Humans vs Animals

Off Topic
121

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Twelvty billion e cookies says: Most people who argue in favour of humans would save the life of just ONE of their own sons or daughters over even one THOUSAND random people. Humans are extremely partial, I don’t really think this kind of question is really about the general value of humans Vs animals, it’s more about the nature of human bias & the power of emotional attachments

To put it another way, in strictly utilitarian terms, most of us are inconsistent…some are just more aware of this inconsistency than others.
[/quote]

Sorry, bud. You aren’t some philosopher-savant because you’re aware of that inconsistency. But even if you were, it’s still irrelevant. The above scenario involves weighing the lives of equals (read: human vs. human). Conversely, the trollish OP as it is stated is really a question of whether you distinguish between human and animal life.

There’s no way of knowing whether a random person is good or bad, so if you choose your dog, you’ve demonstrated an inability to make that distinction. That, or you’ve reached a level of cynicism I can’t even imagine, in which case I don’t see why you bother continuing your miserable existence.

Anyway, I’d kill the dog or any other pet I’ve ever owned for that random person.
[/quote]

Ok lets put this another way. If you had $100,000 in the bank that was your life savings or you worked a low pay dead end job, and hit the lotto for 100 grand and you became aware of a stranger that needed a life saving operation that cost exactly $100,000. Problem is, that stranger had no money and thus couldn’t get the operation. Would you sacrifice your life savings for that strangers life? After all, money is just paper right? Do you value pieces of paper over someone’s life?

If you are like most people, no you would not sacrifice your life savings for a stranger. So what if I valued the life of my dog as much or more than you valued your life savings? Then you really couldn’t blame me. And most people wouldn’t give up their life savings or all the money they owned to save the life of a stranger. So how can you fault someone, who may value their pet more than you do your money, for not being willing to lay down their pets life for a stranger?

122

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]clip11 wrote:
I wouldn’t sacrifice the life of my dog, who would sacrifice his for mine, for a person I know nothing about who probably could care less about me.[/quote]

LOL @ your dog sacrificing his life for yours. Aint gonna happen buddy. I love these romantic notions people have for their dogs, but at the end of the day, it’s romance. Like I said, I take and start feeding your dog and he’ll be quite happy right here in NJ - won’t even miss you after a bit. He won’t call, he won’t write, he won’t stay up at night howling in emotional distress. [/quote]

My dog is dead. RIP Gabe.

123

Mods, can we shut down this idiot thread already?

124

[quote]clip11 wrote:

Ok lets put this another way. If you had $100,000 in the bank that was your life savings or you worked a low pay dead end job, and hit the lotto for 100 grand and you became aware of a stranger that needed a life saving operation that cost exactly $100,000. Problem is, that stranger had no money and thus couldn’t get the operation. Would you sacrifice your life savings for that strangers life? After all, money is just paper right? Do you value pieces of paper over someone’s life?

If you are like most people, no you would not sacrifice your life savings for a stranger. So what if I valued the life of my dog as much or more than you valued your life savings? Then you really couldn’t blame me. And most people wouldn’t give up their life savings or all the money they owned to save the life of a stranger. So how can you fault someone, who may value their pet more than you do your money, for not being willing to lay down their pets life for a stranger?[/quote]

Once again, this is not relevant to the discussion. Like Gorillamon, you’ve concocted a scenario in which I’m comparing equals. In this case, I’m weighing quality of my own life vs the life of a stranger. For me, the quality of my own life is much more important than the actual life of an animal (even if it’s my own pet), thus it’s easy for me to answer this scenario differently and say I wouldn’t give the stranger that money. Also consider that my own life involves sufficient interaction with others such that $100,000 would also improve their lives. So really, you’re asking me if improving my life and those close to me is worth the life of a stranger (by omission, obviously). That’s an easy “no”.

I’ll reiterate: these things are not the same. I feel a much closer connection to members of my own species than to an animal. If you want to make this interesting, ask these people (and I will refrain from calling them the names that are coming to mind) who are choosing their dogs over randoms if they would sacrifice their pig (a smarter animal with less “awwwwww” factor), or their parrot, or their hamster, or their fish. Then you start to see the ridiculous inconsistencies they adhere to.

People have erroneously attributed human characteristics to dogs without doing the same for other animals. I simply do not subscribe to that.

125

Let’s not be so drastic.

You are in love with someone who can’t stand animals (allergy, fear, whatever) and you have a dog. You need to choose, the girl or the animal.

126

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]clip11 wrote:
I wouldn’t sacrifice the life of my dog, who would sacrifice his for mine, for a person I know nothing about who probably could care less about me.[/quote]

LOL @ your dog sacrificing his life for yours. Aint gonna happen buddy. I love these romantic notions people have for their dogs, but at the end of the day, it’s romance. Like I said, I take and start feeding your dog and he’ll be quite happy right here in NJ - won’t even miss you after a bit. He won’t call, he won’t write, he won’t stay up at night howling in emotional distress. [/quote]

Clip is a lonely boy BG.

127

[quote]Edevus wrote:
Let’s not be so drastic.

You are in love with someone who can’t stand animals (allergy, fear, whatever) and you have a dog. You need to choose, the girl or the animal.

[/quote]

Bad scenario. That shows that you are incompatible in some way and that the relationship with the girl will end up falling apart anyway. Unless animals aren’t that important to you in the first place, in which you would easily just ditch the dog.

132

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]clip11 wrote:
I know generally, human life is held higher than animal life. Saying that, if you had a dog that you were very close to and you had to choose to save the life of your dog or a random person, or even a person you knew, but really had no attatchment to, which one would you choose?

I used to have a dog that was like part of my family. And I know some may flame me for this, but I would have chose to save the life of my dog over 99.9% of people in the world. Probably because I felt more of an emotional attatchment to my dog, whereas most people, i am indifferent to. I was very sad when my dog died, and since then, have heard of several people that have died and it was really “thats too bad they died” by I cant say I felt any sadness per se.

What would anyone else do if the were faced with that situation?[/quote]

I love dogs, but I realize they are just animals. Though PETA disagrees, animals in fact don’t have rights. I wouldn’t think twice (if this was serious). [/quote]

People sometimes forget, that humans are also animals. (mammal)[/quote]

Yes, but we are not merely animals…we are persons. Persons have rights, animals do not. As fellow persons we have a duty to other persons over mere animals.

133

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Twelvty billion e cookies says: Most people who argue in favour of humans would save the life of just ONE of their own sons or daughters over even one THOUSAND random people. Humans are extremely partial, I don’t really think this kind of question is really about the general value of humans Vs animals, it’s more about the nature of human bias & the power of emotional attachments

To put it another way, in strictly utilitarian terms, most of us are inconsistent…some are just more aware of this inconsistency than others.
[/quote]

…what?

135

Since RV came around I dont think anyone has mentioned Celtics…there will always be one to carry the torch…

I absolutely love my dogs, and will do a shit ton for them and care for them immensely…but I will certainly choose a human being over my dogs, it will hurt and Ill be pissed if the person is an uberdouche, but guys really lets be realistic.

FTR if anyone had a chance to save save my daughter or wife’s life and some fuckstump chose their dog or cat or hedgehog over her Im killing you and your fucking companion…58 inch chest and all.

Im now gonna rub my dogs belly

137

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]clip11 wrote:

Ok lets put this another way. If you had $100,000 in the bank that was your life savings or you worked a low pay dead end job, and hit the lotto for 100 grand and you became aware of a stranger that needed a life saving operation that cost exactly $100,000. Problem is, that stranger had no money and thus couldn’t get the operation. Would you sacrifice your life savings for that strangers life? After all, money is just paper right? Do you value pieces of paper over someone’s life?

If you are like most people, no you would not sacrifice your life savings for a stranger. So what if I valued the life of my dog as much or more than you valued your life savings? Then you really couldn’t blame me. And most people wouldn’t give up their life savings or all the money they owned to save the life of a stranger. So how can you fault someone, who may value their pet more than you do your money, for not being willing to lay down their pets life for a stranger?[/quote]

Once again, this is not relevant to the discussion. Like Gorillamon, you’ve concocted a scenario in which I’m comparing equals. In this case, I’m weighing quality of my own life vs the life of a stranger. For me, the quality of my own life is much more important than the actual life of an animal (even if it’s my own pet), thus it’s easy for me to answer this scenario differently and say I wouldn’t give the stranger that money. Also consider that my own life involves sufficient interaction with others such that $100,000 would also improve their lives. So really, you’re asking me if improving my life and those close to me is worth the life of a stranger (by omission, obviously). That’s an easy “no”.

I’ll reiterate: these things are not the same. I feel a much closer connection to members of my own species than to an animal. If you want to make this interesting, ask these people (and I will refrain from calling them the names that are coming to mind) who are choosing their dogs over randoms if they would sacrifice their pig (a smarter animal with less “awwwwww” factor), or their parrot, or their hamster, or their fish. Then you start to see the ridiculous inconsistencies they adhere to.

People have erroneously attributed human characteristics to dogs without doing the same for other animals. I simply do not subscribe to that.
[/quote]

You’re making it harder than it is. You can survive w/o the $100,000. Sure, it’ll give you more joy and convenience. But you can get a full time job at Burger King and live check to check. So if you wouldn’t sacrifice you $$$ to save the life of a stranger then you cant’t fault me. You may not be able to buy that BMW or vacation home in Florida, but you will have a roof over your head, even if it is a cheap studio and you won’t starve.

138

So no one will give up all there money for the life of a stranger, but expect me or someone else to give up the life of a beloved pet for the life of a stranger? See the hypocrisy. I thought human life was supreme over all else? You wouldn’t give up your money to save a stranger, it would make you very uncomfortable, but you wouldn’t die because of it.

139

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Since RV came around I dont think anyone has mentioned Celtics…there will always be one to carry the torch…

I absolutely love my dogs, and will do a shit ton for them and care for them immensely…but I will certainly choose a human being over my dogs, it will hurt and Ill be pissed if the person is an uberdouche, but guys really lets be realistic.

FTR if anyone had a chance to save save my daughter or wife’s life and some fuckstump chose their dog or cat or hedgehog over her Im killing you and your fucking companion…58 inch chest and all.

Im now gonna rub my dogs belly[/quote]

This.

As if this is a realistic scenario to begin with…

I didn’t think people got lobotomies anymore… but, judging by some posts, apparently i’m wrong.

140

[quote]clip11 wrote:
So no one will give up all there money for the life of a stranger, but expect me or someone else to give up the life of a beloved pet for the life of a stranger? See the hypocrisy. I thought human life was supreme over all else? You wouldn’t give up your money to save a stranger, it would make you very uncomfortable, but you wouldn’t die because of it.[/quote]

$100,000 can get you more than 100 pets. You can own a fucking zoo with that kind of money.
Giving away your life savings for anyone, even family is stupid, when you can just hold a fundraiser for the person. That way, the person will get saved, and no one’s standard of living will be severely decreased. If you really want to save that person, you might have to pitch in $30,000, but that’s certainly better than losing everything. The $100,000 isn’t just uselessly sitting there, money flows around and can be used to accomplish many different objectives. Giving away all your money for an one time event just means that you will be screwed if you want to accomplish something else or help out somebody else.
Your pet does not have this type of potential. It is a single purpose commodity that is relatively useless in most situations. In most cases, having a pet is a luxury, not a necessity.