Animals >=< human lives?

Hello,


so quite a few people will know the context of this thread, as we were kinda shouting it in /g, but anyway this is a place to take the discussion and organize responses and such, the basic premise is something along the lines of "If you had to chose between killing a (dog) or a child/yourself/bob, what would the right choice be?"

 

First and you probably know my answer, but totally the humans. With millions of starving people around the world, this worthless species should not be our priority. Especially not with so many other useful species (like bees) seeing their numbers dwindle as a direct response to our ignorance, whilst we bolster a completely useless species to insane numbers. I promise you, with every fiber of my being, if I had a child, and to save it I had to kill a dog, I would do it without a moments hesitation.

 

Right choice? Neither.

Choice that will leave you with the least years spent in jail? Dog.

 

Humans generally believe their lives matter over other animals because we are naturally biased towards our own species. Would an elephant blink twice about stepping on a lizard and killing it? Probably not. Would a toucan care if its baby was eaten by a snake? Yeah, obviously. The value of humans in itself is really quite low if you look at it from a "who benefits the earth the most?" perspective. Virtually every animal on earth serves a purpose environmentally, except humans. My point here is obviously that it isn't our job to judge the value of other animal species lives. Doing so would literally be admitting our own biased. TheDebathiest feel free to chime in. I know when we spoke on Skype I mentioned I might make a thread like this, but never did. I'd like you to weigh in

 

This is a hard question. Because overall if we are looking at this problem in a stand point of earths survival, then we should just genocide all humans. We only bring damage and the things we fix were usually issues that sprouted from our bad practices. We are causing so much damage to earth.

 

humans have a huge amount of potential, each one could do something amazing, each one could do literally anything, but if you kill a human that potential is lost, granted its a small amount of potential per human, but its still lost. If we kill a wild animal, that animal would never achieve anything that would matter in a few decades.

 

Again, thats our own human biased. What matters to us doesn't matter to them. We have the ability to discover more, but look where its gotten us... War, Violence, Crime, Pollution, Inequality, etc. I'm not Anti-Human, just to be clear. But I can't say my life is more valuable than any other, human or not. The argument of "if you saw a baby on the road, and a squirrel about to get ran over, which one would you save?" doesn't really stand. Tell me the last time you've had to make that decision, then I'll tell you my answer to your question.

 

If you want to be hated eternally, kill a dog.

If you don't want to be hated, don't kill a dog/human/yourself.

 

Maneo we're working in theoreticals here.

I try to look at things through a scientific perspective (when I'm being serious, of course). Every species we interact with and ours/their actions determines what kind of symbiotic relationship we share with them. It can be either mutualistic (both parties benefit), commensalistic (one benefits without harm to another -you could also take this as neutral), or parasitic (one benefits from the others' demise). Sure, in the past, we humans had a highly mutualistic relationship with dogs, and as a result both our species have developed an awareness of each-other so we can protect both our offspring. But, their service to us (with the exception of seeing eyed-dogs and policing) has long over-run its usefulness. Now, we're simply giving them hand-outs to keep them alive. Oh and your arguments "for love" for "protection" are both products of human weakness. We shouldn't need love from another species, go out and talk to a REAL PERSON; we also shouldn't need protection from our own species, since, for the sake of our species, we really shouldn't be fighting (an argument for another day). Finally, for all those telling me that "I'm a cat person", you're right, to a degree. I have a cat, but I'll be brutally honest with you; many times I have thought the same things I've stated above. However, for the most part (with regards to the exceptions above) cats where I live are much more useful. Cats keep down much more vermin, like the mice that plague the fields near my house, whilst dogs rely on us solely for food (another topic once again for another day).

Sorry for the lack of structure in this one guys lol I wrote it quick.

 

Animals are simply not as valuable as humans. If you can somehow rationalize killing the baby to save a dog, you should probably have professional help, because you likely are dealing with sociopathic tendencies.

 

i dont think you know what sociopathic tendencies are but okay

 

part of those tendencies is the extreme lack of empathy for other people

 

I'm not going to answer that initial question in the thread because unless I'm in Saw there's most likely never going to be a time where I have to do that lmao

fun fact
there is a small, very uheard of religion that believes that animals are above people and that cannibalism is the answer!

 

Humans totally are worth more.

In its life, which will do more good.

A dog or a child.

The dog can't achieve anything to help its species or any other, while the child can. People who think animals should have equal rights are crazy. Animals should have rights, but not human rights. Is it wrong to kill them? No. We need to eat. Most animals kill to eat too. Basic rights means the right to live, but since we're superior often they die because of our needs.


I listened to Cbc for n hour and they were talking about this.

Anyways, human lives are with more, but we both still have rights, but we have more rights.

People who think animals shouldn't die so we can live and should have the right to vote are crazy vegans.
Going off topic but whatever vegans would doom us if they lead us. There isn't enough space to grow what we need to eat. The meat takes up less space. In short humans are worth more, if someone thinks monekeys should have the right to vote, tell them that they are insane

 

My dad was a mailman for 35+ years. In this time he has walked at least 1.5 times around the globe and has climbed enough steps to ascend and descend Mt. Everest from sea level 300+ times. He has also had more than his fair share of dog attacks and even a skunk attack (yes you read right, a skunk). It is USPS policy that no excessive force can be used against animals that are attacking you and when I ask my dad about his encounters, he always says the same thing "If I was in serious danger of being attacked, well you know your father can run faster than any dog." After seeing this post, I went asked my dad yesterday evening what he thought about this topic and he said (I fully agree with him on this subject) "A human and a dog are both able to live together and mutually benefit from each other. If a dog attacks a human it is because a human in that dog's life probably abused it or it is just an aggressive/loyal dog who thinks that all strangers are there to harm their owner. Do I believe dogs are more important than humans? No. Do I believe that humans can change the behavior of dogs and teach them to be calmer and more laid back? Yes. Do I think that you should kill a dog if it is attacking someone? Only as an absolute last resort. Before using excessive force, you should call the police and inform them of the dog attack. After this, you should try your hardest to pull the dog off the human. If you can't do it, then you should try and scare the dog by being loud and obnoxious (as he said this part, my dad looked directly at me). If nothing else works, then you should try and distract the dog even if it means kicking it. If even this doesn't work and if the human is obviously in danger of serious injury, then you "might" (my dad emphasized the might) have to use deadly force."

 

mhmm but a sociopath is not going to save the dog

 

why did u make this it was supposed to die after I shut that kid down

 

Or just bad reasoning. I don't think sociopathy comes into it.

 

Yeah, he's backtracking like hell right now. He is making everyone think that we were arguing about "who should live: humans or dogs", when in reality, it was nothing like that until he attempted to save his argument by switching to a far-off statement. Once he realized that we didn't agree with his radical perspective on this issue, he tried to paint it as him talking about something else the entire time.

 

I would kill the dog any day of the week unless Bob or the child has done something sinister, if so I would kill one of them if not both. It all depends on the situation.