I can’t believe you think, that’s even a question. It’s it obvious. I would save the baby, so it could grow up to kill the adopters. Win Win situation.
[quote=“Skald_the_Rhymer, post:134, topic:644253”]
I do hold myself morally obligated to help people in need if my help is required, within my capability, and in my judgment the best thing for that person.
[QUOTE]
I have similiar standards. The difference is I weigh the greater long term good for the many against the temporary good for an individual. Pandas are an endangered species. Our world will be a poorer, less pleasant place if they go extinct; therefore, saving a panda takes priority over saving a member of a non-endangered species.
This is a warning for you. It’s against the rules to talk about illegal activity…and your posts recently have been pretty much been posting things to get a reaction, which is trolling.
Stop posting in this manner, ZPG Zealot.
I’ve figured this thread out; this thread is an almost pure example of emotion versus logic.
Emotion and logic are both important parts of decision-making. Remove one or the other from the process and you will almost certainly end up making less than optimal choices.
What do you imagine is the logical side?
So? Why should I give a crap about endangered pandas, if not for some emotional reason?
Panda, for it is rare.
I’ve seen enough babies. Blah.
Save a baby, and you’re just a boring baby-saver. There are lots of babies, some of them are bound to get in danger, and they do, and lots of people have opportunity to save them.
Panda are extremely rare, and still widely beloved. Save a panda, and you are much more marketable. Its reflected glory may help you in a bigger way. Also, it’s a baby panda, both a baby and a panda, so it’s doubly cute. Hard to beat that.
If that’s not enough logic for you, I can’t help you.
Nice effort, but I don’t think being known as the guy who saved a panda while a baby drowned is all that marketable.
Sociopathy is not a “different perspective,” it is a mental disorder.
This would make a lot of sense if the question were “would you save a panda or your own baby?” But it is not.
Uhh… I said the exact opposite of that.
Are you, as a moderator, telling a member of the board that she should go kill herself?
No. Jesus, does having a soft spot for pandas make it hard to read?
It couldn’t be any clearer; people who prattle about how it’s okay to let human beings die to fight “overpopulation” are full of crap. They aren’t willing to die THEMSELVES - and quite rightly so - but an ethical person doesn’t then choose to kill other people. (Letting a child die that you can immediately save is morally equivalent.) If you aren’t gonna start solving the overpopulation problem yourself, don’t solve it by killing other people.
In other words, don’t kill people. Are we such a group of Internet contrarian tough guys that “don’t kill people” is a controversial thing to say? I’ll even court real controversy by saying that I do not like people who kill other people.
My mother would have saved the panda. No question about it.
Are you saying that people who say they would save the panda are sociopaths?
Ah, I get you now. I’m willing to meet you halfway on the overpopulation problem - I’m not having any kids myself. 
I think people saying it anonymously on an online forum might just be playing Internet contrarian / tough guy. Someone who truly, actually believes it is a sociopath.
So you’re saying the people who are saying it here are trolls?
If you had to choose between a drowning troll and … oh, nevermind.
No, trolling is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the board. Merely saying things one wouldn’t actually put into practice in real life is not trolling.
You’ve kind of gone off the deep end. There aren’t actually any drowning pandas or babies.
Batman wouldn’t let either drown!