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.

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...

I most certainly am, Anybig.

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.

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!

Sorry living - this is a bit of a late reply but I wasn't trying to imply that you were condemning anyone! 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.

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. :)

"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"

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

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.

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.

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 :(

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 :) 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.

Thanks livingzuid

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

And you don't sound sanctimonious???

Er yes you did cats

How did you imagine it going?

"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.