Horrible Act Of Animal Cruelty.

See, that's picking Evil vs Neutral (or Good for the animal lovers).

Has nothing to do with potential. I'm not saying if you save the guy there is a chance he could do it. I'm talking a guy who you know for certain is planning to end thousands of lives.

Get your facts straight. It was a hypothetical question that required a hypothetical answer based on the situation and the circumstances. You spent over 3 hrs before you gave an answer because of your personal and emotional baggage about having to prove your point which was very weak from the start

Except I take mine for nerves; people who take Heroin, Crack, PCP, and/or Meth take theres to feel jittery like when I don't take mine.

Well, this is just silly now.

It doesn't seem like anyone is reading posts or trying to understand where the other person is coming from, they just reiterate their point.

Nuh-uh!

Okay.

Why not just not ask hypothetical questions?

That would probably be best but not as much fun. That's if you can call this fun lol

This thread are srs bzns.

Animals are not self-aware. They have no concept of "Future" other than propagation of the species(Which is instinct and not an actual thought process), humans do, and that abstract thought is what really separates humanity from simple "Animals".

That said, humans are capable of great evil because of the concept. While an animal is generally a known quantity, the human mind has such a vast range, that you can do more harm to the world by saving a person (Let's, for sake of obvious example, say You save Hilter in the thousand of people) instead of the dog.

If the person you save kills a person, you're "Even" if they kill two people, you facilitated a murder, and cost one more life than was necessary.

As a general rule of thumb, no "person" is worth dying for any single animal over, but like everything else in the world, it's not a black and white argument, there is always shades of gray. You can have industrialists wiping out entire ecosystems, or environmentalists dying to protect animals that eat their bodies and ***out the remnants not 5minutes after their "Sacrifice".

I think the potential of humans should be a moot point, as one can argue either extreme: good and bad.

I disagree.

Well said.

Flip side, you save Alexander Fleming who makes Penicillin and thus you save millions of lives for generations to come. Obviously it's not black and white, that was never the point of the question. Instead of taking it for what it was they started painting the black and white thing which wasn't the pirpose of the question lol

@ Linkk

I'd save my dog over you any day, without blinking.

Does that mean I'm not honest, because that wasnt the answer you wanted?

Is that Gary Busey's face?

Either way, if you want to save someone go ahead and do it. However, you have no control over who/what I choose to save, so no matter what you think about it, wouldn't make a difference.

I disagree.

Honest answer and after today I believe it. But I would still choose to save you because I am not detached from humanity. Now if you spent 3 hrs before you could answer such a simple thing wellllllll lololol

See, now you're just being a jerk. You said I was being a coward and dishonest because I can't say with one million bajillion-gajillion-fillion-illion-illion % certainty what I'd do in any given situation.

Edit - Maybe my reasoning is flawed, but I think someone who admits they don't know what they'd do is being more honest.

Edit 2 - Oops, didn't mean to quote.

Ok, my hypothetical situation.


You have the chance to save a

1 month old puppy

Terminally ill patient, has less than a month to live anyway, expresses his desire to die and get it over with quick than slow and painful over a month


You'd let the puppy die over someone who WANTS to die and if he didn't want to, would live less than 30 days?

Yawn, that is correct, I thought then as I do now that you were a coward and not being honest. Does that mean I am am one million bajillion-gajillion-fillion-illion-illion % correct? NO lol

Because I dont camp the forums? Got more important things to do that F5 every 2 sec to see what you have to say. Unless my "answer" already told you that, you're not important to me. Most certainly not important enough for me to camp this forum.

I would keep moving and not waste my time.

If someone asks not to be saved, then I won't. But if the decision were up to me without intervention, I would save the human first, every time.

Save as in curing his illness?
Human.

Saving as in he's jumping off a cliff?
... well, I can't restrict his choice if he wishes to die, right?
So pup wins by default.