

Rules were meant to be broken. And in any scenario when it comes to my dog or someone else baby, I'm saving my dog.
---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Yes, we're alone because we'll save our loyal pet over someone else's baby we don't know?

You're faulting a baby for not being loyal to you?
---

Veedrock- posted...

InhumaneRaider posted...

Yes, we're alone because we'll save our loyal pet over someone else's baby we don't know?

You're faulting a baby for not being loyal to you?

You'd leave behind a loyal dog for someone else's baby that you don't know? My main point being, is you're going to sacrifice your own dog for someone else's baby.
---

I'm just imagining someone like Jen being interviewed after narrowly escaping a burning building with her dog.

Reporter: "How did you make it out alive?"
Jen: "By only caring about myself and literally stepping over crying babies on my way out."
Reporter: ""
---

He's making my case for me.
---

Veedrock- posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Veedrock- posted...

A dog would save the baby.

Though it would try to save its owner, or other dog it knows, first.

What? No it wouldn't. Your dog is by the baby, it's clearly trying to save it.

Why is the random baby in your house?

SunWuKung420 posted...

Reporter: "How did you make it out alive?"
Jen: "By only caring about myself and literally stepping over crying babies on my way out."

But she would literally be carrying her baby and dog. According to the post...
---

EvilMegas posted...

He's making my case for me.

What makes a random baby's life more valuable than that of YOUR pet? Please answer me this.
---

Most people are going to already have their child and dog in hand. You would most likely not even know about the baby until you left your apartment with the dog and baby. So, you would literally be putting your dog in the flames to pick up a random baby. Thats if you went in. Im not sure I would even want to open any doors in a burning building. Seems dangerous...
---

InhumaneRaider posted...

EvilMegas posted...

He's making my case for me.

What makes a random baby's life more valuable than that of YOUR pet? Please answer me this.

Being human.
---

I need more info. Is all of my other stuff already safe? Clearly my son comes first and then I have very important documents in a safe with other items that I would 100% save first over my dog and a random baby. And it's a very large and heavy safe so like my time and effort is going to be 100% used on that. It's even fire proof but I'm not risking it.

If that was safe already and assuming my son was already out or not home at the time, I'm taking my dog. I'm responsible for him, not someone's baby.
---

EvilMegas posted...

InhumaneRaider posted...

EvilMegas posted...

He's making my case for me.

What makes a random baby's life more valuable than that of YOUR pet? Please answer me this.

Being human.

LMAO, that's subjective, pretentious and stupid. So until you can give me facts that make that random baby's life more important than the life of my dog, I'm not listening.
---

I have some other questions:

- How do we know the baby is alive? I feel it would have passed out with the parents, as well. And they would probably have a better chance at living. Though, its possible they are way too heavy. Plus, to risk your life if you dont even know the baby is safe is weird...

- Is the neighbors door unlocked/open? Because I dont think I would waste time breaking down the door.

-How big is the fire? I would want to risk going in if i wasnt sure about making it out.

I have others questions, too. There are a lot of other random variables, as well... not to mention that you would have to make this decision quickly. And even then, you may not know what you would do until in that situation. For example, I feel my first instinct(if I had a child) would be to grab them, then my pets. And maybe my backpack full of certain items. But thats just what I think. My first instinct wouldnt be to check other apartments of people I dont know...
---

Indeed. Given the scenario we have, it is extremely difficult to know about the baby.

It would really be a choice of:

1. Go try to save your dog. You do not actually know if its alive still. You only know you left it in the apartment before going out to do whatever it was that you came back from to see a burning building. If it is an extremely loud dog that has been getting complaints like "I can hear that thing from the STREETS damnit!", then you might notice it isn't barking. You likely assume it is too late.

2. Look around, and remember that there is at least one baby that lives in that building. You have no clue where that baby is.

That is, of course, given a scenario that you were OUTSIDE at the time, of course.

The ACTUAL scenario is:

-You have already run inside and successfully saved your own baby (or at least someone precious to you that you only need one arm to save).

As a result, your choice is instead:

1. You are still in your apartment and look and see your doggy. And so you try to save them too.

2. You ignore your dog on the random chance that there might be a baby somewhere else in the building that you need your arm for. Or, despite having both arms full with two things that need rescuing (the dog and your OWN baby/whatever), you purposely DON'T leave the building and go running around, just in case there is some random baby somewhere or something, perhaps due to paranoia from reading this topic earlier.

3. There is some unknown baby in your apartment, near your dog. Why the hell it is there, you don't know. It shouldn't be possible for an unknown baby to have gotten into your apartment. What the hell? Crap, if I don't take the baby, the police will definitely make me out to be a criminal for kidnapping or something.

4. You are the Oracle of Delphi, only your power lets you actually choose between possible futures and fate is not just locked in place. Look at that! You now have an actual dilemma due to ACTUALLY being able to know everything about the scenario and the building collapsing and the fact that there is a baby somewhere!
.
---

Sunwu, can you ever keep my name out of your mouth? You mentioned me twice in this topic now. Why are you so obsessed with me?
---

Jen0125 posted...

Sunwu, can you ever keep my name out of your mouth? You mentioned me twice in this topic now. Why are you so obsessed with me?

Because you're the embodiment of all that's wrong with the world, lil miss stranger baby killer.

Also, I only mentioned you once, so, ummm, yeah.
---

No you mentioned me twice. Posts 95 and 117

And I'm not the embodiment of anything. You literally don't know me. Unless I started the fire I'm not killing any baby.
---

Rofl, i forgot i actually tagged you. Opps.

Well, anyways, It's a good thing you don't live in an apartment building, you know, for your neighbors sake.

Also, knowing you could save the baby but choosing not to, is you letting them die, literally killing them.
---

Oh, I have an even better one.

I save my dog.

Why?

Because I somehow know for a fact that somewhere in this building there is a random baby. And somehow I also know about how long it will be until the building collapses.

In other words, it is no accident that I know these things. Clearly, in this scenario, I am a psychopath who started the fire in the first place, after carefully running simulations and everything down to the estimated rate of loss of structural integrity and everything. And when I planned it, I planned it for a time when I KNEW that random baby would at least be in the building somewhere, presumably because from the get go I determined that random baby as one of the things that must be cleansed from this world. Because again, PSYCHOPATH.

In fact, why am I even saving some mutt for that matter? Oh, maybe I'm a psychopath that also just happens to think dogs are divine messengers or something? Sure, why not.
.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Rofl, i forgot i actually tagged you. Opps.

Well, anyways, It's a good thing you don't live in an apartment building, you know, for your neighbors sake.

Yeah, good thing because I'm not risking my life to save anybody's life. At all. I have no desire to be a hero. Ever. Not sorry. You can pretend you're some Billy Badass but you're in all likelihood not because most people aren't. Get over it. That doesn't make anyone a bad person. It's completely normal.

And stop tagging me. Leave me alone. You make fun of people for things like having strokes. You're one to talk about morals.
---

I'd pick someone else's dog over their baby
---

Jen0125 posted...

I have no desire to be a hero.

Not even your own?

SunWuKung420 posted...

the embodiment of all that's wrong with the world

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Jen0125 posted...

I have no desire to be a hero.

Not even your own?

SunWuKung420 posted...

the embodiment of all that's wrong with the world

That doesn't even make any fucking sense.
---

@SunWuKung420 You do realize that shes not the only one who picked dog over random baby? Because you sure are acting like it...
---

The point of this question is not about heroics it's about what a person values more. Human life (not their own child), or animal life (when it's their own friend). Acting like "Oh man I wouldn't save either because i would fear for my own life!" or something is completely missing the point.

I will admit for those that don't have a dog the question is pretty irrelevant though. I will point out one upside though is saving the baby would make you a hero to the city you live in for a period of time most likely. These are the types of stories that local news stations love!
---

Johnny Eagle posted...

The baby, since I don't have a dog

---

LinkPizza posted...

@SunWuKung420 You do realize that shes not the only one who picked dog over random baby? Because you sure are acting like it...

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.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Having the ability to care about strangers or not having it, says everything about a person.

---

Monopoman posted...

The point of this question is not about heroics it's about what a person values more. Human life (not their own child), or animal life (when it's their own friend). Acting like "Oh man I wouldn't save either because i would fear for my own life!" or something is completely missing the point.

I will admit for those that don't have a dog the question is pretty irrelevant though. I will point out one upside though is saving the baby would make you a hero to the city you live in for a period of time most likely. These are the types of stories that local news stations love!

Sure. Maybe. But its a hard question to answer because of the scenario. There are way to many unknown variables. And us knowing things we shouldnt or wouldnt know...

Also, that one upside may be an upside for some, but a downside for others...
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

@SunWuKung420 You do realize that shes not the only one who picked dog over random baby? Because you sure are acting like it...

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.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Having the ability to care about strangers or not having it, says everything about a person.

Sure. But just because people would save their dog over a random baby doesnt mean they dont care for strangers at all. It means they care about they dog more. But thats normal. I care about my dog more than a random person walking down the street. But it doesnt mean I wouldnt help a stranger in need in other situations.
---

You can still care about strangers and not run into a burning building to save one's life. It's not mutually exclusive.
---

Lol, that's not even the hypothetical presented.

"Hero Saves Stranger's Baby, Sacrifices Loved Dog"

Or

"Pyscho Saves Loved Dog, Sacrifices Stranger's Baby"
---

hey, there is only one "my dog"
there are millions of "somebody elses babies" out there.
i think the choice is obvious

SunWuKung420 posted...

Lol, that's not even the hypothetical presented.

"Hero Saves Stranger's Baby, Sacrifices Loved Dog"

Or

"Pyscho Saves Loved Dog, Sacrifices Stranger's Baby"

While the first one might be in the papers, the next one actually wouldnt. Nobody would even know that someone didnt save the baby. They would have just assumed I died with the parents. And nobody would blame anyone for it. Except the person who started the fire, of course. And even if they knew, judging by the votes, people would probably sympathize with the person who saves the dog, since it seems like thats the winning choice...
---

If your justification is that "No one would know if I didn't save the baby", well...

SunWuKung420 posted...

the embodiment of all that's wrong with the world

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

If your justification is that "No one would know if I didn't save the baby", well...

SunWuKung420 posted...

the embodiment of all that's wrong with the world

Not my justification. I was explaining how only one of those might be in the newspaper. My justification is I know I can save my dog. Or possibly save a baby while definitely sacrificing my dog. And probably injure myself/my child Im carrying trying to rescue a baby that I probably have no idea where they are and if theyre alive. Or if I can even reach them safely.
---

LinkPizza posted...

But its a hard question to answer

It's not hard to answer, it's just hard to swallow.

Or not, per the majority.
---

Veedrock- posted...

LinkPizza posted...

But its a hard question to answer

It's not hard to answer, it's just hard to swallow.

Or not, per the majority.

Its hard to answer. In reality, you have to make this decision fast. Not only that, the logical choice would be the dog since both your child and the dog are with you. And would be faster and safer to escape. And many things can go wrong trying to save the baby. Especially with no info. Not to mention, for those who dont have a pet, its easy to say the baby, because they might not know the feeling of pet ownership. Not to mention all the other variables. And the info we wouldnt know. Like we probably wouldnt know the building would collapse after leaving once. Or that there was a loving baby inside. Its not just hard to swallow. Its hard to answer... Especially since saying you would do one thing means nothing. You can say you would save the baby. But when it actually happens, you may not have the balls to run into another burning apartment to save the baby. Or may pick up your dog first and want to get your loved ones to safety before going into a dangerous situation.
---

seems like the perfect time for the baby to learn to crawl/walk
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Lol, that's not even the hypothetical presented.

"Hero Saves Stranger's Baby, Sacrifices Loved Dog"

Or

"Pyscho Saves Loved Dog, Sacrifices Stranger's Baby"

No one else would know that you scarified a dog to save a baby or vice versa. Unless you went around telling them such. It's a moral personal decision based on two variables not something the world will figure out you had the choice of unless you just tell everyone everything about your journey in life.

I mean you don't see people crucifying firefighters for making choices like that, when they are put in that position rarely.
---

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.
---