Current Events > Your building is burning. You can only save ONE: Your dog, or a random toddler.

(+) Yeah! (+)

My game

Can you draw the passed out parents farting?

Heroically, I leave my child and my dog with the random toddler so they don't feel lonely and escape the burning building.

To those who would save the dog:

Would you make the same choice if you knew your actions were being witnessed?

If you had to account for them in a TV interview or an inquest (if your country has those)?

Would you be prepared to go through life as 'that person who let a kid die to save their dog'? (The alternative being 'the hero who saved a baby's life').

Let's assume there is no point in lying. There are multiple credible witnesses, unambiguous CCTV footage, whatever.

(Thou, of course, if you felt the need to lie, that would be highly indicative).

ai123 posted...

To those who would save the dog:

Would you make the same choice if you knew your actions were being witnessed?

If you had to account for them in a TV interview or an inquest (if your country has those).

Would you be prepared to go through life as 'that person who let a kid die to save their dog'?

I would do what my post says even if the perfect girl was watching and she was gonna have sex with me but now she isn't.

ai123 posted...

To those who would save the dog:

Would you make the same choice if you knew your actions were being witnessed?

If you had to account for them in a TV interview or an inquest (if your country has those)?

Would you be prepared to go through life as 'that person who let a kid die to save their dog'? (The alternative being 'the hero who saved a baby's life').

Let's assume there is no point in lying. There are multiple credible witnesses, unambiguous CCTV footage, whatever.

(Thou, of course, if you felt the need to lie, that would be highly indicative).

Such a cute thing, thinking human life matters more than others, and social-shaming anyone who would say otherwise with zero consideration to anything else.

You would be among the first I leave behind on a dying planet if I am taking people to establish a colony on another and had to make a similar decision to leave behind some people for another when choosing who gets to live for a chance at survival on a known extra-terrastrial world that can support us safely, and me having the ships to actually get a fraction of us there.

ai123 posted...

To those who would save the dog:

Would you make the same choice if you knew your actions were being witnessed?

If you had to account for them in a TV interview or an inquest (if your country has those)?

Would you be prepared to go through life as 'that person who let a kid die to save their dog'? (The alternative being 'the hero who saved a baby's life').

Let's assume there is no point in lying. There are multiple credible witnesses, unambiguous CCTV footage, whatever.

(Thou, of course, if you felt the need to lie, that would be highly indicative).

Yes, fuck everyone else's opinion. I'm putting the dogs life over a human who I don't even know.

Sephiroth_C_Ryu posted...

Such a cute thing, thinking human life matters more than others, and social-shaming anyone who would say otherwise with zero consideration to anything else.

I do think human life matters more than animals yes. Not sure why that would be 'cute' exactly.

The social shaming would be real. It is legitimate to ask people to consider its effects.

You would be among the first I leave behind on a dying planet if I am taking people to establish a colony on another and had to make a similar decision to leave behind some people for another when choosing who gets to live for a chance at survival on a known extra-terrastrial world that can support us safely, and me having the ships to actually get a fraction of us there.

Well, that's probably the strangest, and most elaborate theoretical put-down I've ever had.

I'd still kick a pet out to make room for you on my colony though. If you wanted to come.

ai123 posted...

To those who would save the dog:

Would you make the same choice if you knew your actions were being witnessed?

If you had to account for them in a TV interview or an inquest (if your country has those)?

Would you be prepared to go through life as 'that person who let a kid die to save their dog'? (The alternative being 'the hero who saved a baby's life').

Let's assume there is no point in lying. There are multiple credible witnesses, unambiguous CCTV footage, whatever.

(Thou, of course, if you felt the need to lie, that would be highly indicative).

None of that changes my response.

Hell, I'd take it a step further and say I would save my personal effects before I would save some random baby. Again, the baby has no significance to me, and I have no obligation toward it.

Philip027 posted...

None of that changes my response.

Hell, I'd take it a step further and say I would save my personal effects before I would save some random baby. Again, the baby has no significance to me, and I have no obligation toward it.

So presumably you are also against universal healthcare, state education, welfare, and taxation?

If no one has any obligation to anyone else, then why should they make contributions for the general well-being of society?

This is rugged individualism/libertarianism via the route of sentimental attachments to pets and possessions.

ai123 posted...

So presumably you are also against universal healthcare, state education, welfare, and taxation?

If no one has any obligation to anyone else, then why should they make contributions for the general well-being of society?

This is rugged individualism/libertarianism via the route of sentimental attachments to pets and possessions.

No, I just value my own shit more than I value someone else's shit.

You probably shouldn't look into it any deeper than that. It's going to cause you to draw some wrong conclusions, much like how you did here.

Assuming this is my life and I'm thinking realistically I would likely save my dog as she's pretty much always either in the same room as me or just outside of it, and I would be panicking to all hell due to the fire and trying to get out. Simple "dog close, save dog" mentality.

If I were in the perfectly ideal situation and clear minded enough to both know where and how the toddler is, I would save the toddler.

As someone who has tried to play a hero in a fire and failed absolutely miserably I can tell you TV show fires are basically walk in the park fairy tales compared to reality. You're saving whatever is closest and getting the fuck out. Unless you're a trained firefighter.

Philip027 posted...

No, I just value my own shit more than I value someone else's shit.

You probably shouldn't look into it any deeper than that. It's going to cause you to draw some wrong conclusions, much like how you did here.

Nothing deep about it. You stated that the baby is of no significance to you and that you have no obligation towards it.

So why would you be willing to give a portion of your wages (which are very much part of your 'shit'), so that an insignificant baby may receive healthcare or be educated? After all, to you they are worth less than a few possessions (which you could add to with your untaxed income).

It's very difficult to reconcile support of socialised benefits with a near disregard for other people.

You're still looking deeper into it than you should, and are still drawing the wrong conclusions.

Taxes are not at all an analogous situation to making a choice of what to save from a burning building by the way, but it's always funny watching people try to make comparisons like this, so I guess keep trying if you want to.

Toddler.

Philip027 posted...

You're still looking deeper into it than you should, and are still drawing the wrong conclusions.

Taxes are not at all an analogous situation to making a choice of what to save from a burning building by the way, but it's always funny watching people try to make comparisons like this, so I guess keep trying if you want to.

You cannot reconcile the two and have gone for the old messageboard standby of 'I am above your feeble arguments'. Sure.

You have enough empathy to wish to contribute to social programmes, but not enough to put down your possessions and save the dying baby in front of you.

That makes no sense.

You being unable to comprehend something is not the same thing as it making no sense.

Keep flailing.

Philip027 posted...

You being unable to comprehend something is not the same thing as it making no sense.

Keep flailing.

Yet you will not address the contradiction.

Lot of posters in here trying real hard to justify being very shitty people.

who the hell keeps burning my damn building and putting a dog and a baby with me

I wonder when mods will make these topics bannable too

Tora_Sami posted...

To me it's the other way around, your a sociopath if you save the human you never met or have any connection to, over a very loyal animal. Fuck the toddler, while I do feel sympathy I choose my family over another's.

Decent effort but maybe need to be a bit more subtle. Could have called the dog a 'fur baby' as well. 7/10.

CryoForceOmelet posted...

I wonder when mods will make these topics bannable too

If DToast bans these topics that will be his stopped clock moment.

There's no "contradiction" to address, because as I said, the situations are not analogous. However much you may want to believe it so, my take on what I would save from the building does not have to correspond with my take on "socialized benefits" as you put it, and it most certainly doesn't fall in line with whatever you seem to think my take must be.

It's unfortunate for you that you can't seem to recognize the difference in situations, but much like with Rando Baby, I am similarly under no obligation to ELI5 it for you.

Philip027 posted...

There's no "contradiction" to address, because as I said, the situations are not analogous. However much you may want to believe it so, my take on what I would save from the building does not have to correspond with my take on "socialized benefits" as you put it, and it most certainly doesn't fall in line with whatever you seem to think my take must be.

It's unfortunate for you that you can't seem to recognize the difference in situations, but much like with Rando Baby, I am similarly under no obligation to ELI5 it for you.

Toddler in burning building destroyed by FACTS and LOGIC

Such hypothetical questions are always silly.

First of all, thankfully we will never have to proof our decision. Talking is easy.

Also, in the "heat of the moment" I would expect that most would react pretty unpredictable. So many details could influence you, starting with who you discover first, how they currently look like, and so on.

And finally, it's a false dichotomy from beginning to end. Especially with the most obvious options of "I run away in a panic, leaving both behind" and "I get both and die trying" missing (and the problems above still apply).

The only thing this topic is good for, is so people can say "I'm not a sociopath (like you)".

choosing a dog over a literal human is really telling.

seek help, all of you

I'd save my dog. No thought required. Instincts tell me to save my closest companion I raised. I don't even have a dog now, but if I did, save the dog. I have a turtle. I'd still save him over a random toddler.

ai123 posted...

To those who would save the dog:

Would you make the same choice if you knew your actions were being witnessed?

Absolutely.

If you had to account for them in a TV interview or an inquest (if your country has those)?

Not my toddler. Therefore, I cannot be held accountable for them. I save my own family. That includes the dog.

Would you be prepared to go through life as 'that person who let a kid die to save their dog'? (The alternative being 'the hero who saved a baby's life').

Sure. It's not my damn kid. I had no obligation to save anyone and in terms of survival, my dog would be closer (in the home) than some random toddler somewhere else.

Edit: To go further, I'd be thinking of how my dog would feel in that moment if I left him. As the fire blazes and his entire family is nowhere in sight, he'd be crying out for his family to save him. He'd be crying out for me. If he dies, he dies wondering how and why I would leave him behind. Where's dad? Then there's the absolute unfiltered love and happiness if I do save him. A random toddler would never think that about me.

I can't just leave the dog (or my, turtle of course).

VFalcone posted...

Therefore, I cannot be held accountable for them.

It's a crime to knowingly allow a child to be harmed in many countries.

Naysaspace posted...

choosing a dog over a literal human is really telling.

seek help, all of you

Choosing a family member (not a dog owner, they generally consider them such and if I have one as per the TC scenario, I am now one too), vs, a random baby that will then go through the orphan/abandoned baby hell (their parents die in the fire automatically as per TC), and THEN go through climate change hell where by they then suffer more because half the population may well starve due to bread basket collapse...

The dog will die first, and happy. The baby will live longer, and know that it is fucking doomed as soon as it is old enough to understand such things, while having no one who cares in the end to try and support them, because that is what the actual outcome of the vast majority of such "adoptions" are at now.

The baby will suffer less if it passes out from smoke and never wakes up again. The dog too, maybe, but at least the dog would die naturally in a dozen or less years anyway most likely and lacks the comprehension of how fucked the world's ecosystem, biosphere, and climopshere is.

Try again when you are willing to admit we are all going to die.

kurdt032 posted...

Decent effort but maybe need to be a bit more subtle. Could have called the dog a 'fur baby' as well. 7/10.

I'm dead serious, I wouldn't call my dog a fur baby though. While I do care for human life I don't put humans life above other life no matter what. Though if it was an ant colony or a toddler, yeah I would put the toddlers life above it. But I value pets more then humans I do not know.

Naysaspace posted...

choosing a dog over a literal human is really telling.

seek help, all of you

Why is human life so much more important? Just because where the ame species?

the toddler.

no way i would choose someones mutt over a baby. that dog can burn.

Naysaspace posted...

choosing a dog over a literal human is really telling.

seek help, all of you

this

WalkingPlague posted...

the toddler.

no way i would choose someones mutt over a baby. that dog can burn.

It's your mutt not a random mutt....

Kid lives, dog burns.

i need to know the calorie count of both

This assumption that every orphan leads this miserable life not worth living and is better off literally dying in a fire would probably be pretty fucking offensive to actual orphans.

Its also weird to assume the baby has no other family that would take care of it.

In this topic, people fail to understand that morality is subjective & you cannot force your perceived objective morals on another human being. If you want to overcomplicate the trolley dilemma (which in of itself is a joke to psychologists & sociologists because of the inherent flaw in being a false moral dichotomy) by inventing new stipulations to it or the building scenario, it shows why human beings ultimately never get along because you always have to insure you're right over someone else instead of recognizing a difference in values.

1000% my cat(since I don't have a dog), not close.

Morality being subjective doesnt somehow mean that shit beliefs shouldnt be subject to criticism and my turtle has more value than a human life is a shit belief.

Always the child not even close.

I don't like dogs.

And I don't like people who live in apartments and have dogs.

The honest answer is my pets.

Philip027 posted...

None of that changes my response.

Hell, I'd take it a step further and say I would save my personal effects before I would save some random baby. Again, the baby has no significance to me, and I have no obligation toward it.

I think you might be a psychopath.

Toddlers mom

The child. Odds are the dog could get out by itself anyway.

Tenlaar posted...

Morality being subjective doesnt somehow mean that shit beliefs shouldnt be subject to criticism and my turtle has more value than a human life is a shit belief.

If you can't understand why someone would value a pet they raised & perhaps have grown up with or had for years compared to someone else's child they do not know & aren't related to, there really isn't any point to going further with you. Your condescension about why someone might value their own pet over a stranger's child comes back to why even if human beings are one of the most sophisticated or intelligent creatures on earth, that we're still fucking idiots at the end of the day lol.

Naysaspace posted...

choosing a dog over a literal human is really telling.

seek help, all of you

A "literal" human? What's that supposed to mean, in this context? The dog doesn't get to be "literal" too?

I'm guessing you're regarding a human life as inherently more valuable than another animal's life, and that's likewise very telling. I'm not even saying that nobody should have that opinion, but you definitely do not get to enforce it upon everyone else.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

I think you might be a psychopath.

Okay.

Probably my dog. If I raised that dog theyd be as much family to me as my child. Only if my child said otherwise would I save the toddler.