Firefighter Says Saving One Dog Is ‘More Important’ Than A Million Black People

[laughing dog]

I think you completely misunderstood what I was getting at. Is it one thing to let someone die through inaction, yet quite another to be personally responsible for it?

.

Well of course. That was the whole point of my rebuttle.

All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?

Egro: by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially, she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

You seemed to want me to feel guilty over letting Bumble die in a fire, as if I had started the fire and even went to such lengths as to prod her with hot irons, or somesuch.

Poor argument, is all I'm sayin'.

Then why did you bother to make it? PS, no one was trying to make you feel anything.

 

[WAB]

Well of course. That was the whole point of my rebuttle.

All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?

Egro: by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially, she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

You seemed to want me to feel guilty over letting Bumble die in a fire, as if I had started the fire and even went to such lengths as to prod her with hot irons, or somesuch.

Poor argument, is all I'm sayin'.

Then why did you bother to make it? PS, no one was trying to make you feel anything.

laughing dog, I continue to be bewildered, stumped, and utterly at a loss as to what point you are trying to make.

 

[LordKiran]

I think you completely misunderstood what I was getting at. Is it one thing to let someone die through inaction, yet quite another to be personally responsible for it?

.

Well of course. That was the whole point of my rebuttle.

All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?

Egro: by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially, she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

You seemed to want me to feel guilty over letting Bumble die in a fire, as if I had started the fire and even went to such lengths as to prod her with hot irons, or somesuch.

Poor argument, is all I'm sayin'.

And yet you still haven't answered my question. Human life is valuable enough to kill a beloved pet through inaction for, but not through action? Is that what I should take away from your reluctance to answer? Again, the whole hot poker thing is needlessly dramatic and off-the-rails, so lets refine that to simply snapping its neck, or some other method of "euthanasia."

Or I can drop the arbitrary scenario construction all together if you like:

Is human life valuable enough to do something monstrous to protect? Because it costs you nothing to idly let your pet die to save someone, as you buy/adopt a pet knowing full well that you will outlive it and likely replace it. Pets are friendly and a good receptacle for human affection, but are ultimately disposable...Which is kind of the whole point. Its why people adopt pets instead of children.

There, is everything nice and straightforward for you now?

 

[WAB]

Well of course. That was the whole point of my rebuttle.

All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?

Egro: by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially, she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

You seemed to want me to feel guilty over letting Bumble die in a fire, as if I had started the fire and even went to such lengths as to prod her with hot irons, or somesuch.

Poor argument, is all I'm sayin'.

And yet you still haven't answered my question. Human life is valuable enough to kill a beloved pet through inaction for, but not through action? Is that what I should take away from your reluctance to answer? Again, the whole hot poker thing is needlessly dramatic and off-the-rails, so lets refine that to simply snapping its neck, or some other method of "euthanasia."

Or I can drop the arbitrary scenario construction all together if you like:

Is human life valuable enough to do something monstrous to protect? Because it costs you nothing to idly let your pet die to save someone, as you buy/adopt a pet knowing full well that you will outlive it and likely replace it. Pets are friendly and a good receptacle for human affection, but are ultimately disposable...Which is kind of the whole point. Its why people adopt pets instead of children.

There, is everything nice and straightforward for you now?

WOW!

Wait, what? Wait...reluctance to answer. Let me see. I rub my chin.

You...um...er...um, how do I do this nicely...oh gosh...

You didn't see this:

Well of course. That was the whole point of my rebuttle.

All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?

Egro: by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially, she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

You seemed to want me to feel guilty over letting Bumble die in a fire, as if I had started the fire and even went to such lengths as to prod her with hot irons, or somesuch.

Gosh, um. Maybe you didn't see all that, and assumed I was, um..."reluctant to answer"?

Let me know how I can help you along in the future, LordKiran. I'm an excellent private tutor.

 

[LordKiran]

And yet you still haven't answered my question. Human life is valuable enough to kill a beloved pet through inaction for, but not through action? Is that what I should take away from your reluctance to answer? Again, the whole hot poker thing is needlessly dramatic and off-the-rails, so lets refine that to simply snapping its neck, or some other method of "euthanasia."

Or I can drop the arbitrary scenario construction all together if you like:

Is human life valuable enough to do something monstrous to protect? Because it costs you nothing to idly let your pet die to save someone, as you buy/adopt a pet knowing full well that you will outlive it and likely replace it. Pets are friendly and a good receptacle for human affection, but are ultimately disposable...Which is kind of the whole point. Its why people adopt pets instead of children.

There, is everything nice and straightforward for you now?

WOW!

Wait, what? Wait...reluctance to answer. Let me see. I rub my chin.

You...um...er...um, how do I do this nicely...oh gosh...

You didn't see this:

Well of course. That was the whole point of my rebuttle.

All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?

Egro: by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially, she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

You seemed to want me to feel guilty over letting Bumble die in a fire, as if I had started the fire and even went to such lengths as to prod her with hot irons, or somesuch.

Gosh, um. Maybe you didn't see all that, and assumed I was, um..."reluctant to answer"?

Let me know how I can help you along in the future, LordKiran. I'm an excellent private tutor.

Well, strictly speaking the lifeguard absolutely is responsible, if you accept responsibility through inaction as valid. If not, then not only have you not answered my question (Which I will remind you, was explicitly whether or not you would kill a living creature to save another you valued higher.) but then what makes saving Bumble over a person less morally palatable? You're not responsible for their being in the situation where they risk burning to death so how is it your responsibility for their death if you chose not to save them?

 

[laughing dog]

Then why did you bother to make it? PS, no one was trying to make you feel anything.

laughing dog, I continue to be bewildered, stumped, and utterly at a loss as to what point you are trying to make.

Your last sentence in the previous post "Poor argument, is all I'm sayin'." is an apt description of your argument.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well of course. That was the whole point of my rebuttle.

Rebuttle?

All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?

Egro:

Egro? Are you doing this on purpose?

by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially,

seriously, bra

she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

Wow.

I am not sure how we got on the tangent of responsibility and how relevant it is. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

However, I do think I should point out that these two situations are fundamentally different.

One situation where there is your dog and a random person and you choose the dog BECAUSE you value the dog more OR you choose the person BECAUSE you value the person more.

In your hypothetical, on the other hand, you choose one person or the other BECAUSE you value humans equally but only have enough resources to save one (allegedly). In your situation the lifeguard has to come up with some arbitrary means to chose one of the humans to save (allegedly).

 

[LordKiran]

Rebuttle?

All I said was that I would save an innocent human life before my beloved Bumble. Then you wrote something that made it seem that by saving the human, I was not only allowing Bumble to burn to death, but that I was responsible for her suffering. You wrote something about holding hot irons to her before she died, did you not?

Egro:

Egro? Are you doing this on purpose?

by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially,

seriously, bra

she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

Wow.

I am not sure how we got on the tangent of responsibility and how relevant it is. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.[1]

However, I do think I should point out that these two situations are fundamentally different.

One situation where there is your dog and a random person and you choose the dog BECAUSE you value the dog more OR you choose the person BECAUSE you value the person more.

In your hypothetical, on the other hand, you choose one person or the other BECAUSE you value humans equally but only have enough resources to save one (allegedly).

1. That one's my fault, yo. I just think it's a more interesting question than if you'd sacrifice a pet through inactivity to save a person. I'd say most people would, because pets are disposable.

 

[WAB]

Oh boy...

LordKiran presents a fascinating quandary for you all to think about:

Let's say you are a lifeguard. There are two people drowning, quite a distance from one another. You can only save one of them. You have no information as to whether they are young, old, male, female, nada. All that you know is that there are two individuals drowning, and you can only save one.

Now, it doesn't matter which one you go to. You have no information, no nothing, to prejudice your decision. So, you go to save drowner X.

What LordKiran wants you to believe, is that due to your decision, you are responsible for the suffering and death of drowner Y. By choosing to save drowner X, you are (according to Lord Kiran's silly argument) guilty of not only allowing drowner Y to die, but are guilty of **causing** their suffering in the first place.

Let's see if LordKiran can connect the bold and the asterisks, and realize the silliness of his argument.

I would yell to them to swim towards each other and then save them both.

Also, I'm Batman. You completely forgot about that in my hypothetical, didn't you?

Lol! I assume you're being funny, since, if the drowners in my scenario could swim, they wouldn't be drowning, right?

How ya doin Batman? I'm a bad-ass Lady Predator with silicone breasts. Nice to meet ya.

 

[laughing dog]

Rebuttle?



Egro? Are you doing this on purpose?

by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially,

seriously, bra

she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

Wow.

I am not sure how we got on the tangent of responsibility and how relevant it is. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.[1]

However, I do think I should point out that these two situations are fundamentally different.

One situation where there is your dog and a random person and you choose the dog BECAUSE you value the dog more OR you choose the person BECAUSE you value the person more.

In your hypothetical, on the other hand, you choose one person or the other BECAUSE you value humans equally but only have enough resources to save one (allegedly).

1. That one's my fault, yo. I just think it's a more interesting question than if you'd sacrifice a pet through inactivity to save a person. I'd say most people would, because pets are disposable.

People are disposable as well.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, and people are loathe to admit this, we do place a value on a human life, and that value is not infinite.

 

[ronburgundy]

Humans are generally smarter than the other animals, but aren't most other extant animal species as evolved as we are?

In short, no. Humans are far more sophisticated, complex, and intelligent. It's just the way it is. Why fight it? it would be silly. When elephants, dolphins, whales, etc, begin to build, invent, form cities, cultures, make art, literature, deal in commerce, complex languages and grammar, do science, etc, then we can say that they are as highly-evolved as humans, but to our knowledge, not much of this occurs. Though, I do find animal communication and language systems studies extremely compelling. Birdsong, whalesong, these are being studied and amazing things are being discovered. It's exciting. For all we know, birds could have a language as complex as humans, and same with whales and other intelligent ocean dwelling creatures. It is tragic that shipping and all the traffic in the open waters has caused a breakdown in communication networks and systems among whales and other creatures.

Someday, given enough research and time (TIME!) - humans may very well be able to communicate with whales, birds, dolphins, elephants, apes, etc. What a great time it will be for all earth's organisms then. But for now, the way things ARE, I cannot value my cat over a human life, no matter how much I love my cat. And I bristle and become indignant when I see people stating on Facebook, with no second thoughts whatsoever, that they value their pets more than they value human life. I think that's an unacceptable, and ultimately selfish, trend. Selfish because it recognizes local emotional attachments, prioritizes those, and blinds itself to the larger world.

More to come...

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution is not directional. The phrase "more evolved" is nonsensical. Humans have more of some things and less of others. We have more capacity for the kind of abstract reasoning typically referred to as "intelligence". However, having more of that isn't even inherently adaptive and beneficial. If anything, higher intelligence among humans predicts lower reproductive rates, which is the closest thing to what might be called "success" in evolutionary terms.

You also through "complexity" into the mix. Although time was required for increasing complexity to arise, organisms often evolve towards greater simplicity, depending on local environmental conditions.

When humans go extinct, which definitely will happen, there will likely be many creatures with less intelligence and less complexity who continue to thrive. So, how can it make sense to declare that humans have evolved more than creatures that will out survive and out reproduce us?

All that aside, I am a speciest in the sense that generally value human life more than other life. Every person that is not a cannibal is some form of speciest who assigns variable moral value of organisms, and virtually always (even with hardcore vegans) based upon the organisms similarity to humans and thus themselves.

That means if I am walking down the street and could only save either a random baby or a puppy before a bus hits them both, I am saving the baby every single time. Those claiming they value dogs more are not being honest, unless they would sincerely let the baby die to save the puppy.

OTOH, my own cats have more value to me than all but a handful of humans. I would save him before most adults and it would be a close call against a random baby. But that has nothing to do with species. IT has to do my emotional attachment and connection to may cat and the sense of moral obligation for his welfare that I have developed to him specifically over time.

 

[Elixir]

... aren't most other extant animal species as evolved as we are?

Even bacteria and slime molds are "as evolved" as we are. The only thing that determines what is more and what is less evolved, is the success of the species. And that can be measured by sheer numbers of organisms or by total bio-mass (we lose to bacteria), or the duration of the species -except that "species" are not fixed. Even if species meant something beyond a term of convenience for biologists, we lose bigtime again, since MOST species have been around longer than modern humans, and it appears likely that many will survive humans.
In short, the term "more evolved" is biologically devoid of meaning, and its use almost always indicates an argument looking for specious justification.

 

[ronburgundy]

... aren't most other extant animal species as evolved as we are?

Even bacteria and slime molds are "as evolved" as we are. The only thing that determines what is more and what is less evolved, is the success of the species.

Not even that, because their success is completely context dependent on that environmental niche, which can change at any time and will change at some point.
More and less evolved are just nonsensical phrases in evolutionary terms.

 

[Malintent]

I think black dogs have less value than white dogs... like, maybe, 8 to 1... I'd save 8 white dogs before saving a black one. Does that make me a bad person?
I mean, all dogs have the same color skin (hint: they're ALL black - pretty much) so it's not racist to be against the color of their fur, right?... and don't get me started on long-haired dogs... fucking hippy LOOSERS.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think black dogs have less value than white dogs... like, maybe, 8 to 1... I'd save 8 white dogs before saving a black one. Does that make me a bad person?
I mean, all dogs have the same color skin (hint: they're ALL black - pretty much) so it's not racist to be against the color of their fur, right?... and don't get me started on long-haired dogs... fucking hippy LOOSERS.

Well, if you rescue a white dog from the fire you can see it wasn't burned. A black dog, though--you don't know if your rescue is going to have any value!

 

[LordKiran]

Rebuttle?



Egro? Are you doing this on purpose?

by this logic, I am responsible for the suffering death of my beloved Bumble, simply by having values and saving an innocent human life before her?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Hence my analogy of the lifeguard who has a choice between saving drowner X or drowner Y. Hypothecially,

seriously, bra

she (the lifeguard) can only save one individual, and has to let the other one drown.

My point, therefore, is: the lifeguard is NOT responsible for the death of the drowner she could not save.

Wow.

I am not sure how we got on the tangent of responsibility and how relevant it is. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.[1]

However, I do think I should point out that these two situations are fundamentally different.

One situation where there is your dog and a random person and you choose the dog BECAUSE you value the dog more OR you choose the person BECAUSE you value the person more.

In your hypothetical, on the other hand, you choose one person or the other BECAUSE you value humans equally but only have enough resources to save one (allegedly).

1. That one's my fault, yo. I just think it's a more interesting question than if you'd sacrifice a pet through inactivity to save a person. I'd say most people would, because pets are disposable.

People are disposable as well.

Sure but not on the same personal level. Your next ten years look completely different between running over a cat or a kid. But very well, pets are disposable in a way not really comparable with people...You picky bastard.