Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

Animals vs humans round 2

(1003 Posts)
livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:00:34

I was enjoying our previous debate started by Fifi. Not sure if we were done!

AIBU to think if faced with choosing a pet over a human (even if a stranger), you should choose the human?

The idea was brought up in another thread and put in life or death situation. Building on fire contains your pet and a stranger. You could only save one, who would it be?

I had a dog, Ralph, I cried my heart out when he died 3 years ago. The only dog I wasn't scared of! But I can't imagine leaving a person to die instead, no matter how my heart would break.

AKAK81 Tue 05-Nov-13 18:24:14

Not giving a shit about strangers and/or their DCs isnt the same as wishing ill on someone tho, is it?

Thanks for that. I really would like to emphasise again that I don't wish pain and suffering on anyone outside of those who abuse children and animals but they're all cunts!

2tiredtoScare Tue 05-Nov-13 18:19:23

If she didnt want it to be a fight she wouldnt have called it round two!

KippyVonKipperson Tue 05-Nov-13 18:19:21

Humans win. The end.

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 18:19:16

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

treaclesoda Tue 05-Nov-13 18:18:24

I'm happy to be a sanctimonious do gooder in this debate!

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 18:17:57

It would be funny and appropriate to have the last post read "Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted."

[arf]

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 18:16:58

And thanks goodness this thread is nearly full.

I'm sure the op is wishing heartily she had never started it grin

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 18:16:19

Oh, yes, treacle - "sanctimonious do-gooder" is a compliment on this thread, I reckon.

I would rather be a SDG than be like some of the so-called dog-lovers.

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 18:15:34

The words "showing their true colours" are coming to mind grin

treaclesoda Tue 05-Nov-13 18:14:49

well, one thing is for sure, no one will be accusing AKAK of being a sanctimonious do gooder.

2tiredtoScare Tue 05-Nov-13 18:13:26

Spider always 'goes to work' when she is stumped for answers the returns to the thread when she thinks her comments have been forgotten

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 18:12:41

Mistress, what is wrong with it is the number of posts that have been reported and deleted for saying much, much less.

2tiredtoScare Tue 05-Nov-13 18:11:24

Dont rise to him, I dont care if this gets deleted AKAK but I would be amused and rip the piss if my husband was chatting on mumsnet the way you are. Surely you could find a more appropriate forum

everlong Tue 05-Nov-13 18:09:45

Yes AKAK'S post should be left to stand.

It magnifies all what is wrong with these two threads and those excuse of human beings who would save the life of animal over a human being, especially someone's child.

trixymalixy Tue 05-Nov-13 18:09:33

Ah well there you go, a personal attack from AKAK.

What do you think of that spider?

MistressDeeCee Tue 05-Nov-13 18:08:11

Not giving a shit about strangers and/or their DCs isnt the same as wishing ill on someone tho, is it? So Im not sure I see the problem with AKAK81's comments. Although what s/he said doesnt sound very nice its his/her own truth in the context of the post, after all.

Id save a child over a dog but Id still feel sorry for the dog sad

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 18:06:14

So no name-calling there?

AKAK81 Tue 05-Nov-13 18:05:28

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 18:01:55

Yes, I hope it stands as well.

It might counteract some of the "poor me, people have been horrible to me" posts on this thread.

And make people realise why some of us are so horrified by this.

ToysRLuv Tue 05-Nov-13 18:00:47

At least I didn't copy paste my homework from the internet, Miss! <hides chewing gum under the seat>

trixymalixy Tue 05-Nov-13 18:00:11

AKAK, you say you're not interested in random children or people who are strangers to you, yet you raise money for children's charities. Are they not random children?

Spider, This vile statement from AKAK has to be one of the goadiest statements I've ever read on MN

Quite frankly I couldn't give a flying fuck about the devastation of some random mother over the loss of their random child. Why should I? It has no impact on my life whatsoever.

I'm quite happy it's been allowed to stand though so posters can get the measure of AKAK and those that align themselves with him.

Maryz Tue 05-Nov-13 17:57:55

Math, your post will be reported and deleted, so I will post it again without that bit:

"Yes, if they have chosen to go into the building to save their pet, or chosen their pet over another human on their own way out, they are on the same level as a drunk driver. A callous disregard for the safety and welfare of others is what they have in common.

'You have a chance to personally save one particular individual and you pass it up in favour of saving a dog' is not analogous to 'having a chance to indirectly contribute to the welfare of the poor but deciding not to donate to a third party who may or may not make sure the money gets where it will do the most good'."

pianodoodle Tue 05-Nov-13 17:56:47

Yes toys

And now we have "it wasn't me Miss I was never there" grin

mathanxiety Tue 05-Nov-13 17:56:04

Yes, if they have chosen to go into the building to save their pet, or chosen their pet over another human on their own way out, they are on the same level as a drunk driver, and saying you don't give a shit about it makes me wonder if you are in fact drink, because there is no other charitable explanation for a statement like that.. A callous disregard for the safety and welfare of others is what they have in common.

'You have a chance to personally save one particular individual and you pass it up in favour of saving a dog' is not analogous to 'having a chance to indirectly contribute to the welfare of the poor but deciding not to donate to a third party who may or may not make sure the money gets where it will do the most good'..

pianodoodle Tue 05-Nov-13 17:47:22

Lol. I read "murderers" "dog killer" and "dumb" from spider and they were definitely not within a hypothetical context but in a "you are all..." context.

Mumsnet hq aren't going to award you points for the most sycophantic post spider grin

This thread is not accepting new messages.