SPCA - Sarah McLachlan

Indeed, but humans are simply more important than animals.
Not in my books. Humans can speak for themselves animals cant. Animals can not prevent the deliberate abuse the recieve from humans. All they offer is love and companionship. That deserves a beating?
I wont tell you what a "human" did to my dog before I got him.
 
most animals can speak - its just that most humans are rather to deaf and dumb to understand them

I think Im going to bow out of this thread, as this is a pretty sensitive subject for me, and I will end up saying something I shouldnt. :er:

........................walks away quietly................
 
Indeed, but humans are simply more important than animals.

As the de factco custodian of the Earth ... all species are important and it is time that we understood this and act accordingly. (Given, in an emergency situation having to decide between saving a human or saving a dog/cat/non-human ... I wouldn't hesitate to save the human ... but it would haunt me that I was unable to save both). But that is not what we are discussing here.

Gary
 
(Given, in an emergency situation having to decide between saving a human or saving a dog/cat/non-human ... I wouldn't hesitate to save the human ... but it would haunt me that I was unable to save both). But that is not what we are discussing here.
Agreed.
 
I would save the most important one
And I would rate the life of my dog more than the life of a stranger - and many more times that the life of an enemy.

I find it a strange viewpoint that people today consider all people to be in the same grouping when taking discussions like this - when in actuality there are many many groupings of people and many of them do not just dislike but fundamentaly hate the others. Thus by saying you would save any human you are saying that - if in the situation - you would save Hilter too? (just an example I could pick others - Bin Ladin for example or Mao) Is this the theory of forgivness comming out in us? I think not - rather I think it a line people take so that others do not judge them harshly or feel endangered by that other person -

I also find it odd that people are willing to take an animal and make it part of the family unit - and then abandon said animal because it cannot speak or walk on two legs - or maybe it can but it has wings instead of arms.
 
I would save the most important one
And I would rate the life of my dog more than the life of a stranger - and many more times that the life of an enemy.

I find it a strange viewpoint that people today consider all people to be in the same grouping when taking discussions like this - when in actuality there are many many groupings of people and many of them do not just dislike but fundamentaly hate the others. Thus by saying you would save any human you are saying that - if in the situation - you would save Hilter too? (just an example I could pick others - Bin Ladin for example or Mao) Is this the theory of forgivness comming out in us? I think not - rather I think it a line people take so that others do not judge them harshly or feel endangered by that other person -

I also find it odd that people are willing to take an animal and make it part of the family unit - and then abandon said animal because it cannot speak or walk on two legs - or maybe it can but it has wings instead of arms.

I find it odd when in an emergency situation a person would discriminate and save a non-human over a human and I find it equally odd and shameful that a person would consider race/social status/economic status/religon/et al as a pre-condition to saving a life. I find it extremly odd that, in a discussion as this, one would not group all people as equal. (Maybe that the dif between a Brit and an American ... which is a softball for another 'discussion'.)

I would save Mao/Stalin/Hitler/Jesus/Mohammed/a drunk/stranger before saving my fish or my beloved dog which, while being my friend and companion, still isn't a person. It would be extremely painful and no doubt haunt me for the rest of my life ... but that is the choice I would make.

Gary
 
ok I could probably agree with you on the fish grounds

"We weep for the blood of a bird but not for the blood of a fish - blessed are those that have voice"

But as to people and groups are you saying that you view All humans as equals? I cannot view all people as equal - this is not to say that I hate all other groups that are not my own, nor that I have no respect for other groups or thoughts - more it is just to say that I know there are differences between peoples just as there are ones between speices of animal and to deny that is rather foolish in my view.

I also find your choice of wording for preconditions to saving a life interesting choices of words since they relait to mostly neutral stances and each one has a specific discrimination factor built into them - you make no mention of the persons indevidual past deeds or actions in your view for criteria either - It would not matter to me if Hitler were a German an Ostrian or a Polishman - but his actins and deeds would lead me to leave him for my dog yes.

As for a stranger I know not really how I would react in the given situation - infact its very hard to predict how any of us would truly react in such a situation. All I can say is that I value the lives of those in my life that matter to me - be they cat or dog or man. I would also say there is selectivity - I might not save the life of a fish over that of a man - I could lose the fish easier than the man - but then what if that fish were a dolphin? (ok its not a fish but work with me here ;))
 
I think I have to agree with Overread on this.

I think that all people are most certainly not equal, and there are some people who's life I would value less than that of a dog.
 
Yes, collectively, I view all humans and human groups as equal (while individually ... I may consider some to be scum and others saints).

As to an individual's past deeds ... well that was included in the "et al" ... while I specificly spoke of those who most of us would consider "monsters" .. yet I still would not act as judge and jury and I would save them before I'd saved a non-human.

A few years ago I undertook a significant surgical operation in order to harvest my bone marrow. The marrow was donated to an anonymous individual in order to save his life. The recovery was extremely painful and lasted for months ... but I'll would still unhesitantly do it again. While the above is different than what we're discussing ... I used it to somewhat punctuate my remarks.

Gary

PS- You know what's sorta odd about Dolphins ... in the ocean everything is ... well cold or netural to the touch. Dolphins are surprisingly warm ... well yeah ... of course ... they're warm blooded and all that ... it's just that you never quite expect it on your firtst encounter.
G
 
Indeed, but humans are simply more important than animals.
Do you reeaaally want to go there?? :lmao:

Make a list of the horrors and atrocities that man has inflicted on himself, as well as every other living thing on the planet.

Now make one for animals and do the same, post your lists, I'd like to see what you come up with.

Humans can be very heroic, outgoing and compassionate but that's only because we can also be so horrifyingly despicable and vile in every way if we choose.

When was the last time you saw a dog or cat torturing one of their own, just for the pure enjoyment?

Please, you're not going to get anywhere with the 'we're more important than animals' thing. How long do you think humans would survive if 98% of the animal population vanished? No too long, not too long at all. Now reverse that.

Still think we're more important? Don't get me wrong.... I like being human. ;)
 
Last edited:
Like any other commercial it has zero affect on me. With that said there are alot of scumbags out there for sure. I hate seeing animals being abused and, think those that do it be put in jail and, be abused by bubba their cellmate.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top