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.

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

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

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

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.

Accept the situation! Bullshit. Poor kids

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.

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?

Do you have DC?

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

You first, darling.

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?

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

Do you?

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?

I was actually talking to catoftheday

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.

This thread has turned a bit

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.

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.

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

Who said they'd do that Gimme

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.

"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

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

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