Animals are innocent. With that said, it depends which animal.
I'd save my Dog before a stranger, but I wouldn't save say, a Rat.
I'd save my Dog before a stranger, but I wouldn't save say, a Rat.
Poll
Is Human Life More Valuable than Animal Life?
| Yes | 64% | 64% - 110 | ||||
| No, all creatures are valuable | 24% | 24% - 41 | ||||
| No, endangered species are more valuable | 4% | 4% - 7 | ||||
| No, animal life is more valuable | 7% | 7% - 12 | ||||
| Total: 170 | ||||||
My cat or a complete stranger? Fuck the stranger.
I'm glad I live on the other side of the globe...sergeriver wrote:
My cat or a complete stranger? Fuck the stranger.
And that make us more valuable how...? In other words, for you a special child (you know what I mean) has less value than a normal one.Bertster7 wrote:
Hopefully we can agree that animals are not SAPIENT and be done with it, which was my original point, to demonstrate that the value of a human is greater than that of an animal.
People care about their own pets.Gawwad wrote:
I'm glad I live on the other side of the globe...sergeriver wrote:
My cat or a complete stranger? Fuck the stranger.
A stranger and Serge's Cat, I'd save the stranger. Not to be offensive but Serge's Cat doesn't matter to me.
Where as my own Dog does.
My cat can kick your dog's ass everyday.jord wrote:
People care about their own pets.Gawwad wrote:
I'm glad I live on the other side of the globe...sergeriver wrote:
My cat or a complete stranger? Fuck the stranger.
A stranger and Serge's Cat, I'd save the stranger. Not to be offensive but Serge's Cat doesn't matter to me.
Where as my own Dog does.
Probably, my Dog's like 14 years old now.sergeriver wrote:
My cat can kick your dog's ass everyday.jord wrote:
People care about their own pets.Gawwad wrote:
I'm glad I live on the other side of the globe...
A stranger and Serge's Cat, I'd save the stranger. Not to be offensive but Serge's Cat doesn't matter to me.
Where as my own Dog does.
Which is why I'd choose him over a stranger. 14 years. Yeah.
It's harsh, but yes. Absolutely.sergeriver wrote:
And that make us more valuable how...? In other words, for you a special child (you know what I mean) has less value than a normal one.Bertster7 wrote:
Hopefully we can agree that animals are not SAPIENT and be done with it, which was my original point, to demonstrate that the value of a human is greater than that of an animal.
Value is quite a subjective term, but a being who can perform more complex functions than another could almost universally be described as being more valuable.
Mate that could be described as elitist.Bertster7 wrote:
It's harsh, but yes. Absolutely.sergeriver wrote:
And that make us more valuable how...? In other words, for you a special child (you know what I mean) has less value than a normal one.Bertster7 wrote:
Hopefully we can agree that animals are not SAPIENT and be done with it, which was my original point, to demonstrate that the value of a human is greater than that of an animal.
Value is quite a subjective term, but a being who can perform more complex functions than another could almost universally be described as being more valuable.
I had a dog for that time, and I also had another cat for about that time, and dude they are the best friends you can have. You can always trust them, they are always loyal to you. I wonder how many humans can say the same about themselves.jord wrote:
Probably, my Dog's like 14 years old now.sergeriver wrote:
My cat can kick your dog's ass everyday.jord wrote:
People care about their own pets.
A stranger and Serge's Cat, I'd save the stranger. Not to be offensive but Serge's Cat doesn't matter to me.
Where as my own Dog does.
Which is why I'd choose him over a stranger. 14 years. Yeah.
It's plain and simple fact. Not driven by emotion, but common sense.sergeriver wrote:
Mate that could be described as elitist.Bertster7 wrote:
It's harsh, but yes. Absolutely.sergeriver wrote:
And that make us more valuable how...? In other words, for you a special child (you know what I mean) has less value than a normal one.
Value is quite a subjective term, but a being who can perform more complex functions than another could almost universally be described as being more valuable.
The very idea of comparing the value of two things IS elitist. The only non-elitist response is to say the two things are equal.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-26 17:11:14)
that's pretty fucked up...sergeriver wrote:
My cat or a complete stranger? Fuck the stranger.
wtf good do cats do? none whatsoever, besides companionship. if you truly believe that your cat's life is more valuable than a human's, you have problems.
Last edited by ig (2007-12-26 17:11:54)
I'm not the one saying that one or the other is more valuable. I think you are going with intellect, and I'd go with value to the planet. Most animals contribute more than us to the planet. Therefore they are more valuable to the planet.Bertster7 wrote:
It's plain and simple fact. Not driven by emotion, but common sense.sergeriver wrote:
Mate that could be described as elitist.Bertster7 wrote:
It's harsh, but yes. Absolutely.
Value is quite a subjective term, but a being who can perform more complex functions than another could almost universally be described as being more valuable.
The very idea of comparing the value of two things IS elitist.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-26 17:14:28)
Also I voted yes but all creatures are valuable.
It's my cat, of course he is more important to me than a stranger. If you don't understand that you are the one with problems mate.ig wrote:
that's pretty fucked up...sergeriver wrote:
My cat or a complete stranger? Fuck the stranger.
wtf good do cats do? none whatsoever, besides companionship. if you truly believe that your cat's life is more valuable than a human's, you have problems.
That is precisely what I mean when I say value is subjective. The question you are posing now is quite different to the one you originally posed, which can be quite simply resolved by saying you could sell a person for more than an animal. It's not about intellect, it's about value (and intellect is extremely valuable).sergeriver wrote:
I'm not the one saying that one or the other are more valuable. I think you are going with intellect, and I'd go with value to the planet. Most animals contribute more than us to the planet. Therefore they are more valuable to the planet.Bertster7 wrote:
It's plain and simple fact. Not driven by emotion, but common sense.sergeriver wrote:
Mate that could be described as elitist.
The very idea of comparing the value of two things IS elitist.
The question now is about potential to benefit the planet, and I'd still say that a person has a much greater potential to have a beneficial impact on the planet than an animal. It may be that is not what people typically choose to do, but that again is not relevant to the question at hand.
I don't think anyone could question the fact it is possible for a single person to have a far greater impact on the planet (for good or bad) than any single animal.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-26 17:20:51)
How can humans have a more benefitial impact on the planet than bees pollinating flowers?Bertster7 wrote:
That is precisely what I mean when I say value is subjective. The question you are posing now is quite different to the one you originally posed, which can be quite simply resolved by saying you could sell a person for more than an animal. It's not about intellect, it's about value (and intellect is extremely valuable).sergeriver wrote:
I'm not the one saying that one or the other are more valuable. I think you are going with intellect, and I'd go with value to the planet. Most animals contribute more than us to the planet. Therefore they are more valuable to the planet.Bertster7 wrote:
It's plain and simple fact. Not driven by emotion, but common sense.
The very idea of comparing the value of two things IS elitist.
The question now is about potential to benefit the planet, and I'd still say that a person has a much greater potential to have a beneficial impact on the planet than an animal. It may be that is not what people typically choose to do, but that again is not relevant to the question at hand.
How many flowers can one bee pollinate? Mechanical pollenisation systems exist and whilst they are less efficient than bees, are far more efficient than one bee and can be operated by a single person.sergeriver wrote:
How can humans have a more benefitial impact on the planet than bees pollinating flowers?Bertster7 wrote:
That is precisely what I mean when I say value is subjective. The question you are posing now is quite different to the one you originally posed, which can be quite simply resolved by saying you could sell a person for more than an animal. It's not about intellect, it's about value (and intellect is extremely valuable).sergeriver wrote:
I'm not the one saying that one or the other are more valuable. I think you are going with intellect, and I'd go with value to the planet. Most animals contribute more than us to the planet. Therefore they are more valuable to the planet.
The question now is about potential to benefit the planet, and I'd still say that a person has a much greater potential to have a beneficial impact on the planet than an animal. It may be that is not what people typically choose to do, but that again is not relevant to the question at hand.
I'd rather have a man doing it, who could also do the planting, ploughing etc.
lmfao. exactly why i stay out of dst.sergeriver wrote:
It's my cat, of course he is more important to me than a stranger. If you don't understand that you are the one with problems mate.ig wrote:
that's pretty fucked up...sergeriver wrote:
My cat or a complete stranger? Fuck the stranger.
wtf good do cats do? none whatsoever, besides companionship. if you truly believe that your cat's life is more valuable than a human's, you have problems.
Humans getting on a space shuttle to blow up a massive asteroid about to destroy all life on the planet. Can a bee do that?sergeriver wrote:
How can humans have a more benefitial impact on the planet than bees pollinating flowers?
Animals with brain or animals that are brainless. I know which one I would chose.
So by that rationale no group of people could ever be held accountable by the actions of the parents/forefathers?sergeriver wrote:
I'd try to save both, I'd go first for the baby because he's still innocent.Kmarion wrote:
If you had the option to run into a burning house and save a human baby or a dog which would it be?
So lets say you are caught in a similar situation involving an escaped tiger. I am on the scene, and armed the tiger is mauling the shit out of you. Do you wish me to, hold fire whilst waiting for the tranquiliser gun to arrive?
Edit: fortunately for you I would kill the Tiger (which is regrettable, but in response to the OP I value most human lives as more valuable than that of an animal) thus hopefully saving you in the process, but I would not feel so confident if the roles were reversed after seeing some of the posts in this thread...
Edit: fortunately for you I would kill the Tiger (which is regrettable, but in response to the OP I value most human lives as more valuable than that of an animal) thus hopefully saving you in the process, but I would not feel so confident if the roles were reversed after seeing some of the posts in this thread...
Last edited by coke (2007-12-26 17:42:58)
No I'm saying its all relative and subjective. There is no one size fits all answer.sergeriver wrote:
Don't tell me, tell that to the people arguing that humans are more valuable.jsnipy wrote:
Humans are animals. Are wolfs more valuable than foxes?
Where's the "All life is the same, and not necessarily valuable" option..........