fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2474 ]

[ SECRET POST #2474 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2474 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

07. [SPOILERS for NCIS]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Dangan Ronpa]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #353.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What is so innately good about the "fellow human" that all of them deserve to be rescued?

What about the mere fact that they are human, makes them good or preferable?

Why don't you go debate this in philosophy class?

I'm sure they'd all love to hear on why you think dogs are better than people.

OP here

Because you started it here?

And I never said dogs are better than people. I don't think that anon did, either. I said I don't think humans are innately better than dogs simply by way of being human. Not better =/= worse!

You literally said you were revolted by infants. The fact that you find a puppy more worthwhile to save than a human baby implies that you find the puppy "better." I said I would rather save the baby which implies that I find the baby "better."

The choice implies a preference. There's no getting around that, and you made yours.

OP here

Um, wait, hold on a minute, no? No wonder you started with the sociopathic thing. I said I feel the same vague disgust at babies that I would at any other ugly animal. But that doesn't mean I don't care about it or would kick it around just because it's ugly. I find star moles ugly but I would care for a sick one if one wandered by, even if I still think it looks pretty weird.

I "like" puppies more. This isn't a moral judgment about "better" or "worse." The only one imposing the moral judgment is you.

Well, if you like something more, you find it personally "better."

I never said you would abuse an infant. Regardless about how you feel about them, I still find it disgusting that you would prefer to save a puppy over an infant.

OP here

No, I can find things morally equal, but personally prefer one option.

I can give a homeless man $50 in $10 bills or $5 bills. If I prefer to use 10s, it says nothing about $5 bills being morally inferior. I find the baby and the puppy at that point to be equal - "save a life", as I don't consider a human infant's life to be innately better than a puppy's - and if forced to make a choice then my preference kicks in. At that point when both are babies and only potential, they're equal. Humans aren't worse. Dogs aren't better.

Obviously I'd save both - "save two lives" - if given the choice to.

I wasn't talking about moral equality. When I say, "Pink is a better color than orange," I obviously am not saying orange is a "morally inferior" color.

I don't understand why you're even arguing that point with me when I obviously find your preference fucked up regardless of whether or not you find puppies and infants morally equal.

not OP

Not that I agree with OP, but I'm kind of confused that you're so shocked and outraged. Have you honestly never known a person who preferred dogs to humans? The weird hypothetical fire scenario is not something that would generally come up so you wouldn't know their opinions but I know quite a few misanthropic people who I could easily see choosing the puppy in this scenario. Again, I don't exactly agree with their choice, but I don't think that someone thinking humans aren't automatically better or more worthy than any other species on this planet is some horrible, disturbing sociopathic thing, which I think is what OP is trying to say.

OP here

Thank you! That's what I was getting at.

For the record I'm not a misanthrope, I like people. I just have no particular empathy for babies.

NAYRT

I think it's interesting how you, the supposedly more moral and empathetic one, can't debate this without constantly throwing around insults like creepy/disturbing/disgusting/fucked up/nutjob, while the people you're calling all those things are being perfectly civil to you.

Yeah, sorry for not being too kind to people who would prefer to save a freaking dog over me as an infant.

If I find an opinion completely revolting, I'm not going to go out of my way to be civil. Sorry.

OP here

I think you're taking this way more personally than it's intended. Everyone was an infant once, including me! I wouldn't have blamed someone for rescuing a puppy over me when literally all they knew about me was that I was a some random baby.

...You wouldn't be offended if someone had picked a puppy to live over you as an infant?

I don't think I can even argue with you.

OP here

Nope, not a single bit. I'd hope they were happy with the choice they made and the puppy got a good home and made people happy.

At that point I wouldn't have been able to grasp the concept of offended at all, anyway.

I don't think you should even try. This thread makes no sense to me at all. And disturbs me.

:(

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

fleshisyummy - 2013-10-12 02:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

lunabee34 - 2013-10-12 02:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

fleshisyummy - 2013-10-12 02:44 (UTC) - Expand

Most would though. In fact, there'd probably be a large group that argued that if they knew you did such a thing, violence upon you and your own death would be justified.

Many would consider your choice murder in this hypothetical scinario. It's an effective survival mechanism for our race to consider our own young more important then an animals. Your damage makes you a less desirable member of the pack with less to contribute in multiple scenarios and your removal or at least ostracism a probable benefit for the group on the whole as you have suggested you have less to contribute.

OP here

I realize that. That's why it's here in this thread. Isn't that what it's for? It's unpopular!

And most people would toss knee-jerk moral judgment at me for it instead of realizing a contrived situation in which I would have to choose between a puppy and a baby is pretty much never going to happen and a totally moot point anyway.

Here's the honest thing

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-10-12 03:31 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Here's the honest thing

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 03:43 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Here's the honest thing

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-10-12 04:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Here's the honest thing

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 04:19 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Here's the honest thing

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-10-12 04:28 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Here's the honest thing

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 04:37 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Here's the honest thing

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 03:49 (UTC) - Expand

But where would they rank compared to someone who would panic and perish along with both?

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 03:47 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-10-12 04:16 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 04:49 (UTC) - Expand

They would, but personally I'd say that 'deliberately causing the violent death of a healthy adult' is far more serious than 'failing to prevent the accidental death of an unknown infant whom you have no responsibility towards'. And even if some people would consider not saving the infant murder, it really isn't, unless the puppy-saver also started the fire/blocked others from saving the infant/did some similarly assholeish thing which actively made the situation worse.

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-10-12 04:26 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 04:29 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-10-12 14:05 (UTC) - Expand

Not liking babies is being "damaged" now? Jesus Christ.

Why are you making it all about you? Nobody has mentioned you in particular, it's a blanket statement about all infants.

I was an infant at one point, though, so the scenario is applicable to me. The question wasn't, "Would you rather save a dog or a pig?" That wouldn't be personal for me because I was never a dog or a pig.

Also, think about if we changed the question to something like, "Would you rather save a plumber or an attorney?" The plumbers would get offended if people chose the attorney, and the attorneys would get offended if people chose the plumber.

But yeah, it's not just about me. I'm pretty offended on behalf of infants everywhere.

I was an infant too. So was everyone else reading this thread, meaning it's applicable to us all. Yet the only one taking this much offense is you.

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 02:55 (UTC) - Expand

Actually, I would attribute that to the emotional response they clearly emit, while your and other replies seem to be based on a, let's say more calculating, basis. While that scenario seems to faze relatively few of those who replied positively to the op, fleshisyummy is clearly seeing this in a very emotionally charged way (which doesn't necessarily make them unfit for discussion).
...
that's just my opinion though

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only