SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Grainne who wrote (106586)6/29/2005 7:37:46 AM
From: Oral Roberts  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
No, I wouldn't kill a thousand DOGS to save my child. I find that morally repugnant, and cannot imagine a scenario where that would be my dilemma

You can't imagine a scenario where you would have to make that choice but you pretty clearly say if faced with that choice your child is going down.



To: Grainne who wrote (106586)6/29/2005 10:14:23 AM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I'm curious, just how many dogs is a child's life worth?



To: Grainne who wrote (106586)6/29/2005 11:25:22 AM
From: Alan Smithee  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
No, it was not Alan Smithee who made the 1000 dog post. That was Kid Rock.

This is what he said:

I would kill 1,000 dogs to save the life of my child.

Wouldnt you?


Message 21425837

This is your response:

No, I wouldn't kill a thousand dogs to save my child. I find that morally repugnant, and cannot imagine a scenario where that would be my dilemma. I would choose my child over a dog if I only had time to push one of them out of the way of an oncoming truck or rescue one of them from a fire, however.

The first sentence seems pretty emphatic to me. The second sentence does not repudiate nor does it invalidate the first.

Message 21428864

I just wanted the record clear on this.

If you wouldn't take such absolutist positions, you wouldn't have to backtrack and qualify your position later.