Support NeoGAF

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Isn't it a pretty steep assumption to assume that the hurt that comes when a dog dies can't possibly be ONE-TENTH the hurt that is felt when a close family member dies? Can you really not comprehend that for some people, a "pet" and a "close family member" are one in the same? I have a Facebook friend who lost a cat nearly a decade ago, yet he still thinks about that cat fairly often, from what I can tell, because he loved that cat as much as anything else in the world.

You're right, it is an assumption. It's just one that is probably true for the vast majority of humankind, unlike the exceptions you're painting as the rule.

Also, your argument for why humans are superior is true in a relative sense but false in an absolute sense. What would you think if a species as far beyond humans as we are beyond dogs thought of us as being as marginal as we think dogs are? Sure, DY_nasty's friend drove 200+ miles to see him, but Klagnort's friend took a spaceship 3 million light years to see him!

When you try to boil issues like this down to oversimplified hypotheticals or a cynical analysis of how much people should love some particular thing or other (such an assumption says a lot about the person making it, by the way), you inevitably run into these sorts of silly snags.

Except there is a large and key difference between the levels of intelligence of any other animals and that of humans, and it's something that any vastly superior race would notice if they bothered to check (it's debateable whether or not they'd care). And that key difference is the "unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation." Or, intelligence.

 

[Treefingers]

Actually it does because for all of the tyrannical, genocidal maniacs out there, some how humanity has found a way to generally decrease human suffering rather than increase it. That's more than any other species is even capable of doing, not that they even remotely have the ability to understand the full depth of that concept. It's plain and simple. Humans have a higher intrinsic value than anything else. Hell, if you want to put it in pure economic terms, humans have more economic value than any other species.

Why should I give a shit about 'economic value'?

Why should humanity's accomplishments influence whether I value my dog's life over a stranger's? How is his/her value to me in any way related to humanity's achievements?

Can you answer these two questions?

Here's my thought: you're confusing the entire human species with a human. Two entirely different things.

 

[Seanspeed]

Chris Brown beat someone up because he is a complete scumbag and it was one incident. Michael Vick tortured, maimed, killed, brutalized defenseless animals over the course of months/years and to top it off funded the whole thing. He should have his fucking balls cut off . However they are both piece of shit human beings.

Yup.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Why should I give a shit about 'economic value'?

Why should humanity's accomplishments influence whether I value my dog's life over a stranger's? How is his/her value to me in any way related to humanity's achievements?

Can you answer these two questions?

You should give a shit about economic value because you are the one who said you wanted an objective reason why humans were more valuable.

No one said you should let humanity's accomplishments influence your decision. You should let empathy, an understanding of the human condition, and your sense of community make that decision, and unless it's coming out on the side of another human being it's generally broken.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

I could easily deal with the loss of random stranger A over one of my beloved dogs.

if that's the case, why should you as a random stranger to John Enders, should be the recipient of the polio vaccine that he helped to create?

I would save Hitler from drowning and let the K-9 dog drown so as to see him stand trial and face the justice he deserved. if he's still alive. Bite me.

 

[Presco]

...And yet you're so selfish that you would actively spare yourself some little hurt at the expense of another human being who would feel so much more. The only thing that concerns you, by your own admission, is how you yourself felt. That's the whole crux of the issue.

Just moving away from the dog vs human thing for a moment...

Don't put yourself on a pedestal. The majority of modern conveniences we enjoy come at the expense of others. You are literally killing people with your consumption and you're too selfish to care. I am too.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

You're coming off like a condescending asshole

He's the same in the NBA thread. Thinks he's smarter and on a higher pedestal than others.

 

[Angry Fork]

DY_nasty

^Since this guy has dodged my question out of cowardice I'm going to answer for him with both possible choices. The question was who would he save if given a choice, a K9 dog or Charles Manson?

1. If he chooses Charles Manson I have to ask why and see what kind of defense he puts up.

2. If he chooses K9, then at that point he has to accept that SOME dogs have value over SOME humans. This kills the argument that all humans > all dogs. Then I would ask if he chose the K9 dog because it does more for people than Manson, why does what an animal does for humans determine it's value? Why does a dog's life only matter if it can help out a bunch of people? Wouldn't you consider THAT to be selfish?

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Just moving away from the dog vs human thing for a moment...

Don't put yourself on a pedestal. The majority of modern conveniences we enjoy come at the expense of others. You are literally killing people with your consumption and you're too selfish to care. I am too.

I don't disagree, and I never said we had to be ok with that either. But there's a pretty large leap between the fundamental principles between that discussion and this discussion, and it goes beyond the confines of this thread. It's probably better discussed in Poligaf, to be honest!

 

[krypt0nian]

if that's the case, why should you as a random stranger to John Enders, should be the recipient of the polio vaccine that he helped to create?

I would save Hitler from drowning and let the K-9 dog drown so as to see him stand trial and face the justice he deserved. if he's still alive. Bite me.

That would be his choice. I would still have my dogs.

Funny thing about discoveries and advancement. They are monetized and I have money.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

DY_nasty

^Since this guy has dodged my question out of cowardice I'm going to answer for him with both possible choices. The question was who would he save if given a choice, a K9 dog or Charles Manson?

1. If he chooses Charles Manson I have to ask why and see what kind of defense he puts up.

2. If he chooses K9, then at that point he has to accept that SOME dogs have value over SOME humans. This kills the argument that all humans > all dogs. Then I would ask if he chose the K9 dog because it does more for people than Manson, why does what an animal does for humans determine it's value? Why does a dog's life only matter if it can help out a bunch of people? Wouldn't you consider THAT to be selfish?

The problem with your scenario is that you're putting context around it that has no bearing on the decision itself. The person you save could just as easily be a Sir Isaac Newton or a Martin Luther King Jr, and the dog Cujo. What's important is that you make the right call given the information you have, not that you make the right call with the benefit of hindsight. It's a specious argument.

 

[Speevy]

I certainly don't value a dog's life over a human's life, but I think people who torture and kill animals should be beaten with a baseball bat until they can no longer walk.

 

[Treefingers]

You should give a shit about economic value because you are the one who said you wanted an objective reason why humans were more valuable.

That's not an objective reason, that's you saying that humanity's accomplishments give it more value than other species. In other words that's your subjective opinion on what gives humans value. I disagree.

No one said you should let humanity's accomplishments influence your decision. You should let empathy, an understanding of the human condition, and your sense of community make that decision, and unless it's coming out on the side of another human being it's generally broken.

I can have more empathy for my dog than for a random stranger, I don't think that's broken - I know and love my dog, I neither know nor love the stranger.

 

[Hellsing321]

The real assholes are people who judge the moral character of others based on split second decisions made in extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

The problem with your scenario is that you're putting context around it that has no bearing on the decision itself. The person you save could just as easily be a Sir Isaac Newton or a Martin Luther King Jr, and the dog Cujo. What's important is that you make the right call given the information you have, not that you make the right call with the benefit of hindsight. It's a specious argument.

The person could also be the next Hitler. Going with the dog is the safe bet. No matter how much an asshole my dog might become, she's probably not going to instigate a world war and be responsible for the deaths of millions. If she were to do that I'd feel pretty bad, but I'd also be incredibly impressed.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Why can't we value both?

 

[Big-E]

The problem with your scenario is that you're putting context around it that has no bearing on the decision itself. The person you save could just as easily be a Sir Isaac Newton or a Martin Luther King Jr, and the dog Cujo. What's important is that you make the right call given the information you have, not that you make the right call with the benefit of hindsight. It's a specious argument.

What is wrong with context in this matter? He is choosing who lives or who dies? Isn't context important in this or because it is a dog than context is meaningless and that you must kill the dog without hesitation?

 

[Angry Fork]

The problem with your scenario is that you're putting context around it that has no bearing on the decision itself. The person you save could just as easily be a Sir Isaac Newton or a Martin Luther King Jr, and the dog Cujo. What's important is that you make the right call given the information you have, not that you make the right call with the benefit of hindsight. It's a specious argument.

That's fine, but he made the argument that all humans > all dogs no matter what. So if that's the case I want to know if he'd choose to save someone like Gadaafi over his own personal dog (or a K9 dog).

And in this scenario, the assumption is that you have no information. You don't know who the stranger is, they could be a scientist or a serial rapist. So is it really crazy to go with what you DO know? Which is the love and affection you have towards your dog?

You could argue that 'most' people are good, and that's fine I would personally agree with this (I try to be optimistic about people at least), but that doesn't mean they automatically have value over an animal that I've loved and have a connection with for years. I just can't agree with that. I would feel horrible for the person but I would personally feel worse if I let my dog burn to death (in the house fire scenario). This can be called selfish, but I'm able to accept that personally. I have to make decisions based on what I know. And if I don't know anything then I'm going to make a decision based on emotion.

 

[krypt0nian]

This topic has cemented my belief even further. My dog is not a presumptuous, judgmental asshole.


Have fun kids. Taking my huskies out for a walk now.

 

[MThanded]

This topic has cemented my belief even further. My dog is not a presumptuous, judgmental asshole.


Have fun kids. Taking my huskies out for a walk now.

But you are? Was this post intentionally ironic?

 

[DY_nasty]

That's fine, but he made the argument that all humans > all dogs no matter what. So if that's the case I want to know if he'd choose to save someone like Gadaafi over his own personal dog (or a K9 dog).

And in this scenario, the assumption is that you have no information. You don't know who the stranger is, they could be a scientist or a serial rapist. So is it really crazy to go with what you DO know? Which is the love and affection you have towards your dog?

Most people would want Manson gad or whoever dead anyway.

Also, you're pushing a kids argument

 

[teruterubozu]

humans vs. dogs vs. cats

OT is getting silly these days.

 

[poppabk]

I am more likely to pay for my dog to get a life saving operation than I am a random person. Then again I am more likely to get a new tv than I am to give money for a stranger to get an operation. I am also more likely to let my dog die because the operation is too expensive than not pay for a relatives operation.

 

[Always-honest]

My family > my friends > my dog > other dogs = strangers

Edit: Edited

I'd say it depends on the dog and the stanger. But i in no way think a human life automaticly is worth more than a dogs life.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

translation: it doesn't involve my life so i don't care

Pretty much. Which I find silly. I love my dog. But if he dies, I'll be going to work the next day. Can't say the same thing for my Mom, Dad, Sis, Bro, Fiance, Friends...etc

If I had to chose between a stranger (i.e. I have no idea if they're good or bad) and my dog/cat...I'm going to chose the stranger every time. I'll cry when my pet dies, but people first, other animals second. That's just how I was raised.

 

[Big-E]

This topic has cemented my belief even further. My dog is not a presumptuous, judgmental asshole.

Ya the tone from here is quit striking as I didn't even make the suggesting that I would take my dog over all others and was labelled as someone with issues for merely stating that the connection between man and dog can be of real worth and value. There is something deeply wrong with me apparently but those that say that the human species is absolute when the only thing in this universe that sees us have value is ourselves is perfectly fine.

 

[cutmeamango]

No one said you should let humanity's accomplishments influence your decision. You should let empathy, an understanding of the human condition, and your sense of community make that decision, and unless it's coming out on the side of another human being it's generally broken.

Bravo, even if utopical or 'mechanical' though.
Especially when sympathy overwhelms empathy and kinship overwhelms community, at all levels.

 

[Wallach]

I am more likely to pay for my dog to get a life saving operation than I am a random person. Then again I am more likely to get a new tv than I am to give money for a stranger to get an operation. I am also more likely to let my dog die because the operation is too expensive than not pay for a relatives operation.

Well, that's a pretty reasonable line of thought so you should probably run like fuck from this thread.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Well, if you are very religious it certainly doesn't make sense to value animals over humans-
That said, if you just look at the Universe and value things for what they are, then sure. Pretty easy to value a dog's life over a human life, because at the end of the day...we really aren't worth more, and for a lot of people dogs are more pure and innocent than us. They don't have their heads filled with shitty thoughts and intentions.

So the question should actually be, why is a Human life valued much more than an animals?

For the Universe it's all the same.

 

[Angry Fork]

Most people would want Manson gad or whoever dead anyway.

Also, you're pushing a kids argument

But you still didn't answer it for whatever reason, and didn't answer any of the other questions I posed after doing the mock-answer thing. If you're going to act high and mighty like you're right then at least debate the arguments your opponents make. You can't just say you're right and then bounce.

 

[Always-honest]

Well, if you are very religious it certainly doesn't make sense to value animals over humans-
That said, if you just look at the Universe and value things for what they are, then sure. Pretty easy to value a dog's life over a human life, because at the end of the day...we really aren't worth more, and for a lot of people dogs are more pure and innocent than us. They don't have their heads filled with shitty thoughts and intentions.

So the question should actually be, why is a Human life valued much more than an animals?

For the Universe it's all the same.

Basicly this.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

Most people would want Manson gad or whoever dead anyway.

Also, you're pushing a kids argument

This whole thing is a kid's argument.

 

[Byakuya769]

I can have more empathy for my dog than for a random stranger, I don't think that's broken - I know and love my dog, I neither know nor love the stranger.

Are you a liberal? Because if you are, I think you're a clear example why social democracy is so fucked in America. Everyone only cares about the insular, and really couldn't give a shit about "random strangers." To the point of valuing a dog's life over a fellow human beings. It ridiculous and frightening.

That attitude of "my dog is more valuable than the life of a strangers!" has little room to breathe from "my want of your money is more valuable than your bodily integrity." If "dog > stranger" is an acceptable view expect it to be reciprocated by a lack of regard for your life, rights, and your interests.

 

[Speevy]

Dogs don't live very long, so giving them a life-saving operation can be cruel depending on the age and condition.

 

[Speevy]

Well, when the first child is put to sleep for peeing on the floor, I'll definitely start sympathizing more with humans.

 

[Treefingers]

Are you a liberal? Because if you are, I think you're a clear example why social democracy is so fucked in America. Everyone only cares about the insular, and really couldn't give a shit about "random strangers." To the point of valuing a dog's life over a fellow human beings. It ridiculous and frightening.

That attitude of "my dog is more valuable than the life of a strangers!" has little room to breathe from "my want of your money is more valuable than your bodily integrity." If "dog > stranger" is an acceptable view expect it to be reciprocated by a lack of regard for your life, rights, and your interests.

No but I am a human being who realizes that human life is not more sacred than any other life. Please, don't even try to paint me as a person who doesn't have empathy for those around me because I have neither said nor insinuated anything like that.

 

[DY_nasty]

But you still didn't answer it for whatever reason, and didn't answer any of the other questions I posed after doing the mock-answer thing. If you're going to act high and mighty like you're right then at least debate the arguments your opponents make. You can't just say you're right and then bounce.

I never said I was right in response to you.

Your entire argument is a joke. Why don't I compare Bill Gates to Kujo? The Red Cross to a gang of feral wolves? Oprah to a pitbull that just rape/maimed a baby? Its dumb. And there's a word for it. Look it up.

 

[Speevy]

I never said I was right in response to you.

Your entire argument is a joke. Why don't I compare Bill Gates to Kujo? The Red Cross to a gang of feral wolves? Oprah to a pitbull that just rape/maimed a baby? Its dumb. And there's a word for it. Look it up.

You had me scratching my head on that Oprah one, I'll be honest.

 

[crimzonflame]

Michael Vick served his time and repaid his debts to society. I love dogs but Vick has shown that he is remorseful and had redeemed himself. Would you guys be mad if was running a cock fighting ring?

Vick 4 MVP 2013!

 

[Byakuya769]

No but I am a human being who realizes that human life is not more sacred than any other life. Please, don't even try to paint me as a person who doesn't have empathy for those around me because I have neither said nor insinuated anything like that.

You just said it. You empathize more with an animal than another person if they're a stranger. You'd be a dead end to our species.

Glad you're not liberal, I was a bit worried about the implications.

 

[Speevy]

You just said it. You empathize more with an animal than another person if they're a stranger. You'd be a dead end to our species.

We're already a dead-end to theirs, so why not?

 

[Byakuya769]

We're already a dead-end to theirs, so why not?

Are you aiming for the most godawful posts in a short time-span?

 

[DY_nasty]

You had me scratching my head on that Oprah one, I'll be honest.

Free cars and makeovers yo

 

[cutmeamango]

Are you a liberal? Because if you are, I think you're a clear example why social democracy is so fucked in America. Everyone only cares about the insular, and really couldn't give a shit about "random strangers." To the point of valuing a dog's life over a fellow human beings. It ridiculous and frightening.

That attitude of "my dog is more valuable than the life of a strangers!" has little room to breathe from "my want of your money is more valuable than your bodily integrity." If "dog > stranger" is an acceptable view expect it to be reciprocated by a lack of regard for your life, rights, and your interests.

Could you answer:
Do you genuinely care (not empathize) about poverty in your country?
Do you care about poverty in my country?
Do you believe your government should help ours?
Do you think the notion of 'nations' should not exist?

At what level selfishness stops being reprehensible and frightening to you?

---

And why people keep throwing empathy around?

 

[Treefingers]

You just said it. You empathize more with an animal than another person if they're a stranger. You'd be a dead end to our species.

Are you for real?

I'm capable of caring about people AND caring about other animals. How hard of a concept is that to grasp, I mean really.

Just because I value my dog more than a random stranger doesn't mean I don't care about our society and want to destroy it or whatever it is you believe liberals think.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Screw the rules, I still say neither.

Easily. They're both human garbage.

 

[Speevy]

Are you aiming for the most godawful posts in a short time-span?

I had that record locked up long before this thread.

 

[Byakuya769]

Are you for real?

I'm capable of caring about people AND caring about other animals. How hard of a concept is that to grasp, I mean really.

It's not. You seem to have trouble grasping the difference between caring for other animals, and caring for other animals MORE than another person. Do I need to explain your own posts to you?

 

[MThanded]

If we care so much for pets so much why do we forcefully separate them from their siblings and parents. I never really understood that.

I understand thats how it works but its really odd if you think about it. Whether we want to admit it or not owning pets is a very self serving endeavor.

 

[CornBurrito]

They are different types of abuse, but abusing a human is undoubtedly the more heinous act.

Though if you ask most people why abusing a human is worse, the people trying to rationalize their answer will say something like "humans are more valuable, because they can contribute more to society." In which case, a well trained dog is more valuable than a human who is severely mentally handicapped.