Whoa a second here. It’s was the pet owner who kicked off this hypothetical scenario by saying they’d save their own dog before ANY of the 7.9 billion humans whom they don’t personally know. Nobody on the other side (whatever that means) decided to condemn pet owners because it’s assumed they would choose drowning animals over drowning humans.
“Getting laid” only applies if both parties are willing.
Any time this discussion comes up, that’s the inevitable hypothetical situation that is brought up. @kayaker seemed to be just heading that one off early, having been through this rodeo before.
But you all did leap to condemning in the most repulsive terms anyone who would make that choice.
So, I ask you, do you value a cup of Starbucks a day over saving a child from dying from malaria? If not Starbucks, are there any discretionary purchases that you could choose to cut out in order to save the life of people who would otherwise suffer and die?
If you live a monastic life and donate everything you have to helping the sick and poor, then you have the right to act self righteous here. If you don’t, if you spend any money selfishly, then you are choosing personal comfort and luxury over the life of billions of humans that you don’t personally know, and are simply being hypocritical in judging others for their choices.
I’ll understand if you don’t have time to respond, what with you valuing patrolling bodies of water in order to save people from drowning over wasting time on a messageboard.
Yes.
And if you make tiny outfits for your pet tarantula to wear, somewhere a child is going without warm clothing.
I didn’t start the “I’d let you drown” conversation, and I didn’t tell anyone that I’d let them drown because I’d be too busy doing something more important. But that is exactly what is being said here.
If you think that laying that bare is repulsive what does that say about the person who’s actively promoting that view?
Literally right now you are letting someone starve because you are doing something more important, you repulsive bastard. Sell your computer or smartphone and give that money to the World Food Program or at least Catholic Charities. Otherwise go fuck yourself.
Interesting reaction to “maybe you shouldn’t let people drown because you don’t wanna”.
I’m not entirely sure what you think society should look like, I guess it’s where we just watch people die because saving them means we have to sell all our possessions.
People are animals.
I’m not rescuing any human or animal unless there’s a video to be monetized on YouTube.
Would anyone like to comment on the Pope’s pronouncement against having only one child? I hate to reference my own post earlier, but I think it’s getting ignored in this “save the person/save the dog” ping pong match going on.
And I think the topic deserves discussion, viz overpopulation, and the bias against only children, and all.
I’m guessing the only child thing is because it doesn’t replace the parents, but as an only child, it has benefits.
Even ZPG requires something like 2.1 children per couple, so it shouldn’t be that surprising of a goal for him.
Indeed.
(I see from reading this thread that the pope is in fact a catholic !
Who knew ?!)
I’m glad the “blame” is being shared with others beyond us child-free couples. Now we can also blame those that only have 1-2 children. What’s wrong with you folks? 
True but we need to decrease the surplus population.
I believe the traditional Pit response to declamations such as this is “Go fuck a cactus.”
People say this, but they don’t seem to classify themselves or their loved ones as surplus.
We could absolutely sustain our current population, and can sustain even more people, if we’re smart. We could destroy the environment and ourselves with just half the current population if we’re not.
I’ll take a crack at it, as well as what’s missing in the childfree couples debate as well. The Pope isn’t (just) arguing about helping actual children. He is complaining about potential children who haven’t even been conceived yet not having a chance at life. This, to me, is a ridiculous argument. Going back and forth about saving an actual animal vs. saving an actual human misses the point. The Pope is saying we should be having more children, not that we should be doing more to look after the ones that are here. Whether it’s those with zero children or those with one, or any other number, I disagree with him that we should (collectively) be having more children just because he says so. He’s the one being selfish, trying to increase the number of Catholics so that the Church can keep fleecing them in the future just like they’re doing in the present. He isn’t looking after actual children, or actual animals. He’s looking after the Catholic Church.
That’s what icy lakes are for.
From his point of view, the “surplus population” exists among the infidels. And it is no longer politic to exterminate them, so maybe if we do not want to lose the demographic religious arms race, we need to get over there take (“adopt”) some of those surplus children and raise them to be good catholics.
Or maybe just have some large boarding schools to take care of them.