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

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkknight109 posted...

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.

it's much closer to being my family than some random baby
---

LinkPizza posted...

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...

Yeah, darkknight. Give all your clothes, your home, your food and luxuries to other people. Live naked with nothing in the street. Stop being selfish. It's for society.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

I'd be risking my life in order to save a pet.

No, you wouldn't. Question doesn't say your life is in danger.

wwinterj25 posted...

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.

Neither does the baby.

wwinterj25 posted...

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

I think you mean Kyuubi's point is irrelevant, since that's the one that relies on the dog being family.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

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

No, it's not, and if you're putting a fucking dog on the same level as your own relatives - adopted or otherwise - you have massively screwed up priorities.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's a pragmatic world.

"Pragmatic", in this case, being a euphemism for "selfish".

Kyuubi4269 posted...

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.

Um, no I didn't? You're not being asked to fly across the world, at your own expense, and go hug someone, you're being asked to save a kid.

And for what it's worth, if you were dying on the ground in front of me, my first thought wouldn't be "Damn, that sucks, but I have a lizard to think about, so I guess I'll just leave him there instead of helping him."

Jen0125 posted...

Selfishness is a form of self preservation which is a completely natural instinct.

Murderous rage at a perceived rival is also a form of self preservation and a completely natural instinct - it doesn't mean it's something to be encouraged or even accepted. We're not baboons - natural isn't synonymous with good.
---

lmfao comparing murder with saving a dog, I love it
---

Jen0125 posted...

There are a ton of situations where selfishness is not inherently bad.

And this isn't one of them.

LinkPizza posted...

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?

Admitting vices is one thing; avoiding addressing them or, worse, trying to pass them off as a good thing - as several people in this thread are doing - is quite another.

LinkPizza posted...

Except he could only put so much in the question. It's not like he could put all the things on the question.

Sure he could. Here, I'll do it right now.

"You're in a burning building, with your child under one arm. In front of you are the unconscious forms of a toddler you don't know and your dog. Both are alive and breathing, but unconscious. You only have room in your arms for one - which do you take?"

That would allow for the possibility of going back for the second if circumstances permit. It also allows for danger to your own life, or that the situation might not allow you to go back and save the second one. Note, however, that's not how the question was phrased.

LinkPizza posted...

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?

I've already addressed this several times. Yeah, if it was a choice between your kid or someone else's, I have no problem with you prioritizing your kid. That's not an issue. Selfish? Perhaps, but not to an unacceptable level - either you or another parent is going to face the grief of losing a child, so it's a zero sum game of who you pick to die and who gets to suffer that loss.

But most people view children as more valuable than pets (most people would save their own child ahead of the family dog), so when you decide to take your dog over someone else's child, now it's not zero-sum anymore. You're avoiding a minor loss to yourself by inflicting a major loss to someone else.

LinkPizza posted...

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.

Sure, but that's logical - giving up your own home at the cost of making yourself homeless hasn't solved any problems, just shifted said problem to someone else. It's a poor parallel.

Jen0125 posted...

Yeah, darkknight. Give all your clothes, your home, your food and luxuries to other people. Live naked with nothing in the street. Stop being selfish. It's for society.

I mean, I give pretty generously to charity. But I'm guessing you don't, because hey, why bother to give strangers things? It's not like they're dogs, after all. None of my business if they're starving or freezing to death, right?
---

You say its a minor loss. But thats not true to me. If Inlose my dog, I would be absolutely devastated. As of right now, I dont know how Id love without my dog. So, dont act like its minor loss. Just because you dont care about pets doesnt mean other people dont. My dog is considered part of my family. You can say its not because you seem to hate animals. But other people feel differently. No matter what you say. Also, I give to charities all the time. I volunteer. And ever since I was a child, I gave stuff away all the time. I care about other people. But I do not put strangers well-being before mine, my family, or my friends. If you want to, good for you. But most people know that you still have to take care of yourself before others most of the time. Also, I said that they are lots of other variables. But I though this scenario would work on logic, but it doesnt. Like somehow, we psychically knowing the building will collapse before we can go in a second time, or magically knowing we wont be in danger by trying to save the baby.

You say it shifts the problem, so nobody wins. But that still means you should give it away according to you. Since you should put them before you. But as stated, that makes no sense. You put yourself first and help others afterward. Like we the mask comes down in the plane.
---

darkknight109 posted...

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.

Your world must be just as sad as you claim Kyuubi's is (if not more so) if you think family is solely determined by blood relations
---

Dogs are loyal to the end. Babys have the potential to become criminals, useless drug addicts, or even worse a MAGA supporter.

Dogs all the way baby!!!!
---

Johnny Eagle posted...

Your world must be just as sad as you claim Kyuubi's is (if not more so) if you think family is solely determined by blood relations

Family does not cross species lines, bro. Pets can be loved and deeply cared for, but they are not family.

LinkPizza posted...

If Inlose my dog, I would be absolutely devastated. As of right now, I dont know how Id love without my dog.

Then I suggest you put some time into figuring it out because, unless you are extremely old for a GF user, the odds are very good that your dog will die long before you do.

Also, you "don't know how you'd love" without your dog? Do you not have other family? A romantic partner? Do you honestly feel you will be completely incapable of showing affection when your dog eventually dies? Because that doesn't sound healthy to me.

LinkPizza posted...

Just because you dont care about pets doesnt mean other people dont.

Weird how when I said multiple times in this topic that "pets can be loved", that apparently translates to "you don't care about pets and you hate animals".

LinkPizza posted...

But I do not put strangers well-being before mine, my family, or my friends.

So if the choice was between saving your dog or saving your own infant child, which would you choose? And why?

LinkPizza posted...

But I though this scenario would work on logic, but it doesnt. Like somehow, we psychically knowing the building will collapse before we can go in a second time, or magically knowing we wont be in danger by trying to save the baby.

Yes, because this is the information you were provided in this scenario.

If you were actually stuck in a burning building with a child and a dog, would you be granted that divine knowledge? Obviously not. But that knowledge was provided to you when you were asked this question - the question wasn't "If you were in a burning building, with your kid, a baby you don't know, and your dog, what would you do?", which would be more reflective of real life; it was "If you could only save your dog or a stranger's baby, which one would you save? The other one will die and there is no way to save both." That question is providing you with additional information that you wouldn't have in the real life scenario.

LinkPizza posted...

You say it shifts the problem, so nobody wins. But that still means you should give it away according to you. Since you should put them before you. But as stated, that makes no sense. You put yourself first and help others afterward. Like we the mask comes down in the plane.

I have no idea what you were trying to say here.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Then I suggest you put some time into figuring it out because, unless you are extremely old for a GF user, the odds are very good that your dog will die long before you do.

Also, you "don't know how you'd love" without your dog? Do you not have other family? A romantic partner? Do you honestly feel you will be completely incapable of showing affection when your dog eventually dies? Because that doesn't sound healthy to me

I meant live. Its a common mistake. The o and i are next to each other. Im using a phone. Also, I know theyll die one day. But Im not going to let them die early. Im going to keep them for as long as they have left. And Im not going to let a fire take that away from us. I know theyll most likely die before I do, and Ill still be devastated when it happens.

darkknight109 posted...

Weird how when I said multiple times in this topic that "pets can be loved", that apparently translates to "you don't care about pets and you hate animals".

Because you make it sound like it should be an easy decision to give up something you love for a random stranger. And its not. At all...

darkknight109 posted...

So if the choice was between saving your dog or saving your own infant child, which would you choose? And why?

Probably my child. As for why, probably because its my child. Im suppose to take care of him/her and keep them alive. I have to do the same for my dog, though. But Id probably prioritize my child over my dog.

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, because this is the information you were provided in this scenario.

If you were actually stuck in a burning building with a child and a dog, would you be granted that divine knowledge? Obviously not. But that knowledge was provided to you when you were asked this question - the question wasn't "If you were in a burning building, with your kid, a baby you don't know, and your dog, what would you do?", which would be more reflective of real life; it was "If you could only save your dog or a stranger's baby, which one would you save? The other one will die and there is no way to save both." That question is providing you with additional information that you wouldn't have in the real life scenario.

Then how the fuck am Insuppose to answer the question. It goes back to Idk because I dont understand how I would feel if I knew all this divine information. Maybe it would change. But because thats literally something I could literally never experience, I dont know how Id feel in that situation. Because I cant understand my feelings in a situation that could never happen... because in real life, I would know a building will collapse after leaving. Or that Id be able to save a baby without encountering danger. So, in this case, I literally cant answer...

darkknight109 posted...

I have no idea what you were trying to say here.

This is from when you were talking about the homeless problem shifting instead of being solved.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Murderous rage at a perceived rival is also a form of self preservation and a completely natural instinct -

Not for humans it isn't.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, I give pretty generously to charity. But I'm guessing you don't, because hey, why bother to give strangers things? It's not like they're dogs, after all. None of my business if they're starving or freezing to death, right?

But you aren't giving enough because you still have things. Stop being selfish. You need to be entirely selfless according to you.

And I do give to charity because you can be selfish and altruistic depending on the situation. Funny how that works, isn't it?
---

darkknight109 posted...

No, you wouldn't. Question doesn't say your life is in danger.

Yes my life would be perfectly safe in a burning apartment.

darkknight109 posted...

Neither does the baby.

Sure but I can only pick one.

darkknight109 posted...

I think you mean Kyuubi's point is irrelevant, since that's the one that relies on the dog being family.

No I definitely mean yours is. When both said pet and random baby are not family pointing out that a pet isn't family is redundant and irrelevant to the predicament. Regardless of said pet being like family or not most folk would have a bigger connection to their pet than a random baby so would save said pet.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I meant live.

That actually makes it worse.

Seriously, I'm all for loving your pets - I adored mine and was sad when they passed - but saying that their death will rob you of your will to live is flat-out unhealthy.

Again, don't you have any other family members? Any significant others you'd like to be alive for? Goals and aspirations you'd like to fulfill that don't involve your dogs?

LinkPizza posted...

Because you make it sound like it should be an easy decision to give up something you love for a random stranger.

If it's a child? Yeah, I do think that should be a pretty easy decision. Again, I loved my pets dearly when they were alive, but if it came down to them or a baby? It'd be the baby every time. Because as awful as I'd feel burying whatever remained of my pets afterwards, there's no way I could look a grieving parent in the eye with the knowledge that I could have saved their child, but didn't (and, frankly, I find it alarming how many people in this thread are not only not conflicted, but seem remarkably cavalier about letting a child burn to death as long as Fido was OK).

Unless the baby was actually Hitler being projected through time or something, but I'm assuming that's not the case.

LinkPizza posted...

Probably my child. As for why, probably because its my child. Im suppose to take care of him/her and keep them alive. I have to do the same for my dog, though. But Id probably prioritize my child over my dog.

Then you're already halfway to understanding where I'm coming from. You understand that human lives are simply *more important* than canine ones, all else being equal. That doesn't mean you love your dogs any less, but you recognize the concept of human primacy. That basically underpins what I'm saying; the only extra jump there is the fact that this baby isn't related to you (though neither is your dog), and I'm saying that shouldn't matter, for the reasons already stated.

LinkPizza posted...

Then how the fuck am Insuppose to answer the question.

Is it really so difficult? I don't have a problem imagining the situation and accounting for the knowledge available.

Consider it this way - you're locked in a room with a toddler and your dog. You are allowed to take one of them out, at which point the other will instantly die. Which do you choose?

That's basically what the question is asking, when you strip away the flavour text.

LinkPizza posted...

This is from when you were talking about the homeless problem shifting instead of being solved.

What you're missing is the difference of scale, which I already explained.

To use a less emotionally-charged example, let's pretend your friend is stuck in a bad business deal with a really weird investor. The investor is going to sue your friend for $100,000... but agrees to drop the suit if you pay him $10 and agree to not be reimbursed, by your friend or anyone else. Would you do it?

I'm guessing you would - in fact, you'd be a tremendous asshole not to. Even though you lose $10 with no gain for yourself, your loss is substantially less than your friend's loss would be if you opted to keep your $10. Yeah, you're not looking after yourself first, but the scale difference takes over there.

The baby vs. the dog is essentially the same dilemma, albeit not as lopsided.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Not for humans it isn't.

Bullshit it's not. Anger is one of our most primal and natural emotions. Fucking toddlers get angry on a pretty regular basis - that's how natural it is. In fact, a huge part of growing up involves mastering that instinct and learning to not give in to anger over everything that makes us upset.

You don't think murderous rages are natural? Go take a look at our fellow great apes. Chimps, gorillas, orangutans... all will happily kill rivals for food or sex or resources or just because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Again, natural is not synonymous with good.

Jen0125 posted...

You need to be entirely selfless according to you.

Not even close to what I said, but keep trying and you might get there eventually.

Jen0125 posted...

And I do give to charity because you can be selfish and altruistic depending on the situation.

But you just said being selfish is natural and good. Why are you being a bad person by denying your selfishness and giving to charity?

wwinterj25 posted...

Yes my life would be perfectly safe in a burning apartment.

In the situation given? Yes. You're told that you can save one, which tells you you'll make it out alright.

Would you know that in real life? Obviously not, but as already mentioned, this isn't real life.

wwinterj25 posted...

Regardless of said pet being like family or not most folk would have a bigger connection to their pet than a random baby so would save said pet.

Most people would have a bigger connection to their toaster than the baby too - that doesn't mean you wouldn't be a tremendous asshole for taking a toaster instead of a baby.

Again, the "I'm more connected to this being" isn't the argument winner you seem to think it is.
---

darkknight109 posted...

In the situation given? Yes. You're told that you can save one, which tells you you'll make it out alright.

Yet I'm still risking my life.

darkknight109 posted...

Most people would have a bigger connection to their toaster than the baby too - that doesn't mean you wouldn't be a tremendous asshole for taking a toaster instead of a baby.

The difference being a toaster can be replaced and a toaster isn't a life.

darkknight109 posted...

Again, the "I'm more connected to this being" isn't the argument winner you seem to think it is.

It's the only winner.
---

I have family. But I halfway across the country from where they are. And my BF lives about 2 hours away. So, not close. But they are. And they brighten my day just being there. Especially when Im feeling really down. Or when everything is going wrong. They are always there to cheer me up and keep me going. Just by being how they always are. I dont really care if you dont understand or if it seems unhealthy. But theyre there for me when no one can be there.

I think you mean grieving relative, as according to the scenario, the parents are apparently dead. The reason people make the choice to save the dog eaiser is because they are talking about saving the life of a loved one rather than a random life. Losing a loved one can really impact them. Losing that baby that died with its family probably wouldnt impact their life as much.

Its not only the fact that its human life. Its because its my son/daughter. Not just because they are human. I would rather save them. But Id rather save my dog(who is family to me. Not by blood, but still family) than a random baby.

The reason I have a hard time is because Im answering based on the scenario. Its hard to imagine an unrealistic scenario where i know things I shouldnt. Like knowing the building will collapse or knowing I wont be in danger. Because thats not how it would really be. Most people wouldn't know the building would collapse. Lots of people would probably want to get their loved ones to safety first, then go back in to save the other baby. In real life, I wouldnt assume it would be safe passage to rescue the baby. So, its hard for me to imagine a scenario where I just know stuff like that. Tbh, the other scenario where one is killed instantly makes it easier for me to choose the dog. In that scenario, I know even less about the baby. At least I probably knew the baby was my neighbor in the original scenario. In this scenario, I dont see how it would make any sense to grab the baby...

I dont see how that argument is the same at all, tbqh...

I didnt quote because phone... So, I split into paragraphs to match the quotes...
---

I have a dog and life would be sad without, but I like to think Im a species-ist in favor of humans. So I would help the baby out.
---

darkknight109 posted...

But you just said being selfish is natural and good. Why are you being a bad person by denying your selfishness and giving to charity?

I said said selfishness isn't inherently bad. You are the only one taking things to the extreme here. Don't trying to act like I'm taking things to the extreme lol.

darkknight109 posted...

Bullshit it's not. Anger is one of our most primal and natural emotions. Fucking toddlers get angry on a pretty regular basis - that's how natural it is. In fact, a huge part of growing up involves mastering that instinct and learning to not give in to anger over everything that makes us upset.

Anger and murderous rampage are two completely different things.

darkknight109 posted...

You don't think murderous rages are natural? Go take a look at our fellow great apes. Chimps, gorillas, orangutans... all will happily kill rivals for food or sex or resources or just because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I said not for humans. We aren't chimps, gorillas or orangutans. That's why I said not for humans.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Not even close to what I said, but keep trying and you might get there eventually.

darkknight109 posted...

. 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.

Put your needs before others. Give away everything you own and live naked in the street, Mr. Altruism. You seem to live in a world where there is no spectrum between selfish and selfless.
---

Jen, you might as well just quit arguing with darkknight. He will literally stop at nothing to prove he is right. He will just continue to post paragraphs until you finally get bored and move on. I've never seen someone so determined to always be right. I suppose it defines his self worth or something

wwinterj25 posted...

Yet I'm still risking my life.

Nope. There's no scenario in the question as asked where you die.

wwinterj25 posted...

The difference being a toaster can be replaced and a toaster isn't a life.

Sure, but the point is just because you have a connection to A and not to B doesn't mean that you should always pick A. Other issues factor into it, which you've just admitted with this statement.

Jen0125 posted...

You are the only one taking things to the extreme here. Don't trying to act like I'm taking things to the extreme lol.

Right, because "Sell all your stuff and give it to the poor" isn't extreme at all.

Jen0125 posted...

I said not for humans. We aren't chimps, gorillas or orangutans. That's why I said not for humans.

Again, that's bullshit. Or do you not know that murder is a thing that happens pretty regularly?

Roughly half a million people are murdered around the world every year. Again, killing the shit out of each other is something humans have done since before we even became humans. It's a 100% natural part of who we are.

Have some of our societies transcended that natural instinct? Sure... but that doesn't mean it isn't natural or that a human raised outside any established society wouldn't fall back on those instincts.

Jen0125 posted...

Put your needs before others. Give away everything you own and live naked in the street, Mr. Altruism. You seem to live in a world where there is no spectrum between selfish and selfless.

Pictured: not an extreme argument, apparently (and also a hilarious misinterpretation of what I actually said, to boot).
---

darkknight109 posted...

Um, no I didn't? You're not being asked to fly across the world, at your own expense, and go hug someone, you're being asked to save a kid who is right in front of you, at zero cost to you.

You know callous disregard for the lives of animals is a clear sign of a psychopath, right?
---

The baby only because the dog is already passed out. They wouldn't experience any more pain.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You know callous disregard for the lives of animals is a clear sign of a psychopath, right?

You know that carefully excising parts of my posts while deliberately ignoring the bits that already disprove your assertion isn't going to win you any arguments, right?
---

I care about my dog. I don't care about someone else's shit baby.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You know callous disregard for the lives of animals is a clear sign of a psychopath, right?

You know that carefully excising parts of my posts while deliberately ignoring the bits that already disprove your assertion isn't going to win you any arguments, right?

When the rest of your post is essentially "I don't like you.", I don't need to address it. However, here you demonstrated that you find it fine to burn your dog alive in a fire because you believe animals have no inherent value.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Nope. There's no scenario in the question as asked where you die.

Knowing you will live doesn't mean you're not risking your life.

darkknight109 posted...

Sure, but the point is just because you have a connection to A and not to B doesn't mean that you should always pick A.

If we are talking about two lifes it absolutely does.

OhhhJa posted...

He will literally stop at nothing to prove he is right.

Yet all he does it prove how wrong he is.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Again, the "I'm more connected to this being" isn't the argument winner you seem to think it is.

It's not really an argument. It's a justification for a choice.
---

Gradieus posted...

The baby only because the dog is already passed out. They wouldn't experience any more pain.

Are we sure the baby isnt passed out, as well?
---

This topic has made me want a hot dog, but I don't have any:(
---

wolfy42 posted...

This topic has made me want a hot dog, but I don't have any:(

---

LinkPizza posted...

Gradieus posted...

The baby only because the dog is already passed out. They wouldn't experience any more pain.

Are we sure the baby isnt passed out, as well?

Not sure, OP only said the parents were passed out. Which I assume means the child would be raised by their aunt/uncle or grandparents

id choose to save the dog 11 times out of 10 whether its mine or not.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Again, that's bullshit. Or do you not know that murder is a thing that happens pretty regularly?

Are those all self defense murders? Self defense is a self preservation instinct. Murder in and of itself is not. You don't seem very bright, no offense lmao.

OhhhJa posted...

Jen, you might as well just quit arguing with darkknight. He will literally stop at nothing to prove he is right. He will just continue to post paragraphs until you finally get bored and move on. I've never seen someone so determined to always be right. I suppose it defines his self worth or something

Seems about right lol
---

I'm loving all the "saving your dog over a stranger's baby makes you the better person" people.

As if there wasn't already good enough reasons to not like you, admitting to being ok with being complicit in the death of a baby, is like the best icing in the world.
---

Dog.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm loving all the "saving your dog over a stranger's baby makes you the better person" people.

As if there wasn't already good enough reasons to not like you, admitting to being ok with being complicit in the death of a baby, is like the best icing in the world.

I only support pro-choice candidates, so I am already complicit in the death of millions of babies, what's one more?
---

I'm glad mcsame has shown up to take up the mantle for link, jen, ohja, kyuubi, winter and all the other baby killers.
---

What have you done to prevent random babies from dying?
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm glad mcsame has shown up to take up the mantle for link, jen, ohja, kyuubi, winter and all the other baby killers.

I chose the baby dipshit

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm loving all the "saving your dog over a stranger's baby makes you the better person" people.

As if there wasn't already good enough reasons to not like you, admitting to being ok with being complicit in the death of a baby, is like the best icing in the world.

Nobody said it makes you a better person. You guys are arguing it makes you a worse person lmao. We're just saying it doesn't.. You guys can try to put words in everyone's mouths all day but that's not what is happening.
---

Jen0125 posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm loving all the "saving your dog over a stranger's baby makes you the better person" people.

As if there wasn't already good enough reasons to not like you, admitting to being ok with being complicit in the death of a baby, is like the best icing in the world.

Nobody said it makes you a better person. You guys are arguing it makes you a worse person lmao. We're just saying it doesn't.. You guys can try to put words in everyone's mouths all day but that's not what is happening.

This. Nobody said we were better or heroes for saving the dog over the baby.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Jen0125 posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm loving all the "saving your dog over a stranger's baby makes you the better person" people.

As if there wasn't already good enough reasons to not like you, admitting to being ok with being complicit in the death of a baby, is like the best icing in the world.

Nobody said it makes you a better person. You guys are arguing it makes you a worse person lmao. We're just saying it doesn't.. You guys can try to put words in everyone's mouths all day but that's not what is happening.

This. Nobody said we were better or heroes for saving the dog over the baby.

It's just sunny picking something to be self righteous about again. Dude must have a guilty conscience about something

Kyuubi4269 posted...

However, here you demonstrated that you find it fine to burn your dog alive in a fire because you believe animals have no inherent value.

Not what I said. Keep trying.

Jen0125 posted...

Are those all self defense murders?

Obviously not, or they wouldn't be murder (and I find it all kinds of adorable that you think that half a million people a year kill in self defence, yet apparently no one commits actual murder). Maybe you shouldn't be talking about intelligence if you don't understand something this basic. Glass houses and all...

Jen0125 posted...

Self defense is a self preservation instinct. Murder in and of itself is not.

You can't honestly believe this is true. Humans are a species that kills each other regularly, on a planet full of other creatures that also kill their own kind regularly for the same reasons, and you seriously think that anger and murder aren't natural instincts? lmao

OhhhJa posted...

It's just sunny picking something to be self righteous about again. Dude must have a guilty conscience about something

OhhhJa posted...

Jen, you might as well just quit arguing with darkknight. He will literally stop at nothing to prove he is right. He will just continue to post paragraphs until you finally get bored and move on. I've never seen someone so determined to always be right. I suppose it defines his self worth or something

I've noticed this for a while, but you have a weird habit of projecting on people you argue with. Have you noticed that? Do you feel intimidated or something?
---

Ok, let's add something to the scenario. There is a camera recording to an off site device that watches you actively ignore the baby/dog. The recording is released to the media and goes viral.

The baby savers are heroes that are sympathized with and get a free dinner at Applebee's for the loss of their pet.

The dog people's story of not being able to go back into the apartment gets little sympathy and they are labelled baby killers. They are worse than a coward cop that stays away from an active shooter.

. Or we can make a poll to see who would rather either stab a baby head or walk thier dog and see how many baby head stabbers there are.
---

Firewood18 posted...

Ok, let's add something to the scenario. There is a camera recording to an off site device that watches you actively ignore the baby/dog. The recording is released to the media and goes viral.

The baby savers are heroes that are sympathized with and get a free dinner at Applebee's for the loss of their pet.

The dog people's story of not being able to go back into the apartment gets little sympathy and they are labelled baby killers. They are worse than a coward cop that stays away from an active shooter.

. Or we can make a poll to see who would rather either stab a baby head or walk thier dog and see how many baby head stabbers there are.

Oh well. The outrage will pass in time. Meanwhile I'll have my furry little buddy to comfort me from all the rage.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm loving all the "saving your dog over a stranger's baby makes you the better person" people.

You'll have to point that out because I can't see anyone saying that.

SunWuKung420 posted...

As if there wasn't already good enough reasons to not like you, admitting to being ok with being complicit in the death of a baby, is like the best icing in the world.

Nobody also said they are ok with making said choice. However a choice does indeed have to be made.

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm glad mcsame has shown up to take up the mantle for link, jen, ohja, kyuubi, winter and all the other baby killers.

You are a absolute tit. Just saying.
---

Firewood18 posted...

Ok, let's add something to the scenario. There is a camera recording to an off site device that watches you actively ignore the baby/dog. The recording is released to the media and goes viral.

The baby savers are heroes that are sympathized with and get a free dinner at Applebee's for the loss of their pet.

The dog people's story of not being able to go back into the apartment gets little sympathy and they are labelled baby killers. They are worse than a coward cop that stays away from an active shooter.

. Or we can make a poll to see who would rather either stab a baby head or walk thier dog and see how many baby head stabbers there are.

no one is obligated to save the baby.
---

^
that isn't mod logic. that actually makes sense
---