Animals or Humans?
 

Heard a lot of waffle on the Jeremy Vine programme earlier today about someone who'd left millions in their Will to their dog (and why not, have there to be laws about who should benefit from your Will? - it is after all your money to leave as you wish.)
But I was reminded of a time in the 80s when I was working in the Ministry of Defence and the IRA (yes, Adams and McGuiness who are now "legitimate" politicians) exploded a bomb in the Mall in London as a ceremonial Troop of the Life Guards were passing - and soldiers and horses were killed and injured.
The subsequent press coverage concentrated almost entirely on one of the horses (which happily recovered) with almost total disregard for the soldiers. A friend, who was in the Household Cavalry, was greatly upset by this - he'd actually lost a hand in Northern Ireland, courtesy of said Adams and McGuiness.
But, much as I love my dog, come the crunch surely human lives are even more precious ... ? What do you think?

Tony.

PS. References above to the IRA are freely open to amendment by any of the Politically Correct among you!

I'm a proud vegetarian.
And It's for moral reasons, I believe that industry is digusting and completely imhumane.
However, the lives of my friends, family and people I just know, are much more precious than the lives of my pets.
If it was a comparison thing, I'd pick humans.

Oh, well you see...

These are two entirely different situations you have given us. Which-in my opinion- is beneficial to my reply.

Let's go with that I have no actual moral or ethical background. I'm the clean slate.

In the cycle, it is obvious that human beings are dominant, and therefor more "precious" if you will. BUT I think that this man who left millions to his dog just had a sick sense of humor, and no compassion to the human race. As is the case with some of our fellow human beings. A view, that if I wasn't a slate of no morals or ethics, would probably share with this gentleman.

As for the press and how they convey and announce things, we must remember that whatever will touch hearts the fastest, and effect them the most, is what the headline will be.

Before the crunch I agree that human life should be regarded as more important than the lives of our voiceless friends.

Love,
Your grammatically atrocious.

In short, humans.

If my kitten and my worst enemy were in say, a fire, I'd say my worst enemy took priority.

And now I feel all bad for my kitten. =[

Now I feel bad. I'd save my kitten.
But... I've got an "unhealthy" attachment to my kitten. My therapist can barely even convince me to keep her at home. But my therapist says it sorta makes sense, given the long emotional story that leads up to me and my kitten and what she means to me.

That said... I do think human lives are generally more important. If it were a kitten I didn't know, and my worst enemy, I'd save my enemy first. If it were the barn sour horse that I just finished riding and my worst enemy, that's a toss-up...

both.

Depends on how much I like the person over the dog really!

Dicky!

if my kitten and my worst enemy needed to be saved in a fire, I would certainly pick the kitten.

Yay! I don't feel so evil any more... :tongue2:

Humans are animals?

I'm guessing the people chose to fight as they're soldiers and not civilians. The horses had no choice!

Why would you chose something you hate/dislike/are neutral towards over something you love/like/are attatched to?!

:doze:

Excellent point.

And in the fire situation, yeah I'm gonna have to say I'd save the kitten. I love my kitty too much. :-D

Random question...shouldn't this thread go in news and debate?

If I let someone die, I wouldn't be able to cope with the guilt. Think of the parents, friends, people who did actually like them. Cats live for around 15 years, humans for closer to 80. (I'm thinking this person would be my age, so 18).

Losing a kitten would be hard, and yeah, I'd feel guilty, but I don't value animals lives as highly as humans. *Shrugs* I clearly have a superiority complex. =]

Your own species should come first, and obviously your family>friends>people you know>people you like etc as the chain goes down. Then other species, with the same chain pets>other peoples pets>other animals you like and so on.

Thats how most people work it out, usually without thinking of it. Thats why people don't mind swatting a fly but do mind kicking a dog.

humans.

but i'd probably consider saving some hedgehogs.

^ha ha, Lucky hedgehogs :D

In the fire situation I would save my rabbits first. They woudl be more helpless than a human unless the human was a young child or unconscious or something.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. I guess it would be how selfish I was feeling, if I was feeling selfish I would go for my pets, but if not then the people, probably. But who knows. Maybe I'd just save my cuddly toys.

Well, Sharloid, of course the soldiers who were killed/wounded were volunteers. They'd signed on knowing that they might have to put their lives on the line for Queen and Country - in a "fair fight" somewhere, rather than being killed/wounded on ceremonial duties in their own country which was only trying to resolve an almost impossible political situation.
The horse's name was Sefton. I'll bet that some of your parents might remember it - but (challenge!) how many of them remember the names of the soldiers concerned ...

Tony.

PS. Most of the horses of the Household Cavalry are bred specifically in Ireland for that very purpose, and have happy and cared-for lives as a result of it.



purpose

humans are animals for all of you who didn't/don't pay attention in biology.