Quote:
|
So yes, I would help -- but not if it were simply in vain.
|
Now THAT is something that should have been brought into the debate (and it's not up to me, everyone else has more "paper" than I) and I wished that I would have thought of it.
Now, Vain to me is 0% chance. Not 50/50, 80/20, would actually think about it if I deemed it 90/10 but would do what was morally correct (to me, I'm not saying that everyone has the same moral or value system that I have, and I don't expect them too).
To me, it's not a hard question to answer. I have been in situations that my life was on the line and I knew how I reacted to it. I am hoping that I will react the same in the next situation (So Glenn, I'm not drawing from what if's but what done's). Yet if a person has never been in such a situation, it is understandable that they would reply as they have done.
Here's a simple, realistic, thing that could happen and reply what you would do:
You are at home, you live by an airport. You hear a whinning noise and then right outside your door (let's say 500 meters) a small aircraft has gone down. It's burning, do you:
1: Run to the aircraft to see what you may be able to do
2: Run from your home because you are afraid of an explosion
3: Shut your curtains and resume watching "the last survivor"
Getting your family to safety (like out of the area) is a given.
On the news, they were interviewing people that helped to pull those old people out of the water from the Ethan Allen. They filled up their boats with survivors, they jumped into the water without life jackets, they saved 21 strangers, people that they didn't know or should care about, and feel sad that 21 others died, people that they didn't even know, or should have had a care about.
Wayne