. We getting snowflake people in the Western world, that thinks animals should be put first which goes against instinct. In my country and im sure pretty much most countries it would be a sackable offence and manslaughter charges for gross negligence.
Do you think that people who would put a animal before a human life should be banned from working in the emergency services?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
You can never FORCE someone to save a person they don't know, no matter WHAT the situation is.
If someone IS in emergency services, however, they are tasked to save human lives, and, when free from that, to aid animals in distress. How could you ever know if someone thinks they should save a dog before they save a person? A survey? A psychological test?
I believe people in emergency services aren't there to save dogs or cats. They're there to help people. Vets are the people for pets. I doubt the two overlap in any significant way.
This worlds biggest problem is too much freedom. You putting the word FORCE in uppercases does not make a difference, it should be a hangable offence to leave to leave someone to die.
There are no cases in the United States where people are charged criminally for not saving someone in distress. There are reasons not to risk your life to save someone. There have been cases where people who did not know how to swim, leapt into the water to save their child, so two people drowned. One has to consider what they're risking.
Think about the cases of people who collapse on a mountain climb. If climbers try to save them, they will die. Mount Everest is the known case in point. More remote mountain climbs with difficulty and more isolation are even moreso.
Anyone who falls down into the Grand Canyon cannot be rescued. There is no way to rescue them without risking other people's lives needlessly. So visitors are told NOT to lean too far over paths at the edge of the Canyon, or stray off trails onto precipices.
In simpler cases, people are afraid to become involved because they'll be expected to do something they aren't physically or emotionally prepared to do. And there is also the risk of be liable for trying to help someone. What if the help they provide damages the person they are trying to help since they aren't a medical professional? So the person sues them?
Because of this, people don't touch others because of liability. I'm sure you can understand how this all came to be. Being a Good Samaritan is a risk.
It depends, is the animal a dog? Is the human an idiot?
Im talking about in general but i would allow an exception if the person was terrible.
Lol, did you seriously delete my response? Are you that thin skinned?
Your response to what, what did you say, i never even saw it let alone delete. If you answered the related question, then it was a think skinned mod that deleted it.
I called your question facetious because it showed your bias by having two answers agreeing that manslaughter was the right charge to hit someone with who chose to save an animal over another human compared to the only real answer of "Why is this even a question?"
I called the question a waste because it is clear to be used as a confirmation bias and no room for true debate for people who would choose to save an animal over a human. And it was deleted. Question askers have the ability to hide or delete responses from others that respond to it.
Yes well my question has been hidden, i hadn't bothered to read your username but i saw the response.