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

[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.