"I would (and have) put my life at risk to save my dog's life. I would not do so for a homeless man being attacked"

That's, frankly, a little disturbing. Especially since risk is a continuum, not binary. So you wouldn't try to chase off a couple of adolescent hoogigans torching a homeless man? That's pathetic. (One of the few times that I'll "call it like I see it" in a definitive manner.) What about a child being torched? I'd probably die to protect a child- even one I don't know.

Im truly curious about the situation in which you risked your life for your dog, and why it would make a difference if the dog were replaced by a homeless guy. (I could, for instance, imagine scenarios wherein the homeless guy got his own butt in a sling, and I would thus greatly lower the risk I was willing to take to help him.)

Anyway, I'll back Craig up when he asserts that such a position likely places you among fanatics, Lynn. And I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in a lifeboat with you and your dog...

Personally, though I love my dog I'd save an unknown human stranger over my dog if I had to make the choice. No contest.

Now, if I had to choose between a known human like say Jeffrey Dahlmer or my dog, well, Jeff had better have his life insurance paid up.

Or, I suppose, to make a point- you now rank below my hamster on my "who would you save from a burning building" list, Lynn. Wouldn't that infuriate you? Knowing that you died to save a hamster, no matter how much I loved it? Wouldn't that offend every humanist sensibility you might have? (If anyone ever chooses a hamster's life over mine I'm going to haunt them mercilessly.)

But that's not what you said- you weren't even talking about a choice. You just said that you wouldn't help the homeless guy. I hope I'm misunderstanding that one...

As I mentioned, there are levels of risk. I certainly don't think anyone should feel obligated to commit near-certain suicide for a stranger, for instance if our band of notional hooligans were brandishing firearms, but short of such extreme examples? There's got to be a line, somewhere. There have been several dramatic cases sensationalized in the media of bystanders standing idly by and watching people be murdered or raped. That speaks incredibly poorly of such bystanders as human beings, IMHO. (And doesn't seem terribly Buddist...) I hope you are never one of them, Lynn.

Maybe my worldview is just being skewed by my career choices, but I don't think so.

EDIT---

Wow. Of all BPL folk, who am I now in an argument with? Lynn Tramper ?!?!?

P.S.- did you see the overpopulation article in Mother Jones recently, Lynn?

Edited by acrosome on 06/24/2010 11:29:08 MDT.

What is risk? 1%, 50%, 99% ?

Life is a risk. No guarantee that any of us will be here tomorrow.

I would not risk my life for anyone or anything if the probability of death was high (whatever that is). The exception would be my wife and kids. That is because living without them, could I have saved them, would no longer be of value to me. If one of my kids was a worthless bum, then no I would not die for them. If my wife were worthless, we would no longer be married. I am lucky because I have a wonderful family and would do anything for them.

Will I put myself at some of level of risk to save someone from some level of physical injury, sure. Would I risk my life for a stranger or animal if the probability of death were high? No.

Police, Fire Fighters, and other professionals put themselves at risk. But the chances of death are not high. However being in the wrong place at the wrong time can be deadly. So can being in the wrong Post Office or McDonalds at the wrong time.

“Hold on! Wasn't that what King James' GOD was advocating? Dominion over animals?”

Dominion? Yes, because might is right??. For medical research? if truly necessary and done humanely. To eat? If there is nothing else (this is the situation in, eg, Tibetan Buddhism). Medical research and food are using the animal for potentially a higher good. Sacrifice or torturing (why all the sacrifice in the bible???), no way.

“So will you accept medical treatment that was developed through the intentional death and suffering of said sentient animals against their will? If so, that sounds a little like exercising dominion to me.”

I do not support the use of animals in research. And no, I am not PITA. I work in medical research and have seen first hand the wasteful suffering that some researchers justify. Very little of it is either necessary or produces useful results.

“Call me crazy, but the thought that there are people in this world that would save a pet before saving another human is absolutely dreary and without hope, given that the human in question could be you or I.”

OK, Maybe you are crazy ;)

“That's, frankly, a little disturbing. Especially since risk is a continuum, not binary. So you wouldn't try to chase off a couple of adolescent hoogigans torching a homeless man? That's pathetic. (One of the few times that I'll "call it like I see it" in a definitive manner.) What about a child being torched? I'd probably die to protect a child- even one I don't know.”

Again, I would assess the risk on an individual basis. If it was twelve year old hooligans armed with nothing more than some petrol and a lighter, I would certainly chase them off. If it was a couple of 18 year old testosterone poisoned and drunk males with baseball bats and knives, I wouldn’t go near them to save someone I don’t know.

“Im truly curious about the situation in which you risked your life for your dog, and why it would make a difference if the dog were replaced by a homeless guy. (I could, for instance, imagine scenarios wherein the homeless guy got his own butt in a sling, and I would thus greatly lower the risk I was willing to take to help him.)”

My dog was attacked by a pitbull. The pitbull had my dog in his jaws by her belly and was shaking her. I chased, tackled and pinned the pitbull in a judo leg hold, with my left hand on his scruff and my right hand over his muzzle. His jaws were right by my neck, and I would not have done this for any dog OR person, homeless or not if they were not priceless to me.

“But that's not what you said- you weren't even talking about a choice. You just said that you wouldn't help the homeless guy. I hope I'm misunderstanding that one...”

I said would put a close companion (furry or otherwise) above someone (or some animal) who is not related to me. Whether I help them or not depends on my on-the-spot assessment of the danger to myself.

“There have been several dramatic cases sensationalized in the media of bystanders standing idly by and watching people be murdered or raped. That speaks incredibly poorly of such bystanders as human beings, IMHO. (And doesn't seem terribly Buddist...) I hope you are never one of them, Lynn.”

I am a struggling Buddhist. If I weren’t, I wouldn’t be here (I would be somewhere in Nirvana). As a Buddhist I should really be aiming to gain relief from my attachment to my loved ones, so that I treat then the same as anyone else. I have a lot of work to do. For instance, my reaction to the pitbull attack was instinctual because of my attachment to my dog. A more rational, unattached person would not have taken on the dog IMHO.

to stand by and witness someones attack ie torching of a homeless man, and deciding whether or not to help? Really? I always have been taught to help others.

As for what Cary is writing...I know Cary, and the pain he felt when he lost his Kiki was very hard for him to deal with. I have 6 cats and love them dearly. They are my buds. Just like many reading and writing this have dogs.....you develop deep bonds with you animal friends.

To sit idly by and watch someone do harm to someone else, would be sick.

Edited by kennyhel77 on 06/24/2010 17:28:52 MDT.

"To sit idly by and watch someone do harm to someone else, would be sick."

I wouldn't be idle. I would be trying to get others around me to gang up on the pervert(s), or contact police/ambulance/fire as required. I simply can't see the point in inserting yourself into a dangerous situation to help a stranger. Like, I'm a single 50 year old woman. I'm hardly likely to stop young male hooligans intent on hurting a helpless creature, thus making myself also a target. However, a 10 year old torturing a frog or kitten (my older brother loved this kind of entertainment) would provoke my full fury and and instant intervention.

"Dominion? Yes, because might is right??. For medical research? if truly necessary and done humanely. To eat? If there is nothing else (this is the situation in, eg, Tibetan Buddhism). Medical research and food are using the animal for potentially a higher good. Sacrifice or torturing (why all the sacrifice in the bible???), no way."

Dominion in the old testament speaks to a people familiar
with a suzerain/vassal relationship. Along with power over
the vassal, the suzerain had the responsibility to take care of the vassal. It was a serious legal promise by both parties, and breaking that promise could be punishable by
death. Obviously the more powerful party could break the
promise with less chance of consequence.

What if Christians today took dominion as seriously?
I think things get lost in translation, but also one
can read into it what one wants to justify ones actions.
You have to take the Bible as a whole and compare each
part to the other. Out of context stuff can be used to
justify anything. Slavery, racism, environmental degradation, sexism. You know the stuff.

God speaks to people where they are at, in the culture they
are in. In the old testament, the animals sacrificed cost the people greatly, and were payment for their misdeads. This helps drive home that sin is costly. The animals and grain then were eaten by the priests.
That was one of the ways the priests were remunerated for their services.

Now there is no further need for animal sacrifice,
Christians believe, since Christ paid that price.

Sacrifice is a two way street. Christians are called to sacrifice themselves.

John 15:13
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Edited by oware on 06/24/2010 18:08:11 MDT.

Sorry, you don't cherry pick. If I see someone in need I will help. Maybe it helps that I am 6'1 215 lbs and have alot of experience subduing others. Yes calling 911 does help, but sometimes you just have to react. Yes I know women would have a harder time intervining physically. Don't be a witness....a famous punk band wrote that.

"Sorry, you don't cherry pick."

YOU may not cherry pick

"Don't be a witness....a famous punk band wrote that."

I never could get into punk ;)

If I deemed it so unsafe that I would not intervene, then I would also not hang around. I would be one of the first to run away from a serious aggressive attack, to get to a safe place where I could raise an alarm. And it's not just attacks. I have been in a similar situation with a car accident where it was far too dangerous to rush in and help the people until traffic was under control. I am not, nor will I ever, be, an altruistic hero. I would not expect it of someone else, I might add. I would feel worse than dreadful if some stranger got themself injured or killed on my behalf. That would be hard to live with...I even feel this way about folks who go off to war and get maimed or killed on behalf of others. Very heroic, but not something I could do unless it was to save my family and friends. If I was drafted I would spend the war in prison or another country.

Edited by retropump on 06/24/2010 18:19:12 MDT.

Lynn, I agree with all of your points sans punk rock...but then again, that is a personal choice in taste.

"Very heroic"

Off topic, but for some reason this reminded me of one of my favorite TV quotes: "Do you know who a hero is? Nine times out of ten, a hero is someone who is tired enough, cold enough, and hungry enough not to give a Damn. ..." Hawkeye Pierce, MASH.

""Do you know who a hero is? Nine times out of ten, a hero is someone who is tired enough, cold enough, and hungry enough not to give a Damn. ...""

I wonder how many of us that applies to.

It is still hard to deal with. I tear up or cry a little every day.

Not sure if I updated this, but she was quite young, only a bit over six, and we originally thought she had FIP, but now after reviewing the history, labwork and the timeline of other cats getting sick and their symptoms, we are pretty sure that she got H1N1 from me--she was by my side the whole time I was sick and her symptoms showed up a week or two later (about the lag time between all the other cats who got sick after her).

"Again, I would assess the risk on an individual basis. If it was twelve year old hooligans armed with nothing more than some petrol and a lighter, I would certainly chase them off. If it was a couple of 18 year old testosterone poisoned and drunk males with baseball bats and knives, I wouldn’t go near them to save someone I don’t know."

In other words... Yes, you mis-stated your position, earlier. That's more rational, and much less despicable, Lynn. You are after all accepting some risk from the accelerant-armed 12 year old hooligans, even if it isn't a great a risk as taking on the Mafia, or whatever.

Thought I'd resurrect this with this nauseating news by McClatchy News.

The Government has now lost 75 percent of Guantanamo Habeas cases. That's right. 75 percent.

Remember how we couldn't bring the detainees here because OMFG the terrorists would take over the prisons!!!

Yes, it's all kabuki theatre at this point, and as has been pointed out ad nauseum for years, most of the detainees were not actually terrorists, but normal citizens who were on the wrong side of a local dispute and handed over for the generous bounty given out by the U.S. Who knew that when you go into a third-world country and offer thousands of dollars for terrorists, people will turn on their neighbor, lie, and hand him over for the prize?

Sad just how much credibility our country lost by skirting both international treaties / conventions -- and our own domestic laws. Bush the man trashed our country more than any foreigner ever could.