• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

People who value dog's life over a human life

Status
Not open for further replies.
MThanded said:
kELza.jpg
Click to expand...

Real talk, that's real talk.

Byakuya769 said:
Ha, Ronin, this is almost like Poe's law.
Click to expand...

REAL TALK.
 
Joni said:
Because in essence the question is flawed. If I had to swerve to avoid the dog, and couldn't brake on time; I would never have the time to see if I would hit anybody. As such, I couldn't make the decision to either hit the dog or the person.
Click to expand...

So basically, you know the answer will make you look bad and you're afraid of the logical implications of your professed views. Outstanding.
 
btw. If you approach it all a bit more scientifically, you could follow Goerge R. Price (evolutionary theorist), who said that the instinct of protecting your kin is basically just a way of protecting your genes. So when you're protecting your family you're actually protecting your gene pool and not the persons, kind of selfishness in disguise.

So now when we look to the animal lovers who are treating the pet like a full member of the family it could be that this instinct also starts to apply to the pet. You'll want to protect it even though it's not part of your gene pool, but still for the same reasons you'd protect your family. The conclusion would be that it's just a misguided form of similar selfishness.
 
Byakuya769 said:
So basically, you know the answer will make you look bad and you're afraid of the logical implications of your professed views. Outstanding.
Click to expand...

Okay, answer me, how would you have the time to look if there is a person? Yet not notice the dog. But I would swerve. That is the not only the emotional choice, but also the only logical choice if you're driving. Our brains are hotwired to try and avoid something that appears suddenly. You hit the brakes and swerve which is the only way you have a chance to hit nothing.
 
RoninChaos said:
To be fair, the obvious response to this would be "My sibling never did that. In fact, I had to financially support them!" And siblings are replaceable, at least in the reproductive sense.

Also, why is it insulting? Because you don't value animals the way others do? If anything, I'd have to ask "what the hell is wrong with you" in regards to this question, if the stance is taken that all life is precious and shouldn't be downgraded because of whatever set of standards you have.
Click to expand...

My only standard on this issue is that humans>animals/pets.
 
Joni said:
Okay, answer me, how would you have the time to look if there is a person? Yet not notice the dog. But I would swerve. That is the not only the emotional choice, but also the only logical choice if you're driving. Our brains are hotwired to try and avoid something that appears suddenly. You hit the brakes and swerve which is the only way you have a chance to hit nothing.
Click to expand...

How'd they build the Deathstar? Who gives a fuck, just answer the questions and stop trying to set roadblocks insincerely.
 
Joni said:
If you say human life is logically valuable, what would you do when you need to chose between killing your mother or killing two strangers. Human life is not logically valuable. Nobody thinks all human life is worth the same amount. One's own life for instance is always more valuable to oneself. (It is the instinct to save yourself.)
Click to expand...
Well, my mother is dead, but when she was alive, I know that she would have rather had me choose her than see other people killed. I think everyone's life is of equal value. Even "bad" people's lives are sacred. I hoenstly don't know what I'd do though, but I don't think my mom's life is more "logically valuable". We are all equal imo.

And one's life is not always the most valuable to oneself. For example I know most parents would sacrifice their lives to save their children. Mine included.
 
Phoenician_Viking said:
My only standard on this issue is that humans>animals/pets.
Click to expand...

And others don't share that standard, obviously. You're acting like people are up in this thread going "Yeah, I touch kids. Little boys. SO WHAT"?! Some people would value the life of something they know, whether it's person or not, over someone they don't.
 
Byakuya769 said:
How'd they build the Deathstar? Who gives a fuck, just answer the questions and stop trying to set roadblocks insincerely.
Click to expand...

Okay.
- I don't see the person, the dog appears suddenly, I swerve and brake, I hit the person, I feel bad.
- My brakes are blocked, I'm running down a road and have the choice of hitting a wall, a person or a dog. I hit the wall because that would be my only option of slowing down while both the person and the dog would fly through the windshield and kill me.

Try better analogies next time.

Megidolaon said:
And one's life is not always the most valuable to oneself. For example I know most parents would sacrifice their lives to save their children. Mine included.
Click to expand...
Would they sacrifice other people? And voila, to them, their own children's live are more valuable. Which means that while all life is sacred, not all is equal.

Megidolaon said:
Well, my mother is dead, but when she was alive, I know that she would have rather had me choose her than see other people killed. I think everyone's life is of equal value. Even "bad" people's lives are sacred. I hoenstly don't know what I'd do though, but I don't think my mom's life is more "logically valuable". We are all equal imo.
.
Click to expand...
You'd probably not kill your mother because you loved her. That would be an important barrier to cross.
 
Megidolaon said:
Well, my mother is dead, but when she was alive, I know that she would have rather had me choose her than see other people killed. I think everyone's life is of equal value. Even "bad" people's lives are sacred. I hoenstly don't know what I'd do though, but I don't think my mom's life is more "logically valuable". We are all equal imo.

And one's life is not always the most valuable to oneself. For example I know most parents would sacrifice their lives to save their children. Mine included.
Click to expand...

So you'd save Hitler over
1155-3003Golden-Retrievers-Puppies-Posters.jpg



?

YOU MONSTER.
 
Joni said:
Okay.
- I don't see the person, the dog appears suddenly, I swerve and brake, I hit the person, I feel bad.
- My brakes are blocked, I'm running down a road and have the choice of hitting a wall, a person or a dog. I hit the wall because that would be my only option of slowing down while both the person and the dog would fly through the windshield and kill me.

Try better analogies next time.
Click to expand...

You've made it clear that you don't want to answer the question. Just say that.
 
apana said:
It's about the value of humans versus animals. Are you honestly telling me that if someone loved their dog like a son they would be justified in saving it over saving a small child?
Click to expand...

I'm saying I would understand their decision. Much like I would understand their decision to save their brother / mother / (insert random personal relationship) over that of the unknown child.

I firmly believe that everyone here when faced with a situation requiring immediate need, they'll default to the one that affects them the most.

I've already stated that given the choice between many dogs and one human I would choose the human. It's the personal attachment that creates this mess of a topic here. People who side with the human, disgree that a dog can be as meaningful in someone's life as another human. People who understand a meaningful bond can be created are called abhorrent, selfish assholes.
 
Joni said:
Okay.
- I don't see the person, the dog appears suddenly, I swerve and brake, I hit the person, I feel bad.
- My brakes are blocked, I'm running down a road and have the choice of hitting a wall, a person or a dog. I hit the wall because that would be my only option of slowing down while both the person and the dog would fly through the windshield and kill me.
Click to expand...

The initial hypothetical was bad. However, you just fell for his trap. You sidestepped the true intentions of the question. Redefining it is a sign of some internal cognitive dissonance. Better to just say I understand what you are saying rather than trying to weasel out of it.

Edit: he already called you out on it.
 
FanTomasas said:
If you put this into a different perspective: An average dog will do far less harm to the planet than the average human.
Click to expand...

I guess you could hypothetically take this stance that you don't even believe for a second.

Then I'd hypothetically ask you: why haven't you killed yourself? Every second of your existence has been nothing but detrimental to the planet. Why are you seemingly separating yourself from the average human being? Talking of this "average human being" like it was some other and nothing to do with you.

Lets kill ourselves so the planet will go back to its natural state. The one ruled by dog overlords!

Bark bark!
 
Wow this thread got big fast. I will say this, Chris is more deserving of redemption if he's learned his lesson. I believe the beating of Rhianna to the degree that he had was an isolated incident. What Vick did was habitual and was the equivalent of a doggie death camp.
 
perfectnight said:
No I do not because I don't hold that view. In my opinion if you know in advance that your next child has a very high chance of being born profoundly retarded then you should abort.

I'm certain that the guy you quoted was not referring to profoundly retarded people when he said that he believed humans are more valuable because of our intelligence. You are taking an extreme and trying to make a shitty argument around it. As far as I know nobody ever stated that people who can't even function are more valuable than apes or somesuch. Are they more valuable to some individuals? Sure. Out of some misguided emotional attachment they do. This is beginning to sound familiar.
Click to expand...

My argument wasn't that human and nonhuman life are equally valuable.

My argument was that intelligence is not the only factor that can be used when determining said value.
 
Phoenician_Viking said:
A pet does not visit you at the hospital when you´re ill.
Click to expand...

Well I was pretty sick in 2009 (and in hospital for around 3 months in total) and my friends abandoned me.
and dogs are not allowed in hospital, not the fault of the dog

A pet does not help you to solve your problems. A pet gives you a distraction from your problems not solve them.
Click to expand...

Chneym.jpg

This dog definitely doesn't.

A pet is replaceable, a sibling is not.
Click to expand...

I thought this thread was about dogs vs. humans. Not dogs vs. siblings. And I wouldn't call a pet, that you loved and had for years, being "replaceable". A pet isn't a TV or a PS3.
 
Joni said:
Would they sacrifice other people? And voila, to them, their own children's live are more valuable. Which means that while all life is sacred, not all is equal.

You'd probably not kill your mother because you loved her. That would be an important barrier to cross.
Click to expand...
Well honestly I don't think my parents would sacrifice anyone else, becasue I would not want that.

I can't imagine killing my mom but I can't imagine she'd be okay with living at other's expense.

Of course, our spiritual beliefs play a role in how we view this. Personally I am a Christian and believe that every human life is sacred and was created by God. Even "bad" people are sacred.

And yes, I'd save Hitler over an animal, but Hitler was an active threat to the lives of others so it's kind of a different scenario. :/
 
Fenderputty said:
I'm saying I would understand their decision. Much like I would understand their decision to save their brother / mother / (insert random personal relationship) over that of the unknown child.

I firmly believe that everyone here when faced with a situation requiring immediate need, they'll default to the one that affects them the most.

I've already stated that given the choice between many dogs and one human I would choose the human. It's the personal attachment that creates this mess of a topic here. People who side with the human, disgree that a dog can be as meaningful in someone's life as another human. People who understand a meaningful bond can be created are called abhorrent, selfish assholes.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between understanding and accepting something. You can't determine the relative value of one human over another if one of them is a complete stranger so it is a freebie, you get to choose. In the case of the animal we draw a line because we value human life more. If someone would choose a dog over a child we have to be willing to say that is wrong even if we understand the emotional attachment that compelled them to make that horrible decision.
 
Byakuya769 said:
So basically, you know the answer will make you look bad and you're afraid of the logical implications of your professed views. Outstanding.
Click to expand...

Byakuya769 said:
How'd they build the Deathstar? Who gives a fuck, just answer the questions and stop trying to set roadblocks insincerely.
Click to expand...

Byakuya769 said:
You've made it clear that you don't want to answer the question. Just say that.
Click to expand...

And you were calling others dense. Cray.

Bisnic said:
But i thought all pets were of equal value to humans, like part of your family, according to all you big animal lovers.

Or wait... should i say dog lovers?
Click to expand...

Pets may be of equal value to their owners.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
REALLY?!

Personally, I'd swerve right into Hitler and then drive back and forth over his mangled corpse a few times for good measure before getting out to check that the puppy is OK.
Click to expand...

What if the puppy was secretly Hitlers influence?
Sorry for the question but people are coming up with these crazy scenarios to justify their opinion.
 
Yes I would save my dog over a random stranger. No I don't feel like I am a bad person. In fact, I know many others who would do the same. No it isn't taboo to love your dog more than a random person. Yes, I do nice things for the people around me, my neighbors, my friends and my family. This isn't a black and white discussion as most of you are trying to make it out to be. To the people arguing against posters with my view, get over yourselves. You have your opinion I have mine. These random hypotheticals are complete bullshit because your obviously skewing the situation to make your position look better.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
Yes I would save my dog over a random stranger. No I don't feel like I am a bad person. In fact, I know many others who would do the same. No it isn't taboo to love your dog more than a random person. Yes, I do nice things for the people around me, my neighbors, my friends and my family. This isn't a black and white discussion as most of you are trying to make it out to be. To the people arguing against posters with my view, get over yourselves. You have your opinion I have mine. These random hypotheticals are complete bullshit because your obviously skewing the situation to make your position look better.
Click to expand...

There are people who have the opinion that black people are somehow inferior to white people, is this an opinion that should be respected as well? Basically you are a bad person if you let someone die so you can save bubbles or mr chew or your dog named cat, whatever.
 
Byakuya769 said:
Oh, do explain, learned Professor.
Click to expand...

You are 'forcing' him to answer a dead end dilemma, so you can falsely correlate a rationalization to whichever hypothesis he choses.
When he says his choice would not involve rationalization, you say he is trying to 'escape'.

If I asked you: "Would you fuck your mother til she died or eat a bucket of living babies" with the clear and sole intent to disqualify you, I'd be an idiot. If I asked that without any intent, but to reach out any conclusion, I'd be an ignorant being.
 
cutmeamango said:
You are 'forcing' him to answer a dead end dilemma, so you can falsely correlate a rationalization to whichever hypothesis he choses.
When he says his choice would not involve rationalization, you say he is trying to 'escape'.

If I asked you: "Would you fuck your mother til she died or eat a bucket of living babies" with the clear and sole intent to disqualify you, I'd be an idiot. If I asked that without any intent, but to reach out any conclusion, I'd be an ignorant being.
Click to expand...

You are an ignorant being if this is your actual argument. The dilemma is not a dead end, as people have professed proudly that they would save the life of their pet over that of a stranger. It's not invalid to tease out how that choice would look like in practice. Instead of admitting their views in lieu of a potential situation where the choice arises, people opt to pick apart the hypothetical for being poorly designed.

Then of course we have guys like you coming off the bench to provide philosophy 101 support. Come off it.
 
I think the issue is Vick's callous disrespect for a life. Brown didn't actually kill anyone. Violence is one thing but actual snuffing a life is a different level. Rihanna had the ability to call the cops and seek help. Someone who abuses dogs knows full well the dog cannot seek help for the situation.

I think both are the scum of the Earth but a female is more capable of fighting back. Maybe not physically in the moment but she has the ability to seek justice. Dogs are not afforded that luxury.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
Yes I would save my dog over a random stranger. No I don't feel like I am a bad person. In fact, I know many others who would do the same. No it isn't taboo to love your dog more than a random person. Yes, I do nice things for the people around me, my neighbors, my friends and my family. This isn't a black and white discussion as most of you are trying to make it out to be. To the people arguing against posters with my view, get over yourselves. You have your opinion I have mine. These random hypotheticals are complete bullshit because your obviously skewing the situation to make your position look better.
Click to expand...

Thats odd. "Its not black and white but if you are arguing against MY view get over yourselves"... OK then.

I earlier said it was not black and white. I think a lot of people realize that. If it was black and white there probably wouldn't be such a long discussion about it.
 
lethial said:
What if the puppy was secretly Hitlers influence?
Sorry for the question but people are coming up with these crazy scenarios to justify their opinion.
Click to expand...

We are entering into the realm of philosophy. What is philosophy if not a series of crazy imagined scenarios!?
 
I ran over a dog once in my car. It horrified me and I don't want to consider what running over a human being would be like. However, given the time to react and process everything, I'd like to believe I would try to save MY dog over some random shitbag on the sidewalk. But, I doubt I would be able to overcome the driving instinct to stay on the road. Who swerves onto sidewalks or oncomming traffic to avoid small things in the road?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hello cyberpunk2077 real life
6
109
Uberman77 replied
A Magnificent Life Trailer #1 (2026)
4
242
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Life on Mars?
21
820
ForAcademicPurposes replied
Roblox employee's 'day in the life' video goes viral
2
61
827
Boss Mog replied
What has been the worst year of your adult life?
47
786
Baemono replied
Top Bottom