Would you save the dog or the human?

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Anir, Jun 7, 2009.

  1. The Chaos Engine

    The Chaos Engine Grumpy Old Git

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Stewing in my own juices...
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    I'm simply defining civilisation as a society which has developed complex social interactions and which has settled in cities. There's no east and west involved.

    And defining Mankind by its worst excesses is no more helpful than defining it by its best. Everyday folk were not involved in the Inquisition, nor A-Bomb development, nor the genocide of the Jews. And yes, the Roman and British Empires were built along the lines of creating a better society. You can argue with the validity of that view, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find an individual within those social structures who had the intent of deliberately doing evil. Society, by its very nature, cannot exist unless the many are striving towards a common goal: all else is anarchy. And as the history of human civilisation is a history of precisely that, civilisation, I reject the notion that humans are inherently selfish and self-serving. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I'd rather be that than the alternative.:)
     
  2. Lord Yuan

    Lord Yuan Death-Thousand+

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Crystal Prison (space crime)
    Ratings:
    +162 / 0 / -0
    Here is the way I think of it, the human could be a serial killer for all I care, or he could devise one of mankind's most beneficial inventions, what is a dog going to do for the world? Shoot out babies or help make babies and then die. I would rather risk gain over loss rather than no change at all.
     
  3. Meteorain

    Meteorain Magical & Mystical

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    17,139
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +150 / 0 / -0
    I thought I enjoyed a good social life. I have good friends and am outgoing. Hmm....maybe I'm an anomalous result in your statement.

    Meaninglessly? Meaningless to what? What exactly do we provide that will benefit anything. Yes humans can provide for other humans ok, and we can leave a legacy and help technological advancement.....and? To what end is this exactly being done? So that same processes can be repeated endlessly without any final achievement?

    Normalacy is a point of view, not a fact. It was normal back in the day to believe that stabbing a man and taking his heart out to sacrifice to the gods would bring about the sun the next day.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2009
  4. The Chaos Engine

    The Chaos Engine Grumpy Old Git

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Stewing in my own juices...
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    Possibly. As I said, I wasn't making a diagnosis, as I lack the data to come to a definitive conclusion. Your statement about disliking most of the species is suggestive, however. Therefore I suggested.:p
     
  5. Meteorain

    Meteorain Magical & Mystical

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    17,139
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +150 / 0 / -0
    Your suggestion assumed too much.

    Plus I don't dislike most of my specie as I've not met them all, I just dislike a lot of the one's I have met.
     
  6. The Chaos Engine

    The Chaos Engine Grumpy Old Git

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Stewing in my own juices...
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    Only amongst a certain culture prey to certain environmental and social factors. The practice wasn't universal, and therefore wasn't 'normal.'
     
  7. Meteorain

    Meteorain Magical & Mystical

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    17,139
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +150 / 0 / -0
    Cultures vary across different regions and each hold their own point of view as to what is normal and what is not, again based on opinion and point of view. There is no factual basis for what is normal.
     
  8. The Chaos Engine

    The Chaos Engine Grumpy Old Git

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Stewing in my own juices...
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    Which leads, rather inevitably, to the possibility that perhaps the problem lies with you and not with the people you've met.

    The concept of normality is based on consensus, that's rather obvious. Which means, as appeasing the Sun God through blood sacrifice was a South American tradition and wasn't a worldwide phenomena, it can't be considered normal human behaviour.
     
  9. Jorick

    Jorick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,407
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Oregon
    Ratings:
    +55 / 0 / -0
    Hmm, you're right. I misread the question. Consider me duly told off. :p
     
  10. Meteorain

    Meteorain Magical & Mystical

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    17,139
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +150 / 0 / -0
    Hmm, there have been a multitude of times when human sacrifice has appeared as a "normal" thing throughout the world whether it be for the Sun to come up or just to the Gods themselves.

    Again, just because the majority say something doesn't make it right. Plus I have never really tried to strive for normalacy. The want to be "normal" seems like an excuse of a weak-willed imo, I would rather strive to do what I would consider to be "great".

    I think the point that is being missed is that it is YOUR pet as stated in the first post and a random human. I'm not stating that all dogs are better than humans, just that in this case it is plausible to choose the dog even if some people cannot believe that you could love a dog to that extent others can.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
  11. Sevi

    Sevi Pocałunek!

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,525
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Girisha
    Ratings:
    +100 / 0 / -0
    I have my dog for ten years I love him and he is part of my family. Generally I'd go for his life rather than a stranger's that for all I know isnt worth saving anyway.

    But if the human was a kid or a teenager, a person younger than me then I would probably save him/her. I dont know many grown ups that are worth saving anyway in real life. People are capable of the most horrible things so I think I would sleep better without wondering what awful things the person I saved is doing lol...

    Besides as people mentioned above saving a grown up that is bigger than you can lead you both to death especially if the other person is panicked which is very likely to happen. So I wouldnt risk my life for a stranger anyway.
     
  12. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Hmm - I start to notice a pattern here.... TFFers tend to mitrust people :)

    There's always risk assesment. I am not going to jump into the water if that water is 0 degrees, no matter how many dogs and people are suspended in it. If the water says "certain death" there's nothing for it but to find a rope or something similar.

    It's a good point though, that people in water in need of resque are indeed in panic. Well, I have never come around to testing it, but I've always learned there's a trick to that.

    The trick is COLD HARD SLAP INNA FACE!!! (emphasis on hard)

    With a bit of luck, that will lead to confusion. That confusion should be used to take charge. If possible, talk to the person: "Listen, I am going to rescue you. Breath in, hold your breath and relax. Everything will be fine".

    You will note that breathing in makes any person float, which makes it very easy to drag him to the shore.

    You will note that this is much more difficult (and potentially much more dangerous) with a dog. Now, I don't have any experience with drowning dogs - but if it panics, it might resolve to biting and such...
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous the king

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Riga, latvia
    Ratings:
    +115 / 2 / -3
  14. Killbot608

    Killbot608 prototype killing machine

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,305
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    I'm Omnipresent
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0
    the dog. im small, i cant drag a grown man out of a lake.

    wait, no... i hate my dog. (well, it's my mums) human it is.
     
  15. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0
    I'd probably save the human in the end, don't know why though.
    I equate the right to live of both the dog and the human, neither is more 'deserving' to live.
     
  16. STRONTIUM DOG

    STRONTIUM DOG Don't mess with me

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    A frosty land bereft of magic (also known as Scotl
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    I'd like to believe whatever sociopathic traits I possess (if any) are buried deep in my psyche and unlikely to exhibit themselves in moments of emergency, so I would provisionally chose the person to save. I've never owned a pet, as animals mean very little to me, so the dog wouldn't even register as a priority.
     
  17. Nemain

    Nemain New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Sweden
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Most likely the dog, since I'm rather small. If I knew (and liked) the human I would maybe save him/her, but... I don't know. The closest?
     
  18. Ravenhart

    Ravenhart New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0
    I'd save the man, the dog can't pay me for saving it.
     
  19. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    First up, the human.

    Second, I would be very interested in seeing the level of personal interaction with other humans of those who say they would save the dog over the human. I work at a college which ironically has some of the stupidest people I have ever met, and yet as an instinctual and moral disposition I would save a human in trouble because a human has intrinsically more value than my dog. The human would have family effected, the dog effects no one but myself. Bringing up the "The man might be a serial killer" idea is a rhetorical dodge. Oddly enough I would bet that same person would be against the death penalty for a murderer, but would let a hypothetical innocent person drown to save his/her pet. Odd how a lack of empathy and total ambivalence works out.
     
  20. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    I think it's the first time I agree with Justice.Hooray!