Dogs as important as children!

[floo]

And no doubt a dog would eat you if it were hungry enough and the opportunity arose.

So in what way are we 'top dogs'? And who or what makes it definitive that animals exist in order to be used as  food source for humans?

Can animals of other species do all the things humans can do? Until they can humans are the top dog.

[Rhiannon]

Well producing weapons of mass destruction and causing major extinction makes us top arseholes.

That aside, how does our ability lead to animals existing for us to exploit, or us having the right to do that?

[floo]

Well producing weapons of mass destruction and causing major extinction makes us top arseholes.

That aside, how does our ability lead to animals existing for us to exploit, or us having the right to do that?

Humans can do a lot more than that as you well know. I take it you don't eat animal products, wear clothes originating from animals or use meds tested on animals?

[Nearly Sane]

Humans can do a lot more than that as you well know. I take it you don't eat animal products, wear clothes originating from animals or use meds tested on animals?

Now, Floo, for the benefit of the class, tell them what fallacy you are using in the above post.

[Aruntraveller]

Rhiannon and NS surely you have worked out the error of your ways. Floo is following the Bible's dictat:

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Strange that she is usually so vehement about the contents of that book, but it is quite happy for humankind to exploit animals for fun and pleasure and sadism.

[Sebastian Toe]

Now, Floo, for the benefit of the class, tell them what fallacy you are using in the above post.

Is it a non flooquiter, an arguement from floocredulity, a straw floo,  arguement from floothority,  floocams razor or my favourite a floopery slope?

 Yes I am aware of what I just did.
I'll get my coat......

[floo]

Rhiannon and NS surely you have worked out the error of your ways. Floo is following the Bible's dictat:

Strange that she is usually so vehement about the contents of that book, but it is quite happy for humankind to exploit animals for fun and pleasure and sadism.

Animals should be put to good use, but not for fun or sadism.

[Aruntraveller]

Animals should be put to good use, but not for fun or sadism.

Why do you support fox hunting then?

And don't give us bull about it being the best way to control the fox population - because that is just little spherical objects. Fox hunting is done because the men on horses take pleasure from it. FOR NO OTHER REASON.

[floo]

Why do you support fox hunting then?

And don't give us bull about it being the best way to control the fox population - because that is just little spherical objects. Fox hunting is done because the men on horses take pleasure from it. FOR NO OTHER REASON.

Foxes need to be kept down and I think it is a better way of doing it than shooting them, which is dangerous.

[Aruntraveller]

Foxes need to be kept down and I think it is a better way of doing it than shooting them, which is dangerous.

Really. I mean REALLY???

So a load of horses trampling across the countryside with a pack of hounds preceding them is the best way to keep the fox population down.

Shooting them is dangerous though I'll give you that. They usually die instantly. 

[floo]

Really. I mean REALLY???

So a load of horses trampling across the countryside with a pack of hounds preceding them is the best way to keep the fox population down.

Shooting them is dangerous though I'll give you that. They usually die instantly. 

We will have to agree to differ on this topic.

[Aruntraveller]

No we don't. You are willfully supporting cruelty to animals.

Perhaps you could read this:

http://www.animalethics.org.uk/foxhunting.html

For a view that might change your mind.

[Rhiannon]

Floo, there is a difference between saying that animals exist for us to exploit and saying that animals exist and we exploit them. Do you see?

[Robbie]

Foxes need to be kept down and I think it is a better way of doing it than shooting them, which is dangerous.

The point of shooting them is that it is dangerous! An expert marksman would generally pose no danger to anyone or anything else in his sight unless something wennt seriously wrong which is a remote possibility.

People on horseback galloping fast through countryside pose all sorts of danger not least to themselves!I remember reading about casualties from the Old Surrey & Kent hunt(think it's called that).  At the end of which they may corner and kill one terrified fox.

Point to point is good fun, a healthy alternative to fox hunting - doesn't satisfy blood lust.

[Rhiannon]

What really pisses me off about the hunting ban is that to doesn't include lamping, one of the most disgusting 'sports' to sully this land.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/lampers-are-the-thugs-of-the-countryside-550739.html

[Robbie]

That is horrible. I'd heard of people shootng rabbits at night, didn't know they 'lamped' foxes too.

[jeremyp]

Even if it was Ian Brady?

Ian Brady is already dead. No need to save him.

[jeremyp]

Why?

Imagine your husband/partner/chlld/parent was on a ship that sank. You rush down to the docks only to find somebody stepping off the rescue boat with their dog that they had saved in preference to your husband/partner/chlld/parent. Think how you would feel.

That's why you save the person.

[Sebastian Toe]

Ian Brady is already dead. No need to save him.

It's a hypothetical question, assuming that he was alive at the time. 
However we could substitute Brady for say, Sutcliffe if you want?

[Rhiannon]

Imagine your husband/partner/chlld/parent was on a ship that sank. You rush down to the docks only to find somebody stepping off the rescue boat with their dog that they had saved in preference to your husband/partner/chlld/parent. Think how you would feel.

That's why you save the person.

That wasn't the scenario that made me ask 'why' though. Floo said that the needs of the human animal must come above those of others. Not the lives. Different thing.

[Sebastian Toe]

That wasn't the scenario that made me ask 'why' though. Floo said that the needs of the human animal must come above those of others. Not the lives. Different thing.

Don't they need to live?

[Rhiannon]

Don't they need to live?

Not really. Nothing needs to live.

I *think* my instinct would be to save a human rather than my dog because that's how I feel I am programmed. Please god I never have to find out. However, to talk of the needs of humans over other species raises the question of what are the things that we need, and what are the things that we want. Do we need to destroy rainforests and mangroves in order to produce palm oil?

[Sebastian Toe]

Not really. Nothing needs to live.

I do!

[jeremyp]

That wasn't the scenario that made me ask 'why' though. Floo said that the needs of the human animal must come above those of others. Not the lives. Different thing.

I am telling you why the need of the person to be saved outweighs the need of the dog.

[Rhiannon]

I am telling you why the need of the person to be saved outweighs the need of the dog.

In which case I disagree.

Supposing in your scenario there is no person around to save either human or dog. The people left behind will grieve, they will face trauma, but they do not rely on the lost person for their survival - even children will have someone else step in. They do not need that other person - humans can survive horrendous loss.

The reason why saving the human is the right thing to do is because of our complex emotions and social structures; there is more devastation to others caused by the death of a person than the death of a dog. In choosing to save the dog first I would be inflicting harm on others, and that is why it is wrong.