Would you rather see a human die or a dog?

Typhoid · 12-30-2010, 03:39 PM

I voted for killing a dog being worse.
But I was joking.

Anyways, I sort of had this conversation with someone the other week.
The one thing that seems to escape people's minds is that dogs are just animals. That's all. We kill countless animals. Hell, most animals kill other animals anyways. We are no different. The killing of your own species is what is bad, and wrong.

I don't agree with dog fighting because I don't agree with that type of 'entertainment'. Be it cockfighting or some other stupid animal pitted against its stupid animal counterpart.

KillerGremlin · 12-30-2010, 03:50 PM

There was an interesting conversation on NPR with psychologist Hal Herzog (Western California University, http://www.wcu.edu/7051.asp).

Here is the full transcript: http://m.npr.org/news/front/130892795?singlePage=true

Quote:

The Short Sad Life Of A Fast Food Chicken

Herzog doesn't shy away from the messier areas of that moral life. He devotes one section of the book to the underground phenomenon of cockfighting, and comes away with an uncomfortable conclusion: "A McDonald's chicken a suffers a much worse fate" than a gamecock, he tells Raz, "and I suspect you would be with me on this if I described the life of a game rooster and the life of a McDonald's chicken."

A gamecock lives for several years, often in pampered luxury, before it goes to its fate; a chicken destined for the plate lives about seven weeks, often in terrible, painful squalor.

"Now this is in no way to argue that cockfighting should be legal," Herzog says. "I don't think it should be legal. But on the other hand, it is a bit of a paradox that people get so bent out of shape about fighting roosters, and the suffering of chickens is probably the world's greatest animal welfare problem."

Obviously, I do not support dog fighting. I think it is awful and I think people who engage in dog fighting are bad people. At the same time, Vick did his time, so the burden of whether or not he should be entitled to play football falls squarely on the private organization that is the NFL. He paid his debt to society, and as far as I can tell he has been exhibiting good behavior since. In terms of his football career, in my make-believe world of ideology I would like to see his pay take a huge dock due to his crimes, but that is asking a lot. On the other hand, I think most sports players are overpaid.

Typhoid · 12-30-2010, 03:52 PM

Well, the way McDonald's treats their future 'food' is a whole other can of worms.
There are many reasons why I don't eat fast food anymore - and the shitty way they treat the animals is one of them - despite the fact I am well aware that me not eating them will not save the lives of any (chickens).

KillerGremlin · 12-30-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Well, the way McDonald's treats their future 'food' is a whole other can of worms.
There are many reasons why I don't eat fast food anymore - and the shitty way they treat the animals is one of them - despite the fact I am well aware that me not eating them will not save the lives of any (chickens).

That's a noble reason to not eat fastfood. Even if you are not directly helping save the animals, it is still an okay cause in my book.

The reason I bring up the chickens is because unless Tucker Carlson is a vegetarian, he consumes animals that likely get worse treatment than many of the dogs used for dog fighting. I cannot say that with absolute certainty of course. But also, it is ironic at some level, because for a guy who so vehemently opposes dog fighting, you would think he would also oppose eating any meat that has gone through the typical chain of command.

Now I do happen to know some hardcore vegetarians/vegans who think a dog is more precious than a human. Those people are hard to reason with. There are ways to stir the pot though.

TheGame · 12-30-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I voted for killing a dog being worse.
But I was joking.

Ditto. lol

Though, funny enough.. I got that question on a psycological evaluation.

One of the questions asked "If you are driving at 2AM in the morning, and you see a dog lying in the middle of the street appearing to be to be either asleep or injured, you would stop and help."

Strongly agree-Agree-Neutral-Disagree-Strongly Disagree

Then about 30 or so questions later, they ask the same question just with human instead of a dog "If you are driving at 2AM in the morning, and you see a man lying in the middle of the street appearing to be to be either asleep or injured, you would stop and help."

I put strongly agree on both, because if I'm asked about it by the psycologist, the question didn't directly say "how" you would go about helping. If it was a dog I'd honk my horn at it, and if it didn't move I'd try to call someone to help. Same with the man... I'd honk, if he didn't get up I'd call 911. But it took some thinking on my part to come to that conclusion.

My ex GF, on the other hand, when I brought up that question to her... she would have marked strongly agree for the dog and strongly disagree for the human. (First thing that came to mind for her is the guy jumping up and stabbing her when she gets out of the car) Then when I explained my thoughts on it, she changed her mind to strongly agree on both lol.

But those were just 2 in 900 questions... I bet a lot of people get caught by that when rushing through.

Teuthida · 12-30-2010, 07:20 PM

Some humans deserve to die. No dog does. In movies you always feel worse when an animal dies than a human. I don't have the real world experience of seeing a random human/dog killed in front of me but I assume I'd be more affected by the human, being the same form as myself.

TheGame · 12-30-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Some humans deserve to die. No dog does. In movies you always feel worse when an animal dies than a human. I don't have the real world experience of seeing a random human/dog killed in front of me but I assume I'd be more affected by the human, being the same form as myself.

I disagree with the notion that no dog deserves to die. Though the ones that need to be put down are likely a product of their environment, the same can be said for humans who act out. But if the end result is a Dog blind in one eye attacking every human it sees below 4 feet tall, attacking every dog you put in front of it, and eating it's own puppies... then it deserves to die as much as any human who would do the same.

I don't get sad when animals die in movies too. I remember some of my friends wouldn't even watch the butterfly effect movie because of the part where the kid sets the dog on fire... that part didn't phase me at all. It was messed up, but it would phase me more if he put his little sister in that bag and set her on fire. Then that would be hard for me to watch...

Teuthida · 12-30-2010, 08:48 PM

Yeah, I said that about dogs because I figured those that need to be put down were only like that because of humans. Though humans are products of their environment as well I would like to think they have the power to change and contemplate their actions more than a dog would.

I think the reason I feel more for animals in film is because you know the humans are acting whereas with animals it feels more real.