Staffie dog hogtied and cooked alive over a fire at The Curragh

Lau2976 wrote: »

No they shouldn't

Ok so if I fell into a river at the same time as your dog fell into the river, you would save your dog and allow me to drown?
Or if you, me and your dog survived a plane crash high in the mountains and had no food, you would kill me to feed yourself and the dog rather than killing the dog?

Lau2976 wrote: »

I accept that that's your belief but I don't see why. I don't distingush between animals and people.

I've had and lost many pets, it's terrible but not devastating. It's no way comparable to the pain of losing your spouse or a child.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ok so if I fell into a river at the same time as your dog fell into the river, you would save your dog and allow me to drown?
Or if you, me and your dog survived a plane crash high in the mountains and had no food, you would kill me to feed yourself and the dog rather than killing the dog?

Yes I would save my dog every single time. That's a completely different situation because I disagree with eating living things all together.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

of course, my dog can swim better than you or i.




we have a dog with us. i think we should try hunting (something the animal has natural instincts for) before we go eating each other.

Ok in these scenarios, either me or your dog have to die and you must make the decision....which is it?

Lau2976 wrote: »

Yes I would save my dog every single time. That's a completely different situation because I disagree with eating living things all together.

That's worrying.

suicide_circus wrote: »

That's worrying.

I don't distingush between the life of an animal or a person, how is that worrying? I wouldn't kill someone for the sake of an animal but if I had to choose I would make the decisions I've outlined.

sup_dude wrote: »

To me it would be. My dog's getting old and I'm dreading the day he goes. I get emotional evening thinking about it. But then, my dog is basically the only thing that kept me sane through rough patches in life so he's my support. When he goes, I'll be distraught.

But then, I'd value any animals life as much as humans. If it was a choice between saving an animal or a human, I'd make that decision as though it was two humans.

I hope you never have to put that to the test. I've lost loved ones, human and animal, as hard as it is to lose your pet it's a lot harder to lose a friend or a child.

suicide_circus wrote: »

And how would you feel if I allowed your child/wife/friend to die in order to save my dog?

They'd probably feel the same why they would if you saved your child over theirs.

eviltwin wrote: »

I hope you never have to put that to the test. I've lost loved ones, human and animal, as hard as it is to lose your pet it's a lot harder to lose a friend or a child.

It has been "put to the test".

suicide_circus wrote: »

Fair enough. I think you've pretty much checked out of any right you have to participate in human society but ok.

Bit extreme

suicide_circus wrote: »

Fair enough. I think you've pretty much checked out of any right you have to participate in human society but ok.

Well I think you have an undeveloped sense of morals so I suppose we all have different opinions

K4t wrote: »

That's fine, as long as you accept that potentially someday there might be a situation whereby a stranger may value their pet over you or your loved ones, allowing you or your wife or kid to die in exchange for the survival of their pet hamster.

I'm terribly pleased you think it's fine.

If someone values the life of their hamster above me AND it comes down to incredibly complicated situation where they have to chose between me and a hamster, I'll accept it.

Of course, it's a completely redundant point. Unless of course you expect me to believe that hammy the hamster might one day be granted the spot in a lifeboat as the ferry we were both travelling on sinks into the blue yonder.

"Sorry Magico, it's you or the hamster, and this lifeboat ain't big enough for both of you!"

Or maybe me and this other families goldfish will need urgent medical treatment, as i lie their uttering my last on the operating table I'll understand it completely if the fish gets priority.

Meanwhile, in the real world, these choices never occur. It's the same as the absurd nonsense that insists that some daft dogmatic (no pun intended) belief stops some people behaving pragmatically. Do I care about cockroaches? Nope, it's hot were I live and the come up through the drainage pipes. I don't shed any tears as I poison them.

I eat all sorts of meat, because I haven't formed any emotional relationship with that animal. Dogmatic logic might dictate that I don't have an emotional relationship with a stranger and that their death shouldn't cause me any concern. Of course, it would, because I am not a sociopath. However, if someone dies on the other side of the world does it cause me as much concern as the death of my dog, whom I genuinely consider a friend and a valued companion? Of course not. Anyone who would claim it would is a liar or spends literally every waking second in mourning for the death of people they have never met.

sup_dude wrote: »

Bit extreme

Well if you put the life of a dog before that of an innocent human while sitting there enjoying the fruits of 40,000 years of human civilization you're a bad person.