Would You Run Into a Burning Building to Save a Toddler If You Only Had a 50% Chance of Surviving?

No

Stay gold Ponyboy.

Absolutely

Only if I am wearing my Hokas.

You did the right thing guys.

Yes. In The Outsiders there was only a 25% chance of rescuing the kids safely.

Nope. Her fault for leaving it behind. Pay for your mistakes.

czxc wrote:

Nope. Her fault for leaving it behind. Pay for your mistakes.

Yeah, she is terrible, but what about the poor baby? Save the baby and throw the woman back into the flames. Raise the kid yourself and give him the good life that he deserves.

No.

However, in a real life scenario I would always hype myself up to thinking that there I had much better odds than 50%, and so I would go in.

When I was single, run in without thinking twice. Today, I'd rather her lose her baby than risk my wife and kids losing a husband and father.

Plus how do you know the baby's not going to grow up to be Hitler.

Yeah, She Is Terrible wrote:

czxc wrote:

Nope. Her fault for leaving it behind. Pay for your mistakes.

Yeah, she is terrible, but what about the poor baby? Save the baby and throw the woman back into the flames. Raise the kid yourself and give him the good life that he deserves.

Baby is probably retarded, that why it was left behind. I don't wanna raise a retarded kid.

I like my baby extra crispy wrote:

When I was single, run in without thinking twice. Today, I'd rather her lose her baby than risk my wife and kids losing a husband and father.

Plus how do you know the baby's not going to grow up to be Hitler.

Because Hitler already happened.

czxc wrote:

Baby is probably retarded, that why it was left behind. I don't wanna raise a retarded kid.

Yeah, that is the kind of comment that earns you a karma comeback...

Depends if the mother is an informed voter, or an uninformed Libtard...

Wow....... wrote:

czxc wrote:

Baby is probably retarded, that why it was left behind. I don't wanna raise a retarded kid.

Yeah, that is the kind of comment that earns you a karma comeback...

Rather that than raising a potentially retarded kid.

I like my baby extra crispy wrote:

Plus how do you know the baby's not going to grow up to be Hitler.

You can ask if the baby's name is Adolf Hitler.

Star wrote:

No

I am pretty sure I agree with the no answer given the fact that I'm doing it without the perceived immediacy of a real life situation.

In real life the fact that the mother is not attempting to save her child might indicate the futility of the rescue.

Hypothetical questions like this that add a 'fact' that would not be known at the time- such as the 50/50 survival odds- make my answer have no meaning.

Just the straight up question: Would you run into a building fully engulfed in flame to attempt to save a nonrelated baby inside is a better question IMO.

Truthfully I doubt I'd go or even give it creditable thought in the moment.

You gotta go after the kid. How do you sleep at night knowing that you could have saved a burning kid and decided to go get lunch instead. I have a hard enough time knowing that there are, right now, kids being raped and killed all over the Middle East and Africa and I am sitting here in a temperature-controlled office eating a GMO-free Chipotle naked burrito.

I am being serious, too.

50% is a high risk to chance leaving my kids without a father to save a stranger's baby.

Looking at it from a rational perspective, I say still say no.

In the moment, it would be different.

You see the baby though a burning door and you can see the place is about to collapse.

Can't tell you what my instincts would be the moment it happens.