40% Of Americans Would Rather Save A Dog’s Life Over A Foreign Tourist’s
One way I typically gather pertinent information in judging someone is to ask them this question: “Would you throw a six-week-old golden retriever puppy into traffic for $100,000. And you have to pet it for three minutes and name it before you do.” If they say they would do it, even after a long and heartfelt deliberation, I automatically assume that person is a scumbag, and our relationship is immediately stifled. If they couldn’t violently murder the puppy for 100 grand, they’re good in my book.
How could anyone not love dogs? Most Americans sure as hell do.
From Elite Daily:
Researchers gave over 500 participants the hypothetical scenario in which a bus is rushing towards a dog and a human. When asked who they would save, most participants first wanted to know exactly what kind of human was about to die if they withheld assistance.
While everyone would save a sibling, grandparent or friend over a seemingly stray dog, 40% of those surveyed, including 46% female participants, would save the animal over a foreign tourist.
It’s easy to glance at these numbers and come to the simple to conclusion that many Americans are racist, nationalist, self-indulging assholes. While there are certainly many Americans that fall in these categories (as there are in every other country in the world), I know the reason for these gaudy numbers is that Americans just really, really, REALLY love their dogs.
Using a dog as a subject in an either-or scenario is a data skewer, an unfair matchup. Frankly, I’m surprised that 40% wasn’t higher. Dogs are too awesome to pit up against a foreigner. They’re friendly, loyal, unconditionally-loving animals. It’s not to say a foreign tourist can’t possess any of these redeeming qualities, but the dog’s got the whole package. And they don’t talk funny.
Dogs, we love them.
[via Elite Daily]
Let’s be honest here most would save a dog over a women’s life
13 years ago at 4:02 pmThen again most of us understand the idea of singular and plural.
13 years ago at 4:13 pmI’d save a dog before pretty much anyone, foreign or not.
13 years ago at 4:04 pmI really wanna know about these “Liquid Lapdance Pants” i keep seeing over here ->>>
Smutster should do a Try It Before You Buy It article.
13 years ago at 4:04 pmFuck cats.
13 years ago at 4:10 pmI would probably kill 100,000 beautiful little puppies for $100,000.
13 years ago at 4:10 pm^sucks to be poor
13 years ago at 4:13 pm^Being poor is probably about as bad as not knowing what sarcasm is.
13 years ago at 4:21 pm^ fucking nailed him, good job guy
13 years ago at 4:36 pm
13 years ago at 7:17 pmReason dogs are better than women: lock a woman in your trunk for an hour, and she’ll hate you. Lock a dog in your trunk for an hour and he’ll wag his tail and be happy to see you. Lock a pledge in your car for an hour, and you didn’t wait long enough.
13 years ago at 4:14 pmI think the moral of the story is that women are terrible drivers and are probably the ones killing all these fucking dogs and tourists.
13 years ago at 4:17 pmI’d throw an animal I’ve known for 3 minutes into traffic for $100,000 cash.
13 years ago at 4:26 pmThere is a line I wouldn’t cross for money, but this just isn’t it. Sorry guys.
Agreed, hell I can even lie and say I’d use that $100,000 to save a shit ton more puppies to make Dorn happy.
13 years ago at 4:36 pm^^ I’m willing to bet 100k that you (and anyone who nice move’d this) talk a big game and wouldn’t follow through. A lot more emotions run through you in a real life situation, you piece of dog shit.
13 years ago at 11:16 pm^ Looks like I’d be walking away $200k richer.
13 years ago at 12:33 amAdd a few zero’s and then it’s a real debate ^^^^
13 years ago at 2:43 am^Add a few zero’s, really? you need $10m? I don’t even want to say the things I’d do for that much money.
13 years ago at 2:21 pmOnly 40%?
13 years ago at 4:40 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2s8x5XhCGA
13 years ago at 6:04 pm