Admirable indeed it is to save a life, any. But this is not the issue, the issue is HOW she "saved" it. Allowing the elephant to be boss inside the house is not equipping it for the rest of its life unless it will become the alpha in her house for the rest of its life.

So onto my original premise: liberals are short sighted:
She did make a choice to save the elephant and as we all agree this was a noble and admirable thing but short sighted in not seeing beyond the immediate good feeling for rescuing an elephant that it needs to be prepared for the rest f its life and short sighted in letting it into the house in the first place not seeing that that would establish a precedent would not be realistic in the future.

So... she should have saved it from the water yes, taken it home perhaps if it needed medical attention, but the ideal would have been to return it to its herd. They would have received it. So if the herd was not found then keep it outside as close to what nature would be like until it could be re-introduced to the wild.
So when you rescued all those animals did you let them sleep with you? Eat food out of your plate? Let them run wild and do whatever they like? I'm sure to a degree yes but as a whole no.

By the way thank you for saving those animals.

The video is too low-quality to see it clearly, but I'm pretty sure that in an HD version you'd be able to see the red dot of the sniper's laser sight on the ref, just seconds before those brave players saved his life.

Wow thats pretty incredible. Really hope that individual comes to appreciate the risk that officer took to save his life.

Everyone loves boobs. Even if you think you don't, chances are you'd suck on one (and then the other) to save your life.

Unless you like death, or you're an adult and you lack the European genetic mutation possible to digest lactose (Thank you post-ice age Poland!): http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471

Fuck the sun gods! Worship the cowgod! Glorify thy holy mountains.

That might limit the severity of crashes but believe me, they're not stopping stupidity.
Best thing you can do when you're in a car, assume every driver in a passenger car tries to kill you Carmageddon style. That's what I do on the autobahn and I shit you not, it has saved my life a couple of times. The most incompetent driving I've ever witnessed was done with vehicles below 7.5 tons weight.
The sheer idiocy and carelessness I see on the road nowadays...

Wow, was expecting the 'fail' element to be the guy (though in a safety video even then, it would server its purpose well, so not actually a fail), but this....

Wow.

Thank you sir. You might have saved a life. That's ridiculous engineering. Worth more than a simple "recall". God damn....

Being a type I diabetic and a two time cancer survivour, it's saved my life.

However, we have a national program that helps keep wait times low, regulates drug purchases, and moderates which provinces/territories get funding from the feds, that is going to expire thanks to our PM.

This means there'll be no federal quality control, and drug purchasing will get downloaded onto the provinces. Some can handle it, most can not.

We have an election in the fall, we'll see if Harper wins. I sure as hell hope he doesn't.

Playing for Change - Lean on Me | The Art of Saving a Life has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Playing for Change - Lean on Me | The Art of Saving a Life has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Playing for Change - Lean on Me | The Art of Saving a Life has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Playing for Change - Lean on Me | The Art of Saving a Life has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Playing for Change - Lean on Me | The Art of Saving a Life has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Are christians and pro-lifers excluded from utilitarian reasoning? Harass a few people to save a life, kill one doctor to save a hundred foetuses, this is still all absolutely consistent and righteous if their belief is correct.

The belief is the poison. The problem with pro-lifers isn't what they do, it isn't that they're big meanies who pick on poor helpless women, it's that they're pro-lifers. It isn't fine to hold bad ideologies. If an ideology is the source of an action, then holding that ideology without acting on it must be equivalent with acting on it, and the action must be irrelevant.

What I said was mostly in jest, but I will entertain my learned colleague's well-reasoned arguments with a response.

"Squirrel fella didn't know what was going on"? That's right. He didn't. He didn't know the intentions of the human, other than his general instinct of "stay away from non-squirrels." His fear of him was totally justified.

Deus Ex Machina? There was no unexpected intervention which led to a happy ending here, that is my point. The squirrel expected the guy to grab him, he just didn't want him to. My point is that if the guy had kept on riding down the river, the squirrel would have been fine. But for his interference, the squirrel wouldn't have been drowning. His actions were negligent. His actions caused a situation of peril for that squirrel. If the squirrel had jumped toward the man and entered the calm part of the river and failed to swim, I might agree that intervention would have been necessary. Instead, the squirrel jumped in the exact opposite direction of the person, likely fearing for his life and choosing the most direct escape route, thus dooming himself. But he wouldn't have jumped that way if the guy hadn't been there. We can't know where he would have jumped, but I doubt it would have been in the most violent part of the river. Animal instincts aren't dumb, otherwise that squirrel would have been long dead.

Guy saved his life? Did he? Did we see a drowned squirrel swimming away from the rock before the guy even got there? Was there something that I missed in this video? Was the squirrel in imminent danger of being eaten by a vicious squirrel-eating miniature river-swimming orca? My point is the guy put the squirrel in danger simply by being there. Even after the squirrel jumped, it is not known that the squirrel would have drowned if the man had simply swam away. We assume because we think that squirrels are shitty swimmers.

Self-righteous? Did I say that I don't touch wildlife? Did I say that I might not have done the same thing in his position? No. I am simply saying that we should all abide by the general principle that wild animals do not need our help. Our interactions with them should be constrained to watching them pass and keeping them out of our areas when necessary and shooting and eating them when legal and not deleterious to the species. None of us should assume that our interactions with wildlife are anything other than a semi-masturbatory effort that serves the single purpose of entertaining us and making us feel good with little to no actual understanding of the animal's position.

Fuck you dude, squirrel fella didn't know what was going on. Deus ex machina, he was in danger and now he's safe, that's all he knows. Guy saved its life. What is your net contribution to the fauna of earth today? Bet he's one up on you, you self righteous arse.