Dogs are not people, does anyone else find it weird how some seem to equate the two?

[quinnox]

I think it is really bizarre how some apparently imply or outright say that dogs are equal in worth to human beings. To me, that is a very whacked out PETA like extremist position to take. Its crazy, to be blunt. I have to think that those who think this have had bad experiences with human relationships or are isolated people, with little to no human contact. What do you say?

[datasuspect]

1. it is crazy

unbalanced, even.

[Hissyspit]

70. Simplistic bullshit.

You fine with the person who shot and killed my cat out of spite?

Humans are animals.

Insert chainsaw murderer photo here.

(I'm assuming you're being deliberately silly.)

[Silent3]

299. You try to equate what that poster said to...

"You fine with the person who shot and killed my cat out of spite?", and you combine that ridiculous overreaction with an accusation of "simplistic bullshit"?

The oversimplification you're railing against was created by you, then ever so bravely attacked by you.

[Hissyspit]

305. Nonsense.

See Post #304 and #52. I'll let you figure it out.

Anyway, based on datasuspect's posting history, I believe he was being sarcastic. I was just using his post to counter the OP.

[ErikJ]

311. Pet owners live longer.

Pet killers often progress to human murders or abuse.

[Katashi_itto]

71. I agree, it is unbalanced. Usually dogs are better than most people.

[BuelahWitch]

76. +1,000,000,000

[MNBrewer]

86. +another million

[byronius]

129. Floyd, you're spot on. Typical Anthropocentric Crap.

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

'Only life forms that look exactly like me matter in any way whatsoever.'

Classic animal-experimentation-apologist shortsight.

[Stryder]

328. Actualy

"Only humans that look exactly like me matter in any way whatsoever."

Classic ... well, petty much the nation I've found myself living in.

(Sorry.Feeling a bit Misanthropocentric this evening.)

[life long demo]

170. Thank You, Thank you

A thousand times. How could anyone think differently?

.

[truebluegreen]

181. + a million

You know the old saying, the more people I know the more I love my dog!

[DesertFlower]

191. and so are cats

[Gemini Cat]

234. + Several million more

for both cats and dogs.

[hopemountain]

263. and dolphins, whales, & elephants

i love all of my animal relatives. they have taught me compassion and respect for all living things.

[forestpath]

238. + a gazillion.

[CrawlingChaos]

193. + yet another million

[Dragonfli]

208. Agreed

[DBoon]

239. The more I know people

the better I like dogs

[Laelth]

281. As the character, Gordon Gekko, observed in Wall Street:

"Funny thing about WASPs - they love animals, hate people."

-Laelth

[ErikJ]

225. PETA doesnt believe in pet ownership. So where you coming from?

[Katashi_itto]

268. We werent talking about PETA so where are you coming from?

[ErikJ]

269. Here's the OP

I think it is really bizarre how some apparently imply or outright say that dogs are equal in worth to human beings. To me, that is a very whacked out PETA like extremist position to take. Its crazy, to be blunt. I have to think that those who think this have had bad experiences with human relationships or are isolated people, with little to no human contact. What do you say?
----------------------------------------
So either he is saying that we should own pets OR I think he is saying that dogs are too prized by their owners.

[Katashi_itto]

270. That subtext, still doesnt make his "observation" anymore correct

[ErikJ]

272. OK, it completely threw me.

Thanks. Its still a bit confusing if I think about it though. PETA does NOT want anybody to own pets. He says owning a pet is PETA like. AAARGH!!

[Katashi_itto]

274. Yup, although misreading it could happen to anyone, the OP is fairly incoherent in his screed,

not a very well laid out OP

[Hissyspit]

309. That's not uncommon with flame-bait.

[Katashi_itto]

312. You have a point. I didnt look at it like that before. It is pretty much flame bait isnt it.

[warrior1]

2. Wait

[kentauros]

3. How long?

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Ayup

This should go fucking swimmingly.

[randome]

4. Do you really want to go there?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Buzz Clik]

128. Nice monocle. Did you tie that tie?

[closeupready]

5. Yes, I always have thought that. Not in a disrespectful way, but

I grew up in an environment where there were lots of animals, and I love cats and dogs and birds, but regardless, they are not people, and do not have the same rights as people. Just the way it is, as I see it.

[datasuspect]

6. plus, they can't go to heaven

since they don't have souls.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Neither can people because there's no such thing.

[Arugula Latte]

21. I think datasuspect would agree with you.

I think that was sarcasm. And it was also a reference to some strange DU threads discussing the issue of dogs having souls.

[datasuspect]

96. james brown had soul

and he was super bad.

[closeupready]

24. Well, that's an entirely separate level, but I guess

if I had to confirm or deny this, I'd say if they don't, we don't, and if we do, they do.

But that in the competition for resources, humans have to come first. Having said that, I think the Earth is overpopulated with humans, and would like to see family planning become the norm worldwide, so as to - over time - reduce our numbers.

[datasuspect]

28. i'd like to see a worldwide cataclysmic event

that could thin out the herd.

that way it would take me 45 minutes to get to work instead of 2 hours.

[MineralMan]

41. Everyone assumes they will be among the survivors.

I love that.

[oldhippie]

48. Well, if I'm not, I won't care anymore. nt

nt

[MineralMan]

51. Well, that's true enough.

And there's an end to that.

[RebelOne]

30. They are living beings so they also have souls.

Think of all the steaks and hamburgers you have eaten that came from all those living beings that also have souls.

[datasuspect]

31. that isn't what the bible says

but if they did have souls, i wonder if it would make them even more delicious?

[snooper2]

165. That's why it's called "Soul Food"

I crack me up

[Kali]

202. bwa!

[RoccoR5955]

34. But that's simply not true.

They have twice as many soles as humans. And they count!

[life long demo]

172. Where did you come from?

Of course Dogs (and Cats) have souls, as do cows and horses, and wolves and coyotes, whales, dolphins, you get the picture. They "may" not go to heaven when they die, I believe (imo) they wait for us, and then we go together, all the pets you every had and loved.

[OriginalGeek]

256. what about the pets that were dicks?

[DBoon]

242. as a Catholic I was were taught they do have souls

just not immortal souls like humans

Harming dogs is a sin, but they cannot be baptized (besides they generally hate baths)

[hopemountain]

266. but they can be blessed? nt

[bettyellen]

295. Yes, some churches do an annual blessing of the beasts!

[bettyellen]

296. And churches in Siena bless their race horses before the Palio, a famous race.

[BainsBane]

246. That's absurd

Firstly, if souls exist, there is no reason other than arrogance to assume only humans have them. If there is a heaven and I can't see the animals I've loved in my life, I don't want to go there.

[nadine_mn]

255. Agree 100% nt

[ZombieHorde]

87. They have the same exact rights as people.

That is to say, no rights at all, since rights don't exist.

[mrdmk]

7. Human no, part of the family, Yes!

All life is important, except for in Casablanca, where life is cheap!

[NoOneMan]

8. Clearly the human animal is unique and different enough to assign value to life arbitrarily

"Human beings are the only creatures on Earth who claim a God, and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one." - The Rum Diary

[UtahLib]

20. Perfect point! n/t

[Warpy]

9. When it's your own furry family member, it is equal

in many important ways. Of course, given a choice between saving your child and saving your pet, you'll go for the kid. I hope.

As for the old lady who found her dog during an interview, I can only tell you to try being an old lady sometime. You suddenly become invisible and a liability to know. People stop listening to what you have to say. You can actually see people glance at you and click you into that "old woman" category and then look right through you.

Having animals around in such cases can be a life saver.

[RebelOne]

32. Yes, all my dogs have been my children,

and I have the ashes of two of them. I also have the ashes of my ex-husband.

[Fresh_Start]

11. dogs are not people

but people are not superior to other forms of life either.
At the moment we might have an upper hand over most.
But continuing to treat other life with disrespect will be our downfall.

[CrispyQ]

105. I like your response.

Many years ago I thought, what if in our arrogance as humans, we killed off a small but vital link in the food chain & it all came crashing down around us. Now it doesn't sound so much like sci fi.

[Fresh_Start]

175. I'm thinking pesticides will eventually kill us all

we either poison ourselves, mutate our own genes, cause birth defects, or destroy agriculture so that we starve and go to war.

[BlueCaliDem]

228. Love your response. I agree with it 100%. eom

[sinkingfeeling]

12. I say you can believe whatever you want and I can treat my animals

however I want. Not crazy. Didn't have 'bad' experiences with humans. Just find dogs and other animals to be free of human malice.

[hlthe2b]

15. +++++

I am fully capable of loving BOTH my fellow human beings and non-human animals, particularly dogs.

Sad that SOME seem capable of ONLY the former (and then, not so much).

[Dragonfli]

214. It is a sign of a sociopath, they openly lack empathy towards the other animals.

It has always been clear to me that individuals that consider some forms of life to be objects and feel no empathy towards them often feel the same way about their own brand of mammal.

They simply hide their sociopathic natures regarding bipeds to remain hidden and therefore "accepted" by the walking objects around them they need to fit in with in order to use.

Sociopaths learn to pretend well, that is why so few are imprisoned and so many become "successful businessmen" They sometimes let the mask slip and openly discuss other forms of life as mere objects and occasionally get caught torturing and/or killing them.

It is a sign, a very disturbing one when they admit to their lack of empathy regarding non-bipeds. Luckily few sociopaths feel the need to torture and kill, they all would feel 0 discomfort doing so however and it makes no difference to them if it is a dog or a human that is the subject of the torture or killing.

Scary but true.

[Jamastiene]

235. + a trillion

[quakerboy]

271. I think there is some validity to your point

But I have to ask, in that context, What are your thoughts on cats, who when let out regularly capture, torture, and kill birds and smaller mammals?

Or dogs, who are often strongly protective of their clan, but fiercely aggressive towards outsiders. I dont think a dog has a moment of empathy toward the mailman he chases off. Or toward another dog that he doesn't want intruding on his yard.

Are cats and dogs sociopaths?

[Dragonfli]

290. They are acting on instinct. Cats are predators and born with instinctive hunting behaviors

Dogs are pack animals born with an instinct to protect the pack. We act on instinct as well at times as in the case of the drowning baby sociopaths are fond of invoking or the instinctive violent reaction towards one or many trying to kill oneself or one's family. It is not generally considered sociopathic to harm in self defense or even in the pursuit of hunting to survive.

IMO we have lost most of our connections to instinct, we also claim to be superior in the ability to use reason over instinct and make ethical and/or moral decisions based on our ability to reason. I choose not to hunt to survive (yes, that also means I don't have butchers kill for me) because I can, I would not expect a child to make such decisions any more than cats.

I will admit that playing with one's food and not eating it as some cats do is a bit sociopathic, but I never claimed other animals were without their sociopaths, only that there are those among us that are sociopathic and one sign of a human sociopath is lack of empathy, often presenting in the form of cruelty to other animals but often hidden from fellow humans it has no empathy for but must be trusted by to survive around..

[galileoreloaded]

324. im facinated as to where you have learned all this

especially this treat "we have lost most of our connections to instinct"

do tell

[Dragonfli]

325. Anthropology classes

According to what scientists currently say, humans have no instincts.

For example, baby sea turtles know to move toward the water from the shore where their eggs have been laid by nature. This is an INSTINCT. Humans, however, have no such natural behavior. All supposed instincts which some people may tell you, are not actually instincts, but simply learned responses to stimulus.
Correct, most of those are reflexes; which are not the same as instincts.

Humans DO NOT have instinct! We have response and learned response. Instinct does not exist in our DNA. As for babies squeezing a finger that is a response to something being in their hand. An instinct to squeeze a finger would mean that babies would run around and find a finger to squeeze and would not ever let go, unless forced. In which case they would then move on to another finger. As for "sucking" it is a response from their stomach being empty and telling the brain it is hungry. Read a book!

The following comment supporting the idea that humans have instinct is wrong.

"Sex is not a learned response. How did the first humans mate without the general knowledge of others? Because it's an instinct.]

Hominids (the first humans), did have instincts, because their ancestors (primates) from which they evolved and were still closely linked DO have instincts. Hominids retained some of the instincts from their primate ancestors. However, MODERN DAY HUMANS DO NOT HAVE INSTINCTS. This is a scientifically proven fact that is irrefutable. Any other comments that humans do have instincts are simply misinformed opinion.

Humans have lost instincts. Early hominids may have had instincts, for they were still somewhat closely related to primates, which do have instincts. However, modern day humans DO NOT have instincts.

To be fair there are a few dinosaurs that follow the 18th century view, a doctrine known as the “psychic unity of mankind.” Adam Smith, considered by many as the grandfather of free-market capitalism and economics, espoused this shared human nature.

A good article about the conflicting theories and their evolution would be worth your time
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/human-nature/

Anthropology says there is no such thing as human nature.

Here, it is useful to return and ponder the Tim Ingold quote at the beginning of this section:

Human capacities are not genetically specified but emerge within processes of ontogenetic development. Moreover the circumstances of development are continually shaped through human activity. There is consequently no human nature that has escaped the current of history. . . .

This does not mean, of course, that a human being can be anything you please. But it does mean that there is no way of describing what human beings are independently of the manifold historical and environmental circumstances in which they become–in which they grow up and live out their lives. (Ingold 2006:259,273) [See note 4]

[galileoreloaded]

327. fascinating what passes for an education.

"MODERN DAY HUMANS DO NOT HAVE INSTINCTS. This is a scientifically proven fact that is irrefutable. Any other comments that humans do have instincts are simply misinformed opinion."

[Dragonfli]

329. you could follow the 19th century view, many do, but anthropology is a real science

Currently, theories have evolved beyond that and the evidence is not there to support your "beliefs", I updated my post with a fair article, I suggest reading all the footnotes, you would be surprised what education can do for you.

[galileoreloaded]

331. well, with a double masters in sociology and psych

from stanford, i feel pretty inexorably qualified. i consult in human behavior, and if anyone doesn't think the human animal has instincts, then you will be absolutely shocked when i can predict human behavior almost 95% of the time by watching them fall back on those pesky instincts that don't exist.

you, and i, are monkeys with thumbs and an overdeveloped pre-frontal cortex to allow for higher functioning over our instinct. think lying.

that isn't 19th century, that's watching people tonight at dinner. i dare say that not a single professor you has would sign on to such a statement. you should go ask.

[fizzgig]

13. i consider cats and dogs 'people'

and other animals, too. they're not human, but they're people nonetheless. they have feelings, they have needs, i'm sure they have wants.

i have had wonderful experiences with human relationships and have plenty of human contact, i just don't live in a humancentric world.

[hlthe2b]

18. I firmly believe that love of one's pets, makes for a far better (more compassionate) human being

[tridim]

46. Good point. I have never known that to not be true.

Love of animals is one of the first things I look for in a potential long-term human relationship.

[fizzgig]

264. i agree 100 percent

[Bryn]

179. Yes, dogs & cats are people indeed

They are even better than many human beings

[fizzgig]

265. isn't that the truth?

[hfojvt]

16. of course not

they're better than that

Now cats, on the other hand. Cats ARE people.

[joeybee12]

27. Actually, I tink cats are our overlords...

[CountAllVotes]

84. yep, we are servants to the cat

Now mine has begun to sing in her sleep while dreaming those lovely cat dreams.

I wish I was in that reality right now.

I've had enough of this one.

Cats rule the world.

No doubt!

[MineralMan]

44. Cats are far superior to mere humans.

My cat told me so, even though it doesn't speak English. She has trained this human to do her bidding. Just this morning, I thoroughly cleaned her toilet, for example, so as not to earn her scorn.

[Horse with no Name]

79. If you have ever had the privilege of taking care of a cat...you will laugh at this

[AgingAmerican]

90. I feed mine before I go to bed

...else I get woken at 3 am by a hungry loudmouth

[nadine_mn]

258. Oh my..I thought I was the only one

What the hell is going on at 3am that he needs to eat?

[anneboleyn]

167. My cat said the same thing! And he reads Latin and Greek in addition to speaking fluent "cat."

[Gormy Cuss]

17. I understand that some people think that animals are worth as much as fellow humans.

It's not only PETA fans who think that way. I also understand that many people think that humans are always worth more than any other beings. I try to listen to both arguments when the issue is raised because I believe that there is a good middle ground, namely that we need to treat pets and other animals as sentient beings with lives that have value.

[BainsBane]

19. Perhaps not on an abstract level

but my dog is more important to me than most people on earth.

[RebelOne]

33. Ditto. n/t

[chillfactor]

254. same here....

my dog loves me unconditionally..very few humans can do that..............

[Art_from_Ark]

259. "Cat" Stevens had this to say about dogs and unconditional love:

[Cleita]

22. You, I guess, still believes in the 19th century notion that we are not animals like

other species on the face of this earth. That we are somehow god like. We are no better than the other species we share this planet with. All deserve the respect we expect others to give to us. We need not treat them cruelly, nor remove the habitat they rely on for their survival for our own selfish purposes. When we have pets and farm animals we should treat them with kindness and give them the same care we give to our children. To do so then truly makes us human and god like not before.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. that's true - people are not anywhere near as trustworthy

The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with out happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies from him perhaps when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is the dog.

Gentlemen of the jury, a man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground when the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he can be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince.

When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth an outcast into the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him, to guard him against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes his master in its embrace and his body is laid in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws and his eyes sad but open, in alert watchfulness, faithful and true, even unto death.

George Graham Vest
Eulogy of the Dog
23 September 1870
Warrensburg, Missouri

http://www.doggyheaven.com/blogs.php?blog_id=7


'If dogs don't go to heaven - then when I die, I want to go to wherever it is that they do go." - Will Rogers

,

[smirkymonkey]

187. +10.000

Beautiful!

[MadrasT]

25. Humans are not any more or less special than any other creatures that inhabit this earth.

Cats, on the other hand, are far superior.

[UTUSN]

104. ^^^^^^ This (The title of Post #25) n/t

[whatthehey]

26. it is weird to equate the two yes

....and very arrogant on the part of the human making that claim.

[Hissyspit]

58. Making what claim?

Animals are CLEARLY, based on recent and continuing knowledge , much more aware and intelligent and capable of empathy than previously thought.

It has been arrogant for humans to assume otherwise, and is arrogant for flame-baiting OPs to consider people who are smart enough to figure that out "crazy."

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. Tell that to the dogs

[Deep13]

38. Too cool for words. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. They're not remotely equal.

I actually like most dogs...

[Deep13]

36. That's not always the cause.

I do not know about their private lives, but some people I know who really do give equal status to all living things are smart, well connected, and very good people.

Having said that, I personally see no reason to think that ones dog is equal in value to ones kid--regardless of euphemisms that suggest the dog is a kid. People own dogs. Dogs are property. If a kid needs a $50k operation, the parent will find anyway possible to obtain the funds, including selling significant assets like homes. If a dog needs a $2k operation, well, it's time to get another dog. They're free, after all. "But we love our dog!" Sure you do. And you'll love the next one just as much.

[life long demo]

174. Is this sarcasm

or are you just heart less?

[Deep13]

186. "Heartless" is one word.

No, I care about all people, whether industrial or agrarian, Western, Muslim, East Asian, and everyone else. I feel deeply for people who are victimized by privations, cruelty, or natural causes. I want everyone to be able to control his or her own life. I want everyone to have enough to eat and drink, to be able to read, to be free from exploitation, and to be safe from disease.

I'm less concerned about strictly first-world, invented problems like whether or not non-productive, domesticated animals are people. They are not, so it is a non-issue. As a society, we eat, wear, experiment on, and kill as pests a variety of animals. The fact that dog behavior and expression have evolved to be pleasing to humans is merely a survival adaptation that allows them to live among us.

Let's make the hypothetical more interesting than what I previously suggested. You are in a burning building and the fire is growing. Somehow, you see the exit is nearby, but it will only be usable for less than a minute. You have the physical ability to carry a kid or a medium-sized dog out with you. For the purposes of this hypothetical, it is impossible to carry both out at once--too heavy. It is also impossible to reenter the building without both you and whichever you left behind dying within a minute or two.

Which do you grab, the child or the dog.

Any answer that is something other than unqualified desire to rescue the child is either a dishonest attempt to evade the choice or else it reveals you to be a monster.

[life long demo]

230. Could anyone answer the same question if asked

slightly different

Let's make the hypothetical more interesting than what I previously suggested. You are in a burning building and the fire is growing. Somehow, you see the exit is nearby, but it will only be usable for less than a minute. You have the physical ability to carry one of your 2 kids out with you. For the purposes of this hypothetical, it is impossible to carry both out at once--too heavy. It is also impossible to reenter the building without both you and whichever you left behind dying within a minute or two.

Unanswerable?

[truebluegreen]

183. re $2K operation=get a new dog

Speak for yourself! You act like they are interchangeable instead of unique beings in their own right.

You must not know many.

[JVS]

192. I think it's worthwhile to consider if it's ethical to pay for an expensive operation for one dog...

when there are lots of other "unique beings in their own right" waiting for an owner to appear and take them from an animal shelter. Or to put it more in terms of a question: since the number of dog owners/caretakers is in short supply and some dogs are going to be euthanized, is it better to euthanize the sick dogs and adopt the healthy ones or euthanize the healthy ones and put the sick ones through extensive medical procedures?

[truebluegreen]

199. Ought implies can.

Any one person can only do so much. And I have already taken a number of creatures--all special and all unique--into my care. So in this case, if I can help the creatures in my charge I will do that, before considering what other hypothetical creatures might need. There are always more...and to me each is exceptional, and individual, and special. But I can't save them all.

That's me. In 2008 I paid $5000 (ouch) for a splenectomy for my 8-yr-old 90 lb German Shepherd/Doberman/something else? cross Charlie. He lived, and flourished, and as a senior statesman is still with us today. I would do it again--thank Dog I've never had to--but it was within my power and he needed it.

Sorry, but your response above seems predicated on rationing out a fixed amount of benefit to the largest possible number of dogs. It sounds OK in theory but seems heartless in practice.

[Deep13]

200. As long as you are throwing cash around, how about a grant to continue my research...

...into post-Ottoman minorities and how mass violence against them contributed to modern, Middle East state building? Please?

For me $2k is a lot of money. For most people, a $2k hospital bill for a family member (obviously, I mean human) would be financially devastating.

For those of us who are not made out of money, euthanizing sick or injured animals is a time-honored solution.

And no, I've lived among dogs and otherwise been around them--cats and rabbits too--but I have not "known" any because the're dogs, not humans.

Again, first world problem.

[truebluegreen]

203. I'm not made out of money.

$2k is a ton of money. $5k even more. To me it was worth it, to my family it was worth it, and it was certainly worth it to Charlie.

These are not the only "charities" I donate to, nor the only causes I work for. But quite frankly The Pack is more important to me than anything else I do, because they keep me together and keep me sane and enable me to continue with the other things I do, instead of allowing me to descend into a soul-destroying pit of despair about the state of the nation and the planet.

If that seems frivolous to you, too bad--no offense intended.

[lumberjack_jeff]

226. I have never met *anyone* who actually gives equal status to all living things.

They love their dogs and coat them liberally with flea and tick poison.

They think they value all life, but what they mean is all furry life.

[Deep13]

261. Well, discursively they value all mammals.

Some people extend that to all vertebrates and shellfish. A few extend it to bugs.

But generally, yeah, it's animals they think are cute.

[MineralMan]

37. Some people treat their pets as if they were human, though.

Some even prefer them to humans, as you will no doubt be told in your thread.

[Arctic Dave]

39. That's why I think that a police dog is not the same as a cop.

It is a tool of the police and not an actual officer and it used as such by them.

If it dies in the line of duty it is equal to a squad car being crashed in a pursuit.

[tridim]

40. Dogs in loving families are generally considered to be part of the family

It's pretty weird that you don't understand that.

It has nothing to do with a comparison between the two species.

[upaloopa]

42. I was taught in philosophy that animals are brutes

without the ability to reason.
In religion class they taught me that we have souls and animals do not and will not have everlasting life like we will. The one I hated the most is the bible teaching that god put animals on earth for our use. We were to subdue and dominate the earth.
I chucked all of those a long time ago. I also don't eat anything with a mother.
My relationship to my pets is something that gives me great happiness
I find that animals have qualities that most people don't have. My animals except me as I am unlike most people.
Animals would never write an OP like this even if they could calling out others as less because of how they chose to deal with animals and people.

[Coyote_Bandit]

43. I aspire to be as good as every dog I have ever known

No they are not furry little four legged people. But they are far more honest and loyal than most people. And they have the emotional capacity to accept unconditionally and to be compassionate. All thngs considered I prefer their company to that of all but a few humans with whom I have close trusting relationships.

[sibelian]

55. Perfect answer.

the only bit I disagree with is them not being "furry little four legged people".

[Coyote_Bandit]

63. They are not people because, well.

Most of them have far better character and temperment than humans.

Dogs should be insulted to be considered people. In many ways they are better than us humans.

[sibelian]

73. :)

Fair enough, I will consider myself a tall, skinny, hairless, badly adjusted dog. It actually fits.

[datasuspect]

97. so you try not to pee and poop on the carpet?

[Orrex]

45. We should slash the federal education budget and use it to fund the purchase of chew toys

[kysrsoze]

47. Totally agree... dogs aren't capable of outright vindictiveness, hatred and sadism like humans

So they are the only animal truly drawn to man (cats sort of as well) and willing o die to defend their owners, but that doesn't mean we should equate them with the outright beast that is man.

EOM

[angel823]

49. Interesting

Are dogs equal in "worth" to human beings...?

Depends on the dog, and depends on the human.

I know some humans that are not worth much, and some dogs that are worth a lot.

Angel in Texas

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. To equate dogs with people

is insulting to dogs.

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams

[Dragonfli]

218. And then there is the whole issue of the mice...

[Egalitarian Thug]

232. Sure, but it took the dolphin's "Save the Humans" campaign to get it done. n/t

[Hissyspit]

52. Animals feel attachment to each other, to us, fear, pain, are intelligent, conscious.

It's actually not an either/or thing.

Meanwhile, some supposedly empathetic humans seem oblivious to this.

[idwiyo]

166. You win this thread!

[TygrBright]

53. SOME dogs are worth more than SOME allegedly "human" beings. n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

54. Dogs often have these same types of conversations among themselves.

In between wondering why humans don't sniff each other's butts, like civilized beings do.

[LanternWaste]

56. I've never met a dog that I didn't like or who comes across as pretentious, obnoxious, petulant...

I've never met a dog that I didn't like or who comes across as pretentious, obnoxious, petulant, a martyr, holier-than-thou, more-clever-than-thou, judgmental against organization which do do them zero harm, calls people with different opinions 'crazy' out of metal laziness... so yeah: people and dogs are quite different.

[Orrex]

67. Have you ever met a person who chewed your shoes to pieces?

Or who pissed all over your carpet or dug up your garden or clawed the hell out of the upholstery or barked all night or shit/ate it/puked it up/ate it again?


It's easy enough to identify bad human traits and to praise for lacking those traits. It's also pointless.

[kysrsoze]

77. I've run into people who like to shit all over others' posts

There's a difference with the post you chose to tear up... those animals don't do all that stuff out of malice or just to be dicks. In fact those actions are usually the result of being puppies (like kids who do everything wrong and destroy things at times until they learn better... if they do), or the result of anxiety... oftentimes due to neglect.

So it isn't pointless at all to others besides yourself.

[Orrex]

82. Nope. Still a pointless comparison.

Dogs don't create art or invent medicine or discover planets in other solar systems. Nor did dogs domesticate dogs, while we're at it.

Cherry-picking a handful of positive dog traits and comparing these against a cherry-picked handful of negative human traits is childish at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Even worse, the dog lovers will invariably blame the dogs' bad traits on humans, exactly as you did.


Also, this thread is full of people shitting all over the OP and tearing it up, so I don't see why you'd single me out for doing the same, except because you disagree with me.

[kysrsoze]

89. Well, then I'll discredit humans for their propensity to commit evil acts

Like genocide, thievery, rape, etc. And as an actual owner of multiple animals over decades, I can claim I was typically able able to curb their behavioral problems, just like I am typically able to do with my kids.

And people here didn't crap all over the OP's post. They just pointed out the ridiculously arbitrary determination of what is an acceptable value in others, and obviously meant to piss people off.

[Orrex]

99. Adult dogs also hunt in packs and will tear humans to pieces.

The fact that a human can improve a dog by making it less dog-like isn't much of an endorsement of the dog.

We can go back and forth on this, but like any discussion of religion, the true-believing dog worshipper will never see past that worship.


Call it dogma.

[kysrsoze]

114. That was a pathetic argument. Maybe coyotes would attack a baby

... Or an animal trained to fight BY A HUMAN would rip someone to shreds.

I find your inability to see the value of animals as you do our "religion." Since you're obviously not a dog owner, you will not understand. Doesn't make the rest of us wrong. It makes you opinionated.

[Orrex]

122. So you appeal to dog-worship in order to deny that dog-worship is a religion? Kooky.

Since you're obviously not a dog owner, you will not understand.

And there we have it. Because I'm not part of the annointed class, I am not able to understand.

You also assume that because I don't share your belief, I must have some deficiency. Tell me again why your dog-worship isn't a religion? Or maybe it's more accurately termed a cult?


I have owned dogs. I have owned cats. I understand why some people attribute benevolent, rose-colored attributes to these animals, just as I understand why some people believe inimaginary entities.

[kysrsoze]

134. Well, then I can't explain why you have such disdain for dog lovers, Mr. Spock

I guess you're more logical, evolved, detached, etc. good for you. I love my dogs and consider them to be one of my kids. Again, it doesn't make you the supreme judge. And whether you consider that a religion or approve of that is not my concern.

[Orrex]

135. Predictably, you attack the person who questions your religion

It's curious that, when faced with a person who disagrees with you, you immediately accuse that person of assuming to be "the supreme judge." Never in my life have I made that claim; you are projecting.

It is also curious that you claim that my approval is not your concern, yet you rail against me just as any member of the flock might rail against a non-believer. For someone who claims not to be concerned, you're awfully concerned.


It's clear that my refusal to endorse your religion is a cause of great discomfort to you, despite your insistence to the contrary.

[kysrsoze]

142. Predictably, you attack my feelings, opinion, etc., as my "religion." I simply love my animals

I'm sorry you apparently can't handle that. I project? OK.... it wasn't about your disagreement, but your insistence that others' opinions on this subject are somehow insignificant and beneath human dignity... apparently like religion.

I find your statement, "It's clear that my refusal to endorse your religion..." hilarious. You should start a related discussion in the "Religion" forum.

[Orrex]

162. Nope--now you're changing the discussion.

I don't care if you love your animals. I imagine that you probably do, but it means nothing to me. Instead, I'm taking issue with the claim that dogs are somehow "better" than humans, as has been put forth repeatedly in this thread by you and others. That is a statement of faith by the dog-worshippers, a religious declaration.

your insistence that others' opinions on this subject are somehow insignificant and beneath human dignity...

Nope. Not insisting that at all. I disagree with the assertions of those who claim that that dogs are better than humans, and I respond in tone and severity to match the individual to whom I'm replying.

Predictably, you claim persecution, just like any true believer whose religion is questioned.

[kysrsoze]

196. Do you really believe your own incredibly reaching claims?

Guess you won't be joining my Church of Dog. Sad that you put this much passion behind trying to prove how deluded we dog lovers are, given all the causes in this world you can get behind. Seems to be a trend here at DU these days. To each his own.

And BTW - you are WRONG that I claimed dogs are better than humans. My other post was meant to be sarcastic, but it obviously escaped you. I believe animals to be just as important to this planet as humans. In fact, the planet can, and eventually will get along just fine without us. We are no better than the other animals on this planet, and can often be much worse.

Well, I'll go to bed tonight happily with my dog/god by my side, and you can go to bed angry, yet self-satisfied.

[Orrex]

206. Nope--wrong again

Like all religious zealots, you assume that anyone who isn't part of the flock must be angry about the flock or about not being part of the flock. Nice try, but you're still off the mark.

And even if you yourself didn't seriously claim that dogs are better than humans, a dozen or more have claimed exactly that in this thread and elsewhere, so the point stands.


Your petty broadsides are as meaningless to me as they are unsurprising. I hope that you enjoy sleeping with your animal.


Or don't. Either way, it means nothing to me.

[kysrsoze]

215. Religious zealot? Come on. You've got to do better than that

Now you're attempting to lump me in with a bunch other people here... "And even if you yourself didn't..." Talk about painting with a broad brush. You're willing to reach as far as you can and hurl insults to prove your nonsensical point of there being some sort of dog religion. If that's what you need...

And I will have fun with my dog/god! Thanks your your well wish.

[UtahLib]

209. Very well said.

I can only shake my head in dismay when witnessing a human animal who does not seem to have the capacity to see beyond his own self satisfied opinions.

[Orrex]

217. When you see one of those, let me know

You're likewise making the mistake of assuming that because I don't share your views, I therefore can't understand them. You further attempt the ad hominem of dismissing my views by claiming that they're driven by ego. You're free to assume whatever the hell you wish, but you'd be wrong in both cases.


In addition, neither of you appears to understand my views on this subject. I'm not claiming that you can't understand them, but at this point I'm inclined to conclude that you don't.

[kysrsoze]

219. Oh, I understand your views. I just don't agree

I also understand you expect everyone to agree with your position, which is why you choose to continue hammering away, hoping you can finally drive some of your idea of sense into our skulls. Now... I never actually said it was your ego that pushed you forward in this discussion. I just said you're willing to say anything to try to convince us all that your notion of dog loving as religion is the only correct assessment of this situation. You may believe that to be so, but like religion or any claim, some people will believe, and some won't. But do keep trying.

[Orrex]

221. I wasn't replying to you.

So, you get upset when you feel that I've misattributed a claim to you, but when I reply to someone else, you respond by assuming that I was replying to you? Kooky.

It's clear that you're devout in your belief, so I don't think that I'm going to convince you. And just like anyone's religious belief, I don't care, nor do I see any reason to respect such belief simply because it's devoutly held. As long as someone's religion doesn't harm anyone else, it means nothing to me.

But when people assert--as many in this thread have done--that dogs are better or more important or more worth saving than humans, then we've moved into the realm of of real potential harm. That's why I keep "hammering away."

In your recent post down-thread you reveal that you would in fact save the human in preference to the non-human, and I applaud that sensible thinking. But others are less clear about it, coming up with all sorts of reasons why dogs are superior, while the people who disagree are dismissed as angry or uncompassionate or the like. That's why I keep "hammering away."


Make of that what you will. Consult your dog about it, for all I care.

[kysrsoze]

222. I'm not upset at all. This exchange is hilarious

I still don't understand why you feel you need to keep hammering away at all the others who are as kooky as me. Are you personally harmed, disadvantaged or i convenienced by others' opinions on his subject? At the end of the day, has the world changed at all? I sincerely doubt you've changed anyone's mind with all this drivel.

BTW - I really do appreciate how you pointed out my one moment of sanity. To be honest, that was the one item I didn't consult with my dog first. I was worried she would find the subject too harsh. I don't want to freak her out.

[LanternWaste]

81. Yes. I call them infants.

"ave you ever met a person who chewed your shoes to pieces?"
Yes. I call them infants.


"It's also pointless."
Agreed. Almost as pointless as the OP.



People get testy when they receive answers they dislike or feel trivializes them. Dogs do too, I suppose...

[Orrex]

83. More to the point, people get pissy when you question their religion

The religion of dog-worship is no exception.

[LanternWaste]

95. Which I believe I addressed earlier with...

"people get pissy when you question their religion... of dog-worship..."

Which I believe I addressed earlier with "judgmental against organization which do do them zero harm..." (Although I myself never seen dog-worship except via historical and anthropological text books, I'm quite certain you believe you have...)

That said, I have no doubts that when you yourself cherry-pick a negative human trait, it's quite relevant and pointed to the topic, unlike everyone else who does... at which time it becomes "pointless."


Might I suggest to you then getting a cat?

[Orrex]

111. This thread is full of dog worship, not to mention anthopomorphizing of dogs.

Might I suggest to you then getting a cat?

I have owned cats and I have owned dogs. Never have I pretended that they're better than humans.

[Hissyspit]

310. Is it anthropomorphizing or just greater awareness on shared traits previously claimed as only

"human?" And just what the heck is "better" supposed to mean?

[BainsBane]

267. They are family members

and companions that mean a lot to us. Dogs enable the disabled to have independence, provide company and encourage the mentally ill to get out and exercise, they herd sheep, protect crops from and livestock from predators, and even detect cancer better than the most sophisticated machines available. You underestimate the important role they play in society.

Dogs, in fact, made possible the development of human civilization. Their skeletons have been found among the remains of the earliest human civilizations. Dogs enabled human beings to raise livestock and farm and thereby establish sedentary human settlements.

[Orrex]

289. I have no problem with the claim that dogs are family members

Last edited Thu May 23, 2013, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Nor is it possible deny dogs' importance in the history of human development. My objection is to the claim that dogs are as important as humans or, as has been asserted repeatedly in this thread, worth more than humans or better than humans.

We're not talking about Pol Pot versus Rin Tin Tin here, with a specific terrible human compared to a specific exemplary animal; people are making the blanket statement that dogs are better and that dogs would be insulted by the comparison to humans. How is this not offensive?

If I asserted that Asians are better than Hispanics or that boys are more important than girls, I would rightly be attacked for such an idiotic notion. But when someone claims that dogs are better than humans? Well, only an angry, self-important jerk could possibly disagree, right? WTF?

There is nothing wrong with identifying pets as family members, but to call them more important than humans strikes me as foolish sentimentality. The next time we hear of an atrocity committed abroad, perhaps we can overlook it as long as no dogs are harmed. Or if I see a young girl being abducted while she's walking her dog, should I first make sure that the dog is safe?


I make no apologies for giving humans higher priority than dogs.

[quakerboy]

275. I have.

obnoxious
My aunts dog. Really obnoxious. Gets all up in your shiz, always noisy, making a mess. a 12 year old puppy.

a martyr
The Brother in Laws dog. If he doesnt get his way, he lets you know he is suffering. When they got married, and my sister decreed that the new bed was to be for people, and not incontinent dogs who try to kick her off the side, you shoulda heard the fuss. Did you know dogs can sigh?

petulant
Oh yeah. My Brother in laws dog again. It barks at anyone not my brother in law. Its not threatened. Its not unhappy. It just barks to bark at people, to show his displeasure at them for not being my brother in law. Oh.. And the reason it was banned from the new bed, above.. It didnt want to give up its position to my sister when she married in, so it would soil the sheets where she laid to show its displeasure at sharing its person.

more-clever-than-thou
Sitting with my father in laws dog and his dads dog. the one waiting to steal the others bone. And looking smug as hell when he got it, and offended as f when I returned it to the proper dog. And then sitting staring at that bone with intensity, just waiting for me to move out of range so he could make another try at it. Brazen as can be, Im gonna do this, you cant stop me forever written in every inch of its wound up little terrier frame.

judgmental against organization which do do them zero harm
Vaccum cleaners. Nuff said.

Calls people with different opinions 'crazy' out of metal laziness
They dont really talk, so thats a hard one. Ive seen them cock their heads and look at you like you must be under some sort of alien mind control when you don't share their interest in squirrels, though, so Im gonna call that one covered.

Pretentious.. Probably, though that one ive not personally experienced.
holier-than-thou.. Not sure. Ive seen them play innocent, which is not quite the same thing.

I like dogs. But I wont try and claim that every one of them has a pleasant, likeable personality. Ive seen some spoiled little brat dogs that I like no better than spoiled little brats of any species. And some outright bullies, similarly not overly likeable, in my opinion.

[sibelian]

280. So, essentially....

Exactly the same as people.

[quakerboy]

314. In some ways

We definitely give the human animal too much credit for being totally unique.

That said, Ive never seen a dog give up its lunch to a homeless dog.

There are good parts and negative parts to any animal. That's not unique to dogs, or humans. Humans have developed the capacity to harm and to help other humans on a massive scale. Dogs don't do that. And in the end, I think that humans have responsibilites and rights over dogs. We made them, for all intents and purposes. They don't have a natural habitat or ecological niche, except in relation to humans. And so we are responsible for their well being, and rights that stem from that responsibility. A job at which we fail quite often.

In some ways that does make us their superiors.

[G_j]

57. you think you are special

but we are but fleas on the back of the earth.

[Rex]

59. Yes it is weird, just as crazy as people that want to ciminalize a breed of dog.

I find it strange when people find other things strange. Strange ain't it?

[quakerboy]

276. I find things strange

Care to find it strange, as i find other things strange?

Really, I do. An awful lot of life is strange when you take a step back and ponder it, piece by piece.

[sibelian]

60. Small furry people as far as I'm concerned.

they need, they love, they get angry, they cry, they get bored, they play, they fight, they laugh, they sleep, they die. Our doing more complicated versions of the same things means very little in terms of our "value" relative to them.

[pecwae]

61. Guess I'm a whacked out extremist then.

My dogs are not only equal in worth to a lot of humans I know, but they exceed in worth. I'll wear my crazy label proudly.

[sofa king]

62. I'm not going to blame anyone for caring that much.

I freely and regularly take issue with the logical fallacies which result from such emotional investment, and I'm pretty sure that has made me widely ignored, but the empathy, the compassion, and the assiduousness of dog lovers everywhere?

Those qualities are fucking awesome, some of the best qualities humans can show. I can only wish that I could apply such dedication to the things I care most about.

The Dog People are well deserving of my admiration and I am proud to call them my friends, and often my fellow Democrats as well.

[OneGrassRoot]

64. Awesome reply. :) n/t

[snappyturtle]

65. I've known of dogs that have better attributes than some people....

what else can I say? I guess that makes me a weirdo+ because, to me,
some dogs are better than some people. I'm primarily thinking of individuals
who, e.g., can open gun fire on defenseless children. There's hardly a dog I
can think of that wouldn't beat that type of individual. imho

[jmg257]

66. Love dogs, always have. But think its a bit goofy

to see Christmas cards with the dogs' pictures right next to the kids.

Also understand that society puts a little more emphasis on people vs animals. Not a real problem with it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. Yyyyyyup

[justiceischeap]

69. I say I'd rather know a dog, than you. And I'm a cat person. nt

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

[quinnox]

72. lol, It looks like a whole lot of repliers should seriously consider joining PETA, if they aren't a

member already, that is. It appears many share the same philosophy and values as our colorful PETA friends.

[kysrsoze]

78. Perhaps you should join the Republican Party

For being so obnoxious as to judge others based upon your perception and supreme judgment of their values.

[life long demo]

178. That was good!!!!!

Thanks

[easttexaslefty]

194. :D

[Dragonfli]

220. I don't understand how being capable of empathy towards living things is "colorful"

or
I worry more about the sociopathic signs exhibited by those that admit to believing living creatures are mere objects.

It has always been clear to me that individuals that consider some forms of life to be objects and feel no empathy towards them often feel the same way about their own brand of mammal.

They simply hide their sociopathic natures regarding bipeds to remain hidden and therefore "accepted" by the walking objects around them they need to fit in with in order to use.

Sociopaths learn to pretend well, that is why so few are in treatment and so many become "successful businessmen" They sometimes let the mask slip and openly discuss other forms of life as mere objects and occasionally get caught torturing and/or killing them.

It is a sign, a very disturbing one when they admit to their lack of empathy regarding non-bipeds. Luckily few sociopaths feel the need to torture and kill, they all would feel 0 discomfort doing so however and it makes no difference to them if it is a dog or a human that is the subject of the torture or killing.

Scary but true.

[Myrina]

74. Absolutely. Dogs are BETTER than people.

Us 2-leggers can only hope to ever be as pure of soul as a dog is.

I post this with not one bit of sarcasm. I am a doggy-foster mom, have 3 of my own, and love them more/have learned more from them than any human being I've met in my 47 years.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Absolutely! Cats are people.

And, here's proof!

[Hatchling]

80. They may not be human.

But they are certainly people!

[ZombieHorde]

85. There is no objective reason to believe one atom is better or worse than any other atom.

There is no objective reason to believe one collection of atoms is better or worse than any other collection of atoms. Humans, dogs, forks, socks, etc. are collections of atoms. Objectively speaking, one is not better or worse than the other.

"Worth" doesn't exist outside of the imagination. It is entirely subjective.

I value humans more than dogs, but that is just my own subjective value system, and in no way determines the qualities of collections of atoms.

[randome]

88. I wonder if this hypothetical situation might settle the dust.

If one had to choose between the life of a puppy and a little girl, who would be chosen to live? And why?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[quinnox]

91. funny, I was thinking about posting a thread like that

to all those who replied they consider the dogs equal or superior to humans, if they would choose to save their beloved dog over a human child who was a stranger if both appeared to be drowning.

I suspect they wouldn't answer the poll question though.

[randome]

98. Answering wouldn't be the important result, though. Giving the dilemma some thought is good enough.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Floyd_Gondolli]

100. Ill answer it

I'd save the fucking dog and not think twice about it.

That's the answer you wanted, right?

[randome]

107. Wow. I think you'd be in the minority but your honesty is appreciated!

On edit: Not the answer I wanted but one that certainly provokes some deep thought.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[quinnox]

113. I suspect that some would answer that way

I think that is a sad thing.

[randome]

118. Hey. My daughters are adorable!

Are you determined to have a post hidden? FYI: It won't result from an alert by me.

On edit: why do I get the feeling that my 73 Ignores are about to go higher?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Floyd_Gondolli]

120. Honestly I couldn't care less

About having a post hidden anyway. Wouldn't be the first time. I'm sure your daughters are adorable. I was speaking to the OP, not you. Sorry for any confusion.

[randome]

123. Whoops! I had a sudden case of post-itis. Time for me to pull back!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kysrsoze]

108. We can change the hypothetical subjects to their dogs and you!

I have a feeling there would be lots of responses to that question

[randome]

112. Whoa! Did not see that coming!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kysrsoze]

159. I'm just kidding. I don't like hypotheticals, b/c they're just that. See how easily things change?

Certainly, the child. But I would never want to be in that situation.

[datasuspect]

93. i would kill the puppy to save the child

without question, thought, or hesitation.

[randome]

103. I'm sure the vast majority of people would choose the same.

Which means we do put a value on lives and not all lives are of equal value. It's just that we never consider that until some bizarre situation like this comes into play.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[datasuspect]

106. it would have to be a very bizarre situation

like a godzilla puppy or something.

[randome]

109. Oh, crap! I wasn't specific enough!

LOL!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[truebluegreen]

185. If the scenario involved a dog instead of a puppy, I'm sure the DOG would choose the child,

instead of itself.

Illustrating the relative worth of the two species.

[randome]

233. Good point.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[quakerboy]

277. Unless that child

was in a postal uniform, carrying a vacuum cleaner. Then its every mammal for themselves.

[lumberjack_jeff]

229. Sorry. Cindy Lu can't go to the dentist because I spent $2k on the dog. n/t

[JI7]

250. how about a puppy vs the life of some grown up asshole like Koch Brothers

[Libertas1776]

101. Not people???

tell that to all those venerable dogs throughout history, the admirals, the jurists, the gentlemanly statesmen!




(side note, the artist of these quirky portraits: http://www.thierryponcelet.com/homeang.html)

[nomorenomore08]

147. But as other people have noted, intelligence and "civilization" aren't the only considerations here.

Of course it would be absurd to say that dogs are "superior" - full stop - to humans. But I don't think anyone is really arguing that. More that dogs can be said to possess positive qualities which human beings often don't - loyalty, for instance.

[Libertas1776]

154. Oh

you'll get no major philosophical argument in favor of the OP from me, or against it for that matter. I just found this thread the opportune moment to post anthropomorphic pooch portraits of the cheekiest order. But I agree full on about loyalty between man and dog. You'll get no argument from me there.

[nomorenomore08]

157. It all depends on what one means by "better."

There's also the fact that, for evolutionary reasons, dogs and humans are in many ways somewhat similar, behaviorally. We as humans already have the tendency to anthropomorphize animals, but it's especially easy with dogs. Thus we always see people equating or contrasting the two.

[Libertas1776]

160. Well, we make good buddies...

as some scientists have posited, in the hopes of shelter, it was dogs who sought us out and not the other way around. We both loved cozying up in front of a fire or hearth with a warm, fuzzy friend (mind you, early man was quite hairy ) and spent the next several millennia building up that relationship.

[hobbit709]

102. My dog is a better person than most of the people I come across.

If my dog doesn't trust you, I won't either.
and I have many friends and I'm not a hermit as you imply.

[byeya]

110. "The older I get and the more I see of life and its people, the more I like my dog"...Pascal

[Lady Freedom Returns]

115. They are.

They are our partners. Their lives are at risk as Police Officers, they work in rescue teams, they share in the joy and sadness in our families. So yeah, I say equals.

[Jennicut]

116. Humans are not all that nice or giving or caring at times.

Pets can give unconditional love, especially to those with social/health issues. Or the elderly. I adore my cat. Daisy is just always there when I have a bad day. That being said, if I had to chose between saving the life of my cat or my 7 and 8 year old daughters in something like a fire, I would chose my girls of course. But I sure would miss my kitty.

[Buzz Clik]

126. +1

[raging moderate]

119. Actually, the Bible says animals do have spirits.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21:

"concerning the estate of men...thatthey might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts...as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast...All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knowth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"

[quinnox]

121. Fine, that wasn't what this thread is about though

I think its very possible animals do have spirits. But I still don't look at them as I do humans or put them on the same level. I am not coming at this that way, "humans have spirits and animals don't" No, that is not what I think at all.

[Scootaloo]

124. I say equal or not, it's wrong to set them on fire for a laugh

Some humans disagree; haven't heard of dogs taking a position opposite mine, though.

[Buzz Clik]

125. This is a fight --war -- that could only occur on a liberal bulletin board.

I am a cat person, not dog, but it's the same argument.

I will take reasonable measures to keep my cat free of ticks and fleas, current on his shots, and repair him when he's broken. However, the monetary scale at which I keep my cat in good health is way different that the scale I use for my kids. I will not go into debt or rack up a big bill to repair my cat's failing kidneys. I buy him prescription, low protein cat food at about double the price of normal cat food. That's it and no more. He's 19 and a half years old, and I will make sure his last years are comfortable.

People on this board called me all kinds of names (similar to those I see being tossed about up thread) for allowing my cat to go out at night when I knew he was being chased by coyotes every night. He's a cat, not a child. He knows how to survive, and he spent the first three years of his life dodging coyotes. He lived because he's a cat.

His body weight is half what it used to be due to his illness. When he becomes too weak to get around and take care of himself, I will put him down. I will mourn his departure, but as a pet, not as a child.

If you value your pet as you would a human, it's your call. I don't see it, but there you go.

[Arcanetrance]

127. One truly catastrophic worldwide disaster and you'll see how animalistic humans really are

In fact we may be able to show the "animals" a thing or two. The fact that we have the arrogance to assign value to any life over another amuses me.

[Nye Bevan]

130. "Dogs are not people, and barking is not speech".

For some reason that's the phrase that sprang to mind upon reading your title.

[life long demo]

189. I wonder if dogs ever get frustrated that humans never

learned how to speak "bark" lol

[hollysmom]

131. You don't have to like dogs, you don't have to like cats

you don't have to like any animals, but there are times when the variety of life in this planet is more important than some humans to human survivorship.
You can disagree with me, but you can't tell me how to feel about my animals - let us all respect each other here, not judge the other person.

[nolabear]

132. I say you exhibit little empathy and a gift for generalization. And for tempests and teapots.

As the saying goes, "Nought's as queer as folk." People are infinite in our varieties of feelings, tastes, inclinations, loves, hates, fetishes, wishes, desires and associations. "Crazy" is a word that means nothing and is bandied about as though it did, when what it means is "I don't understand and I don't want to bother to try."

Worth is relative. You don't get to tell another what is valuable to them, just what is valuable to you. At least, you don't if you want to have a relationship with them rather than a fight.

[hlthe2b]

133. My heavens there must be some very insecure "People" if love of one's pet gets them so

exercised... This must be the umpteenth post like this I've seen bemoaning the attention given to dogs and other pets.

Frankly, I feel sorry for those who can't understand or appreciate love for animals. Life would be sorely lacking without the people in my life AND my pets.

[REP]

136. Well, of course dogs are not 'people'

They are animals. just as humans are animals.

Humans are different from other animals; we are better at many things but we are not inherently worth more (except to ourselves).

Just as we do not accord human children full rights, privileges and responsibilities in society, it would be foolish to do so with animals; they are no more able to understand a ballot or enter a contract than the average product of a pre-school; however, like human children, they do deserve protection from cruelty and unnecessary illness and injury, adequate food and shelter, etc.

Respecting the lives of non-human animals does not diminish the respect humans give themselves.

[Phentex]

144. Good response...

[kysrsoze]

145. Very nice, thank you

[earthside]

137. A drowning child or a drowning dog?

Here's a question:

Which would you save? A drowning child who is a stranger to you? Or your drowning pet dog?

I've listened to some dog-lover types that I believe would have a very difficult time deciding for the child.

In my estimation we've developed a dog obsession in our culture over the last decade or so that is typical of a materialistic consumer society.

I remember a time when some folks had a single dog, a few people had two --- now when I walk I see in back yards or pass dog-walkers with the number of dogs more likely three or four or five. More is better, more exotic is better, more highly bred is better, expensive pet food is better, more, more, more.

It is also interesting to observe the comments of the dog-obsessed when they are challenged -- it often times borders responses that are reminiscent of cult devotion.

Sadly, I suspect a lot of this comes from the alienation of so many Americans from their neighbors, their co-workers, and in some cases even their own families. It is true, having a devoted pet dog is easier than learning to live with other human beings. Easier is better.

[Libertas1776]

150. Not to go to far off...

on a tangent....but realistically speaking, I would hope all people would go for the stranger child first and foremost, as tragic experiences have shown time and time again, that the dog seemingly helpless in treading water, usually survives, is able to literally doggy paddle themselves to safety, while their would be rescuer ends up drowning, and their would be rescuer also ends up drowning, and so on, as was the case on the West Coast not too long ago.

In a way, i suppose, that can be a rather macabre example of that dog obsessed society, or really, over-obsessed, as there are plenty of examples when we apply too many human based emotional scenarios to our four legged friends, when the dog would have most likely been okay without frantic intervention as would be warranted with a child who couldn't doggy paddle to safety. The moral of the story, if you cannot swim at all, don't go after the dog, chances are he'll make it.

If you cannot swim and you are with a child, you damn well better make sure you have a floatation device for you and the child. And if there is a child and a dog in the water and you CAN swim, go after the child! Hell, if anything, the dog will try and save the child long before the dog obsessed owner decides to save the child.

[randome]

152. A very nuanced answer!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[easttexaslefty]

201. Oh for Pete's sake.

I have dog's & cats I love very much. Of course, I would save a stranger child over MY dog or cat. I'm sure most would. Fortunitely, this is very unlikely to occur.

[Phentex]

138. I don't find it weird at all...

I don't find it to be crazy either.

[Thinkingabout]

139. No dogs are not humans but I treat my best friend much better than most treat their children and

family members. I heard a story, if you want to know which loves you more, put your spouse and dog in the trunk of a car and leave them over night. The next morning when you open the trunk guess which one will be happier to see you, enough said.

[liberal_at_heart]

143. My husband's guide dog saved his life twice. Yeah, I'd say some dogs are equal to and sometimes

even better than some humans.

[magical thyme]

146. we are all sentient beings. I think it's totally crazy that some people are so species-centric

that they think humans are somehow vastly superior or more important, that other animal's suffering is irrelevant and that only people are valuable.

We are all born, we enjoy, we suffer, we die.

I suppose humans are more important in the sense that we're the only species to be so stupid and powerful as to totally destroy our habitat and planet in pursuit of computer bits on a screen.

But yeah, uh, whatever.

[nomorenomore08]

148. I'm more of a cat person, honestly, but I do like (most) dogs.

And this OP, between the stereotyping and strawmanning and PETA comparisons, is just begging for negative responses - which I see you've gotten already.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

149. no dogs are not people but the specific dog i love is more important to me

than strangers

same with my cat

things that are part of my identity mean more to me than things that are not

(i am using the word me, but the social science literature support this for humans overall not just priyanka)

[rl6214]

151. I love my GSD but when it comes down to it people win out over dogs.

[Blue_Tires]

153. If you don't get it, you don't get it

and nothing I can say would make you get it...

[former9thward]

155. I don't equate dogs with people.

Dogs I have had are far superior to most people.

[thucythucy]

156. "It is the capacity to suffer that matters,

as opposed to the capacity to 'think', to 'create,' to be 'lords of creation.'"

I forget who said this, but I think there's quite a bit of truth there. If we thought about the suffering of those creatures with whom we share this planet, us humans might not be such colossally destructive jerks.

[ileus]

158. dogs are people too...

[nomorenomore08]

163. At the least, they're a species which has been bred to love and depend on humans.

Which is why to most people, cruelty toward dogs is especially horrifying, over and above other instances of animal cruelty.

[ileus]

161. When the chips are down American's rally around the flag.

It's the one bond we all have in common as citizens.

American Proud...

[randome]

168. Except for dogs. They rally around the nearest tree or fire plug.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Major Nikon]

164. If a child and a pet were both trapped in a burning building, which would you rescue?

If you could only rescue one?

The vast majority of people wouldn't have to think about the answer.

[liberal_at_heart]

169. I would do the same as I would do if there were two people trapped in a burning building.

I would do everything I could to save both. My husband's guide dog saved his life twice. I'm glad he didn't have to think about it before he did it. He just did it. Which is why in some cases dogs are even better than people.

[Major Nikon]

173. It's a hypothetical question

Only one at most is going to live. Which do you chose? The answer determines which you value more.

Some people may believe they value animals to the same extent they do people, but I find it hard to believe most would follow through with those values if they were so tested. Even if someone would actually pull their pets out of a burning house before their kids, they are certainly in a small minority of people who would do so and society would judge them pretty harshly if their kids died because they were busy rescuing Rover and Fluffy.

[Hissyspit]

247. And as with most hypotheticals, it has little to do with reality.

[Major Nikon]

252. More like all hypothetical questions

You could always burn your house down with your family inside to see who gets rescued first if one required an individual answer based on reality. However I think most people could provide a reasonable answer to the question without going to that much trouble. Therein lies the value of thought experiments.

[sibelian]

298. If there was a house burning down with a liberal and a republican in it

which would you save?

ooooo. Makes ya think.



Actually it doesn't make you think. It kind of makes you stop thinking.

[Orrex]

303. That question is irrelevant to the discussion of dog importance

Here's what you're asking:

"Able to save only one of two people trapped in a fire, how would their political views affect your choice of which one to save?"

The question that is relevant to the discussion at hand is this:

"Able to save only one of two creatures trapped in a fire, would you save the human or the dog?"



Your question is interesting and worthy of its own OP, but it has nothing to do with the current discussion.

[Major Nikon]

316. I suppose one could come up with all sorts of other questions and proceed to impeach them

... rather than the actual question that was asked. One is about my limit when it comes to strawmen and even that is being quite generous.

[Hissyspit]

306. The thought experiment doesn't answer the question you created it for.

Much like the torture/ticking time bomb hypothetical so beloved by right-wingers.

I can't answer your hypothetical because it so little relates to real-world scenarios.

[Major Nikon]

315. It does

Just because one thought experiment can be impeached, does not make all thought experiments invalid.


The wingnut question is fallacious because it creates unreasonable assumptions. One has to assume that ...

1) the person who is to be tortured actually is a bad guy

2) they actually have the information you need

and most importantly ...

3) you can reliably extract the information you need via torture.

The only condition I'm asking you to assume is that only one can be saved, which actually is a real world scenario that does happen to everyday people. The answer is predictably the same.

[Hissyspit]

317. How would I know only one could be saved?

That happens everyday? Really?

What other factors are in play (like the real world)?

[Major Nikon]

318. How would you know they could?

If you are unable to conceptualize the scenario given, ask yourself which one gets saved first.

A similar situation happened just the other day. A woman in Moore, OK had three kids inside her home and two dogs outside. Rather than trying to round up her dogs with an F4 tornado bearing down on her she chose to load the kids up in the car and egress the area, leaving the dogs behind. Her home was completely destroyed.

[Hissyspit]

319. How do I know she couldn't get them all?

Just because she didn't?

[Major Nikon]

321. It doesn't matter

She made a choice. That was the point. It happens during natural and man-made disasters of all sorts. People chose. It happens. Your argument was my hypothetical question was removed from reality. Not only was it not, it wouldn't matter if it was. I'm not sure what purpose any of your questions serve, other than obfuscation.

[Hissyspit]

322. I'm not obfuscating at all.

Your argument was it was either/or. I have no evidence that this woman's choice was either/or.

[Major Nikon]

332. I suppose an alternative is...

that she intentionally left the family pets to fend for themselves knowing a tornado was heading towards them. If you want to explore such alternate possibilities, be my guest, but I'm not going to go there with you. This has already strayed well past any relevance to the original question. You may not be intentionally obfuscating, but the effect is the same.

[Doremus]

171. I used to think as you. But as I grow older I've come to realize we humans are often

megalomaniacal, i.e. possessing a tendency to believe that they are the center of the universe, much to the detriment of our fellow earth-inhabitors.

Does our supposedly superior intellect automatically entitle us to be sole arbiter of 'species worthiness'? Time has proven to me again and again that just because we can do something, it doesn't automatically follow that we should.

In this case, I prefer to believe that sentient beings are all on equal footing in the eyes of the universe and that no one life is of any more value than another. Which is to say that all life forms have value. ALL.

[MrSlayer]

176. I like dogs better than most people.

People suck.

[Worried senior]

177. I like dogs a whole lot more than

a lot of people I know.

They sure don't hurt you like people do until they die and then it's heartbreaking.

[KarenS]

180. No, I don't think it's weird or crazy at all. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

182. Actually I prefer some dogs to some people

I don't equate them

[Go Vols]

184. Dogs are property

people are not.When a dog gets old and worn out you can kill it or pay a vet to do it for you,not the same with people.

I don't equate the two,although I have had dogs that I prefer to some people.

[truebluegreen]

188. Ick. Dogs are property?

Or any other animal is property? Ick.

Dogs, cats, horses, macaws, gerbils, goldfish--whatever!--if they are in your care, they are your wards, and you are their guardian. You should always act in their best interests. If you think differently you don't deserve them and shouldn't have them.

[Demo_Chris]

190. Yes, Dogs and Cats and Goldfish are property

They might also be well loved pets, welcome into your home and even onto your bed, but they are and will remain property.

[DirkGently]

195. Dogs & people are very different. Dogs don't screw each other over for money.

[Kali]

212. yeah but they might fight to injury over the last crunchy

and they are some greedy SOBs when it comes to fresh bones

[DirkGently]

334. That's totally principled though. They're honest about their intentions.

This why people need tails. I need to see who's wagging high, who's wagging low, and who's tucking.

Dogs are of course SOB's though. Be an insult to suggest they weren't.

[tabasco]

197. I'd rather spend time with my dogs than human beings like you.

Plus, I don't give a shit about your opinions. I've read enough of your posts to know you're almost always wrong.

[Celldweller]

198. in so many ways dogs are better than people nt

[fishwax]

204. no weirder than assuming that all such people are broken or lacking good human relationships

I don't agree with either position, personally.

[dionysus]

205. equal, not exaclty, but i find my cat's life is worth more than a lot of people's

if dick cheney and my cat were both drowning... kitteh gets dragged to dry land.

[newmember]

207. You say that likes it's a bad thing , ....curios why

"are isolated people, with little to no human contact"

[Raine]

210. No. nt

[baldguy]

211. The way we treat the most helpless among us shows how civilized we are.

We torture & abuse them, put them in cages, and when the cages get too crowded we shovel the bodies into gas chambers to kill them.

Who's weirder? The people who turn a blind eye to the atrocities? Or the people that want to stop them?

[DainBramaged]

213. I only have one point to make

For the people who depend on service dogs, especially young children, dogs are their reality, and equal in worth to any human being. In my experience, humans who abuse animals aren't their equal....

[flvegan]

251. LOL! Come on, DB. You read it here.

They are JUST dogs. No matter the value we take away from what should be given.

[DainBramaged]

294. Just dogs, yep if the DU says they are just dgs they are just dogs.....

[winter is coming]

216. Why yes, I do. Dogs only lie about whether or not you've fed them recently.

People, not so much.

[WinkyDink]

223. Two different species, one of which is more dependable and obedient!

[lumberjack_jeff]

224. There is a strong strain of misanthropy.

I love my dog, but she's a dog. She's not a child and she's not a person.

People who consider their dogs to be people, or of the same social worth have serious problems.

[NaturalHigh]

227. I am under no illusions that my dog is human...

but I love her all the same. She is not my property, and I wouldn't take any amount of money for her.

[jazzimov]

231. Because, in many ways, dogs are SUPERIOR

to people.

People will always let you down.

[Jamastiene]

236. Don't be silly.

Dogs are miles better than humans. They are especially better than some humans, who have no compassion or sense of decency whatsoever. I'd rather have the love of a dog than the pretense of a sociopath any day.

[flvegan]

237. Ego is a funny thing only shared by humans.

I really wish I could figure out what happened to DU.

[Iggo]

241. The Democrats won.

The mods were fired in favor of juries.

Meta happened.

[Hissyspit]

248. +1

[kentuck]

240. Dogs are not people....Dogs are only a reflection of people.

Be good to your Dog and the Good Lord will be good to You.

[DBoon]

243. Paleolithic humans knew enough to disagree

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18421878-what-prehistoric-dog-burials-tell-us-about-owners?lite

The researchers found that most of the dog burials in this area occurred during the Early Neolithic 7,000-8,000 years ago. Dogs were only buried when human hunter-gatherers were also being buried. When pastoralists later came through, they did not bury dogs, although they did sacrifice them from time to time.

"I think the hunter-gatherers here saw some of their dogs as being nearly the same as themselves, even at a spiritual level," Losey said. "At this time, dogs were the only animals living closely with humans, and they were likely known at an individual level, far more so than any other animal people encountered. People came to know them as unique, special individuals."

The burials reflect that association. One dog, for example, was laid to rest "much like it is sleeping." A man was buried with two dogs, one carefully placed to the left of his body, and the other to the right. A dog was buried with a round pebble, possibly a toy or meaningful symbol, placed in its mouth. Still other dogs were buried with ornaments and implements, such as spoons and stone knives.

One of the most interesting burials contains a dog wearing a necklace made out of four red deer tooth pendants. Such necklaces appear to have been a fashion and/or symbolic trend at the time, since people wore them too.

[one_voice]

244. Don't be silly of course dogs aren't people...

FFS, you sound like a repuke going down the slippery marriage equality slope.


I have two dogs and a cat. I've always had dogs and usually a cat. I love my animals. My dogs are each unique. They are companions, they love without judgment or condition. They don't give a shit if you make 50 thousand a year or 50 million. They don't care if you're short, tall, fat, skinny, gay, straight, bald, whatever it doesn't matter.

You become attached and yep they're like family. When they get sick you worry and take them to the vet. When they die, you grieve. I've grieved for every one of the dogs and cats I've lost, some more than others.

Are they better than people, yep; some. I'd take my dogs over most repukes, at least they seem to be compassionate.

Dogs grieve if they lose their owners (death), they seem to know when you're not well and stay close. None of my pets share a bed with us, they have their own sleeping area. I did spend $1500 to have tumor removed from one of my dogs as it was cancerous. I had the money and she was young, I would do it again. My kids didn't do without anything so that I could do that.

I have great human relationships. Been married over 20 years, I have two kids, many friends, I spend a lot time outside. Your broad brush generalization about people that value their pets is cruel and insulting. That's what I say.

[kentuck]

245. I'm a yeller dog Democrat...

on edit: I would vote for an old yeller dog before I would vote for a Republican.

[jazzimov]

249. Your title does not match

your post.

No, dogs are not people. In most cases, a dog's loyalty will easily out-weigh a normal human's restrictions. Whether it is a good trait or not is up to you.

But a dog will provide levels of loyalty that will shame us all. It's up to you whether this is a "good thing" or a "bad thing".

It is what it is. Dogs will do as dogs do.

It's up to YOU to decide whether it's a loyalty thing or not.

As a side note - if you don't tear up, then I will assume that you have no heart and I want nothing else to do with you. Any argument you present in the future I will have to evaluate within the equation that you have no heart and any argument you present is heartless and invalid. To sum up - I have no respect for you and do not consider you as a human being.

But that's just me...

[nadine_mn]

253. Dogs aren't people...they are better than people

Dogs don't lie, steal, wage war, or commit acts of terror.

Our dogs are part of the family...we value their lives almost more than our own. Dogs rely on us to take care of them and provide for them. They have been domesticated to the point where some would be unable to fend for themselves...humans did that. Therefore we have an obligation to be shepherds over them..protect, shelter, love and care for them.

Also, it is a well known discussion between my husband and me ...If the house was on fire, I'd save the dogs and cat before him and expect him to do the same

All of our pets have been rescued, all of them have been loved and cherished. That is who we are...it doesn't have to be who you are and I am not going to create a post to judge you.

[kenny blankenship]

257. I've known some dogs for whom I'd leap into a burning building to save

and on the other hand, I've known plenty of people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire - and a few I'd put the match to myself.

[tblue37]

260. Depends on the dog-- and on tbe person.

I value some people less than most dogs, and some people more. But I love dogs, and I have no doubt that many dogs bring more benefit in general than many people.

[defacto7]

262. We are all animals.

Respect life.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

273. whatevs... get a dog, care for him/her, make him/her part of your family

then try again.

[Hekate]

278. "I wish I was the man my dog thinks I am"

That's an old saying I read in childhood, and can't track the origin down now for attribution.

It's not too much to say that humans created the dog, and according to human needs -- that is, from the time that "dog" DNA separated from "wolf" DNA has been up to 100,000 years ago. That's further back than any other domesticated animal.

Humans and dogs as species have evolved together in the same households for a long, long time, influencing each other's behavior even as the human part of the equation dominated the breeding of dogs for specific tasks useful to the humans. A well-trained dog will do just about anything its master asks of it.

Unlike wolves, dog's faces have expressions that mirror ours, and that is not just an anthropomorphic fantasy. Dogs also carefully watch their owner's facial expressions and body language, and are attuned to their emotions. This is science.

Emotionally, they are the only member of any household that gives unconditional love and loyalty. This is of tremendous psychological importance to any dog-owner, no matter how socially-connected that person is. Unconditional love is available almost nowhere else.

You may think that some dog owners go overboard, and that their expressions of sentiment are not to your taste, but an inter-species relationship that goes back nearly 100,000 years isn't "whacked out" -- it's practically symbiotic. Not everyone gets it, not everyone needs to, and no one is required to.

Personally, I raised two human kids to adulthood, and never considered my various dogs as being my children. But over time I have recognized that dogs are people -- not human being people, but people nonetheless -- and we owe them much.

"If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." Harry S. Truman

[aristocles]

279. What, another kerfuffle, quinnox? n/t

[GeorgeGist]

282. I say ...

My dogs are better beings than you.

[NoPasaran]

283. Say what you will about dogs

But no dog has ever borrowed money from me and never repaid the loan.

[vankuria]

284. OP wrong on so many levels!

First off, I'm not isolated or have bad human relationships. I'm happily married and have great family and friends. We simply love dogs, they're great companions, are loyal and fun to be around. They share a lot of the same emotions that we have (happy, sad, lonely, excited, grief, etc.,) and that's one of the reasons they bond so well with humans. A dog can make an enormous impact on your well being, it's been proven with therapy dogs in nursing homes, hospitals, with the disabled, etc. I know last year when I was sick for a month with pneumonia my dog never left my side. He knew I wasn't well and provided so much comfort to me.

We treat our dog as family and our lives are better for this. Being a dog lover is one of our greatest joys, our dogs have given us enormous joy throughout the years and what could possibly be wrong with that??

[burnodo]

285. And why are humans important?

[randome]

287. Because we possess the capacity to think of ourselves that way?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[burnodo]

288. And that makes us important because...

[randome]

291. It certainly makes us unique.

We have not only the capacity to think ourselves important, but the capacity to think of ourselves as not important, as well.

That makes us important because we effect the lives of those around us (human and animal) by whether we take an action or decide not to take an action.

We cannot stop thinking (current crop of Republican reps as the exception) so therefore our mere existence makes us important in the sense that no matter what we do or don't do, we effect others.

Just meandering down a philosophical alley here.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[LostOne4Ever]

286. As far as im concerned

We are all animals. One is no more valuable than another. I am not religious so I have no hangup like believing we have a soul and they don't. We both do or none of us do.

As for how I relate to animals? Generally, I value humans more seeing as I am human, myself.

However, I make exceptions.

Any pet I own is more valuable to me than a stranger. Why should I value a person I never met over a companion of years?

All bigots are lower than dirt as far as im concerned. Preach hate and I instantly think higher of the cockroach crawling through dung than I will of you.

[LWolf]

292. Of course they aren't.

Some humans are more anthropocentric than others.

It's the same principle that so much that is wrong with humans is based on.

Some people think their color, their ethnicity, their gender, their culture, their sexual orientation, their wealth, their choice of political party, their faith, etc.. make them superior to others who are "less equal in worth." Add species to that; it's the same principle.

[RoccoR5955]

293. Actually they are more than people

Dontcha know that dog is god spelled backwards?

[dr.strangelove]

297. Is the issue is that some think dogs are people, or that they do NOT think dogs are LESS than people

I am sure there are some people who dress dogs in human clothing and feed them with tablewear and such, but I likewise think this is extremely rare and very few people would support such things. But I think that many feel that as living beings with whom we share this planet, dogs are owed a certain respect equal to that which we give all life. Loving and caring an animal that loves and cares right back is as normal to me as breathing. I don't think this means that there has been a bad experience with human contact. I might agree that people who dislike dogs or any particular animal have had a negative experience in their past impacting that feeling. Anyway, I think you are off base.

[sibelian]

300. If there was a dog-indifferent person and a normal person in a burning building

and you could only save ONE of them, which would you save?

Gosh. Makes ya think, huh?

:p

[Pragdem]

301. It is quite strange for people to take that position non-jokingly.

I LOVE animals. I LOVE my cat. And I HATE anyone that acts cruelly toward animals (I think when my verbally abusive ex-girlfriend slammed her cat against the floor for getting in her way, it's when my disdain for her really took root.)

I just don't see animals as people, but I can care about them more than some people.

[Silent3]

302. Interesting Rorschach test this thread makes

One simple, basic interpretation of the OP is the fairly uncontroversial, broadly practiced behavior that most people would save a human from a burning building before saving a dog, they would prioritize medical care for humans over dogs, etc. We report statistics of humans living in poverty in the news, but not statistics of dogs living in poverty. When we talk about "universal" health care, even the liberal dogs lovers out there, few people are insisting that "universal" means dogs are covered too.

These are fairly concrete measures of how much, when push comes to shove, the great majority of humans, by most practical measures, value humans more than dogs.

But rather than respond to this likely, uncontroversial meaning of the OP, what we get is a lot of "dogs are BETTER than people!", which many people might truly mean at some surface emotional level, but few will demonstrate in concrete ways when faced with a clear and immediate dilemma of prioritizing human needs or canine needs.

We get a lot of people reading a whole lot into the OP that simply isn't there, as if the OP might as well have said that dogs are worthless, that you're crazy if you love your dog, etc.

[Ikonoklast]

304. This what I say. I have cats. Try hurting one of them.

You will soon find out what your perceived value as a human being means to me.

And just because you 'think' people that love their animal friends are socially damaged in some way is laughable.

[pecwae]

313. +

[AngryAmish]

307. As a people our priorities are clearly in the right place

[randome]

308. I didn't think anyone could add another facet to this thread but you did.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[defacto7]

326. Sometimes it takes seeing the extremes

to give a better perspective of our species and how we affect our world.

It's a reasonable point you're making.

[Skittles]

333. because you'd never find pics of fat humans or starving dogs?

[Howler]

320. I think its crazy for people to equate other people as equal to any plant or animal

After all the plants and animals can do quite well without people and much better then people can do without plants and animals. Thats just a fact Jack!

[smirkymonkey]

323. Sorry, I actually like dogs better than people and certainly

more than children. Sorry if that seems harsh, but I really don't care much for humans at all.

[Kablooie]

330. If dogs aren't people how do you explain Goofy?

Ha! Got you there!