• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why you shouldn't race into a burning house to save a pet.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: MacBaine
If you consider a pet as valuable as a human family member in this situation, than you must consider a stranger equally as important as the stranger's pet. Which one would you save? Why wouldn't the chicken be considered a pet? Because you eat them?
BS. A pet is with you all the time and becomes part of the family. A stranger is, well, a stranger.

 
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
What!? You'd risk you're life for a dog, but not a fish? Why? I though all pets where as good as people?

Because i don't bond with a fish... is that really that difficult to comprehend?
rolleye.gif
If you can't understand the process of love and affection, then perhaps you're the one with serious issues and should seek help.

And the only reason wh you keep using ridiculous and exaggerated situations is because you know you can't argue based upon the argument... typical Straw Man fallacy.

So you consider a dog more valuable than a fish, but you don't consider a human more valuable than a dog?
 
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
What!? You'd risk you're life for a dog, but not a fish? Why? I though all pets where as good as people?
Because i don't bond with a fish... is that really that difficult to comprehend?
rolleye.gif
If you can't understand the process of love and affection, then perhaps you're the one with serious issues and should seek help. And the only reason wh you keep using ridiculous and exaggerated situations is because you know you can't argue based upon the argument... typical Straw Man fallacy.

I'm sorry but you don't have ANY better argument than I do, I simply state pets are not as valuable as people, you simply say they are. I'm going to say this last thing and then go to bed. If this doesn't get the point across then you obviously just don't value human life as much as I do.

Again another stupid who would you chose question, but this is exactly what we are discussing here. Would you choose to save your pets or a complete stranger? I say any Human is more important than any pet. Before you come back and say who would YOU choose your family or a complete stranger, I'd save my family. I don't want to get in the argument of weather people are more important than other people, but I do claim any human is more important than any pet.
 
Why couldn't a chicken be considered a family pet? I'm not the one who steered the discussion... I was asked if I wouldn't save a complete stranger if I had a good chance of dying, because they didn't immediately affect me. I said no.

And that was perfectly acceptable question... some of us consider our pets lives are as worthwhile as anybody elses.

If you consider a pet as valuable as a human family member in this situation, than you must consider a stranger equally as important as the stranger's pet. Which one would you save? Why wouldn't the chicken be considered a pet? Because you eat them?

Yes, i would consider a stranger's pet just as important as the stranger, because i know how important they could be. And no, i don't consider a chicken not a pet because i eat them, but because i haven't bonded with them. Is that so hard to understand?
 
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
What!? You'd risk you're life for a dog, but not a fish? Why? I though all pets where as good as people?

Because i don't bond with a fish... is that really that difficult to comprehend?
rolleye.gif
If you can't understand the process of love and affection, then perhaps you're the one with serious issues and should seek help.

And the only reason wh you keep using ridiculous and exaggerated situations is because you know you can't argue based upon the argument... typical Straw Man fallacy.

So you consider a dog more valuable than a fish, but you don't consider a human more valuable than a dog?

Wow, do you guys really can't comprehend that the reason why we're close to a pet is because we bond with it, not just because they're an animal?
 
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Excuse me? I do care about the lives of animals, jackass. However, I do care about the lives of my human family members more.

I do too. But as I said, I would go back to save my dogs after saving my human family members. You would not, so clearly you do not value their lives much.
 
Originally posted by: minendo
Originally posted by: MacBaine
If you consider a pet as valuable as a human family member in this situation, than you must consider a stranger equally as important as the stranger's pet. Which one would you save? Why wouldn't the chicken be considered a pet? Because you eat them?
BS. A pet is with you all the time and becomes part of the family. A stranger is, well, a stranger.

Which is exactly what I am saying. I am not going to risk my life for a stranger if I had a good chance of being killed myself. But like I keep saying, the circumstances will dictate.
 
I'm sorry but you don't have ANY better argument than I do, I simply state pets are not as valuable as people, you simply say they are.

Sure i have... i've answered every question of yours logically and within the question asked. All you've done is asked more exaggerated questions based upon your last questions.


I'm going to say this last thing and then go to bed. If this doesn't get the point across then you obviously just don't value human life as much as I do.

Or maybe i value a pet's life just as much as i value a human life?

Again another stupid who would you chose question, but this is exactly what we are discussing here. Would you choose to save your pets or a complete stranger? I say any Human is more important than any pet. Before you come back and say who would YOU choose your family or a complete stranger, I'd save my family. I don't want to get in the argument of weather people are more important than other people, but I do claim any human is more important than any pet.

Well then that's your claim. Good for you. To me, my pets are family, and my life is better because of that relationship.
 
Personally, I would risk my life to save anything. A person or a pet. If you have the chance to do something extraordinary like stop another life from ending, I see no reason not to seize it to the fullest you can.
 
Originally posted by: EDiT
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Excuse me? I do care about the lives of animals, jackass. However, I do care about the lives of my human family members more.

I do too. But as I said, I would go back to save my dogs after saving my human family members. You would not, so clearly you do not value their lives much.

No, I don't, but to say that I don't value them at all is completely ignorant. I simply value human life (and my own life) more than animal life in a situation like this.

 
Originally posted by: EDiT
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Excuse me? I do care about the lives of animals, jackass. However, I do care about the lives of my human family members more.

I do too. But as I said, I would go back to save my dogs after saving my human family members. You would not, so clearly you do not value their lives much.

knowing what I know about fires, i agree with Macbaine. You go ahead and save your dog, and some of the time you will be right. But its always the "hero" that gets that nice Flashover when he runs into the room, burning and killing both himself and the dog.

There is a fine line between stupidity and bravery.
 
Originally posted by: Torghn

Again another stupid who would you chose question, but this is exactly what we are discussing here. Would you choose to save your pets or a complete stranger? I say any Human is more important than any pet. Before you come back and say who would YOU choose your family or a complete stranger, I'd save my family. I don't want to get in the argument of weather people are more important than other people, but I do claim any human is more important than any pet.

It all depends. I usually give strangers the benefit of the doubt. But if it was someone that I knew about and didn't at all care for, I'd save my pets first, then their pets, then any insects that may be in the room. And if I'm feeling generous, I'll save them.
 
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: Torghn

Again another stupid who would you chose question, but this is exactly what we are discussing here. Would you choose to save your pets or a complete stranger? I say any Human is more important than any pet. Before you come back and say who would YOU choose your family or a complete stranger, I'd save my family. I don't want to get in the argument of weather people are more important than other people, but I do claim any human is more important than any pet.

It all depends. I usually give strangers the benefit of the doubt. But if it was someone that I knew about and didn't at all care for, I'd save my pets first, then their pets, then any insects that may be in the room. And if I'm feeling generous, I'll save them.

Is all this before of after the fire kills you? Or are you invincible?
 
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: Torghn

Again another stupid who would you chose question, but this is exactly what we are discussing here. Would you choose to save your pets or a complete stranger? I say any Human is more important than any pet. Before you come back and say who would YOU choose your family or a complete stranger, I'd save my family. I don't want to get in the argument of weather people are more important than other people, but I do claim any human is more important than any pet.

It all depends. I usually give strangers the benefit of the doubt. But if it was someone that I knew about and didn't at all care for, I'd save my pets first, then their pets, then any insects that may be in the room. And if I'm feeling generous, I'll save them.

Is all this before of after the fire kills you? Or are you invincible?

He is superman!
 
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: Torghn

Again another stupid who would you chose question, but this is exactly what we are discussing here. Would you choose to save your pets or a complete stranger? I say any Human is more important than any pet. Before you come back and say who would YOU choose your family or a complete stranger, I'd save my family. I don't want to get in the argument of weather people are more important than other people, but I do claim any human is more important than any pet.

It all depends. I usually give strangers the benefit of the doubt. But if it was someone that I knew about and didn't at all care for, I'd save my pets first, then their pets, then any insects that may be in the room. And if I'm feeling generous, I'll save them.

Is all this before of after the fire kills you? Or are you invincible?

He is superman!

I think Aquaman would be better equipped
 
Logic isn't the answer to all problems. We're not the Vulcans here (I can't believe I just made a Star Trek reference). Sometimes you just have to say, I don't care about the chances or risks, it's something I have to do. I don't know about you, but I couldn't stand there outside my house, in a place of safety and watch my pets die any more than I could leave a friend in there. As anyone who has had a pet knows, they are worth just as much love (if not more) than most people.

You think it would be hard telling a wife and kids that their daddy died trying to save the life of a pet they had loved for many years, try being the Dad and explaining to them that your life is more important than a member of the family (don't give me "it's just a dog" BS, any people who have owned pets know what I'm talking about).

Every year you hear about some kid who was stranded in the mountains or drowning in a river or something. Many people always try and save them, and more often than not, a few of them die. But the next time it happens just as many people will try and help. That's what makes human beings great. The fact that we feel compelled to help people we don't even know, even if it means risking our own lives. There are some things more important than being safe, and if you have kids, I hope that you don't feel the need to teach them otherwise.
 
And why are we supposed to trust his memory of "almost 30 minutes" when he also told us he used a barbell to open the door? (See Video)

I just saw the video... and that sure looked like it could be a barbell... i can't see it clearly from the distant, but that's pretty much how my barbell looks like. Why would a fireman's hook be chance by laying on his balcony?
 
Originally posted by: MacBaine


Is all this before of after the fire kills you? Or are you invincible?


Not invincible, just not a coward like you. Unlike you I'm willing to risk my life to save somebody. I know and accept the consequences.

I gotta give you credit though, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I lived like a coward with that defeatist attitude. I don't know how you do it.
 
Originally posted by: FallenHero


He is superman!

No, I'm just someone who isn't 100% self centered. I'm willing to accept personal risks for the benefit of others. This contrasts with those who won't do anything if it doesn't benefit them.


PS- that's a pretty bold comment by someone who has the word "Hero" in his name.... Coward in real life? Be a hero on the Internet!
 
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: FallenHero


He is superman!

No, I'm just someone who isn't 100% self centered. I'm willing to accept personal risks for the benefit of others. This contrasts with those who won't do anything if it doesn't benefit them.

You seem to think you know an awful lot about me. So because I am not willing to risk my life for a complete stranger when I have a good chance of being killed, I am a coward?

I'm being realistic. You seem to think that in order to not be a coward, one must take all risks presented to him, no matter what the chances are for personal harm.

If I feel that I can help somebody without being killed or seriously injured, I will do so. The situation will dictate. You'd like to believe that I will not do anything for other people unless it benefits me.

I value my life more than I value the life of a stranger. I value my life more than I value the life of a pet. My family values my life more than the life of a stranger. My family values my life more than the value of our pet.

Who are you to call me a coward for wanting to live? Does that make my family cowards too for wanting me to live? You can go ahead and run into a burning gas station to save the attendant, I'll stay behind to comfort your family at the funeral.

 
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: FallenHero


He is superman!

No, I'm just someone who isn't 100% self centered. I'm willing to accept personal risks for the benefit of others. This contrasts with those who won't do anything if it doesn't benefit them.


PS- that's a pretty bold comment by someone who has the word "Hero" in his name.... Coward in real life? Be a hero on the Internet!

From what I've gathered, he is/was a firefighter, and has probably saved more lives that you ever will. Maybe you should stop calling people cowards until you actually pull somebody from a burning building, or take a bullet for a complete stranger.

 
Originally posted by: MacBaine

I value my life more than I value the life of a stranger. I value my life more than I value the life of a pet. My family values my life more than the life of a stranger. My family values my life more than the value of our pet.

Who are you to call me a coward for wanting to live? Does that make my family cowards too for wanting me to live? You can go ahead and run into a burning gas station to save the attendant, I'll stay behind to comfort your family at the funeral.

That pretty much sums up what I think about you. You defined yourself with your own words. And that is definitely a cowardly way to act.

 
Guy #1: Hey I'm right!
Guy #2: No you're wrong! My logic is correct therefore making yours wrong!
Guy #1: Screw you! Your logic doesn't make any sense
Guy #2: Whatever, you know my logic is right, let me bull $hit for a while so you'll believe me
Guy #1: I can bull sh!t too pal, here's my logic:
etc........

Who cares?
 
Originally posted by: MacBaine
From what I've gathered, he is/was a firefighter, and has probably saved more lives that you ever will. Maybe you should stop calling people cowards until you actually pull somebody from a burning building, or take a bullet for a complete stranger.

The people who beat Rodney King were Police, too.

Their title doesn't say as much about them as their actions do.

 
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: MacBaine

I value my life more than I value the life of a stranger. I value my life more than I value the life of a pet. My family values my life more than the life of a stranger. My family values my life more than the value of our pet.

Who are you to call me a coward for wanting to live? Does that make my family cowards too for wanting me to live? You can go ahead and run into a burning gas station to save the attendant, I'll stay behind to comfort your family at the funeral.

That pretty much sums up what I think about you. You defined yourself with your own words. And that is definitely a cowardly way to act.

Call me what you want, I can help a lot more people alive than you can dead.
 
Back
Top