Animals vs humans round 2

[livingzuid]

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.

'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.

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.

I went back to see if I'd got any deletions but no, I did get to laugh afresh at Spiders 'tried and tested fighting techniques' to be meted out to people threatening to murder her and her 'boy'

'How can HQ take sides on a discussion like this?'

They're animal savers!

Yes those deletions are odd. Even the ones from the save the animal crowd were not the worse ones I don't think.

I wish people wouldn't do that. I have never asked for a post to be deleted. It messes up the thread and if someone says something disgusting I'd rather it stayed there for all to see.

Sleepy, yes it has moved on. But most of us I dont think would differentiate much between a child and an adult. Only that probably if you had to choose between a child and an adult you would choose child first as they are more vulnerable.

"With posts like that, I think I'm going to struggle to take anything you say seriously."

That's OK, Mary - I stopped taking you seriously quite a while ago.

I tend to take a dim view in general of anyone soooooo convinced they hold the moral high ground. I don't wish to get flamed here so I'll be very clear that I am absolutely not making any direct comparisons, but didn't Hitler also believe he was the successful custodian of the moral high ground? Ditto Stalin and... I could go on. But my point is that claiming the moral high ground doesn't actually convey any sense of moral rectitude while questioning the morality and mentality of those who disagree with you. I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with something more convincing than that.

but I wouldn't be understanding if they'd saved their child over my sister either

Really? I'm not saying you'd want to be best friends with them, but as a mother yourself, you really couldn't understand why someone would save their child over your sister?

That I find weird. I would completely understand why someone would rescue their own child over mine. I would have thought any parent would.

Sorry Urgent, I missed the intention of the , but tbh I'm not the only one with the bit between my teeth. And no, I'm not changing my mind. I have listened to the arguments from the other side, and been moved by the intensity of some people's attachment to their pets.

BUT, I still think it is immorally wrong to save an animal over a human, and sorry I do judge anyone who says they would do so.

'Apparently I'm a little weird and cruel for preferring humans'

NO-ONE has said that.

Ha ha Lily. a link to Godwin's Law for you

May I refer you to the sentence: "The law is sometimes invoked, as a rule, to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument."

"Am I not allowed to say people are wrong?"

Of course you are. No idea what reporting has been going on, not been on Mumsnet long enough to get to grips with any of that yet, but I suspect that what the powers that be objected to was calling other posters evil. That's a little bit stronger than telling people they are wrong .

or in pictorial format

Keeping I would understand their reason if that's what you meant, just as much as I would understand why they would save their dog. However in both situations I would still be far happier if they saved my child, as would any parent. (Oh and may I correct that 'mother' to 'father' please )

Outraged. Do you not do some things out of duty, or care or love or any other myriad of reasons?
I dont think I will discuss this particular aspect again with you as I dont thmik you have chosen to read my several posts on both threads on the matter.

'Outraged, Sharp thinks I'm like Hitler for preferring humans, apparently'

I think she means you're like Hitler because, despite the split opinion, you give absolutely no value to anyone else's views and declare them morally wrong.

Though obviously the Hitler thing means the animal savers lose and all the dogs must be sacrificed to save strangers. Or we have to kill Sharp. She is a stranger to me so......

I did actually, very clearly, make the point that I wasn't comparing anyone to Hitler for that very reason. And I certainly didn't mention anyone personally in that point, Mary.

And I think you'll find this 'argument' is way beyond winning and losing. We're all losers here.

"I tend to take a dim view in general of anyone soooooo convinced they hold the moral high ground. I don't wish to get flamed here so I'll be very clear that I am absolutely not making any direct comparisons, but didn't Hitler also believe he was the successful custodian of the moral high ground? Ditto Stalin and... I could go on. But my point is that claiming the moral high ground doesn't actually convey any sense of moral rectitude while questioning the morality and mentality of those who disagree with you. I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with something more convincing than that."

Great logic.

You think you are right.
Hitler thought he was right.
Therefore you are wrong.

I was hoping for the level of argument to be more robust tbh.

And please nobody report the Hitler comment. I'd love it to stand to see how low the level of debate has fallen from some posters.

And seriously, my hypothetical comparison is worse than two people on here claiming they'd kill my dog if blah blah blah?

It's OK Lily. According to my earlier link, you've lost the argument anyway. I feel better now.

'Outraged. Do you not do some things out of duty, or care or love or any other myriad of reasons?'

Yes, but not usually in a burning building! And those still have selfish roots. I save my DC's out of love, but love for your DC's is an evolutionary urge to carry-on your gene pool!

'I dont think I will discuss this particular aspect again with you as I dont thmik you have chosen to read my several posts on both threads on the matter'

I've read every post on both threads. I can't remember everything that has been said by everyone. If there is anything you've said that you feel I've ignored copy and paste and I'll read it.

So you would feel no worse towards someone who had rescued their dog over your child than someone who rescued their child over your child?

For me, someone who rescued their own child over mine I would understand. For someone who rescued a dog (that will probably die at some point in the next 10 years anyway) over my child, I'd be throwing them back in the fucking fire and pouring petrol on top.