They're both drowning, you can save only one... (3 Viewers)

[Smoo]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

Is it wrong to trade them and treat them as possessions?

I think it's wrong, yes. Not nuke-Europe wrong, but definitely squish-bugs wrong.

Well you haven't given any statements to back that up, other than saying that they have internal organs like we do.

Why is it wrong?

For many of the same reasons you people worship humans. They're life.

Just because they're alive doesn't mean it's wrong to trade in them. We buy and sell lots of living things, from dogs to plants to yeast cultures in yogurt. Is it wrong to buy yogurt??

Ideally, yes, but at some point two other concerns enter into it (I've said many times that it's impossible to isolate any single variable)...

1. Practicality. It's difficult to track, protect and save yeast. It's less difficult to track, protect and save a dog.

2. Food. As valuable as life is, it's an unavoidable fact that life has to consume other life to live.

But those are obviously tougher questions. To paraphrase Maurile, recognizing the value of a dog is not.

Sorry quoted the wrong post above.

Smoo, is it OK to buy and sell dogs or isn't it?

What part of "I think it's wrong, yes" gave you problems?

No part of "I think it's wrong, yes" gave me problems. It was the apparent contradiction later when you said you have no use for absolutes that gave me problems.

That's not an absolute. "I think it's wrong" is just me. "It's wrong (for everybody)" is an absolute.

 

[BoneYardDog]

I can't believe that there are so many sorry azzed people that would save a pet over a human being...Ya'll are either very immature, screwing with everybody or on some kind of mind altering substance...Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...Pathetic example of where our society is heading...A rational, compassionate, thinking human being would not be able to live with themselves if they saved Fido instead of a stranger...Your thinking is so flaVVed if you voted for Fido...

 

[Smoo]

Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...

A human being is an animal.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I can't believe that there are so many sorry azzed people that would save a pet over a human being...Ya'll are either very immature, screwing with everybody or on some kind of mind altering substance...Never in any case would or should an animal ever come before a human being...Pathetic example of where our society is heading...A rational, compassionate, thinking human being would not be able to live with themselves if they saved Fido instead of a stranger...Your thinking is so flaVVed if you voted for Fido...

If that's the way you feel fine. But after I save my dog, your opinion will only sound like this:GLUB, GLUB, GLUB.............

 

[satch]

Can't believe this thread made so many pages. It's simple: If you choose to save the dog you're inhuman and are a horrible person. If you choose to save the human you made the only acceptable choice and shouldn't be commended or anything.Only sociopaths and really messed up people would seriously save the dog. So like I said, if you chose to save the dog, and you weren't joking, you're a horrible person...it's that simple.

Thanks God.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Farmer Swims in Manure to Save Dog CALUMETVILLE, WI (USA) — Some people will go to incredible lengths to save a dog; some would risk their lives. But how many of you would swim in a pit of liquid manure to save your neighbor's pooch?According to an article in this weekend's Fond du Lac Reporter, a farmer from Calumet wouldn't wait for rescue teams to arrive and instead landed himself in some deep doo-doo in order to save a dog from drowning. Joe Lavey, 29, was working on his farm at N10879 Tower Road about 8am Friday when he heard the yelp of a dog in distress. At first, he continued working, but when the cries were heard again 15 minutes later, Mr. Lavey went to investigate. At an 8'-deep, 500'-by-100' manure pit, he saw only the head of a dog protruding above the surface.Mr. Lavey called the Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department, but they were unable to assist. They suggested that he call the fire department. He made a call to the Humane Society, but they instead referred him to the Department of Natural Resources. The Department of Natural Resources, in turn, referred him back to the Sheriff's Department who, this time, sent officers on the way.In the meantime, the dog was developing hypothermia from the freezing temperatures and certainly wasn't smelling any better as time passed. It was estimated that the dog had been stuck in the pit for two hours already. So Mr. Lavey decided to roll up his sleeves and do the dirty job himself. At first, not particularly intending to swim freestyle in feces, he laid plywood boards and a ladder across the thin ice covering the pit and crawled on his belly toward the dog. About 40 feet out, he fell off the ladder and took a poop plunge. A dung dunk. A fertilizer furlough. ...Well, you get the picture.By the time he reached the exhausted canine and slipped a rope around him, Mr. Lavey said the dog was "basically limp." Scoop Senior Editor "Wags" does often enjoy rolling around in pungent piles of unrecognizable filth, but he wouldn't dare come close to a manure pit like this one. ...not even for two Scooby Snacks."He was big," Joe said. "I had to pull like hell to get him out."The man and his father placed the mucilaginous mutt in the back of their pickup truck and took him back to the barn where they gave him a warm bath and uncovered what lay beneath the muck."He was all black, but after his bath we realized he was a collie," recounts Mr. Lavey. The dog was wearing a collar with tags which identified him as "Lassie", the neighbor's dog from just down the road.Lassie's guardians, George and LaVerne Buechel, arrived 30 minutes later to claim their 7-year-old pooch who had been in the family since he was a puppy. By the time they arrived, Lassie's condition had improved somewhat, and he was sitting up and trying to walk around.The Buechels said the dog was given several more baths after they got home. We sincerely hope Joe had a few, too.

 

[J-Co]

Moral relativism has led us to debate for 24 pages (and counting) whether or not a human life is more valuable than a dog's life. How sad.

That's because there's no answer to that question. It depends on the human and it depends on the dog.

Smoo has hit things right on the nail today.1) Humans are animals. We happen to be the most advanced animal on earth but we are animals none-the-less. Personally, I think we are perfectly right to assert ourselves as such, and to utilize the world as we see fit. But you're kidding yourself if you don't understand that you are still an animal.

2) The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

 

[satch]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

What if the child was adopted?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is that all the info I have? Some frozen embryos are very valuable and some are worthless, so it's hard to make a choice here.

 

[satch]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

Of couse you would save your child.. but the moral thing to do would be to let the other 100 children live.

No, the moral thing would be to save either the one or the 100. Choosing one over the other would not be more or less moral. I would argue that choosing the 100 over your own might be less moral because you would be denying your responsibility as a parent which (IMHO) is pretty sacrosanct.

So you're responsible for the death of 100 children but you take solace in that you're a good parent. Sounds pretty immoral to me.

I am responsible? How so? I believe the causality is ,issing. I had the choice to save one over 100 or 100 over one. Nowhere is it indicated that I am activley killing in either case. Your argument is flawed.

So then by choosing my dog, I'm not killing the stranger. That ####### just drowned near my dog.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

What if the child was adopted?

How would the circumstance of adoption in any way negate my inherent parental responsibilities? I am really baffled by how anyone answering this question would choose the 100 children over their own child if they have experienced parenthood.It can happen. Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac. God was willing to sacrifice Jesus. It is not a really popular choice though, by and large.

 

[Mr.Happy]

Thread still going strong.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Moral relativism has led us to debate for 24 pages (and counting) whether or not a human life is more valuable than a dog's life.  How sad.

That's because there's no answer to that question. It depends on the human and it depends on the dog.

Smoo has hit things right on the nail today.1) Humans are animals. We happen to be the most advanced animal on earth but we are animals none-the-less. Personally, I think we are perfectly right to assert ourselves as such, and to utilize the world as we see fit. But you're kidding yourself if you don't understand that you are still an animal.

2) The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

He has not hit it right on the head. I do not deny that we are all animals (by using a dictionary definition of animalia as opposed to the more standard usage being non-human in nature), but I most certainly disagree that we are therefor no different than any other species. How many other "animals" are self-realized? A few, but not many. How many have the intellectual capacity that we do? Again not many. How many can harness natural resources the way we can? Not many if any.Feel free to commune with nature if you will, Dr. Doolittle; but I will choose the human every time.

 

[SharkBait]

Thread still going strong.

Among fishing trips, this ranks right up there. Nice job with the whole "dogs vs Joe Moron" theme.Edited to Add...Oh, and not you, Bryant. For God's sake don't get all hurt and suspend my account again!

 

[SharkBait]

Thread still going strong.

Among fishing trips, this ranks right up there. Nice job with the whole "dogs vs Joe Moron" theme.

I'm not going to read, so I'm not sure if this has already been addressed...But I let them both drown in the interest of "thinning the herd". Rock on, Darwin!

 

[Smoo]

Moral relativism has led us to debate for 24 pages (and counting) whether or not a human life is more valuable than a dog's life.  How sad.

That's because there's no answer to that question. It depends on the human and it depends on the dog.

Smoo has hit things right on the nail today.1) Humans are animals. We happen to be the most advanced animal on earth but we are animals none-the-less. Personally, I think we are perfectly right to assert ourselves as such, and to utilize the world as we see fit. But you're kidding yourself if you don't understand that you are still an animal.

2) The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

He has not hit it right on the head. I do not deny that we are all animals (by using a dictionary definition of animalia as opposed to the more standard usage being non-human in nature), but I most certainly disagree that we are therefor no different than any other species. How many other "animals" are self-realized? A few, but not many. How many have the intellectual capacity that we do? Again not many. How many can harness natural resources the way we can? Not many if any.Feel free to commune with nature if you will, Dr. Doolittle; but I will choose the human every time.

Can you lick your own nuts? Pah, how advanced can you BE?

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is that all the info I have? Some frozen embryos are very valuable and some are worthless, so it's hard to make a choice here.

That's my point..you don't know..

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is that all the info I have? Some frozen embryos are very valuable and some are worthless, so it's hard to make a choice here.

That's my point..you don't know..

I don't get it.

 

[Smoo]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is that all the info I have? Some frozen embryos are very valuable and some are worthless, so it's hard to make a choice here.

That's my point..you don't know..

I don't get it.

Make a split second decision, Einstein. Dog or embryo. THEY'RE DROWNING! HURRY!If you wait any longer, they'll both die and Maurile will think you're a schmuck.

 

[SharkBait]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Or, if there were two frozen embryos floating in a pond, a dog's and a human's, THEN which would you save?

 

[SharkBait]

Can you lick your own nuts? Pah, how advanced can you BE?

Perhaps that's why everyone is picking the strange human? Jealous of the dog's abilities?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is that all the info I have? Some frozen embryos are very valuable and some are worthless, so it's hard to make a choice here.

That's my point..you don't know..

I don't get it.

Make a split second decision, Einstein. Dog or embryo. THEY'RE DROWNING! HURRY!If you wait any longer, they'll both die and Maurile will think you're a schmuck.

OK, then I guess I'd save the dog. Chances are that the frozen emryo would never even become a person.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is that all the info I have? Some frozen embryos are very valuable and some are worthless, so it's hard to make a choice here.

That's my point..you don't know..

I don't get it.

So you would save the "valuable" embryo over the dog??

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is that all the info I have? Some frozen embryos are very valuable and some are worthless, so it's hard to make a choice here.

That's my point..you don't know..

I don't get it.

So you would save the "valuable" embryo over the dog??

Yes. For example, if the embryo was the only chance for a couple to have a baby that they really wanted, I'd probably save it over the dog.

 

[J-Co]

Moral relativism has led us to debate for 24 pages (and counting) whether or not a human life is more valuable than a dog's life.  How sad.

That's because there's no answer to that question. It depends on the human and it depends on the dog.

Smoo has hit things right on the nail today.1) Humans are animals. We happen to be the most advanced animal on earth but we are animals none-the-less. Personally, I think we are perfectly right to assert ourselves as such, and to utilize the world as we see fit. But you're kidding yourself if you don't understand that you are still an animal.

2) The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

He has not hit it right on the head. I do not deny that we are all animals (by using a dictionary definition of animalia as opposed to the more standard usage being non-human in nature), but I most certainly disagree that we are therefor no different than any other species. How many other "animals" are self-realized? A few, but not many. How many have the intellectual capacity that we do? Again not many. How many can harness natural resources the way we can? Not many if any.Feel free to commune with nature if you will, Dr. Doolittle; but I will choose the human every time.

I'm about as far from a tree hugger, PETA type as you will find. But I don't think anyone (or very few) are trying to say that since we are both members of animal kingdom, we are of no more worth than dogs. I certainly don't buy into that for one. But I would argue that dogs being fairly intelligent and "human-like" in many ways, it is understandable why many people give them some value relative to a human being.

The fact that a dog has value to his master remains and the parallel to the "your child vs 100 other children" and countless other parallels, demonstrate why some people value their dog over a random person.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Alright anti-dog people..answer this one:Would you save the dog or a frozen human embryo??

Is that all the info I have? Some frozen embryos are very valuable and some are worthless, so it's hard to make a choice here.

That's my point..you don't know..

I don't get it.

So you would save the "valuable" embryo over the dog??

Yes. For example, if the embryo was the only chance for a couple to have a baby that they really wanted, I'd probably save it over the dog.

Now if I could only remember what the heck my point was with this question I'd be doing well

 

[satch]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

What if the child was adopted?

How would the circumstance of adoption in any way negate my inherent parental responsibilities? I am really baffled by how anyone answering this question would choose the 100 children over their own child if they have experienced parenthood.It can happen. Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac. God was willing to sacrifice Jesus. It is not a really popular choice though, by and large.

My point is that even if the child was adopted, you'd still have the parental instinct to save the child because upon adoption you accepted the responsibility to care for, raise and protect the child. Also, you love the child as if it were your own, even though in actuality you're not the biological father or mother. Thus, you'd save your own child before 100 children that you had no personal attachment to.People should, and do have those same responsibilities and attachments to their adopted puppy or dog. Why then, if one would save their 1 child over 100 other children, is it difficult to understand why someone would save their puupy, or dog over 1 complete stranger whom they have no attachment to?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Moral relativism has led us to debate for 24 pages (and counting) whether or not a human life is more valuable than a dog's life.  How sad.

That's because there's no answer to that question. It depends on the human and it depends on the dog.

Smoo has hit things right on the nail today.1) Humans are animals. We happen to be the most advanced animal on earth but we are animals none-the-less. Personally, I think we are perfectly right to assert ourselves as such, and to utilize the world as we see fit. But you're kidding yourself if you don't understand that you are still an animal.

2) The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

He has not hit it right on the head. I do not deny that we are all animals (by using a dictionary definition of animalia as opposed to the more standard usage being non-human in nature), but I most certainly disagree that we are therefor no different than any other species. How many other "animals" are self-realized? A few, but not many. How many have the intellectual capacity that we do? Again not many. How many can harness natural resources the way we can? Not many if any.Feel free to commune with nature if you will, Dr. Doolittle; but I will choose the human every time.

Can you lick your own nuts? Pah, how advanced can you BE?

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?B. The fact that a dog does, pretty much shoots down the intelligence thing.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

If they were dry.

 

[J-Co]

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

If they were dry.

:rotflmao:

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

What if the child was adopted?

How would the circumstance of adoption in any way negate my inherent parental responsibilities? I am really baffled by how anyone answering this question would choose the 100 children over their own child if they have experienced parenthood.It can happen. Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac. God was willing to sacrifice Jesus. It is not a really popular choice though, by and large.

My point is that even if the child was adopted, you'd still have the parental instinct to save the child because upon adoption you accepted the responsibility to care for, raise and protect the child. Also, you love the child as if it were your own, even though in actuality you're not the biological father or mother. Thus, you'd save your own child before 100 children that you had no personal attachment to.People should, and do have those same responsibilities and attachments to their adopted puppy or dog. Why then, if one would save their 1 child over 100 other children, is it difficult to understand why someone would save their puupy, or dog over 1 complete stranger whom they have no attachment to?

Because it is a human versus a non-human decision. If you choose the dog, you are saying that the stranger has less intrinsic value than the dog. This section deleted because it was offensive to Satch

If the question were worded whether I would save my dog over a stranger's dog, I would save either of my dogs. I don't know that my Cairn Terrier or my Boston are of any more worth than a stranger's dog, but they have more value to me and in this case I am not differentiating between species.

 

[Smoo]

A.  Why would I want to lick my own nuts?

B.  The fact that a dog does, pretty much shoots down the intelligence thing.

Without getting into the obvious reasons of why you'd want to lick your own nuts, the point is that your ideas of what makes a species superior are humanocentric.

Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

 

[Capella]

dog.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Moral relativism has led us to debate for 24 pages (and counting) whether or not a human life is more valuable than a dog's life.  How sad.

That's because there's no answer to that question. It depends on the human and it depends on the dog.

Smoo has hit things right on the nail today.1) Humans are animals. We happen to be the most advanced animal on earth but we are animals none-the-less. Personally, I think we are perfectly right to assert ourselves as such, and to utilize the world as we see fit. But you're kidding yourself if you don't understand that you are still an animal.

2) The save your child or 100 other children parallel is a good example. Some of you have already said you would save your child. I think most people would. However, you would also agree that in general one child is no more valuable than another. To another person, your child would be just like the other 100. But you're making a decision to save your child because to you the parent, that child has much more value than any other, even the sum total of 100 children. Same thing goes with the dog. To almost anyone, a human life is more important than a dog life. A human is more advanced, more intelligent, more capable of doing a number of things. I don't think it's a reach to say that a human has capacity for a more "meaningful" life, whatever you choose that to mean. BUT......to the dog's master, the dog has more value than somebody else would consider. For the 40-something % of us that answered the way we did, the dog has more value to us than a random person we do not know. It is the exact same equation as the child vs. 100 other kids scenario, just with different weights and variables.

He has not hit it right on the head. I do not deny that we are all animals (by using a dictionary definition of animalia as opposed to the more standard usage being non-human in nature), but I most certainly disagree that we are therefor no different than any other species. How many other "animals" are self-realized? A few, but not many. How many have the intellectual capacity that we do? Again not many. How many can harness natural resources the way we can? Not many if any.Feel free to commune with nature if you will, Dr. Doolittle; but I will choose the human every time.

Can you lick your own nuts? Pah, how advanced can you BE?

A. Why would I want to lick my own nuts?B. The fact that a dog does, pretty much shoots down the intelligence thing.

Without getting into the obvious reasons of why you'd want to lick your own nuts, the point is that your ideas of what makes a species superior is humanocentric.

Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

So does Dougie have some personal insight into what dolphins think? Perhaps he just watched a little bit too much Aquaman as a child.

 

[dgreen]

Without getting into the obvious reasons of why you'd want to lick your own nuts

Um, this really needs to be a poll. I'd guess it comes out heavily on the "No way, Jose" side, if people were to answer honestly. It's a great joke and all, but would you really?

Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

A) The Dolphins aren't thinking much of anything, especially about whether they are smarter than humans or not.B) If Dolphins do consider such things, then they're wrong.

 

[Smoo]

So does Dougie have some personal insight into what dolphins think? Perhaps he just watched a little bit too much Aquaman as a child.

You're missing the message. Perhaps the expression "one man's trash is another man's treasure" will resonate better?

 

[Smoo]

Um, this really needs to be a poll. I'd guess it comes out heavily on the "No way, Jose" side, if people were to answer honestly. It's a great joke and all, but would you really?

Yes.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

So does Dougie have some personal insight into what dolphins think? Perhaps he just watched a little bit too much Aquaman as a child.

You're missing the message. Perhaps the expression "one man's trash is another man's treasure" will resonate better?

I full well understood what he meant, but I found it odd that you were holding him out to be so philosophical giant.

 

[Fuller]

You guys are still arguing over this?

 

[Smoo]

So does Dougie have some personal insight into what dolphins think?  Perhaps he just watched a little bit too much Aquaman as a child.

You're missing the message. Perhaps the expression "one man's trash is another man's treasure" will resonate better?

I full well understood what he meant, but I found it odd that you were holding him out to be so philosophical giant.

I'm not holding him out to be anything. I shared a passage which conveys the message I was trying to get across. I used his name in order to preoperly credit the quote. You're reading way too much into this, Chumbawumba.

 

[Capella]

You guys are still arguing over this?

I agreed with you.

 

[Fuller]

You guys are still arguing over this?

I agreed with you.

The pup lives. To hell with the stranger, if he (as a human) was so smart maybe he shouldn't have went in the water if he couldn't swim.

 

[SharkBait]

Um, this really needs to be a poll. I'd guess it comes out heavily on the "No way, Jose" side, if people were to answer honestly. It's a great joke and all, but would you really?

Yes.

So would he...

 

[SharkBait]

You guys are still arguing over this?

I'm not. I let them both die. Easy.

 

[dgreen]

Um, this really needs to be a poll. I'd guess it comes out heavily on the "No way, Jose" side, if people were to answer honestly. It's a great joke and all, but would you really?

Yes.

Okay, I'll start the poll.

 

[satch]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

What if the child was adopted?

How would the circumstance of adoption in any way negate my inherent parental responsibilities? I am really baffled by how anyone answering this question would choose the 100 children over their own child if they have experienced parenthood.It can happen. Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac. God was willing to sacrifice Jesus. It is not a really popular choice though, by and large.

My point is that even if the child was adopted, you'd still have the parental instinct to save the child because upon adoption you accepted the responsibility to care for, raise and protect the child. Also, you love the child as if it were your own, even though in actuality you're not the biological father or mother. Thus, you'd save your own child before 100 children that you had no personal attachment to.People should, and do have those same responsibilities and attachments to their adopted puppy or dog. Why then, if one would save their 1 child over 100 other children, is it difficult to understand why someone would save their puupy, or dog over 1 complete stranger whom they have no attachment to?

Because it is a human versus a non-human decision. If you choose the dog, you are saying that the stranger has less intrinsic value than the dog. I believe Hitler felt Jews were less than dogs, so at least you know the company you keep in drawing out this analysis.If the question were worded whether I would save my dog over a stranger's dog, I would save either of my dogs. I don't know that my Cairn Terrier or my Boston are of any more worth than a stranger's dog, but they have more value to me and in this case I am not differentiating between species.

You've resorted to crying racism? In other words, you can no longer support your position with relevant, rational discussion. That was too easy.

 

[SharkBait]

Um, this really needs to be a poll. I'd guess it comes out heavily on the "No way, Jose" side, if people were to answer honestly. It's a great joke and all, but would you really?

Yes.

Okay, I'll start the poll.

Looked like 80% yes, 20% liars.

 

[dgreen]

Um, this really needs to be a poll. I'd guess it comes out heavily on the "No way, Jose" side, if people were to answer honestly. It's a great joke and all, but would you really?

Yes.

Okay, I'll start the poll.

Yeah, that worked well.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

GB Godwin's Law