If I see any more comments on Mumsnet of it's just a dog

[Lifeneedsaresetagain]

Do people not realise that for those who welcome them into the family they are part of the family. And if you have a dog and say it's just a dog, I'm not sure you should have one.

I've got a dog! I and plenty of other dog owners/lovers on this thread still think it's completely insane to choose the life of a DOG over the life of a human baby.

I have a gorgeous, funny, loving dog and he is part of our family. To us he is special but to other people he is just a dog. People who haven’t had a dog or dislike dogs won’t understand that bond.

However, he is below my children in priority and I recognise that I can’t take him everywhere, just as I couldn’t take my children everywhere when they were small.

It is not "insane" to choose a being you have an emotional attachment over another that you do not. That is not the definition of insanity. And I said I spent time in psych hospitals, and your casual use of language such as 'insane' and 'loons' is taking the piss. I guess I was in there for loving my dog.

Choosing the dog isn't about choosing the dog, it's about choosing my child's emotional welfare. It's a young service animal she is very attached to and who helps her with the challenges she faces in life. Pitting the dog against a baby is the same to me as pitting my child against the baby, and of course I choose my child.

I agree that it's unreasonable to expect other people to see your dog as the same as a child. Perfectly fine to celebrate mother's day as a dog mother, if it floats your boat. Unreasonable to expect others to acknowledge it if they don't see it that way because that's the point it has an impact on other people.

But people believing their children are dogs only really seems to be a problem because it irritates you a bit. It's not an actual problem.

My DH has a real issue with dogs wearing clothing, because clothing is for humans. I think if it makes their owners happy, then good for them. Life can be really hard and miserable sometimes - if putting a jumper on your dog or throwing yourself a (slightly odd) mother's day party keeps you going, then have at it. This all means that dogs wearing clothes is a problem which is wholly owned by DH. Not a problem for the owner, not for the dog, not for me, not for society - because it doesn't harm anyone else.

Some people can't have children, but they still have maternal feelings. Does this mean they shouldn't be allowed to have those feelings because only a child should be deemed highly enough to deserve them? Who gets to decide that?

As a society, we step in, judge, and prosecute people at the point of their actions have a harmful effect on other people. So I think the position of - fine for you to feel that way as long as you don't expect other people to take action to accommodate it - is a reasonable one.

We don't get to judge other people's feelings as valid or invalid. That's unique to each individual. We judge harmful actions (or thoughts, if you include prejudice).

Well said 👏

The whole hypothetical argument is pointless.

Statistically, most people freeze in an emergency and do nothing to save either the dog or the child.

It doesn't matter if someone else places a higher value on their dog than your child. It's just the idea that is upsetting.

Trying to find a realistic scenario in which the relative importance a stranger puts on your child vs their dog actually matters is really reaching. Essentially just to try and find a valid reason for why it has any relevance how strongly someone you don't know and will likely never meet feels about their dog vs. your child.

It doesn't matter. It's no-ones business how strongly someone else feels about their dog.

The idea that it does matter that dog owners keep their feelings within an acceptable range is completely bloody mad !

Thank you for talking sense @101trees

Still can't believe there are people on this thread arguing it's normal to value the life of a dog over the life of a human baby.

Sorry but there are literally no circumstances in which that's normal. You can love your dog, you can love your dog more than you love most people, you can be devastated if your dog dies. I really don't have any kind of issue with people who love their animals; I love mine. But it isn't normal to value the life of a dog over the life of humans (in general - obviously there might well be specific humans who you wouldn't piss on the street on if they were on fire - I know those humans too). But if you were faced with saving the life of a helpless, innocent HUMAN baby, whether or not you knew "it", versus the life of your dog, and you can hand on heart say that you would choose the dog and think that decision is morally ok - no, sorry. There is absolutely no part of me that thinks that's ok and it's not something I'll ever be changing my mind on.

I care for child and animals, they are innocent. Adults I have to know you to care about you and dogs come before you if I don’t know you.

Except many dogs are so much nicer than humans ...

Yes they are because they lack the emotional complexity and nuance of human beings, because they are dogs.

Nah - I'll take the dog. If that makes me a loon or a psychopath, well, honestly, I don't care.

Thanks, but I was actually just thinking it was really hypocritical of me to get a bit judgy about people for caring about the subject of how much dog owners do/don't love their dogs.

I think it probably has to be OK to have strong feelings about that too. Just not OK to insist everyone feels the same way.

Apologies...

And because they are less judgemental and do not pass moral judgements or tell people they are not normal.

It does 👍

No, you are saying that your child should be more important to a stranger than their own pet is. That sounds pretty entitled to me, but is pretty normal for some people who think the world should revolve around their kids. I don't actually care if someone would leave my dog in a burning building. I would just want them to get out and be safe. My dog is my responsibility, not other peoples. I am not that sort of owner who thinks everyone should love my dog. I do, and that is all that matters.

My dog would be close to me. I would not be making a heroic effort to look for a child that I have no idea is there to begin with. I would be grabbing my dog and getting out.

But all this arguing over a hypothetical situation is pointless, and is causing aggro where there really is no reason. The situation has not happened, and is not going to. Why waste energy ( and name calling) about it.

Yes because they literally don't have the capability to do that, not because they're morally superior. It's like saying this plastic chair is more valuable than a human being because it doesn't pass moral judgement.

Yeah, but my heart surgeon cannot detect cancer with his nose - my dog can.

My dog can tell my blood glucose changes faster than my CGM.

As for the fantastically ridiculous thought experiment 'which would you save, your dog or a child'...

My dog is my responsibility and wherever I am with my dog, they are my priority as a result.

So if there is a fire, yes my first thought is me and my dog. I am not looking for your unsupervised child, they aren't my responsibility are they?

In any case, no one actually knows what they'd do in an extreme situation and half the people who say they'd save a strangers child would either shut down totally and gibber pointlessly or run away, saving themselves and fuck everyone else.

Because your little monkey brain does what it does and you won't find out what that is until it happens. It is highly unlikely anyone except emergency/disaster professionals will do any 'choosing' they will respond instinctively to take care of themselves and their dependents.

In your opinion 😏

I know from experience I don't freeze. From experience, I automatically jump into the proactive and right practical thing. I once potentially saved someone's life while everyone around me froze because of this.

I firmly believe that in the hypothetical scenario, I would instinctively run to my dog because, for me, that's protecting my own child (whose dog it is and who serves a role beyond 'pet'). I think it's natural that whatever protects our own child is where we instinctively react.

There is a fire safety PSA, where someone is blind folded and given 2 minutes (it might have been less) to get out of their house and outside to safety. It was about the importance of having a safety plan should your house catch fire.
They showed one lady who managed to get out in time, and was really happy about it, until she was reminded that she had left her kids to "burn" upstairs.

TBH if those of you saying you would choose your dog over a child in a hypothetical scenario genuinely did so, likelihood is you would be in trouble for gross negligent manslaughter at the very least.

I know it's pointless arguing over a hypothetical scenario that would never happen but I really do find the placing of an animal life on the same level as a human life morally abhorrent and I think it speaks to something bigger and more worrying. The idea that it is "entitled" to have the expectation that, in the event you were incapacitated and unable to do so, another human being would save your baby or child is genuinely bananas. It's just common human decency. If you haven't got that then you're lost.

Presumably you wouldn't mind if someone else chose to save their parrot or their goldfish over your child, then.

Citation needed for that please.