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

[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.