Why do some people value animals over human lives?

[bingo123]

never own a pet but i think in most cases i would choose a stranger over a pet. Losing a pet would be difficult but the stranger could have a family to support, etc. If the stranger was a child or female i think the odds are in the favour of the stranger over the pet.

I can understand that. Thats why I posted that other scenario in my previous post. How many strangers would you "sacrifice" for the life of your loved ones?

[iamgine]

I can understand that. Thats why I posted that other scenario in my previous post. How many strangers would you "sacrifice" for the life of your loved ones?

"Sacrifice" is the key word.

If sacrifice means to kill or murder, most people wouldn't sacrifice any stranger.

If sacrifice means strangers just died on their own, most people would agree.

[bingo123]

"Sacrifice" is the key word.

If sacrifice means to kill or murder, most people wouldn't sacrifice any stranger.

If sacrifice means strangers just died on their own, most people would agree.

My bad on wording it.

[Dresta]

Overpopulation can occur from a myriad of sources, including but not limited to "having more children." A decline in mortality rates can also lead to overpopulation, as it absolutely has in our case.

I don't see why that would lead you to dismiss the potential problems we may have down the road and our refusal to enter this problem into the national and/or international conversation.

Humankind is growing by about 74 million people every year, per the UN. We're expected to be over the 10 billion mark by 2100. Are you asserting that there is no problem, here? That the planet will be able to house us indefinitely, regardless of how fast the population grows?

You really need to understand that humankind is incapable of significantly outgrowing its capability to sustain itself. It simply cannot do so. If the number of people on the planet cannot be provided for, then the population will recalibrate itself to a stable equilibrium as it has always done, and as it did for thousands of years before our advances in production, technology and medicine brought on perpetual growth.

I don't see how you can be so certain what the future will bring when we have dealt with every population increase thus far (despite perpetual naysayers) and population growth is already on a downward curve from its initial explosion, and future technological developments cannot be guessed at. If it is climate change you are harking on about, then who is to say that nuclear fusion will not be perfected over the coming century? This would solve all our problems relating to energy and environmental damage.

But then i guess we could just keep 'arrogantly overpopulating' . As if people's desire to have children has anything to do with arrogance, vanity maybe, but arrogance pfff.... rubbish.

Ha, according to Dresta:

1) Overpopulation is not a problem.
2) Have as many kids as you can afford.
3) We need even higher birth rates so we can support and care for the biggest birth wave of the past 60 years.

That makes a lot of sense.

Precisely. I'm glad your comprehension isn't faulty.

Yes I did feel the need to include that disclaimer because I've had this discussion crash and burn before it even started, as people would try to attack my animal hating, apparently sociopathic ways rather than discuss the issue at hand.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with anyone eating meat; I also do not believe animal lives to be as valuable as human lives. Which I have clearly stated.

Yeah, i guess i underestimated the extreme animal love on this site, combined with a contempt towards human beings that is reminisce of a one-party totalitarian state. Some guys in here would probably implement a one child policy if they had the chance, despite the US being a considerably underpopulated land mass, with a ton of room to grow.

"Sacrifice" is the key word.

If sacrifice means to kill or murder, most people wouldn't sacrifice any stranger.

If sacrifice means strangers just died on their own, most people would agree.

Except those two instances are really the same: in both cases, the stranger would die as a result of the decision of the person who chooses their pet. In both cases, the decision maker is directly responsible, and though some may still be able to justify killing in order to save their pets in this instance, if they had to be involved with the process by having to notify the family and see those repercussions then they may choose differently. Basically, there is a huge difference between the abstract and reality in this hypothetical.

[The Iron Sheik]

**** people and **** animals. problem solved.

[step_back]

Because Animals are innocent, while Humans are guilty.

What is innocent about the animal kingdom?

[Qwyjibo]

I would murder any of you to save my cat. Or just for fun. Whatever.

[iamgine]

Except those two instances are really the same: in both cases, the stranger would die as a result of the decision of the person who chooses their pet. In both cases, the decision maker is directly responsible, and though some may still be able to justify killing in order to save their pets in this instance, if they had to be involved with the process by having to notify the family and see those repercussions then they may choose differently. Basically, there is a huge difference between the abstract and reality in this hypothetical.

Result is the similar but those two things are not really the same at all. It's like if I know terrorist is going to bomb WTC but doesn't tell anyone. Versus if I kill many people myself. Those two aren't the same at all.

[Dresta]

Result is the similar but those two things are not really the same at all. It's like if I know terrorist is going to bomb WTC but doesn't tell anyone. Versus if I kill many people myself. Those two aren't the same at all.

Not doing something when something could easily be done is equal in responsibility, though not necessarily in malice.

[iamgine]

Not doing something when something could easily be done is equal in responsibility, though not necessarily in malice.

Not sure I agree.

[gts]

F*ck the stranger. I'm saving the animals so I can eat them later

[Dresta]

Not sure I agree.

So if a nuke is planted in New York City, and a person unrelated to the bomb has a button in front of them that will disarm the bomb, and they know this is what it does and what will happen if they don't do anything, that if this person let the bomb go off they do not carry the same responsibility for the consequences of what has happened as the planter of the bomb?

[CeltsGarlic]

So if a nuke is planted in New York City, and a person unrelated to the bomb has a button in front of them that will disarm the bomb, and they know this is what it does and what will happen if they don't do anything, that if this person let the bomb go off they do not carry the same responsibility for the consequences of what has happened as the planter of the bomb?

Now change that there is a dog instead of a human placed next the bomb disarmer. He would push it.

[Horde of Temujin]

**** humans, especially the light skinned ones

[iamgine]

So if a nuke is planted in New York City, and a person unrelated to the bomb has a button in front of them that will disarm the bomb, and they know this is what it does and what will happen if they don't do anything, that if this person let the bomb go off they do not carry the same responsibility for the consequences of what has happened as the planter of the bomb?

I'm saying not helping is not equal to murdering people yourself.