SnailyBoy Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The funny thing is, nobody has ever claimed that a dog was more important than a child. The thing about the child came about because someone claimed you're stupid if you ignore the fire brigade and go out on ice to rescue something. Someone asked what if something was a child, are you still being stupid? The old child/dog thing started here. It wasn't a child, it was a dog. What difference does that make? Genuine question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Conrod did. Conrod claimed his cd collection was more important. Yes, and I'll stand by that. The world is overpopulated, so a few people contributing to natural selection isn't a problem in my book. Given a choice between my dog drowning and somebody I know/care for, or somebody who may well be an upstanding tax-paying citizen, I'd have to get another dog. If it was a choice between the dog and somebody I know to be a chav/scrote/benefit monkey/criminal/pikey/Islamist/left winger/sex offender/(add many others), I'd save the dog every time. And if there wasn't a dog to consider, I'd probably walk quite briskly to phone for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Yes, and I'll stand by that. I've no doubt you will. You'd let a man drown because you don't agree with his politics, but at least your consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I've no doubt you will. You'd let a man drown because you don't agree with his politics, but at least your consistent. No, I'd call for help once my dog was safe. I just don't get all excited about the value of 'human life'. There are aver 6 billion humans on the planet, most in areas that are overcrowded, many don't have enough food, and most just keep breeding. If we were anything but 'humans', the argument for culling would be overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 You can of course compare any two things you like, but you cannot compare any two things and expect the conclusions to necessarily be illuminating. In your example you were comparing 'animals that are trained to assist people' with 'all of humanity' and finding that the animals were more likely to assist people.Given that if the dogs wouldn't be assistance dogs if they didn't assist people, I was simply pointing out that no valid conclusions about the moral standing of dogs or people could be drawn from it. If you want me to answer the other question you'll have to define 'contribution' and society' for me, and ideally tell me what point you are trying to make in this particular hole you are digging Many pets have rescued their owners from house fires, many pets de-stress their owners (and adoptive owners for those nomad cats:suspect:), I have heard of quite a few instances where dogs and cats have caused their owners to get moles and things checked out getting their cancer treatment started early! I am sure there are many many more instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 No, I'd call for help once my dog was safe. "Hello, fire and rescue." "Yeah ... I think there's a damn leftie drowning. He's fallen through the ice." "A leftie. How do you know his politics if he's drowning?" "He left some Marx in the snow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 "Hello, fire and rescue." "Yeah ... I think there's a damn leftie drowning. He's fallen through the ice." "A leftie. How do you know his politics if he's drowning?" "He left some Marx in the snow." Well, as I said in post 112 it was "if I knew to be . . ". Tricky though on reflection - unless the drowning person looked appealing I do think my dog might still come first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 If it was a choice between the dog and somebody I know to be a chav/scrote/benefit monkey/criminal/pikey/Islamist/left winger/sex offender/(add many others), I'd save the dog every time. What if it was a choice between someone you didn't like and a dog that was going around, making puppies, defecating in gardens, chasing postmen, biting people and jumping in freezing water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my eyes only Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I would risk my live to save anything I love dearly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXTickerXX Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What if it was a choice between someone you didn't like and a dog that was going around, making puppies, defecating in gardens, chasing postmen, biting people and jumping in freezing water? The dog. If it came to the unlikely scenario where i had to choose between my dog or a random stranger i have never met the dog wins every time.I quite like my dog!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.