Would you let a drowning man die? Or would you jump in?

[amitten]

I'd like to know when it became acceptable to always blame the victim rather than jumping in to help.

Though I'm not very religious, I was raised in a Christian church and I was taught that the role of a Christian is to help, not to judge. You do it because that's what Christ taught and you do it out of common decency.

Yet these days, from Katrina to the economy to a broken health care system to mass unemployment, I hear everyone around me blaming the victim. Not offering help, not offering any kind of care or empathy whatever, just simply blaming and moving on with outright disdain. And this in a society where some 80% claim to be Christian.

So I'd like to ask these people, if you were next to a lake watching a man drown, what is your response: a) I will jump in and try to save him, because I would never allow another person to die if I can help it, or b) I will let him drown because a man who can't swim shouldn't have gone near water in the first place--he is to blame and I shouldn't be expected to help save a life.

What is the 'Christian' thing to do? What is the basic, human, decent thing to do? When did it become even remotely acceptable to stand by and watch, with a black heart full of blame and disgust?

[closeupready]

1. Upon the first publication of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"?

Just guessing here... :D

[kaygore]

3. Good guess!

I think another one might be when we lost an independent MSM and gained a Repiblican party that is merely a progaganda machine.

[wtbymark]

2. If it was chimpy...

I'd just point and laugh

[malaise]

12. I'd take a photo

video might be better then I'd point,laugh, call MSM and collect my retirement cheque :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[amitten]

19. Thanks for the input, Rush.

Don't you have a radio show to host? :)

[BrotherBuzz]

26. Well, even taking that photo presents a dilemma..

Here's a dilemma for you ... what would you do?
This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.
Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving
an honest answer you will discover where you stand morally. The test
features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, in which you will have
to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet
spontaneous. Thoughtfulness is important for this evaluation
to be meaningful!
Ready? Begin!

You're in Florida... In Miami, to be exact... There is chaos
around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. This is a flood of
major proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper!
caught in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly
hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and
people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is
showing all its destructive fury you see a man in the water! He is fighting
for his life, trying not to be swept away with the water and debris. You
move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly, you know who it is
... it's George W. Bush! At the same time you notice that the raging waters
are about to take him under, forever.

You have two options. You can save him or you can take the most dramatic
photos of your life. You can save the life of George W. Bush, or
you can shoot a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, documenting the death of one
of the world's most powerful men.

Now, here's the question (please give an honest answer).
Would you select color film, or would you go with the
classic simplicity and crispness of black and white?

[amitten]

29. Are you sure you don't want to post the Brazilian joke while

you're at it? x(

[BrotherBuzz]

32. Wow, you got up on the wrong side of the bed

:shrug:

[amitten]

39. No, I was being sarcastic. I've heard that joke a lot here.

It is funny, though.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

31. Color

[malaise]

41. I thought of that joke before I posted

and yes the debate would only be about colour or black and white. I'd probably use colour because I'd hate him to sink before I got the shot:rofl: :rofl:

[AZBlue]

50. LMAO!!!

:rofl:

[TankLV]

55. I just hope if this opportunity arrose, I would have had the foresight to

bring a camera!

Of course, if I didn't, I could always go home to look for one then come back.

I'd use what ever film was close at hand.

The question is absurd.

Would you save Hitler?

Same thing.

Same answer.

But only if it were bush or one of the other repukes that currently squat in OUR government.

But if it were just someone I didn't know, I'd try everything I could to rescue them, and if I could survive by jumping in to rescue, so be it.

[BushOut06]

4. Well, if you're a goper, you let the m'fers drown

Especially the ones with the dark-color skin. After all, they're just a drain on society, right? The GOPers have more important things to worry about, like making sure that Trent Lott's house is okay.

[YOY]

13. They also want to make sure Terri Schiavo is still drooling

Because rich white guys like Lott and hopeless braindead cases are what makes the Republican party worth keeping around!!!

[LostinVA]

5. I can't swim very well, so no, However, I would try to save them.

[Solly Mack]

6. I've done some incredibly stupid shit to help other people

in harms way over the years. You don't think - you just act. Later you marvel at how stupid you were since you could have died too. But at that moment - all you see is someone in need. At least it's that way for me.

"Christian" doesn't have jack shit to do with it. You either "act" or you don't. There's a thin line between bravery and foolishness. Some people freeze from fear - some people just don't care. Some are idiots like me.

[amitten]

10. Exactly. Of course you should help, religion aside. But if you do

nothing and don't even care, you can hardly call yourself a 'Christian' with a straight face. Jesus taught over and over that we should help others at all costs, without passing judgement. But today's Christians seem more than happy to judge, and very reluctant to help. It's like Christianity upside-down.

[Solly Mack]

15. I agree - I would "think" a Christian would help

regardless of the possible consequences to themselves.

I also believe that you can be a good person and not be able to react. Some people see something bad happening and just freeze. They are too horrified to move.

But I think far too many people - regardless of their faith or even no faith - just don't give a damn.

[TankLV]

56. So if Hitler were drowning, and you know it is Hitler, and all that he did

and would do, you would still save him?

Proudly, NOT ME.

[TankLV]

57. I would never call myself a "christian" - I would never degrade myself

that.

[MadisonProgressive]

7. I would have to assess the situation first

A drowning person can easily drown YOU because of the panic they feel, they can try to crawl up over you and push you under.

[newspeak]

21. yeah, that reminded me of my son

he was about twelve years old and was a mediocre swimmer, but in the middle of the lake another boy about 7 years old was in trouble, so he jumped in to save him and almost wound up drowning himself. Thank goodness, my hubby who was once a lifeguard, jumped in and saved the boy before he drowned my son in his panic. Of course, I would jump in, and so would most of my family, and save the person drowning.

[amitten]

33. Had your son (God forbid) drowned, a Republican would blame

him for trying to save another without first donning a life jacket, or without magically finding a speed boat to drive out on the water. Remember, it is ALWAYS the fault of the victim and everyone is expected to be perfect at all times. If you are not perfect at all times, you deserve what's coming to you, right?

[Cleita]

8. There was nothing Christian about how this administration

has responded to the victims of Katrina. They should all be indicted for manslaughter and criminal negligence for lack of adequate response. Why aren't our legal eagles doing this?

[tatertop]

9. I like your reasoning. A Democrat would help

A republican (faith aside) would taunt the victim -
try to hurt the victim if at all possible.
This is the new America.

[amitten]

11. Then it's a very sad America. And an America that won't stay

strong.

[Don Claybrook]

24. I disagree. It's not just a Democrat that would help.

Anyone who has been able to retain their humanity would help.

It's very unfortunate that you can draw fairly straight lines of demarcation between Democrat/Republican and Still Human/No Longer Human. To be sure, there are plenty of Democrats who wouldn't walk across the street to save someone's life, just as there are many Republicans who most emphatically would. That said, the party affiliation is probably a decent, rough guide, and that's a real shame.

Joseph Campbell (my favorite studier of philosophies and mythologies, if that's even a valid category) talked about this very instance, the saving of someone else's life. It goes against all of our survival instincts, given that saving a drowning person usually puts the resuer in danger too. But most of us would do it in a second if we had to. Why is this, that we go against our most basic Maslovian instincts? Because, Mr. Campbell says, we recognize the oneness we share with our fellow human beings. We don't need to like the person; we don't even need to know them in order for most of us to put our own lives at risk under the right conditions.

If, on the other hand, you opt not to help that person, you have ironically given away your claim to humanity in trying to secure your own safety.

[tatertop]

38. I think the new Republicans are more and more heartless

I don't literally believe most of them would watch a man drown, but
a majority of them seem to have no problem sleeping over
the wrath brought on by the Bush horror show.
Too many atrocities to mention.

[amitten]

42. That's my point. Today's Republicans have little mercy, it would

seem. They have convinced themselves that there is no such thing as a victim.

I guess that means that the 9/11 dead should have known better than to choose jobs in such tall buildings. :shrug:

After all, we are all 100% responsible for every unfortunate event we encounter, right? This is the new Republican reasoning, and no I am not exaggerating.

[tatertop]

45. I have heard a LOT of republicans blame the victims of Katrina.

As always, they do not care about the facts.

[amitten]

40. I'm just reporting on what I've observed. The 'blamers' who

think it's wrong to help others (Katrina being a prime example) have without exception been right-wing. It's the idea of 'accountability' taken to a very ugly extreme. It is prevalent, and it is primarily Republican.

[Don Claybrook]

44. You're right....and my subject header is inconsistent with my post

What I mean is that, functionally speaking, it turns out that it's by-and-large the right-wing types who are the most heartless vis. Katrina and other bad things that befall innocent people. The "disagree" part had to do with how one arrives at the Republicans being heartless bastards. To me, the heartlesness is borne of losing one's connection to the rest of humanity, and to be fair, you did not address the root of the Republican malaise. Which is just a long-winded way of saying, I was wrong to say that I disagreed with you in the subject header. I'm sorry about that.

[amitten]

46. I understand. And yes, they have lost their connection to others.

What bothers me is that it has been willfully chosen. What is at the 'root' of that is beyond me. If a Republican (or anyone) feels it is morally acceptable to stand by while others suffer, that person doesn't deserve analysis. That person deserves a swift kick in their selfish behind, and a gentle reminder that as a 'Christian' they are obligated to help.

[AZBlue]

53. You're absolutely right.

I've tried to point that out before and been flamed - you can't generalize like that. I think it's fair to say that this Administration = "No Longer Human" - at least in my opinion that's a fair thing to say. But, I actually know some Republicans (oh, no, say it's not so) and they are kind and generous and WOULD jump in to save a drowning person without giving it a second thought. They are a little politically misguided, but they aren't evil.

[Dees]

14. I did jump in......n/t

[William769]

16. Don't confuse Christians with rightwing nuts.

The question of the drowning man is easy, A Christian would save him.

[amitten]

17. But rightwing nuts usually claim to be Christians. However, they

are the ones who would let the man drown.

[William769]

25. Ever hear the term false prophet?

[amitten]

34. Not only have I heard it, I'm witnessing it almost daily. n/t

[Lex]

The rightwing nuts have co-opted Christianity and the real Christians

should be fighting harder to take their religion back, imho.

[William769]

28. Well as a Christian I am taught to love thy neighbor.

How do you suggest we fight back? by killing them? They will get theres in the end, that I am sure of.

[Ilsa]

18. Throw a freeptard an anvil.

just kidding. throw a drowning person something to help them stay afloat. unless you are trained in this rescue, you could be pulled down as well. yes, this is the christian thing to do, imo.

[mindem]

20. I did save a guy from drowning once.

We were fishing on Lake Itasca and some dopes hat blew off while he was blasting across the water. He turned his boat too quickly and was tossed out of the boat. I watched it happen and drove our boat over to where he was floundering. He had gone down the third time when I was lucky enough to snag him with the fish net and pull him toward our boat. At one point mom was screaming don't you dare go in the water after him. I was prepared to go in and would have because I'm a good swimmer and had training during scuba certification. I don't know how I could have lived with my self if I just watched someone drown and didn't at lest try to save them.

[amitten]

23. A Republican would blame that man, saying that he should have

somehow tethered himself to the boat before pushing out.

They will go to ridiculous lengths to blame the victim, no matter what the situation.

[newspeak]

30. it is amazing how fear can keep you from doing the

humanitarian thing. Traveling to another city, a RV was in a ditch and two elderly people were at the side of the road. My friend next to me kept yelling don't stop. I stopped and because she was in a near panic, I rolled down the window a little and asked if I could help--they had almost hit a deer and wound up in the ditch-they just asked if we could call the highway patrol.

[amitten]

35. Fear is different than making a choice to judge and dismiss. n/t

[nono]

22. Been there

Done that, 5 people, lost one

[amitten]

27. I hope that you receive as much good will as you've given. n/t

[newspeak]

36. I am thankful when someone stops to help me--greatful

when I was younger, about 20, I worked in Vegas and lived about 20 miles out of town. One night, I had to work late, I ran out of gas going towards home. Young, nervous on a dark road, an RV pulled up and a man got out and gave me gas. I asked if I could repay him and he said no if someone is on the road and needs help remember to help others. Now I do have survival skills and it's just a matter to know who to stop for. You know it was my fault that I ran out of gas, but thank goodness there was an angel on the road who didn't think "it serves her right."

[amitten]

37. That's a good example. You should never assume someone

just doesn't 'deserve' your help. Unless you know their entire life story, you have no means by which to judge their need.

Just help.

[hfojvt]

43. there has been another shift in society too

back in the old days many people were too proud to ask for or accept charity. Now we would call that person a fool, and we seem to have a society where everyone is looking for a free ride, everyone has their hand out trying to grab all they can (and CEOs are the worst on this, another one was in the local paper recently, he got paid $450,000 for getting fired). People are no longer ashamed to ask for help, in fact they demand it, seemingly taking no responsibility for whatever put them in that situation. And alot of time, it seems like people are asking for money and every time I give money I cannot help but notice all the Milo Minderbinders (middlemen) who are living well off of the proceeds. It also can seem overwhelming when there is so much need from the tsunami and Katrina, that the well of compassion has been tapped. After the last election, I took the year off from the Salvation Army. If people did not want to help themselves by voting those SOBs out of office, then I did not want to help them either. This year I spent 14 hours and $40 in cab fare to help raise money for the SA, but it seems like a moot point if the Republican Congress cuts $40 billion from social services. The Salvation Army cannot make up that difference, their budget is only $2 billion, the same amount Congress recently cut from LIHEAP.

[amitten]

47. Most common people are STILL too proud to ask for charity.

And it isn't my place to judge the ones who aren't. I'm not a jury, I'm a person. And if another person asks me for help, I'm going to by-God give it to them and ask questions later.

[hfojvt]

52. let me PM you my address then

I got no car and it's breaking my heart. If just 50 people pledge $4 a month I will be able to make payments.

[Evergreen Emerald]

48. I had a philosophy teacher who gave us that type of dilemma

I you could save someone from drowning with little risk to your life would you? If you chose not to, what type of person would you be? He then suggested that God, who claims to be all powerful and all knowing, daily allows people to die horrific deaths--even innocent children:

Epicurus' Riddle
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[AlienGirl]

49. It's a psychological defense mechanism

If people can believe that Bad Things Happened Because The Victims Screwed Up, they can feel safe: if they don't Screw Up nothing seriously Bad will happen. It absolves the person with the belief of any responsibility to help anyone, while guaranteeing a sense of security.

Tucker

[Pastiche423]

51. WTF does being a "christian" have to do w/the question?

[amitten]

63. Because many self-proclaimed 'Christians' would walk away.

That's the irony of it. The same right-wingers who are too selfish to help others claim to be Christians, when in fact Christianity teaches that selfishness is a sin. So basically, these people are fakes.

[TankLV]

54. Generallly speaking, no. But if it was ANY of the repukes in government

or a couple like zellout or LIEberman, I'd calmly walk away in a heartbeat with NO reqrets.

Sorry, but that's what THEY have brought me to.

[ladjf]

58. If I thought that there was a reasonably good chance that we

would both survive I would jump in. If it was my wife or child, I'd jump in regardless of the odds.

[0007]

59. If it was junior, I'd go look for a pig with a rope around his neck.

Then I'd throw the lifeline out to junior.

[PassingFair]

60. Atheist LifeSaver here!

:hi:
Once saved a girl out tubing that couldn't make it back to the boat.
My visor was still on when I heaved her over the side to safety.
God had NOTHING to do with it.
And NO, I didn't HESITATE to do what I had been trained to do at Life Guard training.

[amitten]

64. You deserve a lot of credit for that. And you help me make a

point: If someone considers themselves a Christian, whose religious duty it is to help others, how can they excuse shirking their duty when even an atheist is perfectly willing to help another out of basic kindness?

In other words, if you can't find it in your heart to help others and would rather make excuses, please quit calling yourself a Christian.

[PassingFair]

67. What THE...

"even an atheist"?
Check yourself, mama!

:hi:

[amitten]

68. Yes, "even an atheist". Meaning, "even someone unbound by

religious beliefs demanding that he/she help others."

Simma down. I could care less who anyone does or doesn't worship, and I pass no judgments either way.

[PassingFair]

72. Christians follow a religious belief that tells them

to kill homosexuals.

You pass judgements without thinking about it.

Just sayin....

[amitten]

73. I'm not here to argue religion. I'm here to say that if someone

is unwilling to help another, that someone cannot by definition claim to be a Christian.

If you're looking for someone to argue religion with, look elsewhere. I really could not care less how anyone does or doesn't worship.

[The Straight Story]

61. If they are a state employee let em drown

seperation of church and state ya know :)

[tinfoilinfor2005]

62. I would jump in regardless of who it was.

Although I suppose my adrenalin would be pumping a little harder if it was a kid or family member or friend. If it was bush, I might be tempted to sit down and take off my shoes and socks first. And maybe smoke a cigarette. ;-)

[hyphenate]

65. Depends on whether

the drowning person is a member of this administration or not! ;)

Seriously, some people, including myself, could never be the hero in such a scenario because we can't swim very well. I could attempt a rescue, but I might end up drowning myself.

OTOH, it's instinctual for most. They either have the ability to do it or not do it. It's not something you can speculate on because hypothetical scenarios are no proof of what a person is capable--or incapable--of doing in real life. Many of us have been trained in CPR and First Aid, but if someone were really in serious trouble, would we have the impetus to act on them?

I do think that we have become an "observer" population in a major part, but I also think that most people have the ability to act if they don't allow themselves too much time to think on a situation.



Also im answer to your original question, the answer is black and white film. It tends to add realism to GWB as he's drowning. ;)

[amitten]

70. And remember, this scenario is but a metaphor for the acts of

thoughtlessness I witness daily from the 'Christian' right.

[killbotfactory]

66. First I would ask them how they got in there...

Then I would come to a verbal agreement as to what my reward would be for helping.
Then I would do a background investigation to make sure they were worth saving.
Not thinking of what's in it for me would be the ultimate sin, and would lead to communist oppression in the long run.

Capitalism is awesome.

[amitten]

69. Right, that's the Republican spirit!

Better someone should suffer or die than *I* should sacrifice anything at all, right? Oh, the Bush clan would be so proud! :hug:

[hayu_lol]

71. After 5 years of Bush and his cronies...

I think I would have to ask if they were Repugnants or Liberals before I jumped in.