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.

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:01:32

Sorry I couldn't help myself I was enjoying the discussion! I am camp pet by the way ducks missiles

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 20:01:46

HURAAY, now someone answer my question! Save your own DC or your beloved pet?

KeepingUpWithTheJonses Sat 02-Nov-13 20:03:34

The human, without question.

Anyone who doesn't needs their head examined.

littlewhitebag Sat 02-Nov-13 20:04:07

I might be in the dog camp but obviously I am going to choose my own child first.

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:04:43

Can't blame you for not wanting to trawl through 1000 messages smile I don't think anyone said they would put the pet ahead of their own children. Can't imagine that really. But in my universe my dog would be the one doing the saving!

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:05:50

DH is telling me off for opening a new thread smile

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 20:06:22

I don't that it is obvious though, as its been pointed out there seems to be some very differing opinions. It would seem 'obvious' to me to save a child that wasn't mine over a dog but others disagree

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 20:07:19

Imagine the news headlines if you did save a dog over a child

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:08:40

Forty said on the last thread it is a question of what values people place on life (I think that was it). My dog is part of the family so I value that more over a stranger I have never met and have no emotional attachment to. It would have to be something pretty mega in the first place to get me into a burning house and I would call the fire brigade over going into a house for someone I had no connection to.

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:09:50

Lol tired this is true. The Dm would have a field day!

UrgentNews Sat 02-Nov-13 20:09:58

My order of house saving:
-DD and DS
-Dog
-Anyone else

Spider7 Sat 02-Nov-13 20:10:29

The hell with the news headlines.... Those a holes pander to the worst in human spirit! Besides these people would save a corpse that was a peado among other vile things when alive, over their own pets! And they judge us morally deficient! Puffs out boobs, wriggles shoulders & huffs indignantly! Lol!

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:12:09

It's about vulnerability to me. A child and a dog are more vulnerable than a grown up who can make an attempt to save themselves. And I could carry a dog and a child but I would struggle with a grown person physically.

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 20:12:12

Imagine you'd had a party at your house and you were upstairs with a child you barely know, say a work colleague of your DH couldn't get a baby sitter. You've only got time to save them or your dog! grin

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 20:13:04

Hey I wouldn't save a corpse!

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 20:14:25

Imagine the news headlines if you did save a dog over a child

Indeed. You'd need police protection I'd imagine. I'd forgive the police for being a bit lax with it though grin

UrgentNews Sat 02-Nov-13 20:14:57

2tired the dog every time, and if anyone even dares to question my sanity then prepare for a rant

gordyslovesheep Sat 02-Nov-13 20:15:33

I imagine a human could very easily take down a squirrel or a small deer but a gibbon or lion would win most fights

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:15:37

I'm with urgent and spider lol. Getting told off now so have to put mumsnet down!

Ivyfairy Sat 02-Nov-13 20:16:20

Oh there's a genuine follow on thread!

Have just given Spider a dog biscuit on her attempt at a TAAT. Oops grin

Spider7 Sat 02-Nov-13 20:16:58

Sorry 2tired. Wrong of me to generalise. At least one would

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 20:18:34

I don't understand where you are coming from UrgentNews or agree with you on any level but that doesn't mean you are insane

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 20:19:26

I'd use his corpse to ride to freedom

FortyDoorsToNowhere Sat 02-Nov-13 20:20:00

Getting told off now so have to put mumsnet down!

Ltb and get a dog smile

SharpLily Sat 02-Nov-13 20:20:14

Never mind a stranger - it's debatable I'd choose my husband over my dog. He weighs 97 kilos and I struggle to shove him back over to his side of the bed when he strays in the night. The chances of me being able to drag him unconscious from a burning building are pretty much nil. Now if he were conscious he'd be yelling at me 'go for the dog, you dozy twunt!'.

Does that make me reprehensible or pragmatic?

Spider7 Sat 02-Nov-13 20:20:49

Doughnut was lovely Ivy, at ever so... Dog biscuit too! Awwwe, you spoil me! Still choosing my doggie over you! Oh dear living, doghouse huh lol! Yeah I know lame but could not resist. Or rather chose not too! At for staring another thread.... I'm new to here so kinda boobed. Tolerant stranger lovers being so kind rewarded me with dog biscuit! Alas I too am being called away. By my dog who is urging me to come play. Dog or zealots.......? Easy call.... Woof woof!

Spider7 Sat 02-Nov-13 20:21:15

*Thanks ever so....

Ivyfairy Sat 02-Nov-13 20:22:07

No doughnut confused 'Twas a dog biscuit.

Human savers are the zealots grin How odd!

Spider7 Sat 02-Nov-13 20:22:10

Damn predictive! Thanks living that should be! And cheers for being with me :-)

UrgentNews Sat 02-Nov-13 20:25:40

Thanks 2tired, for once a hypothetical 'human saver' who isn't questioning the sanity of those who disagree with them. Here, have some cake

DiseasesOfTheSheep Sat 02-Nov-13 20:25:41

I'm sure one ought to save the human... But I like my dog too much to watch him burn.

I'm also fairly sure I'd be leading my horses out of a barn fire before rescuing anyone else. In fact, I'd go back for other people's horses before I went in search of humans grin

IdreamofFairies Sat 02-Nov-13 20:26:32

A human every time without question.

I have two dcs away from home at the moment. If one of them died because someone saved their pet I dont think I would in my great great grief be able to control my anger. Tbch I think the end result would be two needless deaths. I realise this makes me worse than the person who let my child die but in my defence I would have just lost part of me.

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 20:28:45

I'm sure there's room for more on JS's corpse, we could slide down the stairs and straight out the front door to safety

UrgentNews Sat 02-Nov-13 20:31:19

Zealot- 'a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.'

Someone in the first thread said that they would save someone who was in their house to hurt their DCs over their own pet. If that isn't an uncompromising pursuit of ideals then I don't know what is!

Right then people, how many of you are just saying they would save humans because it's the PC answer?

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 20:38:29

The mental health slurs on the previous thread were grim. Says a lot about the people saying them! People were claiming the moral high ground whilst saying those horrible, nasty comments. Why MN lets disablism again MH stand, I don't know!

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:44:20

Idream that's fair enough. I can understand that. I go mental at the thought of anyone wanting to harm my family. I would include the pooch in that though and I know some wouldn't. The bonds that tie me to my dog go way beyond what I could ever feel for a stranger. Glad this is hypothetical though!

Candy - so far so good on this thread smile I am to bed now so hope that it stays that way as I was enjoying the last one.

Urgent - I live in the Netherlands where people are blunt beyond belief. Pc doesn't exist smile so I am embracing my adopted culture and saying dog all the way!

Ivyfairy Sat 02-Nov-13 20:44:44

"they would save someone who was in their house to hurt their DCs over their own pet"

I don't think that was the general opinion amongst the human savers, somehow! One person from the group of the same opinion does not make zealots of us all. Your quoting of the definition is correct, your application seems to have gone a bit awry, if you don't mind my saying.

What about the people/dog savers (more than one) who said they'd choose to save a dog/cat/hamster over a human baby? Extreme much?

Ivyfairy Sat 02-Nov-13 20:46:42

I told off one of the dog savers for using similar disablist language. It wasn't all one sided.

PrincessFlirtyPants Sat 02-Nov-13 20:48:33

The accusations of MH issues on the other thread were disgusting.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 20:50:36

I never said it was one sided but there were some regulars (who are loud voices on MN) who were horrid.

The previous thread changed my mind. If faced with a burning building containing a human and a dog, before saving the human I'd shout out "Which do you value more, a human or a dog" and depending on the answer I might hold the door shut.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 02-Nov-13 20:57:19

Changed it which way back?

TerrorTremor Sat 02-Nov-13 20:57:46

I'd save my pet.
But I'd save your child.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 21:01:27

I'd save a human but first, I'd check they weren't the MNers on my shitlist. wink

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 02-Nov-13 21:05:20

I would save the person without a shadow of a doubt. Whether the person is known to me or a total stranger.

I have pets. Have always had a cat or a dog. Currently both. I love them dearly.

The only circumstances in which I can imagine that I would not choose the person would be if I couldn't get to them. Physically couldn't get to them and the pet happened to reachable. And that's not really making a choice.

UrgentNews Sat 02-Nov-13 21:05:33

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

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 21:11:39

Belated lol at the horses diseases!

trish5000 Sat 02-Nov-13 21:16:46

Feel I should talk a little more about saving everyone, no matter who they were. Yes, I would. As I said, I couldnt do anything else. But I am a Christian, so I believe that if a person once having beensaved from the fire, doesnt change their awful behaviour before they die, then yes, God will deal with them and they will go to hell. In other words, God deals with them, not me.

OutragedFromLeeds I was being facetious. I naturally would save a human before any animal - any decent person would, but now I'd consider making an exception for someone who'd let a human burn to save their pet. If such a person were in the building I'd hold the door shut to ensure they stayed there.

Don't worry. I wouldn't actually do it. I'd even put a person like that before a pet.

Ivyfairy Sat 02-Nov-13 21:21:29

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

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 21:26:09

Backonly - what do you want, a medal? To be told you're such a wonderful person?

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 02-Nov-13 21:29:10

Phew Back <wipes brow>

everlong Sat 02-Nov-13 21:29:13

Of course she deserves a medal.
She'd be doing the right thing.

I'm not a wonderful person. Just a normal human being. There seem to be some people here who don't quite qualify.

DiseasesOfTheSheep Sat 02-Nov-13 21:38:07

Personally I'd be more inclined to hold the door shut if it was someone who thought caring about their pet enough to save it in a high stress situation was so unthinkably wrong they would lock them in to burn...

Which is circular logic, anyway...

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 21:38:09

Backonly - what do you want, a medal? To be told you're such a wonderful person?

It's not really being wonderful or heroic. It's just what a decent person would consider the right thing to do was.

DiseasesOfTheSheep Sat 02-Nov-13 21:40:28

I don't think it's particularly decent or right to consider holding the door shut on someone just because their moral compass doesn't coincide with your own, pianodoodle hmm

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 21:41:33

Ahh so you guys want to be called decent and right. Got it! wink

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 21:42:31

Not normal???? Ugh, what a cunty thing to say!

UrgentNews Sat 02-Nov-13 21:42:56

Ivyfairy what I was saying is that all 'dog savers' aren't necessarily zealots and that some 'human savers' are.

everlong Sat 02-Nov-13 21:45:13

Nothing to do with wanting being called anything candy.

It just is decent and right. That's it.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 21:47:26

Decent and right is an opinion. Also, mental health slurs are not decent or right! My god, there are some vile excuses for human beings on here.

everlong Sat 02-Nov-13 21:51:14

Listen to yourself candy.

Seriously.

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 21:51:57

diseases

She didn't say she'd do it though, as opposed to people who say they would leave the person to die.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 21:52:48

You haven't listened to me this whole time. I agree with you, I manage to do it without being disablist!!!!!!

everlong Sat 02-Nov-13 21:54:39

By saying someone is unhinged because they'd save a fruit fly over a child.

That's disablist?

I don't agree.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 21:55:20

I don't know why its ok to be disablist on here. Guess 'not normal' people are fair game, right?

2tiredtoScare Sat 02-Nov-13 21:55:49

You'd struggle to catch a fruit fly

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 02-Nov-13 21:56:22

candy

Who has been disablist on this thread?

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 21:56:23

Everlong - you're being obtuse and you know it. There are proper examples on the other thread.

Spikeytree Sat 02-Nov-13 21:56:48

Candy, they won't listen, they are too decent and normal to appreciate the irony.

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 21:57:11

Not normal???? Ugh, what a cunty thing to say

Oh do catch a hold of yourself please.

Cunty is saying you'd leave someone's child/mother/sibling to burn to death in order to save your moggy. Actually do it would be far far worse than Cunty.

DiseasesOfTheSheep Sat 02-Nov-13 21:59:01

She didn't say she'd do it though, as opposed to people who say they would leave the person to die

I'm not sure that's any better though. To consider someone less worthy of living simply because they don't agree with you? That's not very appealing thought... I don't consider it my place to judge other people's moral choices.

UrgentNews Sat 02-Nov-13 22:00:40

I've decided to abandon this argument and go to bed, everyone just have some wine and cake, and chillax. Thanks for a mentally stimulating conversation smile.

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 22:02:07

Actually doing it, that should read.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 22:03:14

LOL at piano you know this is hypothetical! Whereas some people actually were disablist over a hypothetical situation!!!!! Pathetic.

everlong Sat 02-Nov-13 22:04:18

I haven't been disablist candy.

Look through my posts.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 22:07:30

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

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 02-Nov-13 22:09:21

Your posts read as though you are inferring Everlong has been disablist Candy.

There is no need to be unnecessarily rude.

musicmadness Sat 02-Nov-13 22:09:56

Don't think either POV is wrong, and TBH I'm not 100% certain what I'd do. I don't have any pets any more but when I did do I'm honestly not certain what I'd do in this scenario (assuming standard adult stranger). When I was a teen I went onto frozen ice to retrieve my dog who had got himself stuck, and I didn't even think about it. It was just instinct to go and get him. Admittedly this was a reasonably shallow pond so any chance of serious injury if the ice cracked was pretty low but I still put myself in danger to save him.

Acting purely on emotion and instinct I suspect I would go to my dog, though I'm not sure and completely torn thinking about it as a hypothetical. Maybe I'd be the idiot who got themselves trapped as well because I took to long to decide!

Neither POV seems that unusual, reading this it seems over 40% would save their dog in some circumstances so there are clearly a huge number of people that don't see it as a black or white question.
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201306/would-you-save-puppy-or-child-burning-building

everlong Sat 02-Nov-13 22:09:57

No you're right it doesn't.
My point still stands though. I haven't been disabilst.

everlong Sat 02-Nov-13 22:11:27

It's ok Alis.
For some reason candy has a beef with me <shrug>

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 22:11:30

I was speaking generally and I said on the other thread. Please point out where I have directly accused??

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 22:12:16

No one was disablist.

You can still have a real opinion about a hypothetical situation. And that opinion can still be vile to others.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 22:13:43

I don't give a flying monkeys what any of you would do in a hypothetical situation. I care that some people were disablist.

everlong Sat 02-Nov-13 22:14:14

Your words to me.

I manage to do it without being disablist.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 22:14:51

Piano -- some people were disablist on the prev thread

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 22:15:53

I actually think a lot of people saying they would save the pet are probably not being serious. There's only a few I think who are smile

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 22:16:32

I never said you were! You're extrapolating! I was commenting that some people cannot debate without resorting to that!!!!

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 22:17:40

Candy - no they weren't

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 22:22:32

I'm off to bed but just saying; I am fully aware that everlong did not say anything disablist. Sorry if anyone wants to read my words like that but really, I know it was not her and would never stoop so low as to lie on a forum!

pianodoodle Sat 02-Nov-13 22:22:51

Unless something got deleted I didn't see.

KittensoftPuppydog Sat 02-Nov-13 22:24:32

Still at it?
Again, the pro human side need to explain why.

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 22:25:16

Well this wasn't meant to get nasty. How am I not decent because I would choose a dog I consider to be a member of my family over some stranger who I have no emotional connection to? In a hypothetical discussion? At no point has anyone explained the superiority of why strange human is so much more important than a pet. People rush into burning buildings to save wedding albums! I'm selfish which is a fundamental human trait and all you who sound so noble are no different. We would all go with saving what meant the most to us in a moment of crisis as described by the original op. For me thats my dog over a stranger any day. As several said in the last thread you'd in reality be interested in getting yourself the hell out without thinking of any stranger at all. Kids and/or the dog/cat/rabbit/whatever but certainly not strangers. Having been in a fire at uni halls we all just wanted out as fast as possible!

I can't fathom why human life is so much more important than anything else. A human life I cared about yes. Not just any human though. But if you think that is wrong well that's cool. I won't insult you for not agreeing with me.

You are welcome to your opinion and to debate mine but please without snide comments and the fact you think you're better than me or the other animal savers on the thread as that is how it comes across. There is simply no need for the language I'm seeing. And.... It's NOT REAL...

KittensoftPuppydog Sat 02-Nov-13 22:25:30

My doggie is lovely.

livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 22:26:06

Candy was talking generally.

KittensoftPuppydog Sat 02-Nov-13 22:32:14

My dog cries if i go in a shop. She has hysterics if I go swimming and sobs her heart out if I go on a swing.
If you find a human who ares as much about me, I'll care about them

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 02-Nov-13 22:34:28

I just think that saying you'd save a stranger is silly because you have no idea, unless you've ever actually been in a burning building. I have been in a fire, it was fucking terrifying. You don't think rationally when you feel your life is in danger, so probab best to stop saying you'd definitely save x or y because you don't know. This is partly why I was upset.

Really going now....

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 02-Nov-13 22:35:52

candy

Hypothetically I'd save the stranger.

In reality I'd probably panic,trip over something and end up dead.

But hypothetically my heart is in the right place.

fifi669 Sat 02-Nov-13 22:42:51

Just read the psychology today article, can't believe my randomly thought up idea has been studied!

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 02-Nov-13 22:57:24

The 40% thing kind of goes against the 'it goes against human instinct'/ 'there's one right answer' doesn't it?

Ivyfairy Sat 02-Nov-13 23:15:05

Is that the same article Maid (think it was Maid) linked to in the first thread? In that 60%, the majority, would save human.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 02-Nov-13 23:21:16

I think that's the same one. 40% said dog, 60% said human. That goes against the human nature argument doesn't it? For that you'd need 95% vs 5% or something.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 02-Nov-13 23:22:41

40% is a lot of dogs for Culew to kill. She'll have to give up her day job!

OrmirianResurgam Sat 02-Nov-13 23:26:03

Stranger v my dog, my dog wins. Strange dog v strange human, human wins.

Latara Sat 02-Nov-13 23:30:20

A certain bitchy woman at work vs my cat - easy, my cat wins!

Ivyfairy Sat 02-Nov-13 23:32:14

60% doesn't seem like a big majority to me, certainly

We have a dog. Really wanted a dog... She's a rescue... We've had her 2 months... she is very different to the dog I thought she was when we committed to take her.. so far she has made every day of the last 2 months infinitely more stressful and unpleasant than life was before we had her. I have 3 young DC but the dog has increased the stress explosively, unbelievably, more than any one of the DC did... so far the rewards, on every level, are far more merge than the stress factor.

I'd save any human, aside from rapists and murderers, before my own dog(or the rabbits, who I like fine, but they are rabbits...) let alone any other... Maybe my opinion will change in time... but I don't think so!

My sister judges her very little foster son negatively because he dislikes her nippy half grown lurcher... I feel awful for the little boy and little for the admittedly fun loving but none the less toothy young dog...

*meagre - the rewards of rescue dog ownership are meagre, not merge. It is not easy, and the DC are suffering for it, I feel bad about it, and better disposed toward people than stressful, barkey, demanding canines...

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 02-Nov-13 23:39:08

I don't think 60% is anywhere near enough to argue that it's 'human instinct'. There clearly isn't a massive consensus, we can see that from this thread. The 'anyone who would save the dog is mental' brigade need to take a look at their viewpoint imo. Strongly disagree with the dog-savers sure, but there are too many to argue that they're mentally ill/don't have 'normal' human instincts.

Obviously we don't what anyone would actually do in that situation.

Weirdly, the easiest for me to answer of all the hypothetical questions was the bus one because there it's absolutely split second decision, no room whatsoever to think logically.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 01:43:45

Fifi check you out as a thought leader and philosopher smile

Tumbles I am sorry it's not working out with the rescue. It can be so rewarding to rehome them but as you say sometimes challenges surface that you can't anticipate until you get home. I have to say beloved as my dog is at the first sign of teeth against a child in play or not it's to the trainer. And if it persists then I'd have to rehome. The dog not the child just to be clear!

Fortunately dog is so good with little ones so o don't have that worry! but I don't understand people that keep pets that aren't compatible with the kids. SIL keeps two of the fuzziest cats despite DN having asthma.

Rambling back onto topic I think we're going good at 40%. And Outraged your comment made me laugh! She'll be busy for a while!

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 02:08:28

Alis how is my heart in the wrong place hypothetically for choosing my pet over a stranger? All that says is you think you're better than me and I have a heart made of stone for choosing something I love and value over something that I have no knowledge or attachment to.

Everlong as I said to you in the previous thread it seems perfectly acceptable for some to insult others based on nothing more than an imaginary scenario on an internet forum. Seeing yours and others comments hasn't really changed that opinion and also shows that my dog really is more considerate then some of these supposed marvellous humans. Is it therefore surprising that I'd pick my dog every time over a species that is so free to abuse total strangers based on nothing at all.

When will people realise that you need to be nice to others if you want to persuade them to your point of view rather than rude and aggressive? Nothing like getting people to dig their heels in like insulting them!

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 02:11:48

And Ty to the human savers who provided intelligent debate smile hasn't all been negative! Right really must sleep now.

SkinnedAlive Sun 03-Nov-13 02:59:27

I find it odd that some people have such an amazingly high level of self importance, that they believe they should have the right to kill me because I value my own family (and hence my own needs) above theirs. In an emergency my cats would go into their cat carrier leaving one hand free which I would use to drag out/carry anyone else I could.

I would not dream of being angry at someone who put their family or needs above mine. I would expect them to. If someone left the fire with their baby under one arm and a bag of jewelry in the other, and therefore saved valuables instead of getting my cats, it wouldn't occur to me to kill them for it even though some have said they would want to kill me in the same situation. I would probably be one of the people helping them out, even if by their own admission they left my family screaming and burning. But if I applied their thinking, then yes I should have the same right to kill them, never mind helping them.

Selfish is not a bad thing. Selfish = self care in many respects. My cats mean everything to me. More than a stranger ever would. They are my family and necessary for my health and happiness and no-one else has the right to expect me to sacrifice my life and happiness for theirs.

I would always put other humans and animals over valuables. For the people that put humans over pets, do you also put valuables over pets? Do your own valuables come above other peoples pets? If you expected to kill a person who put their pet over your family member, would you accept they should kill you of you put your valuables above their pet?

TirAnna Sun 03-Nov-13 04:28:42

Regardless of where anyone stands in the debate, I'm not really buying the whole 'it's only hypothetical so it doesn't matter' argument - if people were saying things like 'I'd save a child who was intelligent over one who wasn't because they'll make more of their life' or 'I'd save a boy over a girl because I like boys better' or something, should no-one be condemning their point of view because there's no actual fire and no-one's really dying? confused

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 06:56:21

I don't see pets as family members and for that reason I don't have any, it truly wouldn't occur to me to save your pet, sorry but I'm guessing that's the way some of you feel about kids?

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 07:47:59

If someone left the fire with their baby under one arm and a bag of jewelry in the other, and therefore saved valuables instead of getting my cats, it wouldn't occur to me to kill them for it even though some have said they would want to kill me in the same situation.

Leaving a cat behind is not quite the same as leaving a baby behind (although no doubt I'll be asked to explain why grin)

I'm sure you love your cat, but...it's a cat.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 07:54:00

Tiranna for me I'm not condemning anyone smile But I find it bizarre that people would be so verbally violent to total strangers just because they believe something different. If you'd be that insulting to a stranger then am I truly to believe you'd risk your own hide to save one? What if that stranger were one of the pet camp?! I'm not judging you (you in the global sense not personally) because you'd save a stranger - you are far braver than me - but I'll judge you if you are rude about it at the same time!

We're privileged in our society to never really have to even contemplate the scenarios you describe but in many countries that's not the case. I don't judge or condemn those parents for the decisions they make - because I don't know them! Everyone does what they feel they have to burning buildings and all.

2tired for some, yes I think you are right. What about people who don't have children and dogs are their main or only companion? Or cats? My dog isn't that but he's my faithful friend who has saved me on more occasions than I care to remember. But I can understand that's not the way you see things and that's fair enough smile just clear a path on your way out for the pet to escape that's all I ask!

Skinned - well put smile I simply can't see why I would have to put something that is more import to someone else ahead of what's important to me if I'm going to risk my life rushing into a burning building. Why should I? On the things I'd be gutted at having to spend £185 on a passport again but that's what insurance is for I guess! I certainly wouldn't put objects above life. I couldn't shoot someone for appearing with the family jewels above a critter or person but I'd be hard pushed not to punch them....

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 07:58:12

The cat vs baby is to be expected piano but that's not what she said. she was talking about something replaceable being saved over something irreplaceable ie the cat. If I had a choice with my spare arm it would be the cat not the jewellery smile

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 09:20:08

I wouldn't take either.

Getting the baby out would be more than enough!

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 09:33:29

I'll look out for pets next time I'm in a burning building but leave my child to burn and I'll get all Curlew on your ass grin

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 09:34:53

"We're privileged in our society to never really have to even contemplate the scenarios you describe but in many countries that's not the case. I don't judge or condemn those parents for the decisions they make - because I don't know them!"

Quite. Furthermore Western culture has fetishised children in a way that is not automatic in other cultures.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 09:51:45

It has also fetishised pets as well

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 10:08:25

Really? Not that I had noticed - after all about 60% are apparently happy to see them burn.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 10:16:32

Lol sharplily not happy to see a pet burn just less happy to see a human burn grin

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 10:27:09

Right. But you were also one of the two who believed it would be reasonable to kill said innocent pet if I failed to rescue your child, so there does seem to be a certain amount of relish there...

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 10:29:27

Not "failed" to rescue my child. That would imply you had tried.

If you chose to rescue your pet over my child and then expected me to understand I don't think I'd be responsible for what I did tbh!

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 10:29:35

I wouldn't kill the pet but I would be tempted to hurt you. If they are not fetishised why on earth do some people talk about them like they are human, dress them up like dolls, dye their hair spend thousands on them etc etc plus what pianodoodle said

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 10:30:41

I doubt many would feel particularly forgiving towards you in those circumstances.

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 10:33:17

Fortunately I feel I'd be able to struggle on without the approbation of a bunch of random strangers - as long as I have my beloved dog beside me for support smile.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 10:35:09

You wouldn't be able to struggle on if set upon by a baying mob, is your dog a big scary one smile

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 10:36:56

Hmmm.. then you'd be a monster.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 10:39:02

A lonely one at that

PrincessFlirtyPants Sun 03-Nov-13 10:39:29

I doubt I would be too concerned with what a stranger thought of me either. Why were they not in the fire saving their relative?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 10:42:48

Because that is not the hypothetical question is it.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 10:43:51

I'm also 100 percent sure that if you saved a dog and left a child to burn it wouldn't just be one stranger disapproving!

PrincessFlirtyPants Sun 03-Nov-13 10:45:10

Gosh, you human saviours are such a friendly bunch aren't you...

Whatever happened to a friendly debate?

I'm off. Not worth my time. or my life saving skills

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 10:46:10

Yes that's a reasonable response to a lost argument!

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 11:05:47

No she's off because it got unpleasant again. There is no need to use the word monster and so on. Around 40% of people would refer that term to you but I am sure you wouldn't give a monkey's. Because they are strangers. I couldn't care less what strangers thought of me either and I would still save my dog over a random human any day of the week from the house. Just looking at him now and yep, he's far more important.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 11:16:36

Not my word but I cant disagree with it as it feels like a monsterous concept to me.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 11:18:35

It works both ways as well, I just cant believe that you would be alright with it if a stranger saved their pet over your child?!

AKAK81 Sun 03-Nov-13 11:27:40

I'd save my dog over a stranger's child every time, without hesitation.

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 11:29:24

This is a stupid argument. Fire is nasty. You will not have the opportunity to pick and choose, and you should save the first creature you come across. If you try to pick and choose, you'll lose them both.

Maybe if more people understood that, more people would have smoke alarms with batteries in.

Life is not a dramatic soap opera, and fire doesn't cooperate with you, asthe Phillpotts discovered.

Spider7 Sun 03-Nov-13 11:29:41

Wow this thread is certainly unpleasant. The last one had some unpleasantness to it but it also had some lighthearhearted & quite funny comments from both sides. This one seems to be falling under mob mentality in a big way. Threatening people on a much bigger scale than the last. Baying mob! Really? And you say this with relish? to a stranger you have vowed to rescue? This is your response to someone who does not share the same values as you? You human saviours would kill a human? You'd run into your burning home to save a stranger at the expense of your pet, find out said stranger had once saved their pet over a stranger & promptly kill them? This argument is ok for you? Fine.

I'm going to save my pet first because the stranger might be one of you oh so (not) nice people. But I would go back & try & save you after. And if it turned out that you'd previously rescued a stranger rather than a pet I would not hold it against you. I can honestly say that while I would naturally want a loved human of mine saved over someone else's pet or their own loved human, I would not blame or feel ill will towards someone who did choose to save their pet... or loved human, or even another stranger. Because it is entirely possible that it could be a houseful of strangers.

You want to send a mob after me for saving a loved one rather than your loved one, who I do not love, simply because you do not value my loved one? Bring it on. I won't need my dog to kick your smug, sanctimonious, holier than thou, hypocritical arses! My feelings if my loved one dies are of more concern to me than the strangers relatives. My loved ones life is of more concern to me than a stranger. Especially after reading you lot threaten to murder strangers! Seriously bring it! You'll have the 'riotous' anger of bereavement & probably fuck all training in how to fight. I will have riotous anger, self preservation & protection for my loved one plus a lifetime of, tested, training. Be really careful about threatening to murder people online. You have no clue who you are talking to.

Choosing one life over another is not murder. Deliberately seeking out a life to end is murder.

I'm going to leave you keyboard warriors to it. Pity my training partners tomorrow!

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 11:35:39

I think you need a lie down Spider7 at the very least grin

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 11:36:25

And we've had deletions too, now! I was deleted for quoting part of, by the way.

curlew Sun 03-Nov-13 11:38:06

I didn't say I'd kill your dog if you failed to save my child. I said I'd kill your dog if you chose to save your dog rather than my child. A subtle but important difference.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 11:38:48

What a word twister you are Spider

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 11:39:34

grin

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 11:43:04

I'd be as cross as curlew if you left my hypothetical baby to burn and were outside the building hugging your dog/cat/hamster.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 11:44:36

But it would be you I'd have issues with (note I did not say kill grin) not your dog.

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 11:45:42

www.myageingparent.com/life-saving-step-to-protect-elderly-from-fire/

Two minutes before the air becomes unbreathable and you collapse unconscious...

Steps to prevent fire
kidshealth.org/kid/watch/er/fire_safety.html

But I expect telling other people you'd kill their pets is more righteous, eh? More heroic and romantic.

Spider7 Sun 03-Nov-13 11:48:25

Oh dear dumb as well as murderers. At no point did I say fail to save. I said CHOOSE to save. Fully aware that you would murder dogs & people if they CHOSE to save their loved one (pet) over your loved stranger. I am we'll aware & thought I had made very clear I understood your conditions of murder. I do not twist words. I clearly acknowledge & understand that you would murder someone if they CHOSE, not failed, CHOSE, to save their loved one. My argument stands. Have I made this clear enough? So, if you want to TRY & murder me & my loved ones for CHOOSING (not failing) to rescuer your loved one over my pet, like I've said bring it on you smarty pants keyboard warriors. I will take great pleasure in your attempts. Ok, must go & spend some quality times with my very intelligent dog. Bye bye smart murderers.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 11:48:32

I've just read spiders full response and I'm pissing myself! Who threatened to murder you?? Humour me spider that you know doggy behaviour and I know a bit about human behaviour, I'm not threatening to send a baying mob after you but I know enough about people to know they'd be pretty upset about you leaving a baby to burn. But you have made me day with you're 'do you know who you're talking to' comment grin quote of the year

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 11:50:04

It's a hypothetical situation Any

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 11:50:13

Oh Spider you are a tonic

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 11:51:52

Who threatened to murder you, Spider? shock

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 11:55:42

I'm still waiting to hear

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 11:57:15

There really is some nasty goady fucking behaviour on this thread?

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 11:57:38

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

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 11:58:59

And after the way the last one went was is really necessary to start another one? It was obvious the two camps were never going to agree.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 11:59:00

Be really careful about threatening to murder people online. You have no clue who you are talking to.

Side-show Bob?! shock

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 12:01:22

Side-show Bob?!

grin

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 12:01:23

And for those who are making snide insinuations about disablist attacks: report them. Get them deleted. I can't remember many deletions on the previous thread.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 12:03:34

Report it then Mardybra

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 12:04:54

I have 2tired

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 12:05:55

Only one post was deleted on that thread, and for disablist language/attack. It wasn't, I don't think (I don't know, they weren't named), the regular poster that seemed to be referred to.

Post deleted on this thread here I'm guessing was a personal attack (because it was) aimed at me.

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 12:08:17

" Sat 02-Nov-13 20:50:36
I never said it was one sided but there were some regulars (who are loud voices on MN) who were horrid."

If you are going to make insinuations about "regulars" at least have the decency to name them and quote exactly what they are supposed to have said, rather than leaving a nasty suspicion hanging over some of tKhe regulars who were in Team Human.

curlew Sun 03-Nov-13 12:08:39

I didn't threaten to murder anyone. I threatened to kill a hypothetical dog in a very specific hypothetical situation.

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 12:09:58

I don't remember calling anyone crazy.

I even said at one point that I could understand thr other perspective. But also that I was shocked and had no respect for that opinion.

CatOfTheDay Sun 03-Nov-13 12:12:30

Still no-one has answered the question I asked on the last thread, and someone else has asked on this one - so I'll ask it again to all the human savers.

WHY do you think that human life is more important than the life of any other species?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 12:13:36

The only really threatening post i've seen so far is Spiders

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 12:16:44

I prize a child's life above any animals and above my own because I just do! Doesnt need any further explanation, do you have a reason for your decision? No one from Team Animal has replied as to whether they would be happy if a stranger saved their pet over your child, real human child that is,

If the very unlikely scenario occurred where it could be proved beyond doubt that a competent adult had stood in a burning building looking at a cat and a baby/ small child lying side by side, both alive but unable to save themselves, and the adult made a clear choice to save the animal and leave the child to die...

Would that adult then be liable to be prosecuted for manslaughter or second degree murder?

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 12:20:31

Er, a few have replied to that one, 2tired, saying that of course they wouldn't be happy but would accept the situation rather than going round with a baying mob to kill said pet, because they understand it's not for them to decide how someone else should or should not value other lives.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 12:23:08

The dog savers think animal life equal to human, then? If so, this must mean they are all vegetarian/vegan?

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 12:23:24

The thing is, MrTumbles, we know that wouldn't happen. Team Animal (not sure I like that) would obviously grab both under those circumstances. Team Human has, in general, shown a lot less generosity of spirit so I wouldn't be surprised if the cat got left behind in that case.

What if it was a massive dog then, that took both hands to carry... or the adult had one injured arm... Just to make the highly unlikely scenario even more unlikely wink

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 12:27:33

And they don't use any products (medical, cosmetic) tested on animals?

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 12:29:59

CatOfTheDay, the greater level of sapience. Personhood isn't a digital on/off thing, it's a sliding scale, and humans are at the upper level of the scale. If it was a clear cut choice, I'd save a human before a hamster unless it was a really nasty human, but I'd save a cat before a cricket.

Of course, as I have pointed out, there won't be a choice, and the fact that our culture has such a disconnect with fire that questions like this get treated seriously, is a factor in why so many preventable deaths in fires occur annually.

MrTumble, Britain does not have "good samaritan" laws for people who are unrelated to the victim or not emp.oyed by the state's emergency services.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 12:34:49

Accept the situation! Bullshit. Poor kids

CatOfTheDay Sun 03-Nov-13 12:36:29

Thankyou Any for a proper answer!

Ivy, no I'm not vegan/vegetarian. Animals eat each other, it's natural!

I don't hold animals ABOVE humans, I just believe we are all animals really. I just value my cats over human strangers, as they are animals I love and have a connection with and the stranger isn't.

I would also save my cat over someone else's dog (sorry dog-savers!) or someone else's cat.

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 12:38:48

2tired, poor kids? Whose kids are poor, and why?

And do you have a smoke alarm on each level of your dwelling? Checked the batteries?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 12:39:03

Do you have DC?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 12:41:19

Poor kids who have parents who would simply 'accept the situation' were they left to burn to death by a stranger

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 12:41:45

You first, darling.

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 12:44:26

What you mean that if I can't imagine killing some dog in a revenge attack, I don't love my children, and my grief wouldn't be true grief?

Right... do you normally have so much trouble comprehending different philosophies, cultures, and levels of restraint?

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 12:45:36

And yes, I have children, and I ALSO HAVE fire and carbon monoxide alarms.note plural.

Do you?

fifi669 Sun 03-Nov-13 12:45:39

I actually wonder if the pet savers have been in horribly abusive situations and that is why you not only consider us as just animals but ones not worthy enough to be saved?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 12:47:56

I was actually talking to catoftheday confused

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 12:48:19

Interesting that only some animals are equal to humans, not those reared for meat/leather/fur (and animal testing)?

Animals (cats, dogs etc) can't decide not to eat meat due moral objections. We can.

Alisvolatpropiis Sun 03-Nov-13 12:50:11

This thread has turned a bit hmm

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 12:53:14

ivyfairy hardly interesting. Most users have not been arguing on the qualities of species, but on tneir emotional connection to the individual creature in their household. Some people keep pet pigs, and some of those might save them above a strange human on paper/electronic wittering device.

GimmeDaBoobehz Sun 03-Nov-13 12:54:09

I'd choose a rotting cockroach over someone who would deliberately let someone stay in a fire because they saved an animal. What a fucked up viewpoint that is. Who needs their head examined?

Well, anyone who would do that, naturally.

That's not making light of mental health problems or anything as I have them myself, but nobody even half humane would do that.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 12:55:59

I find it interesting, Anybig. Specieism has been mentioned more than once (I don't know if you were on the last thread).

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 12:59:41

Who said they'd do that Gimme

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 13:01:19

It's not speciesism here, though.

Speciesism certainly exists, and I can rant all day about it if you like, but at the moment, this isn't it. It's like saying that someone who doesn't have a direct debit to WaterAid is a racist, because they keep their daughter hydrated with clean water.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 13:03:59

"It's like saying that someone who doesn't have a direct debit to WaterAid is a racist, because they keep their daughter hydrated with clean water"

Don't be silly hmm

Again, it was mentioned previously (on the other thread), as was the question up thread.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:05:09

I too am pretty disgusted by some of the opinions on this thread, having avoided the other one on purpose hmm

For all you "beloved family pet savers" - how would you approach someone who was in a fire with your child and their dog, and chose to save their dog, leaving your child to die? Would you really think "they did the right thing, the dog is a part of their family".

Bollocks.

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 13:07:24

It may have been mentioned, but that doesn't mean you're using it appropriately.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 13:07:47

You do realise these threads are hypothetical and, have at times (ignoring nastiness and deletions), a little tongue in cheek, Anybig?
Just with you coming on with links to smoke alarms...

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 13:08:35

I most certainly am, Anybig.

CatOfTheDay Sun 03-Nov-13 13:12:44

Does it matter if I have kids? (I don't by the way)
We're not talking about saving a dog/cat/chicken whatever over our own children. It's about a choice between saving our own pet over a human stranger (not specified whether child or adult).

In that situation, if I spent time pratting about with moral rights or wrongs I'd burn along with my cat and the human, so I'd have to be selfish and get me and the cat the fuck out of there, and just HOPE that the human can get him/herself out somehow.

If I was the human who required saving, I would chuck my cat at the rescuer and try and get out myself.

silvermantella Sun 03-Nov-13 13:19:05

CatOfTheDay actually lots of people answered your question on the last thread, including myself, MaidOfStars, leBFG, DidyouseeEthel, AnkaretLestrange, Binkybix, and others, all with various rationales, some of which were rebutted more successfully than others.

do Ctrl F if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread!

TirAnna Sun 03-Nov-13 13:19:15

Sorry living - this is a bit of a late reply but I wasn't trying to imply that you were condemning anyone! smile I was referring to the people who were saying it was ridiculous for people in Team Human to be 'disgusted' or whatever because it was only a hypothetical situation, because it's sometimes fair enough to condemn someone for something even when it is hypothetical.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 13:19:37

' I'd save my dog over a stranger's child every time, without hesitation '

Have you actually listened to what you're saying?

You'd let a child die over an animal.

What does that really say about you AKAK81?

Yes you'd have your dog but you'd also have the blood of a child on your hands.

Hope it'd be worth it.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:22:23

I'm happy to condemn people over what they say they would do in a hypothetical situation.

In the hope that they might actually not do it if it happened.

Fire is unlikely, I agree. But drowning child vs drowning dog is a possibillity anyone could come across - on a frozen river, after a big wave, for example.

The thought that any human being would choose to save any animal over another human being (adult or child, stranger or not) is completely against my moral code.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 13:26:58

The thought that any human being would choose to save any animal over another human being (adult or child, stranger or not) is completely against my moral code

I also don't buy into the idea that you can't or shouldn't make a judgement based on an opinion, especially if you find the opinion abhorrent.

Sometimes you can, indeed sometimes you must.

Didn't know this was still going.

I see some people are still trying to say they'd rescue both. Or worrying how hot the fire is, or if they would panic. smile

"Okay children you have a one pint glass. How much water can you put in it?"

Child: "is it hot water"

Teacher: "any water it doesn't matter"

Child: "it does because I could burn myself. Don't you care?"

Teacher: "It's lukewarm"

Child: "what color is the glass?"

Teacher: "any color it doesn't matter"

Child: "it does because if it's clear water we can't see how full it is properly"

Teacher: "ok the water is colored white like milk ok?"

Child: "oh so it can't be black. First you don't care about children burning themselves and now you are being racist. I'm going to scream and hold my breath"

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 13:28:29

I think its relevant cats how do you know you'd simply accept your DC being left to burn if you dont have any?

CatOfTheDay Sun 03-Nov-13 13:39:08

I never said I'd simply accept my DC being left to burn. I wouldn't be over the moon about my cat being left to burn either.

It's a tragic situation all round as whatever the outcome a life is lost that someone somewhere cares about.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 13:41:39

No animal lover would ' be over the moon ' at their pet dying.

It's just that some people can put what matters the most first.

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 13:42:27

The thread is hypothetical, yes, I am aware.

I am also aware that in the UK, people are utterly shit with fire-awareness. It's turning into winter, and Christmas is coming, festival of prattily-placed candles. Thus, I am also aware that this thread is a wonderful opportunity for information. If it saves one family, because they clicked and made a fire plan, it's worth thousands of your emoticons.

Meanwhile, speciesism is an issue in the thread, but the main speciesists are erm, Team Human, especially those who argue they would save any human animal at all over ANY non-human animal. It's a moral position I rather share, but it's speciesism.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 13:43:36

Dear lord. Shame on me for carrying on a thread which I was hoping would have been as lighthearted and funny in the whole as the last one. It's gone particularly sanctimonious and incredibly insulting.

And for heavens sake when did anyone ever say they would save their dog over their child!!! Crumbs.

Why people would also make a snide dig at a poster who is trying to use this as an opportunity to raise fire safety awareness is just horrid sad

I can't believe that some of the posters here really would rush in a burning building to save anything seeing as they think it's perfectly appropriate to attack total strangers for their point of view. And not one animal lover or whatever it is being called has said anything so harsh in return. But then it's human nature to get a kick out of putting others down to make themselves feel better. How splendid humanity is.

Tiranna point taken my apologies smile it's true. I'd also certainly feel disgust against myself if I didn't make an attempt to save both in my personal hypothetical world.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:45:21

Cat, you have said many times that you value the life of your cat over the life of a stranger. That's fine. I get it. I love my dog more than my neighbours or their children, and I would choose to spend time with him rather than them any day.

But there is no fucking way I would save any animal over any human. Same if we were all short of food - I would feed humans over animals every time. And, in the end, awful as it might be, I would even feed the animal to the humans.

It's a case of morality vs personal feeling. And I think it is very sad that people can justify doing something so obviously morally wrong by saying "but I love my animal".

It's bollocks.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:47:30

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

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 13:47:36

Thanks livingzuid flowers

It might be a good thing, the sneering might draw more attention to my links!

Seriously, fire is horrific. It's not the flames that do for you, it's the toxic gases that knock you out before you can get out.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 13:47:57

For Christ sake.

Why do you think people are so heated about this debate?

People have said they'd save their animal over a child.

What is wrong with you that you can't see how that is abhorrent and why people are angry?

All this sanctimonious shit is nonsense.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 13:48:02

Everlong the only humans that go above my dog are my DH and child. Because they are my family.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 13:48:44

And you don't sound sanctimonious???

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 13:49:40

Er yes you did cats

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 13:50:32

How did you imagine it going?

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 13:50:51

How is saving the life of a person over a dog sanctimonious?

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:52:49

Wow

"the only humans that go above my dog are my DH and child"

Just wow.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 13:53:03

"but the main speciesists are erm, Team Human, especially those who argue they would save any human animal at all over ANY non-human animal. It's a moral position I rather share, but it's speciesism."

Well quite. I don't think it wasn't. I was asking CAT some questions before I came in with my reply to their question. I think you missed the point entirely.

So glad you're now aware the thread is hypothetical. I see I wasn't the only person to ask you that.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 13:53:40

don't think I *said it wasn't!

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:54:03

I really hope you don't ever look after a friend's child, or do anything at all to do with working with children.

And if you do look after someone's child, that you don't go for a walk with them. Or if you do, make sure you tell their parents that if they both run into the road, or fall into a river, you are going to save the dog first.

Do you not realise how utterly offensive your comments are?

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 13:54:44

Maryz you are entitled to your point and to tell others they wrong but calling someone pathetic is uncalled for just because their viewpoint is not yours.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 13:55:54

"Seriously, fire is horrific. It's not the flames that do for you, it's the toxic gases that knock you out before you can get out."

Well obviously

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:56:06

Your viewpoint isn't different.

It's wrong.

But if you are going to report me for calling you pathetic I will repost my post without that sentence:

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:56:55

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

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 13:57:51

It's totally bizarre that someone with such extreme views can be so adamant that they're right.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 13:58:32

To be fair if you do have DC but would still save a pet over someone elses child then never have a sleepover or at least let the parents know should a fire break out their kids are fucked

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 13:59:12

Oh, and I really like BackOnlyBriefly's post grin

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 14:00:17

Scary thought 2tired.

trish5000 Sun 03-Nov-13 14:00:31

I tried googling for a human saving a pet rather than another human, but couldnt find anything. So perhaps, in reality it doesnt actually happen?

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 14:00:43

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

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 14:02:19

No. And I certainly didn't say so.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:03:09

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

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 14:04:13

Trish that was my first post on the original thread. If push came to shove instinct would take over and the ( important ) human would be saved..

But after seeing the diabolical posts since then sadly I'm not sure.

Alisvolatpropiis Sun 03-Nov-13 14:05:08

everlong

Being convinced they are right is part and parcel of all people who hold extreme views.

This thread is now more than a bit weird though!

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:05:09

And as I said if you cared to read the other thread went fine. Oh wait some of you weren't on it. What a surprise.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 14:05:29

"if you're going to patronise me, can you serve up something better quality, and a bit less, erm, netmum? wink"

Hypocritical much wink

By the way, possible locked rooms were mentioned (you know, in the hypothetical situation) so your smoke alarms wouldn't be of much use. And if you think the (hypothetical) argument is "stupid" I wonder why you're here.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 14:06:12

So OP you're out in the park with your dc and one of their school friends, and the friend and your dog falls in the pond. Both need you to save them.

You are honestly saying that you'd let the child drown?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:06:20

Do dogs have manners, ive heard it all now! Just you warn prospective playdates of your dog over other human policy, forewarned is forearmed after all grin

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 14:07:24

Alis you're not wrong there.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 14:07:56

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

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:08:03

Lol Trish you are probably right! I said on the last thread that we had to leave halls in the middle of the night as students as there was a fire and none of us could get out fast enough!

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 14:08:13

Please reassure me you don't have other people's children in your house then.

I'm a bit confused as to why you think it is more of an insult for me to tell you that you have a dodgy moral code (when it is very dodgy), than it is for you to tell me that your pets are more important than my children. Do you not think the latter is massively insulting?

So I think I've been pretty polite, considering.

But hey-ho, some people are very strange.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:08:29

And how patronising is, 'You're ignoring Jessie when shes trying to teach you about fire, waah waah' is thw thread 'I don't have a smoke alarm, am I BU or stupid?'

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 14:08:59

Do you want to quote the rest of my post with that? I think it's fairly clear from that alone why I'm here!

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 14:09:37

And I did read the other thread.

I just didn't post on it because I thought it was bonkers (and I hoped it would die).

I posted on this one because I genuinely can't believe that human beings think as some people on here obviously do shock

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:10:54

No poodle you are correct but I also find it offensive when others are being attacked for no reason. Or am I not allowed to express my opinion on that either? I am horrified by some people's language to others. It's called bullying.

Not really sure why you think I would want to police a thread. Sounds like an impossible task.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:11:38

Again Jessie I wasn't addressing you

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 14:12:32

To post about fire safety...presumably. Which you then went on to do.

Like I said. Not very helpful with the (hypothetical) locked room scenario

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 14:12:48

Living could you answer my post please, I'm interested in your resonse.

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 14:13:29

I was talking to IvyFairy; you and I cross-posted.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:13:35

Er living did you actually read Spiders comment or was it deleted due to its threatening nature?

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:13:45

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

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 14:13:51

Response

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:14:11

Sorry Jessie

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 14:14:53

I still want to know who threatened to murder Spider!

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:15:33

Cop out living and you know it. Im reaffirmed in my anti sleepover stance in any event

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:16:42

Im intrigued about spider do mafia dons use mumsnet?

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 14:17:49

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

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 14:18:22

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

AnyBigFuckingJessie Sun 03-Nov-13 14:19:12

Ivy, aren't you specifically careful about which doors you lock and where the keys are always kept, in case of a fire?

Well, maybe you should start then.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 14:19:50

There is no horrifying language though. That's a gross exaggeration. There's no bullying either.

There are some pretty horrifying views though.

I think people want to be able to say that their pets would be worth more than someone else's child, but also want to be seen a "nice people" for using approved language to do so.

They don't like the idea that anyone thinks less of them for their view, but it's fact that some people will. If you can't cope with that either get thicker skin or re-think how your views sound to other people.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:21:27

Ok well I don't think I am wrong just as you don't but I am not attacking you. Others who have put their argument forward have done it in far less offensive ways than you have over a make believe house that is burning down. But seeing as we will never agree Why on earth would I want to acknowledge that I am wrong?

And if you have really read the other thread then you would have seen many of my responses. But obviously not otherwise you wouldn't ask the same questions again and again.

I find some of your views offensive. But I don't go around attacking people for them or swearing at them on an internet forum. Show me the humanity in that.

All I was asking for was for people to be polite. Could you tell me what's wrong with that please?

I repeat. I don't know you. I don't care. I won't save something I don't care about over something that means more to me than my own life. End.

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 14:22:28

grin Anybig

I was referring to the hypothetical situation in the scenario (it's a hypothetical situation!) where the doors are locked.

Nothing to do with my doors or fire safety plans in 'real life' Dear oh dear <shakes head>

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 14:25:18

Maryz no one has said that your DCs are less important than their pets, only that their pets are more important to them than another person's children. I would save my kids over anyone else's is a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean I think they're more important, they're just more important to me. In my honest opinion, saving my dog over a stranger in a fire, child or adult, is no different to saving my sister. My dog has earnt her place in my family as far as I'm concerned.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:26:04

No one is swearing at you living you get asked somethings you cant answer and suddenly its bullying, convinient and predictable. Please report the posts where you are being sworn at as that is a PA is it not

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 14:28:11

Lovely.

I have been extraordinarily polite considering you have said that your animal is more important than other people's children and given a choice you would "save" the dog first.

Can you not see that you have been and are being offensive to everyone, by saying how you think your dog is much more important than every one of them.

What do you find offensive about my views?

Is it that I think my children are more important than your dog? But you can't argue with that since you have already admitted that your child is more important than your dog [baffled]

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:29:02

Actually 2tired I was referring to comments over fire saftey. The hypothetical question was stranger over pet which I answered. I answered your question several times on another thread which is quite a bit different to risking my own neck for pet vs stranger and I don't see how they compare. I have lots of young family who I babysit. Do you honestly really think that me and others on this thread would honestly leave a bunch of innocent children to die?? How did we go from a hypothetical house where I'm outside rushing in to something in my own home. The two are 100% different.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 14:30:20

Urgent, that's where you and I differ.

Saving your dog is not the same as saving your sister.

Saving your dog over a stranger in a hypothetical fire is morally reprehensible shock

That stranger is someone's child/mother/father/sibling/friend.

Would you accept someone saving their dog over your sister?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:33:27

So your commer that your dog comes next after DH and DC over saving a stranger only applies to a burning building not a much more likely house fire living thats lucky then

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 14:33:49

You think people are going to be polite on a thread like this?

When you're saying you would rescue an animal above someone's child?

What planet are you on?

Greythorne Sun 03-Nov-13 14:34:09

Threads like this make me want to leave MN.

The thought that people are taking advice and views from MNers who openly admit they would leave a defenceless chf to die from smoke inhalation in irder to save their dog make my stomach churn. God knows what other claptrap these animal savers are posting.

Horrifying.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 14:37:37

Maryz I wouldn't be happy at all, because my sister is my family. However I wouldn't be any happier about it if they had saved their child or sibling instead. I'm rather invested in this debate here, because after my wife died, my dog probably helped my children cope just as much as I did. She never judges or complains, she just listens and gives you a reassuring nuzzle. I would never leave her to die after she did what she did for me and my DCs.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:39:02

Maryz I have no problem with your opinion. I personally found the tone very accusatory. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

In answer to your question I just don't see why I would put a stranger's needs above me and mine. I wouldn't expect anyone to do the same for me either. My family is more important to me than yours and I don't get why that is so hard to understand. Particularly after this debate I would hardly expect you to put my family above yours!

So if it was my child over your child you would save mine first? I really don't think so! You would also save your child and husband over my DH who just so happens to be my carer and my dog who is a major part of my care plan but I would understand. I'd be completely devastated and may die but I would understand. Because I am a stranger and your family is naturally more important to you. But please judge me for putting my family above yours.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 14:39:51

Don't judge.. What an epic typo.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 14:40:15

Good point livingzuid

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 14:42:26

But in the case of life or death surely you would put the needs of the person first?

Their life is more important than your dog.

treaclesoda Sun 03-Nov-13 14:43:18

I always think there is a huge irony in people saying 'oh, my dog is so much nicer than people, he means so much more to me than most people do'. Because if you view people with such contempt, why on earth would you expect them to be all fluffy and lovely to you all the time? If you constantly remind everyone who pays attention that they are of lesser importance to you than than your family pets <eyes close family member> then is it any wonder that your relationships with people can be strained, to say the least?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:44:21

But you are talking ro people who dont consider a sog a family member so object to that comparison. Your dog saw you through intense grief Urgent how would the family of the child you didnt save feel?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:46:11

Of course dogs are nicer than humans, they are not as complex

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 14:50:33

2tired they would probably being going through what I went through, however I owe my dog and I don't owe them. If someone had dragged both you and your children out of depression, would you abandon them to die? Like I said earlier, I would also choose my sister over someone else's child; and though you don't see a dog as a family member, I do.

treaclesoda Sun 03-Nov-13 14:50:55

I don't think that not being as complex somehow makes them nicer.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 14:59:08

A dog isnt someone to me im afraid so I cant answer that. How do you know dogs have manners, they cant talk and could be thinking all manner of rude things in their furry head

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 15:01:03

Since they dont have the capacity to be nice or nasty

treaclesoda Sun 03-Nov-13 15:07:20

I like dogs, as it happens. Some of them are particularly lovely, and some of them are just 'meh' and some are bad tempered and grouchy. A bit like people, really.

CatOfTheDay Sun 03-Nov-13 15:11:17

For the record, my cats have no manners at all. Some are more polite than others.

But I'd still save them over a stranger who means nothing to me.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 15:12:50

2tired of course a dog has a capacity to be nice or nasty; and by the way, we don't know what humans are thinking in their non-furry heads heads either, we only know what they want us to.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:13:08

I would save your children (or you or your dh) over any of my pets.

Whether I liked you or not hmm

I'm also a tad hmm at all these dogs suddenly being carers, and invested in their owners, and saving their owners from all sorts of things.

Our dog was ds's best friend and probably the only think ds every loved (he has AS). But when push comes to shove, he was a dog. He died - ds has survived.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:15:12

The posts here about how important family pets are to people, and using that as an excuse to put them above humans - they just seem selfish to me.

"I will save an animal, because they are more important to me, to my very important life; I don't give a shit how important some stranger is to his or her family, it has nothing to do with me"

Selfish, much?

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 15:20:14

Saving your dog over a stranger in a hypothetical fire is morally reprehensible

That's pretty much it, really.

treaclesoda Sun 03-Nov-13 15:21:03

I agree with Maryz. I often do, as it happens, but that is a separate topic, I suspect!

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 15:23:39

That's a good point Mary about the selfishness.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:24:15

And Cat's last post is selfishness personified hmm

don't say that treacle, you will be flamed for sycophancy

[arf]

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 15:25:19

Someone way back on the other thread gave a good reason why the fact that someone would rescue their own DC over another does not 'excuse' someone rescuing their dog over another DC:

If one DC has to die then one set of parents will lose a child no matter who is saved, and suffer that pain Therefore of course you save your own DC. SOMEONE has to lose a child.

If it's a choice between a dog and someone else's DC you could save them that pain. No one HAS to lose a child in this scenario. Yes, you would lose a dog with maybe 15 years left to live, but that pain would be less than losing a child for the other family. And you could spare them that, but you don't.

Clearly those saying a dog is family consider them a lesser member of their family unless they would rescue the dog before another family member, proving they are not equivalent.

And then there's the small matter of the poor fucker who's left to burn of course!!

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 15:30:20

Maryz I take it you would save your family over any of my family in a fire, how is that any less selfish than me saving my family over someone else's? Also I find your commnt about feeling hmm about many people's dogs helping them to be incredibly offensive, far more than someone saying they would save family over a stranger.

livingzuid Sun 03-Nov-13 15:30:42

Yep 100% selfish. As I've said on last thread and this one. My dog saves my life. If you don't understand that well ok. I'd understand if you would chose to follow the path you do. But it's obvious we will never agree.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 15:34:13

Binkybix but to anyone you ask, their child is more important. They would probably put a sibling or parent before another person's child too; does that make it any less right? Either way, someone loses a family member, and losing my dog would have more of an impact on me and my DCs than losing a stranger, no matter their age. I don't just value my dog for what she means to me, but for what she means to my kids.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:35:03

I accept your dog helps you but I can't accept that your grief at losing him would be as great as a parent's grief at losing their child.

Binky has given a good explanation of why people save their own children first. It's selfish, but understandably selfish. Whereas saving an animal, even a much loved animal, isn't.

For what it's worth, if I was to think about it very logically, I might well save your child over, for example, my mother who I love very much. She is in her '80s and would never forgive me for saving her (with only a few years left) over a child with a lifetime before them - in fact we had a conversation about this at a family dinner once.

Younger/more vulnerable children would come first over saving an adult, even a close adult, in an emergency scenario, with the hope that the adult could save themselves.

And no, we will never agree. Because morally, I could never accept your viewpoint.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:36:00

And my kids wouldn't think much of me if I rescued their pet over someone else's child.

I know they wouldn't. They don't have a skewed moral compass, thankfully.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 15:37:17

But I care more about my children's grief than someone else's. does that make me a bad person, for putting my kids above others?

treaclesoda Sun 03-Nov-13 15:39:24

But surely there is no way on earth that your children's grief for their pet could compare with, for example, a parent's grief for their child? Even if that child is now an adult. shock

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:39:28

Yes, that makes you a bad person.

I wonder how your children would feel? Try talking to them. I've just asked mine, and dd said she wouldn't think much of me for saving her beloved cat over a child. Children are surprisingly black and white about this type of thing.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 15:40:11

No I understand why you want to protect your children but could you honestly hold your head up knowing that another human being had lost a child because you chose to save your dog?

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 15:41:44

I've just asked ds aged 14.

He looked at me horrified and said ' mum are you for real? '

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:41:53

I do understanding you wanting to do it, by the way.

But actually doing it if this hypothetical situation arose would be very bad, imo.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:42:29

Yes, I got that reaction from ds grin - why are you even asking me?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 15:44:24

We will never agree but will be checking with anyone that ever has my kids over night what their policy is on this, first stop my DM who has 2!

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 15:45:06

But I care more about my children's grief than someone else's. does that make me a bad person, for putting my kids above others

That's a rather far fetched way to try and justify putting your dog's life above another person's.

I wouldn't have respected my mum for bringing the dog home "to spare my grief" while telling me she'd left another person to die. I'd have left home and disowned her before the person's family tracked us down.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 15:45:37

Yes it would be a bad thing to do urgent

CatOfTheDay Sun 03-Nov-13 15:47:16

If it's a choice between a dog and someone else's DC you could save them that pain. No one HAS to lose a child in this scenario. Yes, you would lose a dog with maybe 15 years left to live, but that pain would be less than losing a child for the other family. And you could spare them that, but you don't.

But in the actual situation, in the heat of the moment so to speak, you wouldn't physically have time to weigh up all the options and consider the far reaching consequences. It would be a split second decision, or everyone dies.

I'd save my cat.

Interestingly, if the choice was between my neighbours dog and the neighbours child - I'd save their child.

trish5000 Sun 03-Nov-13 15:48:48

I have been trying to work out just how much or how little some people on here value a human being's life. And purely from reading this thread and the first one, you would think, very very little.
But there is one person on here who I am on another thread with, and she is being very helpful indeed to a person [presumably a stranger], who is in much distress.
So maybe things in reality are not so bad as they could appear to be?
That the loving thy neighbour as thyself ideal isnt as far off after all.

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 15:49:13

urgent you can extrapolate my logic out to read any close family member really - it doesn't have to be DCs only.

I also think the fact that the person being left to die loses their own life is enough to mean you should choose human tbh, let alone all the arguments about how those left will be affected.

I do think it makes you a bad person to choose to save your DCs grief at losing a dog by leaving a human to die, yes.

At a stretch I can see myself at about age 6 blaming my parents if they had made such a choice (hypothetically). From about that age on I think I would have been horrified if they'd have made that choice. Even though I would have been v upset to lose my cat.

treaclesoda Sun 03-Nov-13 15:49:54

Parents who have lost a child never recover, they just learn to live with the grief.

I'm always baffled by the 'my dog is as much of a family member as anyone else' argument, because if a child is going to be utterly traumatised by the death of a pet, to the point of never recovering (to give a fair comparison to the situation where parents lose a child), then perhaps pet ownership is not in their best interests. Pets have, in general, a fairly limited lifespan. If a child is going to never recover from the loss of a pet, why put them through that in the first place?

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:50:40

Would you really save your cat over your neighbour's child in a split second decision?

I find that very sad.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 15:50:48

treaclesoda I never said they would experience the same grief, only that I would put their feelings above someone else's.

Maryz I can't at the moment because they're with their gran, however I asked her, my sister and my dad about the question last night and they all said they would save the dog over a stranger. Maybe being someone with a difference of opinion evil runs in the family.

everlong Yes I could, and I would be able to for the rest of my life. Their child means nothing to me compared to the happiness of my children and the life of my family.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 15:52:36

I have no words that are repeatable urgent

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:52:50

I'm shocked by your family then Urgent.

I would question your moral upbringing, to be honest.

"Their child means nothing to me compared to the happiness of my children" - you are saying your children's happiness is more important than someone else's child's life. Can't you see how wrong that is?

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 15:53:21

But catoftheday it's not split second now and you're still saying you'd do it, even hypothetically.

It would be different to say that you would hope that you'd go for the human, but under the pressure you might go for your pet. But that's not what people are saying!

CatOfTheDay Sun 03-Nov-13 15:53:56

I love the furry little fuckers. I'd save my cat over MYSELF.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:55:24

That's ok to save them over yourself. Bonkers, but fine.

To save them over a person isn't.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 15:55:36

'It's totally bizarre that someone with such extreme views can be so adamant that they're right'

I think you'll find people with extreme views are almost always adamant they're right. It's the middle-ground that can be swayed.

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 15:55:38

I'm sickened by your views on this urgent

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 15:57:55

How do you think your kids are going to feel when the dog dies of natural causes, if they're that attached to it that you'd allow another child to die to prevent that pain?

treaclesoda Sun 03-Nov-13 15:58:27

Right, so to save your own kids a limited amount of grief, you'd be happy to cause someone else's family a lifetime of grief.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:00:15

Maryz I said 'to the happiness of my children and the life of my family' on its own the happiness of my kids would not come before the life of another; however I would put saving a family member over saving someone else's child, and if that keeps my kids from grieving then it just makes the decision even easier.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 16:00:30

My dog certainly has helped me and kept me company through bad times. She isn't really aware of that fact though. I think the problem is people start to find it difficult to separate the reality of what goes goes through a dog's mind, from the human type emotions and qualities they have conferred upon it themselves.

Understandable, and probably harmless enough day in day out, but certain situations should prompt you to break that illusion, and I'd say if that can't be done, then that is not healthy.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:01:36

'The dog savers think animal life equal to human, then? If so, this must mean they are all vegetarian/vegan?'

Or they eat humans? wink

'And they don't use any products (medical, cosmetic) tested on animals'

By the same logic; none of the human savers use or consume anything that has involved the exploitation of humans then?

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 16:05:34

The dog is not an equivalent family member in the way you are saying it is unless you would prioritise saving it as highly as you would your DCs, partner etc. that is why other people's children are more important than your dog, even using your logic.

If you would prioritise your dog as highly as your DC then your logic is valid, but shocking.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:06:15

Human beings are selfish by nature, we always put ourselves before others. Even if we were to risk our lives to save family, which I am sure we would all do, we would be doing it because we love them and we could not live with ourselves otherwise. We comfort others because we do not like to see them upset. You would save a person because that would hurt you less. Some of us would save our pets because that would hurt us less.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:06:30

I think this discussion has moved away from the original scenario now. The original question was about what you'd do in the heat of the moment, with half a second to choose. Not about what you'd do given two days to explore all the possible ramifications of your decision.

No-one with half a second, in a burning building, is going to way-up which 'save' would cause the least grief or cause grief for the fewest people.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:08:26

I would prioritise my DCs first, because I have a stronger bond with them. Aftre them would come my sister, then my parents, then my dog, then anyone else.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 16:08:53

Exactly Leeds.
So the instinctive reaction would be to save a human life.

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 16:09:25

This thread is sapping my will to live. Leave me, let the fire take me! I'm ready to go - just make sure you save my dog!

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:09:30

'The dog is not an equivalent family member in the way you are saying it is unless you would prioritise saving it as highly as you would your DCs, partner etc. that is why other people's children are more important than your dog, even using your logic'

That's not correct. The logic is valid. 'My family over yours' is the logic, even if the dog is lowest in the family it trumps ANY member of someone else's family. Not my view necessarily, but the logic is valid.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 16:10:25

one with half a second, in a burning building, is going to way-up which 'save' would cause the least grief or cause grief for the fewest people.

No one with half a brain would need to.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:10:56

'Exactly Leeds.
So the instinctive reaction would be to save a human life.'

Well obviously not for many! If it was we wouldn't be on thread 2 would we?!

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:11:30

Thanks OutragedFromLeeds that's exactly my logic.

everlong that might be your instinct but it certainly isn't mine.

trish5000 Sun 03-Nov-13 16:12:12

I think that there are 3 seperate groups of animal savers here.

1. The ones who readily admit that they are selfish. They know they are selfish, so it is quite easy to then see that they are going to choose their pet who they love, over a stranger that they feel no connection to and who they think doesnt love them. They are putting themselves and their pets who they consider to be a proper family member and some human family members above the outside world.

2. The people who would want their pet saved, before themselves. Because they do not value themselves, so are not going to necessarily value a stranger either.

3.Those who would save a child, every child, but not an adult.

I have reconciled myself to 1. and 2. Totally disagree with them, and would hope in time that they would change their minds.
It is group 3 that I cant quite get. Every adult used to be a child. I dont get how a child that has grown up then becomes worthless or certainly worth less than a pet.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:12:16

pianodoodle do we really need to go back to the insults?

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:12:33

'No one with half a brain would need to'

40% without half a brain? I think you need to look for another cause than 'the animal savers are mentally impaired'. The numbers don't stack up.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 16:12:54

Ok for the decent moral sort then.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:13:46

I think those groups are perfectly accurate trish5000 Group 1 and proud!

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:14:29

'Ok for the decent moral sort then'

40% not the decent, moral sort? I'm not sure the numbers support that theory either. I think you need to try harder.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:15:58

BTW I won't be replying for ten minutes everyone, I have to take my family member for a walk.

KeepingUpWithTheJonses Sun 03-Nov-13 16:16:58

You would save a person because that would hurt you less

No. I would save a person because people have complex emotional bonds and feelings on a level an animal doesn't. I would be thinking about the persons mothers grief. Or their partners. Or their children crying for them in the night because they're not there. I would be thinking of not only the person but how completely it could ruin other lives to lose them.

The thought that anyone would save a dog before a person, with all the grief that would bring, I find abhorrent.

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 16:19:43

"It's totally bizarre that someone with such extreme views can be so adamant that they're right"

I haven't seen an awful lot of Team Animal insisting they are right, more sustaining that they are entitled to that opinion without being called reprehensible/abhorrent/insert appropriate adjective based upon thread history. I haven't seen any of us try to persuade Team Human to change their minds about whom they should save or criticise their mental capacity. That has all been on the other side, so sure their view is the only acceptable one and insisting that those of us who don't agree with them are morally suspect (at best).

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:22:43

trish I'm a mix of one and three, so let me try and explain.

Firstly, imo, it would be a selfish decision for EVERYONE. We would all choose to save the one that causes us less grief. That could be the stranger because you couldn't live with yourself otherwise or your pet because losing them would hurt more than letting the stranger die.

With regards group 3, I think my instinct would tell me to save the most vulnerable first. That would be animals and children. It's not that adults have less value than children or than pets, just they are less vulnerable. If the situation were two children, both strangers to me, a 2 year old and 10 year old, instinctively, I'd go for the 2 year old first. If it were two adults and one was disabled and one wasn't, I'd save the more vulnerable one first.

trish5000 Sun 03-Nov-13 16:28:01

<whispers> SharpLily, "they", cant remember who exactly, did say some things about me! Not going to look who, and I can take it. On this thread and the last.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:30:11

KeepingUpWithTheJonses that's my point, you wouldn't be able to cope with thinking of the grief that the loss of that person would cause. On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to cope withthe grief that the loss of my dog would cause my family.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 16:30:50

Doesn't make that 40% right though.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:31:57

But their attitudes are reprehensible and abhorrent [baffled]

And no, we wouldn't all choose the one that would cause us less grief.

Say, my dog and a stranger child are walking on the frozen canal near us. The ice breaks, both fall in.

I would, without question, save the child. Losing my dog would cause me grief, and would certainly cause my children lots of grief. But I would save the child knowing that the grief to his or her parents would be longer lasting and much greater in the long run.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:33:12

I'm baffled by people coming on this thread and saying "my animals are more important than people I don't know" and then getting upset when other people criticise them for saying it.

And then complaining that they are being bullied or being called names for saying it.

It is incomprehensible to me that people can be so utterly unashamedly selfish shock

AmyMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 03-Nov-13 16:33:15

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your reports. We're all for robust discussions but we'd really appreciate it if you'd stay within the talk guidelines.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:34:06

But it would hurt you more to save the dog and think of anothers grief. It would hurt you less to save the child and deal with your own grief. Therefore it would hurt you less to save the child.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:34:11

Thank you Amy smile

I think most of us have, some people just don't like being told that their morals are questionable.

When they so obviously are shock

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:35:28

That is shockingly twisted thinking Urgent.

Spikeytree Sun 03-Nov-13 16:35:35

I'd rather have 'questionable morals' than leave my animals, the only thing I live for, to die.

trish5000 Sun 03-Nov-13 16:35:54

That wouldn't be my reason for thatdecision Outraged, though it might be for others.
And yes Outraged, you were a poster that I didnt get. As you are a mixture, that was probably why I didnt understand. I now understand your viewpoint on vulnerable, but I think probably most people would think like that. But even say healthy 20 or 30 year old very able adult versus a pet, no contest for me. But I can see that if you Outrage choose self, then your pet would win against a healthy 20 year old. <personally shudders>

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 16:36:33

On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to cope withthe grief that the loss of my dog would cause my family.

Really? You wouldn't be able to cope?

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:37:41

If your animals are the only thing you live for, then I truly feel sorry for you.

But I can't help wondering why they are the only thing you live for?

And I would still say you are wrong.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 16:38:35

I imagine you cant ask your DC what they think on the issue after all they've been through thanks

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:39:40

' would be thinking about the persons mothers grief. Or their partners. Or their children crying for them in the night because they're not there. I would be thinking of not only the person but how completely it could ruin other lives to lose them.'

No you wouldn't. You'd be thinking 'HOLY SHIT, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE'. You're saving someone from a burning building not writing a poem. You'd grab who/what your instincts tell you to, your instincts, that for survival reasons, are selfish.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 16:39:41

That was to urgent by the way

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:39:44

May I ask that everyone keeps their opinions as opinions, instead of masquerading them as fact. No one in this thread is wrong/twisted/evil/inhuman, they are only that in your opinion.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:41:41

I don't agree with you there, Urgent.

It's like the moral question of whether a murderer is wrong. IMO there is no question that someone who kills someone else is wrong. Yes there may be reasons why they did it (to save themselves for example), but the act of murder is still unquestionably wrong.

As is putting the life an animal above the life of a person.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 16:41:47

I do feel genuinely sorry for those with only animals for live for, life can be harsh

The logic is valid. 'My family over yours' is the logic, even if the dog is lowest in the family it trumps ANY member of someone else's family. Not my view necessarily, but the logic is valid.

Okay OutragedFromLeeds thanks, that made it clearer.

So to those of you who see it that way. Your dog is one step down in importance and other people and their children are one step below that.

Something like this?
My family = 10
My dog = 9
Other people = 8
Or are other people even lower? 5 perhaps or 3?.

Is there anything else you'd put above the lives of other people and their children. Your TV perhaps or your car?

My family = 10
My dog = 9
My TV = 8
My car = 7
Other people = 6

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:42:27

'Doesn't make that 40% right though.'

No, but you didn't say they were wrong. You said the weren't moral or similar.

Spikeytree Sun 03-Nov-13 16:42:53

Yes Maryz, the only thing I live for. As I said on the other thread, humans have hurt me, raped me. Why would I save a random one over my companions? They die I die the next day.

I've managed to have my say in this debate without name calling, mental health slurs or other such 'questionable' tactics. It is a shame those with 'decent, normal morals' haven't been able to do the same.

btw I missed where that 40% came from. Is that a rough estimate or is it based on something?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 16:44:41

thanks sorry to hear that Spikey

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:44:52

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

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:45:05

2tired I've never been the best at telling sincerity from sarcasm; but I believe that was a since gesture, so thankyou very much smile

Maryz my dog is not all I live for. If you had read any earlier posts you would know that I have two children. Also, it's the grief of my children I wouldn't be able to cope with. They've already lost their mother and uncle due to tragic circumastances; to lose the dog, who has always been there for them, would devestate them, especially my son because he has AS.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 16:45:25

Some survey said 40 percent would save their pet

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:46:30

Spikey, I'm sorry it sounds as though you are having a shit time. And I can understand that you feel let down by humans, and thus have turned to animals.

But (unless it was one of the humans who has personally hurt you) I would still say that as a member of the human race it would be very wrong to prioritise the life of an animal over a human. Possibly understandable in your case, but still wrong.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:46:41

'That wouldn't be my reason for thatdecision Outraged, though it might be for others'

I don't believe you. Unless you're a very extraordinary person, you're selfish like the rest of the human race. You might like to think you'd be selfless, but when it came to it, flames licking round your ankles, you wouldn't be.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 16:46:47

I definitely wouldnt be sarcastic about something like that smile I might not agree with you but there is a limit!

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:47:01

I apologise Maryz upon further inspection that post wasn't adressed to me. Sorry.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 16:48:44

Moral or similar is the opposite of wrong.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:48:59

Urgent, my son also has AS. And was very attached to our dog. And has had a shit life.

Our dog died (as dogs tend to do) - one of the very few times ds has ever cried.

I've just asked him. He looked at me like hmm and said "ffs mum, you ask some stupid questions. Of course you wouldn't save <dog's name> ahead of a child".

I suspect your children might think similarly.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:49:28

And thankyou 2tired

Spikeytree Sun 03-Nov-13 16:50:09

I'm not having a shit time, I have my animals. I have a professional career (shock horror, it involves children!), I'm a carer for my disabled mother. The only thing that gives me joy is my animals. They die I die. I don't really care if you think it is wrong, I do care a lot when people feel they therefore have a right to bandy about insults because they have the 'moral high ground'. If you can't win an argument without insults, there is something wrong with your argument.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:50:49

Look, I don't want to seem to be attacking people who are struggling, I really don't.

But I can't accept that any human being, given a "child plus dog fallen through a hole in the ice" scenario, would save the dog.

I just can't.

And if I ever met anyone who did it I would judge them.

"Some survey said 40 percent would save their pet"
Thanks 2tiredtoScare.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:52:43

I wouldn't ask them if I'm honest Maryz. My children have never lost a pet before, and your son's reaction may have been different if his beloved dog sitting by his side right at this moment. And did you ask if he would save the dog over an adult stranger?

Spikeytree Sun 03-Nov-13 16:52:47

That's fine, I'm judging you on the basis of your posts on here, but I'm not going into print with slurs about you, because I'm not that kind of person.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 16:52:52

Only having dogs to life for sounds like a shit time to me, sorry. MaryZ you arent attacking anyone

Tweasels Sun 03-Nov-13 16:53:22

Well this thread is utterly bonkers isn't it. What a strange subject and some very strange responses.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:54:19

Backonly it's from a study linked to a couple of times (once on this thread and once on the other). I'd say this discussion has been around the 40/60 mark too.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:55:17

Spikeytree you'll almost definitely be told that you shouldn't be working with kids, in case your dog mysteriously wandered into your school and you saved him/her over one of the children. Alas, I am also a teacher, so feel free to aim your guns.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:55:27

Yes, he said he would save any human over any animal. Regardless. So did dd, who is currently snuggled up with her cat.

Children have a habit of getting to the bottom of moral questions and getting the answers right. Whereas adults are more likely to come up with the "but what if" disclaimers to justify doing as they please.

Spikey, I'm happy to be judged by my posts on here. I am also happy to judge others on their posts.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:57:03

'And if I ever met anyone who did it I would judge them'

That's fine. Being abusive towards them, killing their dog or preventing them from leaving a burning building would not be (I know you didn't say either of this things and I'm not hinting that you did).

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 16:59:03

Well, I'm not sure about being verbally abusive towards them - I might find it hard not to state my opinions a tad strongly.

But I can categorically state that I would not kill them or their animals, or lock them in a burning building grin. I must have missed that post.

Spikeytree Sun 03-Nov-13 16:59:14

I don't just have a dog, I have 2 cats to live for as well. grin

As I said, judge away, we all do. Some of us don't feel the need to tell others they are morally reprehensible for having a different opinion. The irony on this thread is so strong it must be giving Alanis Morissette palpitations.

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 16:59:48

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

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 16:59:52

I think most parents would become a bit abusive upin discovering their DC had been left to die

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:59:57

In that case; I take it your DCs have never heard of Jimmy Saville, Josef Fritzl or Ariel Castro; or any of the other sick people who could have been the stranger.

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:00:00

Here's the 40% link from the previous thread.

I'm shocked that 40% of the population is so warped in its thinking. When I first saw this thread title, I thought it was a total no brainer. I can't believe people have been arguing for two days about it.

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 17:01:25

I think most parents would become verbally abusive upon learning their DC had been left to die

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 17:01:43

'I must have missed that post'

If you want to go back and enjoy it Curlew is the dog killer and I think Back was the 'hold the handle and stop them escaping' poster (I think she saved it with an I'm joking at the end!).

KeepingUpWithTheJonses Sun 03-Nov-13 17:02:09

How can you (general for the 40%) expect not to be judged when you are happily saying you would watch my child (or anyone elses) burn and die whilst you save a poxy dog?

I mean seriously? It's immoral and just wrong and a horribly twisted view to hold.

On that note, I suppose you would be completely understanding and forgiving of a friend who rushed into their burning house and dragged out their dog, whilst leaving your child to burn?

2tiredtoScare Sun 03-Nov-13 17:02:14

Jimmy Saville is already dead

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:02:23

Not attacking, Sharp. Judging.

Urgent, that argument doesn't stand up. As it's unlikely you would have the time to ask them whether they are JS or the like before making the decision. So since the majority of people are (in general) not monsters, you would have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they weren't.

And I know for a fact that ds, with his autistic brain, would save JS over a dog anyway. Because he's very black and white with his right and wrong.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 17:02:42

People who disagree with you are warped MardyBra? Warped means that they are abnormal or twisted, just less than half the population can't be abnormal.

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:03:11

FFS most people aren't Jimmy Saville. Why bring him up again. What a warped view of humanity you must have.

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 17:03:19

"Children have a habit of getting to the bottom of moral questions and getting the answers right."

They also have a habit of throwing tantrums if they can't find Flopsy Bunny and squidging their hands in their own pooey nappies. I won't be taking a child as my life coach any time soon.

Tweasels Sun 03-Nov-13 17:03:20

"In that case; I take it your DCs have never heard of Jimmy Saville, Josef Fritzl or Ariel Castro; or any of the other sick people who could have been the stranger."

Ha ha ha, that is a joke? Right?

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:04:03

Yes, I think it is twisted thinking. Although not necessarily abnormal.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:04:17

Mardy, that link is majorly weird.

Most shocking is the 15% who would, allegedly, save any dog over a foreign tourist shock

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:04:49

For the first time, I understand why some people are so vehement in asking for a hide poster button now.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:05:31

I'm making a list, Mardy grin

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:06:02

I'd like to dig into the methodology of that research.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:06:12

Sharp, my teenagers don't do either of those things hmm

With posts like that, I think I'm going to struggle to take anything you say seriously.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 17:06:27

I think that there are far more 'human savers' calling others evil/wrong/immoral/warped/twisted than there are 'dog savers' doing the same. Why do you feel you have to justify your opinions with so called 'facts' (that are actually just more opinions).

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:06:43

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

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 17:08:06

I'd also like to say that the only dog I would ssve over a human would be my dog, as she is the only one who is a member of my family.

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:08:06

"I think that there are far more 'human savers' calling others evil/wrong/immoral/warped/twisted than there are 'dog savers' doing the same."

That's because you have no arguments against what we are saying because we have the moral high ground. Most of Team Pet are accepting that they are acting selfishless. Selfish = immoral = lost argument.

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:08:21

Selfishly. SHIT.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:09:26

Did you notice the headline? It said "puppy". I wonder how leading the questions were.

And this paragraph was interesting:

"Is Topolski suggesting that 40% of people would save their pet over a person if confronted with a real runaway bus, a real foreign tourist, and their real dog? Of course not. However, while responses to fantasy situations do not predict how people will behave in the real world, they do shed light on differences in moral thinking. For example, the researchers asked the subjects to explain why they made their decisions. They found that subjects who elected to save people over pets were more likely to give logic-based justifications for their decisions whereas decisions to save the pet were more likely to be rooted in emotion (“I love my pet.”) Further, women were four times more likely than men to give emotionally-laden, care-based reasons for their decisions."

In other words, he doesn't believe for a minute that the 40% would do it. I'm a bit worried, though, as there are obviously people (according to this thread) who would shock and would feel justified in doing so.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 17:10:10

MardyBra there are plenty of things I would like to say to people on this thread but I don't bloody say them all as they are innapropriate for this debate. In return, Iw ould ask that you don't start with the sarcastic insults.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:10:36

Erm, is that because the "human savers" aren't evil/wrong/immoral/warped/twisted, possibly?

The people who would save the human are morally correct.

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:11:18

Just go ahead and say it Urgent. I don't give a shit.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:11:32

And there have been plenty of sarcastic insults.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 17:13:45

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

Ivyfairy Sun 03-Nov-13 17:13:47

Goodness. Another PA (anybigfuckingjessie's this time) deleted!

The dog savers come across as quite extreme to me (and some others). It provokes strong reactions.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 17:14:53

No I won't, because I don't want to sink to the level that some people, including you, have. I do not believe for a second that I am morally superior to anyone, I may be immoral but I can still justify my decisions. Just because a reason isn't morally right, doesn't mean it is pointless. Dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima was beyond immoral, but they still discussed it, and it still happened.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:15:24

I suppose I had better go and make tea.

and do the other gazillion things I've been avoiding

[sigh]

SleepyFish Sun 03-Nov-13 17:15:34

I realise things have moved on but can I just point out the original thread question was an adult stranger v pet. Then posters started bringing children and wasps into the equation and it all went a bit crazy.

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:15:39

"MardyBra there are plenty of things I would like to say to people on this thread but I don't bloody say them all as they are innapropriate for this debate. In return, Iw ould ask that you don't start with the sarcastic insults."

There have been jibe after jibe about being sanctimonious, disablist and bullying, yet nobody has named anyone and as far as I can see nobody has been reported and deleted, apart from a couple of people in thread 1, who are no longer in the debate.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 17:16:35

'In other words, he doesn't believe for a minute that the 40% would do it'

I don't get that from that paragraph at all. The emotional answers are more likely to be accurate. In the moment, you won't think logically, it will be instinct (which is driven more by emotion than logic).

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:16:43

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

KeepingUpWithTheJonses Sun 03-Nov-13 17:16:46

Urgent...so answer my question.

Would you be completely understanding of a person who saved their dog whilst leaving your child to die?

MardyBra Sun 03-Nov-13 17:17:17

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

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:17:22

Wow, someone is doing a lot of reporting here shock

I got deleted for saying someone was wrong [baffled]. Am I not allowed to say people are wrong?

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:18:08

And for asking if Spider7 was real.

I'm now very confused.

Are we no longer allowed to have any sort of conversation at all?

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 17:18:42

SharpLily that wasn't abusive from Maryz.
It was total sense.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:19:16

In fact I'm a bit pissed off as I don't believe any of my posts were personal attacks.

I give up.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 17:19:57

Keeping No, but I wouldn't be understanding if they'd saved their child over my sister either. My dog is equal to all family members as far as I'm concerned, I would only save them first because I have a stronger bond with them.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 17:20:59

'And if that;s not a goady statement then what is?'

It was a light-hearted comment? I did a grin face and everything?!

trish5000 Sun 03-Nov-13 17:21:22

I would save a person Outraged because they are a person pure and simple. Nothing to do with selfish or not selfish. I have posted on this thread and the last.
Up to you whether you choose to believe me or not.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 17:22:38

Maryz as much as I disagree with some of your statements, I can honestly say that I didn't report them. I've never seen the pount in deleting posts anyway, why would you delete something and in the process ruin the flow of the discussion. It's like deleting a controversial page from a book confused

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 17:23:02

Tbh Maryz has been nothing but fair in this discussion.

How can HQ take sides on a discussion like this?

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 17:25:19

Sorry, Urgent, I wasn't blaming you. The whole thread has gone strange.

The deletions don't make sense as some things have been deleted which aren't/weren't as bad as some things that have stayed. So I can only assume they are deleting only those posts that have been reported.

I think reporting as a way of winning an argument is a bit pathetic

<waits for post to be deleted>

OutragedFromLeeds ah it was my post you were on about. I see now.

Well the thing is you already know I value human life even above puppies so you know where I really stand. Apparently I'm a little weird and cruel for preferring humans.

I would even save a murderer or abuser over a dog so I'd certainly save you.

Then I'd call the police to have them arrested and I would hope they would go to prison for life. Clearly some would have trouble understanding that.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 17:27:18

'I would save a person Outraged because they are a person pure and simple'.

I believe this. But why? A person is a person is not a reason in itself. What is it that means a person must be saved because they're a person? Look a bit deeper and the you'll find the selfish motivation. It's evolutionary.

'Nothing to do with selfish or not selfish'

In a survival situation it's (almost) always selfish.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 17:27:46

For once Maryz I find yself agreeing with you. Why can't posts be deleted when the discussion is over? For now, all posts can affect the future of the discussion, n matter who they can offend.