Tricky Scenario At The Park

[Cordelia]

Looks like the OP has left this burning building. Cant say I blame her. Calling strangers on the net psychopaths, idiots, criminals and subhuman because they responded to a hypothetical? Seriously? I doubt very much anyone knows what on earth they'd do in that scenario but it has little to do with the OP anyway.

Perhaps if certain people didn't respond in a manner that made them come across as a psychopath, then others wouldn't have said it. Hypothetical or not.. it isn't a normal person who clearly and coldly states that they would leave a child to die in a fire over a dog.

[rusty&biscuit]

Please, this is an internet forum, half of you don't even know each other. Let people have their own opinions and don't scrutinize them for it. After all, there is no burning building and no one knows what will really happen when put into the particular situation ;)

Sorry, it's rather off topic...couldn't help myself :)

[Guest Willow]

.

Snook you have explained my feelings on this subject 100% in a much calmer and succinct way then I am able.

I will say that some of you need to get off your bloody high horse's and understand that not everyone see's things the way you do and that does not make us psycho's or bad people, it just makes us different. And at least we have been able to stay in this conversation without slinging insults at those who disagree with us.

choosing a dog over a human in a burning building is certainly "different", I'll give that. I hope to god there's no "different" people around if one of my kids ever needs help.

Please, this is an internet forum, half of you don't even know each other. Let people have their own opinions and don't scrutinize them for it. After all, there is no burning building and no one knows what will really happen when put into the particular situation ;)

Sorry, it's rather off topic...couldn't help myself :)

So what you're saying is people can say they would choose their dogs life over a child and we're supposed to sit back and applaud them having their own opinion, whilst people who wish to state how friggin wrong that is are not allowed to have their own opinion???

[Guest Tess32]

A very personal matter? wow... it really isn't...!

Actually, it is. Why is it that people who vehemently hold one perspective believe anyone who has a different perspective is nuts?

Because the person who posted it was not talking about what they'd do in a panic, or through fear and adrenaline. The reality of what they'd do may not match what they think they'd do, but at the end of the day a few posters here posted they'd be 100% certain they'd deliberately CHOOSE to save their dog and leave someone to die.

That is not about a belief system or a matter of opinion, it's openly stating they value their dog's life over another human simply because they don't know that human. That is lacking in basic empathy and yep, I think anyone who TRULY feels that way and isn't just saying it get a rise, needs some psychological help.

Really, I'd hate for the general public to read this thread....it just confirms their belief that those 'crazy' dog people arguing about BSL and such have no grip on reality and are putting dogs ahead of people.

[mr.mister]

A question for those who think it is reasonable to save your dog before a human, would you happily wait your turn to be rescued from a burning building while people who could easily help you, choose to leave you behind to get their own dogs out first???

Sorry, I really think this is a bit of a silly question.. of course not, the instinct to survive overrules all else.

My point was that just because someone may, in a moment of sheer panic, fear, and pressure, (in which we'll have no idea how we'll act in the first place) think of their beloved pet first over a stranger, does not necessarily make them a psychopath nor relinquish their right to have children.

You're not the only one the question was aimed at, you know :)

Okay - I'm still allowed to answer it, yes? :D

In the end, people say stuff on the internet. I, personally, would be much more concerned if someone talked about planning to go and axe murder a bunch of people, as opposed to hypothesising (yes, they were hypothesising - no matter how certain they may feel about something, no one knows what they're really going to do) what they would do in a horrifying situation.

Looks like the OP has left this burning building. Cant say I blame her. Calling strangers on the net psychopaths, idiots, criminals and subhuman because they responded to a hypothetical? Seriously? I doubt very much anyone knows what on earth they'd do in that scenario but it has little to do with the OP anyway.

I think Raz has summed this up nicely.

Edited February 26, 2012 by mr.mister

[koalathebear]

Regarding the original post (not going to enter the burning building debate), given that when it's a dog vs human scenario - the dog is pretty much always going to lose out no matter how blameless it is.

While I agree that it's "my dog my rules", the fact is that we do take a risk every time we go out with our dogs that someone badly behaved might push our dogs to behave in a way that causes it to react badly - they are dogs, after all. I'm lucky that so far my dogs seem to be very bomb proof and happy to ensure exuberant patting, ear pulling and poking - but I know that they are still dogs and that at the end of the day, the creature that suffers won't be the human or me - it will be my dog.

We usually try to request that the stranger (adult or child) waits for us to settle and sit our dogs before they get pats. 95% of people comply. There are the 5% who are already in for the pat, seemingly materialising out of nowhere before we can say anything, but there's really nothing we can do about those except to not take our dogs out in public - which is just not an option. There are heaps of parents who seem completely unconcerned when their children approach and pat strange dogs without permission. There's even a guy at work who admits that his kids have been bitten 'heaps' of times because they've patted strange dogs but they still do it because they love dogs so much :p

A little while back, we were at the dog park with some other dogs and I was quite shocked to see a father leave his little kid alone in our yard while he took a call in the other yard. Among us, we had an akita, a large black dog, an Australian Shepherd, two Kelpies and two border collies in the yard and while they are all very friendly and well-behaved dogs - the father certainly didn't know that when he left his kid alone. I think all of us as dog owners were quite careful about keeping an eye on the kid to make sure he didn't do anything stupid because even though he wasn't our responsibility, as I said above - it's always going to be the poor dog that loses out in the end during an incident.

I guess I just do my best to to minimise risk in the circumstances given that the "the child was badly behaved/it was the child's fault" defence is almost never, ever going to work even if one does have the comfort of having the moral high ground i.e. as dog owners, the well-being of our dogs ultimately rests with us.

Edited February 26, 2012 by koalathebear

[StaceyB]

A very personal matter? wow... it really isn't...!

Actually, it is. Why is it that people who vehemently hold one perspective believe anyone who has a different perspective is nuts?

Because the person who posted it was not talking about what they'd do in a panic, or through fear and adrenaline. The reality of what they'd do may not match what they think they'd do, but at the end of the day a few posters here posted they'd be 100% certain they'd deliberately CHOOSE to save their dog and leave someone to die.

That is not about a belief system or a matter of opinion, it's openly stating they value their dog's life over another human simply because they don't know that human. That is lacking in basic empathy and yep, I think anyone who TRULY feels that way and isn't just saying it get a rise, needs some psychological help.

Really, I'd hate for the general public to read this thread....it just confirms their belief that those 'crazy' dog people arguing about BSL and such have no grip on reality and are putting dogs ahead of people.

And I wonder if those same people would happily cop the Negligent Manslaughter charges and the prison time associated just so they know that their pet (who would be dead by the time they got out of prison) was saved from a burning building.

I actually feel a bit sad for people who would value their pets over people to that extent, I think they are very likely to end up sad and alone with no-one to care for them but a dog. I love my dog, but I certainly do not value her life above the lives of my children, partner, friends or family - or even random children (rude or otherwise) for that matter. (and lets see how long it takes for that comment to be taken out of context!)

[StaceyB]

As far as the original post, the kid was a little sh!t. Doesn't mean he was autistic or had any other disability, he was just a naughtly little boy who obviously hadn't been taught manners. I would never allow my children to do that, its rude and dangerous and personally I dont want a trip to the park to end up in a trip to the ER. However, sometimes sh!t happens. Kids do stupid things because they get over excited and they can be incredibly sneaky and be off before you've even realised.

[mr.mister]

I find it fascinating that people seem to so happily judge someone over a hypothetical scenario that they are either crazed psychopaths who should never have children, or socially inept loners who will only ever have their dog for companionship.

:laugh:

[Whipitgood]

So, hypothetically, if my dog bit my child unprovoked, I would euthanase it. I'm sure that even though that is a hypothetical scenario, I too would be judged severely, because although hypothetical, it is what I would do! Im guessing the people who would save a dogs life over a childs, would be the people who would be outraged that I would euthanse my dog instead of putting my child up for adoption! ;) :laugh:

I find it fascinating that people seem to so happily judge someone over a hypothetical scenario that they are either crazed psychopaths who should never have children, or socially inept loners who will only ever have their dog for companionship.

:laugh:

[Guest Tess32]

What's so fascinating about judging people on what they say? That's pretty much how the world works...people form opinions about you based on how you behave and what you say.

[StaceyB]

I find it fascinating that people seem to so happily judge someone over a hypothetical scenario that they are either crazed psychopaths who should never have children, or socially inept loners who will only ever have their dog for companionship.

:laugh:

Public forum + outlandish statement = public judgement and scrutiny. How is that fascinating or even particularly surprising?

Edited February 26, 2012 by StaceyB

[Guest Willow]

If people don't wish to be judged on what they say, they shouldn't post on a public forum. Simple. :)

Edited February 26, 2012 by Willow

[Guest Willow]

A question for those who think it is reasonable to save your dog before a human, would you happily wait your turn to be rescued from a burning building while people who could easily help you, choose to leave you behind to get their own dogs out first???

I see no one actually wants to answer this one with a simple yes or no..... :laugh:

ETA, my apologies, there was one answer.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Willow

[mr.mister]

I find it fascinating that people seem to so happily judge someone over a hypothetical scenario that they are either crazed psychopaths who should never have children, or socially inept loners who will only ever have their dog for companionship.

:laugh:

Public forum + outlandish statement = public judgement and scrutiny. How is that fascinating or even particularly surprising?

In my humble opinion, I really don't think anyone can accurately judge someone as a psychopath over the internet. People seem to love throwing these kinds of labels around on the internet, but really of all places to judge, the net is the absolute worst.

I'm not saying no one can have an opinion on it. I just don't think that 'psychopath' and 'I hope you never have children' are really the kind of things to spout out to someone you've never even met.

[StaceyB]

A very personal matter? wow... it really isn't...!

Actually, it is. Why is it that people who vehemently hold one perspective believe anyone who has a different perspective is nuts?

Because the person who posted it was not talking about what they'd do in a panic, or through fear and adrenaline. The reality of what they'd do may not match what they think they'd do, but at the end of the day a few posters here posted they'd be 100% certain they'd deliberately CHOOSE to save their dog and leave someone to die.

That is not about a belief system or a matter of opinion, it's openly stating they value their dog's life over another human simply because they don't know that human. That is lacking in basic empathy and yep, I think anyone who TRULY feels that way and isn't just saying it get a rise, needs some psychological help.

Really, I'd hate for the general public to read this thread....it just confirms their belief that those 'crazy' dog people arguing about BSL and such have no grip on reality and are putting dogs ahead of people.

And I wonder if those same people would happily cop the Negligent Manslaughter charges and the prison time associated just so they know that their pet (who would be dead by the time they got out of prison) was saved from a burning building.

I actually feel a bit sad for people who would value their pets over people to that extent, I think they are very likely to end up sad and alone with no-one to care for them but a dog. I love my dog, but I certainly do not value her life above the lives of my children, partner, friends or family - or even random children (rude or otherwise) for that matter. (and lets see how long it takes for that comment to be taken out of context!)

There is no legal requirement to risk your life by rushing in to a burning building to save anyone so suggestions of criminal prosecution are ridiculous.

Thanks ever so much for your pity and prediction of a sad, lonely life. My friends and family would no doubt disagree with you.

If you are in a burning building and make a concious choice to save a dog over a child, then yes, you do have a duty of care and legal responsibility for allowing that person to die because of a choice you made.

And do you value your firends and family over the life of your dog? See the part about context that I wrote in my post?? This is what I was talking about when I wondered how long it would take to be taken out of context.

I find it fascinating that people seem to so happily judge someone over a hypothetical scenario that they are either crazed psychopaths who should never have children, or socially inept loners who will only ever have their dog for companionship.

:laugh:

Public forum + outlandish statement = public judgement and scrutiny. How is that fascinating or even particularly surprising?

In my humble opinion, I really don't think anyone can accurately judge someone as a psychopath over the internet. People seem to love throwing these kinds of labels around on the internet, but really of all places to judge, the net is the absolute worst.

I'm not saying no one can have an opinion on it. I just don't think that 'psychopath' and 'I hope you never have children' are really the kind of things to spout out to someone you've never even met.

But its ok to label a child as mentally disabled based on one incident?

And for the record, I personally never labelled anyone as a psychopath or said they should never have children (although I think that is a moot point given the opinions of some in this thread). I said that the course of action based on concious choice was criminally negligent. As the law states that if someone dies as a direct result of a choice you made then you are held accountable (i.e. mansluaghter, negligence causing bodily harm, negligence causing death etc) then that choice is actually a criminal act that carries a significant peanalty.

Edited February 26, 2012 by StaceyB

[aussielover]

If you are in a burning building and make a concious choice to save a dog over a child, then yes, you do have a duty of care and legal responsibility for allowing that person to die because of a choice you made.

Really?

could you please cite the relevant sections of legislation?

You have legal no duty of care if someone has a heart attack in the street, even if you are in the medical profession, and it could be said that you are making a concious choice to allow them to potentially die.

Obviously if you are a firefighter or something and you choose to not help them or rescue an animal first, then you could be held legally responsible.

I really don't see how, as an average person, you could possibly be held responsible for another persons accidental death even if you decided to get your own family (including pets) out of harms way first.

Edited February 26, 2012 by aussielover

[raz]

A question for those who think it is reasonable to save your dog before a human, would you happily wait your turn to be rescued from a burning building while people who could easily help you, choose to leave you behind to get their own dogs out first???

I see no one actually wants to answer this one with a simple yes or no..... :laugh:

ETA, my apologies, there was one answer.

This thread is so off the rails it's not funny. My brother's best friend was burnt to death in a plane crash. I very much doubt he HAPPILY sat there waiting to be rescued while a fire ball raced towards him. People didnt answer your question because it was ridiculous and totally irrelevant to the OP. If people in this thread said they'd save their dog over a kid - big whoopy do. People can say whatever they like in response to a hypothetical. What they would actually do in the situation is another matter but branding them as psychopaths by unqualified professionals and over the net is ludicrous, not to mention against forum rules. Take the hypothetical to OT. This is just embarrassing.

[Guest Willow]

A question for those who think it is reasonable to save your dog before a human, would you happily wait your turn to be rescued from a burning building while people who could easily help you, choose to leave you behind to get their own dogs out first???

I see no one actually wants to answer this one with a simple yes or no..... :laugh:

ETA, my apologies, there was one answer.

This thread is so off the rails it's not funny. My brother's best friend was burnt to death in a plane crash. I very much doubt he HAPPILY sat there waiting to be rescued while a fire ball raced towards him. People didnt answer your question because it was ridiculous and totally irrelevant to the OP. If people in this thread said they'd save their dog over a kid - big whoopy do. People can say whatever they like in response to a hypothetical. What they would actually do in the situation is another matter but branding them as psychopaths by unqualified professionals and over the net is ludicrous, not to mention against forum rules. Take the hypothetical to OT. This is just embarrassing.

I wasn't the one who started the hypothetical, Raz. It's not a ridiculous question, when in the context of what was brought up by OG. saving a dog over a kis *IS* "big whoopy do", and in response to the bolded part, if others can say what they like, then so can I. I haven't branded anyone a psychopath, so go direct that comment somewhere else.

I'm very sorry to hear about your brother, that's a terrible tragedy.

[raz]

I wasn't the one who started the hypothetical, Raz. It's not a ridiculous question, when in the context of what was brought up by OG. saving a dog over a kis *IS* "big whoopy do", and in response to the bolded part, if others can say what they like, then so can I. I haven't branded anyone a psychopath, so go direct that comment somewhere else.

I'm very sorry to hear about your brother, that's a terrible tragedy.

I know you werent, Willow. I arced up about the 'happily' comment (sorry for being so harsh in my response to you). And thanks - it was a really terrible situation.

What would I do in the burning scenario? Well I would love to think I was a kick ass super hero who saved all the children, animals, old people, disabled etc but truth be known, I'd probably be so shell shocked that all I could do would be to scream hysterically at some poor operator on 000 that a building was on fire.

Edited February 26, 2012 by raz