Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Dog vs Baby Options · View
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:34:21 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
So I was substituting in an RE lesson today and they were studying Animals and Humans. The main topic was do we care too much for animals and a question came up "If there was a building burning and you heard a baby crying and a dog barking, you have time to save only one of them. Which one do you save? The dog or the baby?"

To me my answer was obvious, I would save the baby, no matter how much I love dogs. But two girls said that they would rather save the dog. This got me thinking about what others think about this topic. Dog or baby?
SigurdOokami
Posted: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:32:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/23/2011
Posts: 418
Location: At a computer, United Kingdom
A baby

If you remove morality from the equation the baby will live longer than the dog if saved and has a much higher chance of doing something worthwhile with its life with a chance of helping others.

This post comes to you from the original and highly disorganised mind of mine...be scared, I certainly am, lol
Dirty_D
Posted: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 4:10:57 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,120
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
this is a subject that is near & dear to me. Iot is the basic premise of the Animal Rights(AR) movement. I have lived all my life with animals putting there comforts before my own, but to me there is no question. the human would come first. the dog second, & I would put myself at risk to help the dog. However to the AR a dog= a flea= a human.

Tthe main AR lobbying groups, PETA & HSUS, put out ad after ad for donations they show starving abused animals. the dirty truths behind these groups are that PETA operates several Kill shelters, they would rather kill the pets they take in then see them placed in a loving home.(yes peta puts millions of dogs & cats to sleep every year) the Humane Society of the United States is worse. for the millions of dollars they take in annually, less then 3% is used to actually support the animals they use to fundraise. Both of these agencies would like to see ALL animals removed from human care, including well cared for pets.

Sadly, these groups are sponsoring classes, scholarships, and pushing their values on veterinary students. these vets are then the "experts" used by everything from the USda to congress. where does it end? already suffering because of their actions are the ag, exotic, dog, & horse breeders.

I am all for animal welfare, but animal rights push beyond that. we must take a stand now!

gudreader
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:38:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 8/12/2011
Posts: 84
Location: India
army_brat89 wrote:
So I was substituting in an RE lesson today and they were studying Animals and Humans. The main topic was do we care too much for animals and a question came up "If there was a building burning and you heard a baby crying and a dog barking, you have time to save only one of them. Which one do you save? The dog or the baby?"

To me my answer was obvious, I would save the baby, no matter how much I love dogs. But two girls said that they would rather save the dog. This got me thinking about what others think about this topic. Dog or baby?


I really Wonder if those 2 girls wud b hving same reply if the baby in question wud hv been theirs or their family.
If you dont care for human life(dat too a baby's), hw'd u care for the animals.
Buz
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:49:22 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,714
Location: Atlanta, United States
Of course the baby. People first and then save the animals if possible.

Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:40:37 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
I'm leaning toward the dog. And I'm not a dog person so much. They're less needy. Easy to potty train. Don't make much noise. Cheaper doctor bills. Could not care less what's in fashion and would never try to use my computer or car.
Catnip
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:24:48 AM

Rank: Internet Sensation

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 3,969
Location: Cloudy dreams., Sweden
I wouldn't risk my life for saving them at all.
If they were close to the opening, sure I'd give it a go. But risking my life to save another? Neh, I'd rather live.

A fire is very dangerous to anyone, the chances of a baby surviving without getting brain damaged after that I assume are rather slim.

lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:59:15 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
I think any person would choose to save the baby. Hopefully the 2 in that class said the dog just to open a debate.

Chef, well played my friend. lol





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Irishdrifter
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:14:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/18/2011
Posts: 597
You save the baby. The fact that the two girls or anyone for that matter thinks an animals life is more important than a human life is scary,and a sad testament to their moral compass. To say the very least.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:57:34 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
The baby over a random dog...

But, and perhaps this makes me a horrible human being, if this dog was my dog it'd be him hands down. Sorry kiddos.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:01:56 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
Where I came from they eat the dogs and throw away the girls. If you want to rescue a baby save the Porsche!
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:12:02 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,237
Location: West Coast
army_brat89 wrote:
Which one do you save? The dog or the baby?"


Whichever is nearest the exit. You aren't going to bypass one stranded living thing in favour of the other. Human nature will be to save whichever you come across first. The one whose eyes meet yours first, begging and pleading for help.

In this way, you can chalk it up to whatever is meant to be, will be. Fate is great consolation during the "would have, could have, should have" phase.

If it was my dog, however, as LB said, I would be moving through the flames until I found him.




Nikki703
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:22:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 12,625
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
SigurdOokami wrote:
A baby

If you remove morality from the equation the baby will live longer than the dog if saved and has a much higher chance of doing something worthwhile with its life with a chance of helping others.


The baby also has the higher chance of growing up and doing something that is harmful to others too. So this is not how I would decide

I imagine I would choose the baby but if it was my dog, I am not sure. Everyone instinctively will say the baby, but come crunch time you never really know do you.

But as DD said, I think I would grab the first one I came across. But I am not even sure of that. Would you by-pass a stranger if you knew your loved one (human) was still in the building? I know damn sure I would. If this makes me a bad person, so be it. I can live with that!!
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:55:27 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
Whoa! Looks like I'm not the only one with a bad moral compass. At least in this thread.6
gudreader
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:55:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 8/12/2011
Posts: 84
Location: India
chefkathleen wrote:
I'm leaning toward the dog. And I'm not a dog person so much. They're less needy. Easy to potty train. Don't make much noise. Cheaper doctor bills. Could not care less what's in fashion and would never try to use my computer or car.


Were u so Terrible as a baby........cudnt get potty trained easily, making noise all d time n of course caused costly doc bill (dis cud b d uniquemost excuse fr those who dont want to hv a baby fr demselves).

Bt still i hope n think u were being loved being in dat phase also.
sprite
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:30:52 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,423
Location: My Tower, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Whichever is nearest the exit. You aren't going to bypass one stranded living thing in favour of the other. Human nature will be to save whichever you come across first. The one whose eyes meet yours first, begging and pleading for help.

In this way, you can chalk it up to whatever is meant to be, will be. Fate is great consolation during the "would have, could have, should have" phase.

If it was my dog, however, as LB said, I would be moving through the flames until I found him.



quite honestly, Doll stole my thunder - this is my feeling as well. and yeah, if it was my cats, i'd be risking life and limb to save them, not that they'd appreciate it. :)

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:32:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
"I'm sorry ma'am and sir, I saw your infant gasping for air in the corner. But I had to get to my dog. Isn't my Bichon Frise so cute and fluffy?"

This question may be more legal than moral/ethical/philisophical. In many states (speaking U.S. here, don't know laws of other nations) a person is not obligated to stop and render aid. However, if you do stop you are required to give appropriate aid. If a person stopped, and chose to run into a burning building and left a human being in order to save a dog.. that person could very likely end up on the wrong side of the law. Not sure if it's considered malfeasance or nonfeasance? Could be arrested for manslaughter. Might not stick, but could happen. And even more likely to be sued in a civil suit. A quote I found... not verified as true.

The biggest thing to know here, though - and I can't stress this enough - is that if you do stop and do begin to render aid, you can't just stop. The theory here is Nonfeasance and Malfeasance. While you have no legal requirement to render aid to someone in distress, if you decide to attempt a rescue of a person, you are now on the hook to do everything reasonable to assist this person to the best of your ability. There are exceptions to this rule, but its dangerous to try and remember them. As a brightline rule, simply remember that if you decide to get involved, you're liable if you don't do everything a reasonable person would do to help the injured.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:11:26 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,237
Location: West Coast
lafayettemister wrote:
"I'm sorry ma'am and sir, I saw your infant gasping for air in the corner. But I had to get to my dog. Isn't my Bichon Frise so cute and fluffy?"

This question may be more legal than moral/ethical/philisophical. In many states (speaking U.S. here, don't know laws of other nations) a person is not obligated to stop and render aid. However, if you do stop you are required to give appropriate aid. If a person stopped, and chose to run into a burning building and left a human being in order to save a dog.. that person could very likely end up on the wrong side of the law. Not sure if it's considered malfeasance or nonfeasance? Could be arrested for manslaughter. Might not stick, but could happen. And even more likely to be sued in a civil suit. A quote I found... not verified as true.

The biggest thing to know here, though - and I can't stress this enough - is that if you do stop and do begin to render aid, you can't just stop. The theory here is Nonfeasance and Malfeasance. While you have no legal requirement to render aid to someone in distress, if you decide to attempt a rescue of a person, you are now on the hook to do everything reasonable to assist this person to the best of your ability. There are exceptions to this rule, but its dangerous to try and remember them. As a brightline rule, simply remember that if you decide to get involved, you're liable if you don't do everything a reasonable person would do to help the injured.



Luckily a dog's bark is so loud it can often drown out an infant's cry, so it would be easier to get to anyway. lol

In reality (and this is ingrained in most species ie. 'kinship'), we are inclined to help those that are part of our immediate family, so preference will always be given to those that we hold emotional or biological bonds to. If I choose not to have children, then I may see my dog as child-figure. Animal loss and grief can be just as intense as losing a human family member.

I wouldn't worry too much about legal issues. I would be very tunnel-visioned if I knew a loved one was in a burning building (whether they were human or of the fur-kind). I probably wouldn't even notice a random baby in the midst.

In the moment, nobody is analyzing who has the longer lifespan or who will contribute more to society... that's scientific analysis in a crisis situation. Most people will think with their heart.


Guest
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:25:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
gudreader wrote:


Were u so Terrible as a baby........cudnt get potty trained easily, making noise all d time n of course caused costly doc bill (dis cud b d uniquemost excuse fr those who dont want to hv a baby fr demselves).

Bt still i hope n think u were being loved being in dat phase also.


I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you wrote. Can you try again please?
Guest
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:30:01 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
lafayettemister wrote:
"I'm sorry ma'am and sir, I saw your infant gasping for air in the corner. But I had to get to my dog. Isn't my Bichon Frise so cute and fluffy?"

This question may be more legal than moral/ethical/philisophical. In many states (speaking U.S. here, don't know laws of other nations) a person is not obligated to stop and render aid. However, if you do stop you are required to give appropriate aid. If a person stopped, and chose to run into a burning building and left a human being in order to save a dog.. that person could very likely end up on the wrong side of the law. Not sure if it's considered malfeasance or nonfeasance? Could be arrested for manslaughter. Might not stick, but could happen. And even more likely to be sued in a civil suit. A quote I found... not verified as true.

The biggest thing to know here, though - and I can't stress this enough - is that if you do stop and do begin to render aid, you can't just stop. The theory here is Nonfeasance and Malfeasance. While you have no legal requirement to render aid to someone in distress, if you decide to attempt a rescue of a person, you are now on the hook to do everything reasonable to assist this person to the best of your ability. There are exceptions to this rule, but its dangerous to try and remember them. As a brightline rule, simply remember that if you decide to get involved, you're liable if you don't do everything a reasonable person would do to help the injured.



Yea you're talking about the Good Samaritan Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
I heard the dog, not the baby. angel7
Buz
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:30:35 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,714
Location: Atlanta, United States
chefkathleen wrote:


I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you wrote. Can you try again please?


CK if you find a Rosetta Stone for that please let me know.

sprite
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:35:01 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,423
Location: My Tower, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:



In the moment, nobody is analyzing who has the longer lifespan or who will contribute more to society... that's scientific analysis in a crisis situation. Most people will think with their heart.


you're wrong, Doll. Everytime i've been involved in an emergency situation, i have taken a few minutes to work out involved mathmatical probabilites, polled my neighbors, and looked up the laws regarding what is the legal course of action, and then, and only then, decided to rush into danger and do what my intellect tells me to do in regards to the situation.

honestly, i think that it all comes down to the heat of the moment and you make emotional decisions, not always rational ones - see dog, rescue it, hear YOUR kitty crying, rescue it, hear baby crying, rescue it - and really, i don't think any court will convict you if you simply say 'i found the dog, i got it out, i wasn't sure if i could safely rescue anyone else, there was fire, i was scared, i panicked.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Guest
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:40:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
Buz wrote:


CK if you find a Rosetta Stone for that please let me know.


I don't think it's been invented just yet.
ArtMan
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:34:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
If its a lap dog its on its on.

Of course the kid.

You could even be prosecuted for not going for the kid.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

Guest
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:43:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
I might go for the kid if I knew who it's parents were. You know it might be in there for a reason. Natural Selection and all that. So maybe I should leave it.
An Irish Wolfhound on the other hand always wins hands down.evil4
gudreader
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:06:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 8/12/2011
Posts: 84
Location: India
chefkathleen wrote:
I'm leaning toward the dog. And I'm not a dog person so much. They're less needy. Easy to potty train. Don't make much noise. Cheaper doctor bills. Could not care less what's in fashion and would never try to use my computer or car.



No Problem I'll make my views more clear to u. I respect ur choice bt the reasons fr ur preference of dog over the baby were ridiculous IN MY OPINION.
Wen U, I and lot Others were Babies n and did all those things mentioned by you like babies are more needy, do make more noise etc etc.........even den these silly reasons didnt lessen the value of our lives.
(Thank God Parents of most of Us didnt hv such thoughts wen we were babies. lol)
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:51:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
gudreader wrote:



No Problem I'll make my views more clear to u. I respect ur choice bt the reasons fr ur preference of dog over the baby were ridiculous IN MY OPINION.
Wen U, I and lot Others were Babies n and did all those things mentioned by you like babies are more needy, do make more noise etc etc.........even den these silly reasons didnt lessen the value of our lives.
(Thank God Parents of most of Us didnt hv such thoughts wen we were babies. lol)


I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure Chef's "reasons" were all said in sarcasm. Sarcasm, as in funny... humor.

Also, going to break my own rule here. U, ur, bt, fr, wen, n, den.... these are not words. It's clear you do have a vocabulary and know how to structure a sentence. Take the extra five seconds to type; you, your, but, for, when, then.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:58:31 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
ur way 2 n2 correcshun
gudreader
Posted: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:23:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 8/12/2011
Posts: 84
Location: India
lafayettemister wrote:


I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure Chef's "reasons" were all said in sarcasm. Sarcasm, as in funny... humor.

Also, going to break my own rule here. U, ur, bt, fr, wen, n, den.... these are not words. It's clear you do have a vocabulary and know how to structure a sentence. Take the extra five seconds to type; you, your, but, for, when, then.


I know WHAT is meant by Sarcasm.........BUT i think i can express my views even WHEN someone is being sarcastic, serious, funny etc etc.
I'd keep in mind the vocab rule "wen" i m gonna write a story (if ever) "bt" i think while expressing my views its OK.

P.S. there are lots of ppl on Lush who go for d above mentioned NOT WORDS..... get dem correct too, please.
littlemissbitch
Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:34:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/6/2011
Posts: 776
Location: the land of enchantment, United States
well having just lost my dog in a house fire and as sad as it was i left it up to my cat and my dog to get out on their own. i did however go back in for the savings bonds. (really i thought we were all out) why on earth my dog followed me back inside and stayed in my closet i will never know.

i can say that the moment i left my house for the last time if i had known Lolly stayed behind, there was nothing and i mean nothing anyone could have done. that house filled so fast with smoke that by the time i walked out i was having to feel my way it was so thick..

im sad Lolly is gone but unless a dog is injured or stuck they are capable of getting out and a baby has no chance at all. so i would go for the baby....or the savings bonds, whichever is closer ;)

littlemissbitch ~ professional face ripper offer, at your service..
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.