So you’re not a sociopath if you’re not the only person letting the guy die?
As I said, how convenient.
You must have mistaken this thread for the one that began with “So you’re sitting on the shore with a massive group of people when you see your dog and a stranger drowning.”
I encourage you to reread the OP.
Yes, I have. And you enlightened us with your pronouncement that anyone with the sole opportunity to save a person who does not is a sociopath.
My comment is that your inclusion of the qualifying word “sole” is convenient, because it excuses you from having to call yourself a sociopath as long as you can point to other people who are not helping either.
I didn’t think I had to expound on the idea that someone who chooses their dog over the life of a human being is one who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
You seem to want to discuss some other hypothetical dilemma or your reading comprehension of the OP needs work.
Yes, I am talking about a minor perturbation to the OP, on page 7 of a 9-year-old thread. Sue me. I will take your deliberately evading the point as evidence that you have no rational response.
Christ, this is painful.
Sitnam is saying that someone is a sociopath if they’d rather save their pet than a human.
Your supposed retort is “Oh, well what about a situation where there are two humans and you can only save one? In that case you’re letting a human die!!”
Do you really want to continue to pursue this?
Same to you! You have somehow managed to fail to properly parse every post I’ve made, as well as each of Sitnam’s responses.
That’s not what I said at all. My retort is more like “What about the person dying of X you could have saved with the $100 you spent on Y last month, are you not a sociopath simply because you’re not the only one who didn’t help them?”
You may consider what I actually said stupid too, but at least it is not as stupid as what you accused me of saying.
Not every post, but I did accidentally attribute For You’s post to you.
Sorry.
I do disagree on your point, but it’s defo less daft than that one.
Sorry if I missed it, but do we know what type of dog? One of those yappy little chihuahua rats maybe? And who is the human? Miss Teen Sexpot or Rush Limbaugh?
I want to say that I’d save Rush Limbaugh over Mrs. Which, but it occurs to me that Limbaugh is a hefty person; I might not be able to rescue him anyway. So I’ll change RL to the equally-odious-but-much-smaller Nancy Grace. I’d feel pretty sick about it, but I’d have to save the human first.
Cite that Nancy Grace is human?
I didn’t say she was a GOOD human. But she’s not a murderer, a child abuser, or a rapist. If I somehow knew that the drowning person were one of those three I’d probably save the dog (except that the person’s motives would matter in the case of the murderer).
ugg… how is this a “choice” at all?? That stranger is a daughter/son, husband/dad, wife/mom, the dog is a dog. There is no choice there.
I think if I saw someone jump in to save their dog while letting a stranger drown I would save the stranger, then drown the dog and it’s owner.
For all I know, she’s Morbo in drag. She certainly ACTS more like Morbo in drag than anything else.
[completely missing the sarcastic point]
Having not evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial visitors to Earth working as tv personalities, but having plenty of evidence for the existence of human assholes, I must assume that Grace is the latter.
[/completely missing the sarcastic point]
How sure are we that this is not just some ruse by a sociopath to lure us into the water and drown us?
Or perhaps it’s a lure for sociopaths.
Even worse! 
Possibly it’s a trap by sociopaths, for sociopaths. Like a dating service, except with murder.