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.

"Is murder always evil?"

That's an entirely different discussion but for what it's worth, in my morally bankrupt mind there is certainly a case to be put forward for justifiable homicide.

Is this thread still going...and the point is..

AnyBigFuckingJessie
On the subject of the death penalty I would say that hanging people or imprisoning them is about protecting other humans. Either directly or as a deterrent. You might doubt that the deterrent works, but it's still the main motive.

And I think I said somewhere that I'd rescue the worst type of person anyway and then pass him to the courts to decide his fate. When we rescue people from a natural disaster we don't rate them according to worth.

To be honest, as I have said previously, I can hold my hands up and call myself immoral. However just because my decision is immoral doesn't mean:

1. I can't justify it.

1. Others can't respect it.

1. I can't actually do it. (Because I wouldn't give a flying fuck about morality if my dog's life was in danger).

This is one of the worst threads I have ever read.

Noting all the animal-savers in my spreadsheet.

BackOnlyBriefly the position of deterrance and of not using a disaster for vigilante justice is morally consistent and logical.

However I'm not convinced it is that widespread, given the sheer quantity of written torture-porn posted on the internet. For many people, vengeance is their motivator. In fact, ooh, look, we've got someone advocating murder if someone saves a pet right up in this thread a few posts up...

'Of course you haven't noticed Team Animal calling anyone evil.
Because you can't.'

Well they could, but they'd be wrong, as you are to call them evil.

No, I don't see how anyone could claim that rescuing the human was evil. The two sides are not symmetrical.

I mean someone could post "You are evil" but I see no way to make an actual argument for it. At most team animal could claim equality for animals. How would someone structure a claim that the animals had more right to live? and if they succeeded wouldn't they be obliged to commit suicide and give the land back to the bunny rabbits?

How conscious are split second decisions though? If you intend to leave the child to die when you could save it, that is evil. I don't think there is any intention to let someone die when rescuing a loved one from a burning building though.

If you didn't go into the building at all and left both the child and the dog to die, is that evil?

"I'm touched to know you checked to see if my posts had been deleted, ivy!"

It was the PAs you resorted and descended to against me which were deleted, Anybig!

But alas I cannot take the credit and accept your compliment. I was checking generally for deletions as I did with the other thread (quote may be found somewhere)

AnyBigFuckingJessie oh I don't doubt there's some pretty awful people out there. I'm just saying that a vote for Capital Punishment wouldn't prove people were awful - not in itself. If you asked why people were voting that might be another matter.

'I mean someone could post "You are evil" but I see no way to make an actual argument for it'

They'd be wrong. That's what I said

This is definitely one of the worst threads I've ever read on MN, too (agreeing with whoever said that).

fwiw, no I do not support the death penalty. No way.

Sorry. Perhaps it was the personal attacks you felt you had to resort to, Anybig

OutragedFromLeeds I know you did. I'm just going one step further and pointing out that not only would they be wrong, but that they couldn't make a coherent argument for it. It would only be "nya nya you are evil".

Haven't read all the new posts but I gather someone went and threw a Hitler argument into the mix?!

I'm sure I read somewhere that means you lose your argument but I can't remember where

BackOnlyBriefly

Ah, I see. Anyway, that's why 40% being willing to entertain the thought of Darling Cat > a human being (who might be That Bastard Who Got Out Of Jail Too Early in their imagination) would only surprise me because it's not higher.