They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers.  Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

He's a cannibal.

But apart from that, yes. I am.

Do you react the same way to seeing a dead dog on the side of a highway as you would to seeing a dead human on the side of a highway?

I've actually been witness to both scenarios. My reactions (draw your own conclusions)og - "Aw, look. Poor thing." *sniff*Man - "Huh. Wonder what happened?"I guess I tend to assume the dog ended up as a fuzzy stretch of asphalt because the nature of its intellect didn't quite grasp the dangers of interstate highways. Most people know not to lope out in front of Greyhound buses, so there's usually a story there. Dog: pity. Man: curiosity.

This is interesting. Someone can consider the value of a human and a dog to be the same. I'm interested to know how you came to the conclusion that all mammals should share in the same value. What causes the values of other mammals to be equal to those of humans?

Somewhat arbitrary assignment based on self-assessment. When I see a person in danger, say, I go, "huh, it'd be a shame if he doesn't get off those railroad tracks in time. I feel X amount of anxiety over the possibility of his loss." And then when I see a deer picking its way across eight lanes of traffic, I feel pretty much X amount of anxiety as well. Then, using mental exercises, I can imagine what I'd feel like if a housecat were to be eaten by a great white shark, if a bunny were to be struck by lightning, or if a player piano were to fall on a bengal tiger. I feel pretty similar amounts of death-anxiety in each instance. We all sort of follow our conscience, but we don't really get to choose what it tells us. I'm just reporting my own findings to you. For me, I'm pretty sure the line is drawn at the edge of the mammal class.On the other hand, say there's a spider, and some demented little kid finds it, tortures it, pulls off its legs one at a time, visits all sorts of chemical horrors on it, calls it names and demeans it in a way that you just know makes the spider feel really, really, bad, and then squishes it with a brick. This causes me Y amount of anxiety. Here, Y = 0. In fact, I feel delight, as spiders are ####ing creepy and I want them all gone.

 

[rolyaTy]

I had to put my pants back on to reply.

Why?

I have no willpower. Children don't stop playing with toys until you actually take them away.

Does that mean castration is a necessity for you to be a productive member of society?

 

[Smoo]

In fact, I feel delight, as spiders are ####ing creepy and I want them all gone.

Granted, but that's never an excuse to call it names.

 

[Smoo]

I had to put my pants back on to reply.

Why?

I have no willpower. Children don't stop playing with toys until you actually take them away.

Does that mean castration is a necessity for you to be a productive member of society?

LICK LICK LICK! Mmmmmm!

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

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

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

I would just like to make it clear to you, then, that if I could lick my nuts I WOULD do so, frequently and for no good reason, and I would also happily save a dog over a human in certain situations.Can we be friends now?

Being friends has nothing to do with it, but I doubt I would hang with a self-nutlicking tree hugger (if indeed this describes you which I have no way of knowing). Seriously, that is disturbing that you would consider the act that you are talking about.As for the other issue, I will remember to stay away from ponds when I am near any of the 40 percent that are voting to save their dog over a human.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This thread is approaching hall of fame status.:lick:

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

Being friends has nothing to do with it, but I doubt I would hang with a self-nutlicking tree hugger...

This wouldn't be a big deal to the licker, as I doubt he'd be up for doing much else anyway.

 

[Smoo]

This thread is approaching hall of fame status.:lick:

Happy to do my part. Smoo 146 Psychopav 92 TheIronSheik 64 fatguyinalittlecoat 57 Grackle Squad 52 Maurile Tremblay 48 Infinite Justice 41 satch 27 Mr. Know-It-All 23 Politician Spock 23 CrossEyed 21 Gringoloco 21 bueno 18 HERBERT THE HIPPO 16 rolyaty 15 dgreen 15 drpill 15 saintsfan 14 Mr.Happy 14 IanTucker 13 Beakerpunk 13 Joe Bryant 12 JAA 11 AhrnCityPahnder 10 ILUVBEER99 9 Ditkaless Wonders 8 SharkBait 8 Funkley 7 Berger 6 Kilgore Trout 6 Vivian Darkbloom 6 Fuller 6 Giant Wooden Badger 6 sTeam 5 bostonfred 5 17seconds 4 mlbnfl 4 ScottNorwood 4 bigbottom 4 the rover 4 jwvdcw 3 Burning Sensation 3 NorvilleBarnes 3 Truckasaurus II 3 Synthesizer 3 scoobygang 3 Village Idiot 3 Boxy Brown 3 MrPack 2 The Z Machine 2 NFL Sunday Ticket 2 shmagu 2 NoLimit 2 NCCommish 2 quick-hands 2 Miscellaneous 2 Tecmo Bowl 2 f360spyder 2 jplvr 2 Fred Lane 2 Capella 2 4thAndForever 2 ms_flaghoople 1 Tony Jabroni 1 Bri 1 Ibis81 1 Ruffian3451 1 bakes 1 Gambler 1 lastresort66 1 snorlax 1 DogFather 1 Death Bytes 1 Clayton Gray 1 Grace Under Pressure 1 lombardi 1 flufhed 1 DaVinci 1 glock 1 wadegarrett 1 CowboysFromHell 1 Wyldfox 1 Brodie8307 1 mrharrier 1 Domepatrol 1 Tecumseh 1 Colin Dowling 1 Barry Jive and The Uptown Five 1 Joe T 1 Gonzo The Great 1 KevT 1 jamny 1 Bojang0301 1 BoneYardDog 1 DreadedParms 1 Green and Gold 1 The_Man 1 General Malaise 1 RBM 1

 

[rolyaTy]

Somewhat arbitrary assignment based on self-assessment. When I see a person in danger, say, I go, "huh, it'd be a shame if he doesn't get off those railroad tracks in time. I feel X amount of anxiety over the possibility of his loss." And then when I see a deer picking its way across eight lanes of traffic, I feel pretty much X amount of anxiety as well. Then, using mental exercises, I can imagine what I'd feel like if a housecat were to be eaten by a great white shark, if a bunny were to be struck by lightning, or if a player piano were to fall on a bengal tiger. I feel pretty similar amounts of death-anxiety in each instance. We all sort of follow our conscience, but we don't really get to choose what it tells us. I'm just reporting my own findings to you. For me, I'm pretty sure the line is drawn at the edge of the mammal class.On the other hand, say there's a spider, and some demented little kid finds it, tortures it, pulls off its legs one at a time, visits all sorts of chemical horrors on it, calls it names and demeans it in a way that you just know makes the spider feel really, really, bad, and then squishes it with a brick. This causes me Y amount of anxiety. Here, Y = 0. In fact, I feel delight, as spiders are ####ing creepy and I want them all gone.

Well, at least you admit it's arbitrary, because if it weren't arbitrary, I think it would be tough to justify the position. If we were all to assign general values to everything around us, I believe human life would generally be the most valuable. Nearly every emotion I have is tied to the human race. Every thought I have is in some way shaped by strangers and friends alike. My life came in large part from my two parents, who could be considered strangers if I'd never met them. All of my friends were strangers before I met them, yet I value their friendships now. Girlfriends were all strangers before I got to know them, yet once I got to know them, I wouldn't want anything bad to ever happen to them. I value feedback from other people because we are able to communicate, even with strangers. Dogs and other mammals can only provide a smaller and less significant version of good things humans can provide.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

As for the other issue, I will remember to stay away from ponds when I am near any of the 40 percent that are voting to save their dog over a human.

I'll get T-Shirts made for the lot of us as to alleviate any uncertainty.

 

[Psychopav]

Since (as stated above) I tend to view all mammalian life equally, I'd need to resort to tie-breakers.  Since mammalian life is mammalian life, I'd prefer to save the thing that had more mammalian life-expectancy remaining.

Are you a vegetarian?

He's a cannibal.

But apart from that, yes. I am.

Do you react the same way to seeing a dead dog on the side of a highway as you would to seeing a dead human on the side of a highway?

I've actually been witness to both scenarios. My reactions (draw your own conclusions)og - "Aw, look. Poor thing." *sniff*Man - "Huh. Wonder what happened?"I guess I tend to assume the dog ended up as a fuzzy stretch of asphalt because the nature of its intellect didn't quite grasp the dangers of interstate highways. Most people know not to lope out in front of Greyhound buses, so there's usually a story there. Dog: pity. Man: curiosity.

This is interesting. Someone can consider the value of a human and a dog to be the same. I'm interested to know how you came to the conclusion that all mammals should share in the same value. What causes the values of other mammals to be equal to those of humans?

Somewhat arbitrary assignment based on self-assessment. When I see a person in danger, say, I go, "huh, it'd be a shame if he doesn't get off those railroad tracks in time. I feel X amount of anxiety over the possibility of his loss." And then when I see a deer picking its way across eight lanes of traffic, I feel pretty much X amount of anxiety as well. Then, using mental exercises, I can imagine what I'd feel like if a housecat were to be eaten by a great white shark, if a bunny were to be struck by lightning, or if a player piano were to fall on a bengal tiger. I feel pretty similar amounts of death-anxiety in each instance. We all sort of follow our conscience, but we don't really get to choose what it tells us. I'm just reporting my own findings to you. For me, I'm pretty sure the line is drawn at the edge of the mammal class.On the other hand, say there's a spider, and some demented little kid finds it, tortures it, pulls off its legs one at a time, visits all sorts of chemical horrors on it, calls it names and demeans it in a way that you just know makes the spider feel really, really, bad, and then squishes it with a brick. This causes me Y amount of anxiety. Here, Y = 0. In fact, I feel delight, as spiders are ####ing creepy and I want them all gone.

This post sheds a lot of light on the whole "humans are equal in value with dogs" mindset. It all comes down to how he "feels" about seeing a person die vs. seeing a dog die.I agree that conscience can play a large role in seeing the validity of a moral argument. It has to be a well-formed conscience, though, and someone's personal feelings on a subject shouldn't be the primary method of formation.disclaimer: the above post is for the folks who believe in an absolute morality only. If you are a moral relativist, please feel free to disregard.

 

[Smoo]

As for the other issue, I will remember to stay away from ponds when I am near any of the 40 percent that are voting to save their dog over a human.

I'll get T-Shirts made for the lot of us as to alleviate any uncertainty.

They should be reversible shirts for those of us who waffle. And they should look like those old '80s Frankie Goes To Hollywood shirts, white with giant black letters saying "CHOOSE DOG" or something.

 

[saintsfan]

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

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

I would just like to make it clear to you, then, that if I could lick my nuts I WOULD do so, frequently and for no good reason, and I would also happily save a dog over a human in certain situations.Can we be friends now?

:rotflmao: I haven't looked at this thread since this morning and I come across this gem.I disagree with you Smoo about saving the dog (I haven't really decided about licking my nuts, if I could), but nice work!!!!

 

[Smoo]

disclaimer: the above post is for the folks who believe in an absolute morality only. If you are a moral relativist, please feel free to disregard.

I was about to write a long reply, too. Glad I caught this.

 

[Fuller]

As for the other issue, I will remember to stay away from ponds when I am near any of the 40 percent that are voting to save their dog over a human.

I'll get T-Shirts made for the lot of us as to alleviate any uncertainty.

They should be reversible shirts for those of us who waffle. And they should look like those old '80s Frankie Goes To Hollywood shirts, white with giant black letters saying "CHOOSE DOG" or something.

Me likey. Make mine an XXL. TIA!

 

[TheIronSheik]

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

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

Do you self gratify?

Sorry, I had to put my pants back on to reply.The answer is 'yes'. And I'd save a dog over every one of those little sperm guys.

Smoo- I think you were a little too happy to answer this one. I was asking Mr. Know it all. He judged me, which the bible forbids any man to do, because I would lick my nuts if I could. We all know my :wetwashcloth:. Why would I stop with just a hand? Or sleeve of a coat? Or a pocket p.... well, you get the idea.I just thought he was being a little immoral for passing judgment when that's God's job.

 

[Fuller]

As for the other issue, I will remember to stay away from ponds when I am near any of the 40 percent that are voting to save their dog over a human.

I'll get T-Shirts made for the lot of us as to alleviate any uncertainty.

They should be reversible shirts for those of us who waffle. And they should look like those old '80s Frankie Goes To Hollywood shirts, white with giant black letters saying "CHOOSE DOG" or something.

Me likey. Make mine an XXL. TIA!

Can we get something like "Woof, Woof you drowned mother ####er" on the back on the shirt?

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

This post sheds a lot of light on the whole "humans are equal in value with dogs" mindset. It all comes down to how he "feels" about seeing a person die vs. seeing a dog die.

As opposed to what? The labels that come on the underside of each species, assigning absolute values to each? All anybody in this thread or anywhere else has to go on is what his senses or feelings tell him. Mine happen to tell me the life of your average Scottish Terrier is about equal to your average Scotsman. If not these feelings, if not our own judgement, what are we to use? Average income? Height? The results of a message board poll?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would just like to make it clear to you, then, that if I could lick my nuts I WOULD do so, frequently and for no good reason, and I would also happily save a dog over a human in certain situations.

I must say, those Yoga classes I took were worth every penny.:spit:

 

[TheIronSheik]

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

I no longer take anything you say serious after a statement like that.

If you would lick your own nuts, that is disturbing to say the least. If someone WOULD really do that if they were able, I would have no problem with stating that I have no use for that person and I find that act alone to make that person repugnant to me.

Also, if I could lick my nuts or save a stranger from drowning, well, lets just say I'd send flowers to their funeral.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

disclaimer: the above post is for the folks who believe in an absolute morality only. If you are a moral relativist, please feel free to disregard.

I was about to write a long reply, too. Glad I caught this.

Well, it did say "feel free." I went ahead and responded anyway, because why not?

 

[satch]

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

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

You're not helping our position.

Neither is "Mr. Know it All" with his Hitler references. :rotflmao:

Yeah, don't bother to answer my direct question. Smilies are so much more intelligent. So I will assume that you do not wish to refute my parallel between your position and the position that Hitler held with regard to the worth of Jewish humans?

Your parrallel is so unbelievably poor and in such bad taste I can't believe you haven't edited it by now. I never suggested that any life was more, or less, valuable than any other life. If anything, I suggested that all living species have an equal right to life and that it's not up to humans to decide.

It's you that believes you have the right to decide that humans deserve to live more than dogs, and you seem to think it's some sort of moral truth.

Truth be told, it's you that draws a parrallel to Hitler, not me.

 

[rolyaTy]

This is one of those perfect questions that I think is fascinating along the lines of my "screen name" angle the other day when I asked if people would post differently if you had to use your real name.And once again, this isn't "calling anyone out". Not in the least. I just think it's interesting.While I know a ton of this is just , I think you can make the case that much of this is really honest stuff that people are afraid to say in real life. I guarantee you that if you polled the average guy on the street and said the interview would be on the local news that night, you won't have a close race on this question. But the results are different when no one knows who you are.Very interesting.J

Skipped over this post somehow, but anyways...

 

[Psychopav]

This post sheds a lot of light on the whole "humans are equal in value with dogs" mindset. It all comes down to how he "feels" about seeing a person die vs. seeing a dog die.

As opposed to what? The labels that come on the underside of each species, assigning absolute values to each? All anybody in this thread or anywhere else has to go on is what his senses or feelings tell him. Mine happen to tell me the life of your average Scottish Terrier is about equal to your average Scotsman. If not these feelings, if not our own judgement, what are we to use? Average income? Height? The results of a message board poll?

Please see the disclaimer. You'll be happy/dismayed to know that this was nothing more than a closed-minded post from a religous zealot, not worthy of your attention.Shame about the goat, BTW. I liked that coffee-swilling cloven hooved sonufagun.

 

[stevec]

I guess it really comes down to personal feelings on relative values.Expand the hypothetical situation a little..... If it were between a random adult and a random child, I would usually save the child. But if it were a child and my father or a child and my friend, I would let the child die to save the person close to me. If it were a random r*t*rd*d child and a random adult, I would save the adult because I think that the adult's capacity to live a full and meaningful life offsets the fact that what remains may be shorter. If it were the smartest man in the world who just yesterday found the cure for cancer and was about to publish it and 10 infants, I would save the miracle man because of the many more lives he would save; but if it were the cure finder and my brother, I would save my brother. I don't buy into the whole "sanctity of human life" deal; I believe that some lives are worth more than others. In general a human life is worth more than a dog, but just like the examples above, that also gets weighed against the value of that life to me personally. My dog is more important to me than the life of a random stranger. In short, relative value is part of the picture but so is self interest.

Pretty much how I feel. I'd save my dog over many people I know - passing acquaintances, my brother-in-law, jerks, etc.If someone decided to save their dog over my relative, I hope I'd understand.

 

[rolyaTy]

This post sheds a lot of light on the whole "humans are equal in value with dogs" mindset. It all comes down to how he "feels" about seeing a person die vs. seeing a dog die.

As opposed to what? The labels that come on the underside of each species, assigning absolute values to each? All anybody in this thread or anywhere else has to go on is what his senses or feelings tell him. Mine happen to tell me the life of your average Scottish Terrier is about equal to your average Scotsman. If not these feelings, if not our own judgement, what are we to use? Average income? Height? The results of a message board poll?

You're saying feelings should be used in assessing value. You ask what else should be used? I'd say personal feelings used in assessing value generally lead to the wrong conclusion. Most of the time, feelings can't be trusted, and important decisions (such as whether a person should live or die) shouldn't be based up on them. Base them rather on evidence, and not your own personal feelings at the time. It might be valid to be your decision upon others feelings though, but only if you value the other peoples feelings.

 

[mojorizin]

Having finally stumbled in after 28 pages:I save my dog every time. Its not human worth vs dog worth, its the life of a creature that is one of my best friends, who looks to me with trusting, non-judgemental eyes for everything including her protection vs. some ###### I have never met. My dog would likely give up her life to protect our family and I'd do everything I could to save her.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

This post sheds a lot of light on the whole "humans are equal in value with dogs" mindset.  It all comes down to how he "feels" about seeing a person die vs. seeing a dog die.

As opposed to what? The labels that come on the underside of each species, assigning absolute values to each? All anybody in this thread or anywhere else has to go on is what his senses or feelings tell him. Mine happen to tell me the life of your average Scottish Terrier is about equal to your average Scotsman. If not these feelings, if not our own judgement, what are we to use? Average income? Height? The results of a message board poll?

Please see the disclaimer. You'll be happy/dismayed to know that this was nothing more than a closed-minded post from a religous zealot, not worthy of your attention.Shame about the goat, BTW. I liked that coffee-swilling cloven hooved sonufagun.

I saw it. FWIW, I do believe in an absolute morality. Mine. I feel very strongly that people who think differently from me on important matters like this dog-or-man debate are enemies of God, and should probably be forced to wear overly tight underpants or something. And I'll decide which matters are important ones, thank you very much. I know that tends towards solipsism, but that doesn't matter, because I'm special.For all matters that aren't important in my worldview, I'm very tolerant of differing viewpoints, and almost certainly should be congratulated for my open-mindedness.

 

[IanTucker]

Dogs and other mammals can only provide a smaller and less significant version of good things humans can provide.

In a general sense this may be true.However that is not the question in this thread.My dogs have provided me with immensely more good things than strangers have.

 

[Smoo]

This post sheds a lot of light on the whole "humans are equal in value with dogs" mindset.  It all comes down to how he "feels" about seeing a person die vs. seeing a dog die.

As opposed to what? The labels that come on the underside of each species, assigning absolute values to each? All anybody in this thread or anywhere else has to go on is what his senses or feelings tell him. Mine happen to tell me the life of your average Scottish Terrier is about equal to your average Scotsman. If not these feelings, if not our own judgement, what are we to use? Average income? Height? The results of a message board poll?

Please see the disclaimer. You'll be happy/dismayed to know that this was nothing more than a closed-minded post from a religous zealot, not worthy of your attention.Shame about the goat, BTW. I liked that coffee-swilling cloven hooved sonufagun.

I saw it. FWIW, I do believe in an absolute morality. Mine. I feel very strongly that people who think differently from me on important matters like this dog-or-man debate are enemies of God, and should probably be forced to wear overly tight underpants or something. And I'll decide which matters are important ones, thank you very much. I know that tends towards solipsism, but that doesn't matter, because I'm special.For all matters that aren't important in my worldview, I'm very tolerant of differing viewpoints, and almost certainly should be congratulated for my open-mindedness.

I hereby congratulate Vivian for an inspiring display of open-mindedness.

 

[rolyaTy]

Dogs and other mammals can only provide a smaller and less significant version of good things humans can provide.

In a general sense this may be true.However that is not the question in this thread.My dogs have provided me with immensely more good things than strangers have.

That maybe true, but just like in drafts, relative value is important. While you may like one wide reciever, if you wait another round you might be able to get somoene of equal value. This is true of dogs I believe...the emotion you invest in one is EASILY replaced by that of another. Like i said, you can just go buy another dog. However, the value of the human, aside from being simply more inherently valuable, is that you cannot replace him/her.

 

[SharkBait]

This is one of those perfect questions that I think is fascinating along the lines of my "screen name" angle the other day when I asked if people would post differently if you had to use your real name.And once again, this isn't "calling anyone out". Not in the least. I just think it's interesting.While I know a ton of this is just , I think you can make the case that much of this is really honest stuff that people are afraid to say in real life. I guarantee you that if you polled the average guy on the street and said the interview would be on the local news that night, you won't have a close race on this question. But the results are different when no one knows who you are.Very interesting.J

Skipped over this post somehow, but anyways...

Do NOT make fun of this post! I repeat, do NOT make fun of this post!!! Edited to add...And thanks so much for brown nosing Joe. It helps me from missing the Shark Pool so much!

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

This is one of those perfect questions that I think is fascinating along the lines of my "screen name" angle the other day when I asked if people would post differently if you had to use your real name.And once again, this isn't "calling anyone out". Not in the least. I just think it's interesting.While I know a ton of this is just , I think you can make the case that much of this is really honest stuff that people are afraid to say in real life. I guarantee you that if you polled the average guy on the street and said the interview would be on the local news that night, you won't have a close race on this question. But the results are different when no one knows who you are.Very interesting.J

Skipped over this post somehow, but anyways...

I missed this post too. I'm honestly not fishing here, and I wouldn't have any problem admitting it in real life either.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

This post sheds a lot of light on the whole "humans are equal in value with dogs" mindset.  It all comes down to how he "feels" about seeing a person die vs. seeing a dog die.

As opposed to what? The labels that come on the underside of each species, assigning absolute values to each? All anybody in this thread or anywhere else has to go on is what his senses or feelings tell him. Mine happen to tell me the life of your average Scottish Terrier is about equal to your average Scotsman. If not these feelings, if not our own judgement, what are we to use? Average income? Height? The results of a message board poll?

You're saying feelings should be used in assessing value. You ask what else should be used? I'd say personal feelings used in assessing value generally lead to the wrong conclusion. Most of the time, feelings can't be trusted, and important decisions (such as whether a person should live or die) shouldn't be based up on them. Base them rather on evidence, and not your own personal feelings at the time. It might be valid to be your decision upon others feelings though, but only if you value the other peoples feelings.

On what sort of evidence? How are we to evaluate this evidence if not by virtue of our feelings? Are man's achievements relative to dogs' objectively "better," or do you feel they're better? Give me one good canine croch-nuzzling over a nice, sturdy handshake every time, for example.Chances are no dog, left to his own devices, would ever have cured polio. Granted. But then, none would dump chemicals in the river, either. Evidence is tricky business, and every bit as subjective as other feeling-sensitive criteria in most cases, I think.

 

[Smoo]

Dogs and other mammals can only provide a smaller and less significant version of good things humans can provide.

In a general sense this may be true.However that is not the question in this thread.My dogs have provided me with immensely more good things than strangers have.

That maybe true, but just like in drafts, relative value is important. While you may like one wide reciever, if you wait another round you might be able to get somoene of equal value. This is true of dogs I believe...the emotion you invest in one is EASILY replaced by that of another. Like i said, you can just go buy another dog. However, the value of the human, aside from being simply more inherently valuable, is that you cannot replace him/her.

Sure you can.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

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

A human being is an animal.

The world according to evolution. Another reason that theory is a joke. It makes humans no more valuable than animals.

You're not helping our position.

Neither is "Mr. Know it All" with his Hitler references. :rotflmao:

Yeah, don't bother to answer my direct question. Smilies are so much more intelligent. So I will assume that you do not wish to refute my parallel between your position and the position that Hitler held with regard to the worth of Jewish humans?

Your parrallel is so unbelievably poor and in such bad taste I can't believe you haven't edited it by now. I never suggested that any life was more, or less, valuable than any other life. If anything, I suggested that all living species have an equal right to life and that it's not up to humans to decide.

It's you that believes you have the right to decide that humans deserve to live more than dogs, and you seem to think it's some sort of moral truth.

Truth be told, it's you that draws a parrallel to Hitler, not me.

Sorry if I offended you by pointing out the obvious. You are probably the only one offended by my post. Your attempt to rebutt is weak as expected. I am saying that all humans have an intrinsic value worth more than that of any other creature. You have stated that this is not true. My parallel stands and if it offends you I apologize along with suggesting you get thicker skin as I have posted nothing that would be construed in bad taste.Did the man in question believe what I asserted? An emphatic yes.

Do you believe that humans are no different than dogs and in some cases less valuable? Again an emphatic yes.

I'll try not to offend your delicate sensibilities going forward. Let me edit the post now so you won't be further offended.

 

[drpill]

The way I see it, the fundamental divide here is between people who understand morality is a relative concept and those who refuse to admit it because it would toss their belief system entirely out of whack and they would have to... I don't know, become serial killers or something.

The thing about relativity though, is that it doesn't mean truth is arbitrary; all it means is no position is ever final. Everything is relative, but this does not preclude something being relatively better than something else. It very well might be demonstrable that saving the human is a relatively more moral decision than saving the dog, but this has to be demonstrated via reason, not arbitrary proclamations based on ancient mythologies...

 

[J-Co]

Dogs and other mammals can only provide a smaller and less significant version of good things humans can provide.

In a general sense this may be true.However that is not the question in this thread.My dogs have provided me with immensely more good things than strangers have.

That maybe true, but just like in drafts, relative value is important. While you may like one wide reciever, if you wait another round you might be able to get somoene of equal value. This is true of dogs I believe...the emotion you invest in one is EASILY replaced by that of another. Like i said, you can just go buy another dog. However, the value of the human, aside from being simply more inherently valuable, is that you cannot replace him/her.

But, you are likely to never benefit from the stranger's higher value. The value of the dog, while less, is already realized and you stand to lose it. The question then is, are you willing to give up something of value to you, so that someone else won't lose something of even greater value. Again, it's like the "your child vs. 100 other children" scenario. Obviously, as evidenced by this poll, some people are willing to make that sacrifice and some people aren't. I suspect that is a reflection of both different people's varying levels of selflessness and the value they place on their dogs. I've said all along that I don't think there is a right/wrong answer.

 

[drpill]

I saw it. FWIW, I do believe in an absolute morality. Mine. I feel very strongly that people who think differently from me on important matters like this dog-or-man debate are enemies of God, and should probably be forced to wear overly tight underpants or something. And I'll decide which matters are important ones, thank you very much. I know that tends towards solipsism, but that doesn't matter, because I'm special.

For all matters that aren't important in my worldview, I'm very tolerant of differing viewpoints, and almost certainly should be congratulated for my open-mindedness.

This is funny ####.

 

[Psychopav]

The way I see it, the fundamental divide here is between people who understand morality is a relative concept and those who refuse to admit it because it would toss their belief system entirely out of whack and they would have to... I don't know, become serial killers or something.

The thing about relativity though, is that it doesn't mean truth is arbitrary; all it means is no position is ever final. Everything is relative, but this does not preclude something being relatively better than something else. It very well might be demonstrable that saving the human is a relatively more moral decision than saving the dog, but this has to be demonstrated via reason, not arbitrary proclamations based on ancient mythologies...

Paragraph 1: :rotflmao: Paragraph 2: So if you're going to use reason, you're going to have to start with a definition of "morality". Do you have one?

 

[TheIronSheik]

This is one of those perfect questions that I think is fascinating along the lines of my "screen name" angle the other day when I asked if people would post differently if you had to use your real name.And once again, this isn't "calling anyone out". Not in the least. I just think it's interesting.While I know a ton of this is just , I think you can make the case that much of this is really honest stuff that people are afraid to say in real life. I guarantee you that if you polled the average guy on the street and said the interview would be on the local news that night, you won't have a close race on this question. But the results are different when no one knows who you are.Very interesting.J

Skipped over this post somehow, but anyways...

I missed this post too. I'm honestly not fishing here, and I wouldn't have any problem admitting it in real life either.

I told Joe the same thing. Call me selfish, call me immoral, call me whatever. It's the old "what have you done for me lately" theme.I know my dog loves me. And I love him. Take swimming lessons.

 

[mojorizin]

This is one of those perfect questions that I think is fascinating along the lines of my "screen name" angle the other day when I asked if people would post differently if you had to use your real name.And once again, this isn't "calling anyone out". Not in the least. I just think it's interesting.While I know a ton of this is just , I think you can make the case that much of this is really honest stuff that people are afraid to say in real life. I guarantee you that if you polled the average guy on the street and said the interview would be on the local news that night, you won't have a close race on this question. But the results are different when no one knows who you are.Very interesting.J

Skipped over this post somehow, but anyways...

I missed this post too. I'm honestly not fishing here, and I wouldn't have any problem admitting it in real life either.

I told Joe the same thing. Call me selfish, call me immoral, call me whatever. It's the old "what have you done for me lately" theme.I know my dog loves me. And I love him. Take swimming lessons.

I'll save YOUR dog, too, Shiek. #### 'em!

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I have cleaned up all of my previous posts so no one is offended. I cannot edit those posts where someone has quaoted me, so I hope I am absolved of responsibility for those offensive posts.Back to the matter at hand. If you would save a dog, your fdog, any dog over a human; no matter how wonderful that dog is I think it is a direct reflection on your value of human life (right or wrong - that is up for the individual to decide).I have had many great dogs and loved them almost as if they were a member of my family. Almost. Humans still take precedence in my book.Then again I am a guy who is against both the death penalty and abortion, so my views are somewhat shaded.

 

[IanTucker]

Dogs and other mammals can only provide a smaller and less significant version of good things humans can provide.

In a general sense this may be true.However that is not the question in this thread.My dogs have provided me with immensely more good things than strangers have.

That maybe true, but just like in drafts, relative value is important. While you may like one wide reciever, if you wait another round you might be able to get somoene of equal value. This is true of dogs I believe...the emotion you invest in one is EASILY replaced by that of another. Like i said, you can just go buy another dog. However, the value of the human, aside from being simply more inherently valuable, is that you cannot replace him/her.

Wrong. I have had a few dogs in my life. The dogs were as different in character as humans and my relationships with them were different. As I stated in another post one dog I would not have saved...the other I would have.

 

[TheIronSheik]

(right or wrong - that is up for the individual to decide).

That may be the first thing you've said that makes sense.If you feel that, and write that, then why are you judging everyone?

 

[drpill]

The way I see it, the fundamental divide here is between people who understand morality is a relative concept and those who refuse to admit it because it would toss their belief system entirely out of whack and they would have to... I don't know, become serial killers or something.

The thing about relativity though, is that it doesn't mean truth is arbitrary; all it means is no position is ever final. Everything is relative, but this does not preclude something being relatively better than something else. It very well might be demonstrable that saving the human is a relatively more moral decision than saving the dog, but this has to be demonstrated via reason, not arbitrary proclamations based on ancient mythologies...

Paragraph 1: :rotflmao: Paragraph 2: So if you're going to use reason, you're going to have to start with a definition of "morality". Do you have one?

No, I can't say that I do. Not yet anyway. Actually, I think the onus is on you to define morality, because you are the one claiming that there is no doubt that saving the human is the more moral decision. All I have ever said is that it is open to question.

 

[TheIronSheik]

This is one of those perfect questions that I think is fascinating along the lines of my "screen name" angle the other day when I asked if people would post differently if you had to use your real name.And once again, this isn't "calling anyone out". Not in the least. I just think it's interesting.While I know a ton of this is just , I think you can make the case that much of this is really honest stuff that people are afraid to say in real life. I guarantee you that if you polled the average guy on the street and said the interview would be on the local news that night, you won't have a close race on this question. But the results are different when no one knows who you are.Very interesting.J

Skipped over this post somehow, but anyways...

I missed this post too. I'm honestly not fishing here, and I wouldn't have any problem admitting it in real life either.

I told Joe the same thing. Call me selfish, call me immoral, call me whatever. It's the old "what have you done for me lately" theme.I know my dog loves me. And I love him. Take swimming lessons.

I'll save YOUR dog, too, Shiek. #### 'em!

Thank you. But if you're trying to butter me up in case you and my dog are drowning, I'd still save my dog. Sorry.

 

[mojorizin]

This is one of those perfect questions that I think is fascinating along the lines of my "screen name" angle the other day when I asked if people would post differently if you had to use your real name.And once again, this isn't "calling anyone out". Not in the least. I just think it's interesting.While I know a ton of this is just , I think you can make the case that much of this is really honest stuff that people are afraid to say in real life. I guarantee you that if you polled the average guy on the street and said the interview would be on the local news that night, you won't have a close race on this question. But the results are different when no one knows who you are.Very interesting.J

Skipped over this post somehow, but anyways...

I missed this post too. I'm honestly not fishing here, and I wouldn't have any problem admitting it in real life either.

I told Joe the same thing. Call me selfish, call me immoral, call me whatever. It's the old "what have you done for me lately" theme.I know my dog loves me. And I love him. Take swimming lessons.

I'll save YOUR dog, too, Shiek. #### 'em!

Thank you. But if you're trying to butter me up in case you and my dog are drowning, I'd still save my dog. Sorry.

No, no, I'd still let you drown too, brother. If it were you and your dog drowning, however, I would give him a GREAT home!

 

[Smoo]

In the spirit of fatguy, when this thread hits 60 pages, we're starting to post porn in here.

 

[Vivian Darkbloom]

I got to thinking, and I'm re-evaluating my tie-breaking system in the event I love (or don't) both drowning mammalian parties equally.I think relative ease of rescue is my new number one. No matter how long a bull elephant is destined to live, nor how cute relative to like a mole or something, it wouldn't be worth the hassle (read: certain death) that would result from trying to drag it aboard my fishing boat. I would feel really bad for the elephant, and would try to convey this to him by means of a sincere smile and meaningful gaze before he sank into the briny depths, but I've got to look out for #1. As I said, all mammal-lives are equal, until subjective things like love come into play, and I love me very, very much. Best of luck on the bottom, Tantor.