this is giving me deja vu to the time we tried to explain the free will debate to you years ago.

I'm trying not to be mean, but do you really not understand the concept of a hypothetical question?

What if the dog got its papers mixed up with another dog’s and was never meant to be dangling from the cliff in the first place? Hypothetically?

Why not throw the sick **** that's doing it to prove a morality point off the cliff?

It's probably Micheal Vick.

What if the dog is a furry? Now that would be confusing! Is it a human masquerading as a dog, or a dog trying to pass as a human? And while you debate in your head, both fall...

Where have I heard this before

Just cause I admitted you're smart doesn't mean you gotta condescend to me whenever you aren't getting your way.

It's a stupid question that I already answered with the bus scenario. That's as far as I'm willing to go.

Next?

It's easy to answer.

I'd say chances are the death of a random human is going to cause more pain in the world than the death of a random dog. So you should choose the random dog.

What if both the dog and the human are each missing a leg?

In that scenario:

The dog could still pay catch - so the gimpy human dies.

A more interesting what-if, I think, would be if the the death of the random dog or person would be unnoticed by them and completely painless. Possibly, instead of making a moral judgment merely on behalf of the creature getting randomly killed, one should consider what consequences someone's death, dog or human, may have for others.