Star wrote:
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.
It's a trick question that tests the gullibility of people. The baby is actually a doll. "Man dies trying to save a doll"
Can't trust strangers.
We may need more info.
If you don't survive does that mean the baby also doesn't survive or the baby is guaranteed to live by your effort?
If there is a 50% chance of the baby dying even if you try to save it, then you have a 50% chance of both of you dying if you try to save it vs. a 100% of one of you living if you don't try.
Now if the baby lives just by your effort then there is a 75% chance of you both living by your effort vs. a one sure death if you don't.
Yes. Without hesitation.
I'm just wired that way.
I've been through a few natural disasters, killer storms, house next to ours destroyed in middle of the night, I immediately put my running stuff on and ran down the hill to help the guy trapped in his house.
I've worked with the Red Cross. Now, I think almost any adult would do the same things.
No, but I'd demand that the guy next to me go in.
Star wrote:
We may need more info.
If you don't survive does that mean the baby also doesn't survive or the baby is guaranteed to live by your effort?
If there is a 50% chance of the baby dying even if you try to save it, then you have a 50% chance of both of you dying if you try to save it vs. a 100% of one of you living if you don't try.
Now if the baby lives just by your effort then there is a 75% chance of you both living by your effort vs. a one sure death if you don't.
If you die, baby dies, too. Unless someone more capable than you followed you in and saved the baby while you sucked smoke and died.
actions louder than words wrote:
No, but I'd demand that the guy next to me go in.
^^^The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.
-Thucydides
Its her baby, why doesn't she go in and save it?!? Sorry I didn't produce a child that then is left behind when the building is on fire...
A firefighter is trained to rescue kids in these situations, and signed up for that risk, but obviously you as a responsible person should mitigate the risk imposed on others, due to your negligence..
No.
I'm still trying to understand why the woman herself wouldn't go. I guess she is in bad health? The baby would certainly be affected by the smoke at least. Most likely life long consequences. Better let it die, its life would suck anyway.
Basically this question ask how little you value your own life. Would you save a random person who will most likely have a horrible life anyway (own mother wouldn't be arsed to save it)? Or do you save yourself?
common era wrote:
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.
Yes, but what if the toddler you save grows up to invent the time machine. Then he goes back in time to kill baby Hitler. Then the whole 20th century would be different and probably Obama wouldn't be president. It's worth the risk.
There is no greater love than this: that a person would lay down his life for the sake of a baby in a burning building.
You need to quit bringing the mother into the scenario. She has nothing to do with anything. It is just YOU and a helpless child who will die of severe burns and painful suffocation. If you leave the child to suffer and die, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I'd go in.
Risking your life to save a child you don't know isn't heroic, and I doubt anyone would do it if not for the fame they'd expect.
a very deep thinker wrote:
common era wrote:Because Hitler already happened.
Yes, but what if the toddler you save grows up to invent the time machine. Then he goes back in time to kill baby Hitler. Then the whole 20th century would be different and probably Obama wouldn't be president. It's worth the risk.
That would create so many paradoxes that the universe would most likely collapse. All because of some random baby.
ghvbg wrote:
a very deep thinker wrote:Yes, but what if the toddler you save grows up to invent the time machine. Then he goes back in time to kill baby Hitler. Then the whole 20th century would be different and probably Obama wouldn't be president. It's worth the risk.
That would create so many paradoxes that the universe would most likely collapse. All because of some random baby.
Perhaps the baby isn't so random after all.
Asdfghjkl wrote:
Risking your life to save a child you don't know isn't heroic, and I doubt anyone would do it if not for the fame they'd expect.
You are badly mistaken about others doing this.
Honestly I have a hard time believing that people like you exist. But I suppose I am going to have to take your word for it that this is how you actually view the world.
Joe or Something Else wrote:
Asdfghjkl wrote:Risking your life to save a child you don't know isn't heroic, and I doubt anyone would do it if not for the fame they'd expect.
You are badly mistaken about others doing this.
Honestly I have a hard time believing that people like you exist. But I suppose I am going to have to take your word for it that this is how you actually view the world.
I was about to write the same thing. I hope that this guy is a troll.
A Duck wrote:
I've been through a few natural disasters, killer storms, house next to ours destroyed in middle of the night, I immediately put my running stuff on and ran down the hill to help the guy trapped in his house.
I'm sure he appreciated your taking the time to change into your running stuff.
Depends. Is it a son of Obama who may end up killing me in a future race riot?
Joe or Something Else wrote:
You are badly mistaken about others doing this.
Honestly I have a hard time believing that people like you exist. But I suppose I am going to have to take your word for it that this is how you actually view the world.
Children die all the time from accidents, disease, etc., and most people aren't affected by it any more than thinking "aw, that's sad" when the read about it in the newspaper. If the child who dies isn't one of your loved ones, you lose nothing - your life doesn't change - because that child isn't a value to you. If you die, you lose the ability to raise your own children. To risk your one previous existence and the well-being of everyone you are responsible for for the sake of someone you don't know (whether a child or not) isn't heroic, it's mindless self-sacrifice on par with committing suicide for no reason and I would not shed a tear for the idiot who did it in the likely event that he didn't come out alive, nor would I give him the fanfare he was seeking if he did.