The Value of Human Life vs. Animal Life

Then those people should clue themselves in on what the definition of "species" is.

I don't know why, but this very serious thread about the (mis)treatment of animals and their worth compared to the homo sapiens sapiens species is hilarious.
I completely agree. Those people are the worst types of human beings but they are still human. It's too bad they don't give others the same consideration.

And I agree, the thread is hilarious but unfortunately it's not really legal and political. I guess if we're discussing the laws regarding treatment of animals it's one thing...in which case I see a felony charge for cruelty to animals as a reasonable. A man that kicks a dog around or shoots a bear in a cage should certainly spend a decade behind bars. However is that same man kicks around a human being or shoots a person in a cage he should spend the rest of his life behind bars. Our lives are still worth more than the lives of animals regardless of how much we love them.
 
applesanity said:
There's nothing to rebut because I'm not disagreeing with you, tourist.

And I wasn't talking about you, either. I don't care if people disagree with me, just say, "Tourist, I disagree."

But I am getting tired of the baiters and the haters. I don't think a proper remise consists of "you're insane."

And clearly, this is an emotional issue, you're going to touch a nerve here, no doubt.

To that, (and sadly), I believe that all of us have a 'black side.' I've known myself, the usual jokester of any group, to get so unstrapped I scared myself. And issues concerning one's children, pets, his patriotism, etc., are certainly these hot-button issues.

Finally, I haven't met many guys I can't expose in discourse when they dissemble their true agenda. ;)
 
No, my argument is that if you're not the dominent species, then you get no say. Especially if you've blown your money away on lottery tickets.

Yes, your argument is dangerous and leads us to all kinds of abhorrent behavior. 160 years ago, many American plantation owners considered black people to be a lower life form than rich white people, a lowlier species, and used that notion to justify OWNING SLAVES.
 
Yes, your argument is dangerous and leads us to all kinds of abhorrent behavior. 160 years ago, many American plantation owners considered black people to be a lower life form than rich white people, a lowlier species, and used that notion to justify OWNING SLAVES.

Gasp! Some rich white people used to own slaves? I didn't know that! Last I checked, black people and rich white folks are of the same species.

Until Bessie down by Farmer Joe's ranch points a shotgun at my face and tells me that I should opt for the vegan salad, I'll continue to eat steak.

but unfortunately it's not really legal and political.

I contend that it is. What's the penalty for punching a baby manatee versus punching a baby human? While both are terribly wrong, equating the two in severity of punishment speaks negatively of how we as a society value human life.
 
I contend that it is. What's the penalty for punching a baby manatee versus punching a baby human? While both are terribly wrong, equating the two in severity of punishment speaks negatively of how we as a society value human life.
yeah that was my mistake :p I didn't read the whole thread and halfway through the sentence I realized that people have been talking about the legal ramifications and stuff

I just enjoy the more philosophical aspects :o but I know that's not what this place is for
 
And just like that, CNN gives us something meaningful.

Commentary: Where is the outrage when humans are abused?

(tagline: Martin suggests the Vick case revealed the public and media care more about celebrity and animals than people.)

(CNN) -- When federal prosecutors in Virginia released details of the dogfighting charges against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, all hell broke loose.

Folks were protesting, calling for him to be immediately kicked out of the league, and demanding long jail sentences for Vick and his co-defendants.

Many lawyers went on television and admitted that had Vick beat a girlfriend, shot or even murdered someone, he wouldn't have been slammed as hard as he was for the vicious acts committed against dogs.

I suppose those lawyers are right.

Just look at the case of Megan Williams. The 20-year-old West Virginia woman, Megan Williams, was kidnapped by six sadistic individuals and held in a mobile home.

They raped her, forced her to eat rat and dog feces, made her drink from a toilet, stabbed her multiple times, and called the black woman a "nigger" every time they beat her.

Thank God she lived, and may be released from the hospital in a few days.

But it still raises the question: What causes such outrage and fervor in one case involving dogs and not another?

The same thing was said about the shocking details surrounding the deaths of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The two University of Tennessee students were on a date when they were carjacked by several men. They were taken to a house where they were held. Christopher was raped, doused with gasoline, shot and his body dumped on the side of a road.

Channon? She had a household cleaner poured down her throat and was later raped. She, too, was murdered.

Although the two were white and their alleged attackers black, police say race was not an element in this case.

These two cases are heinous and despicable. But why do we respond with speed to one case and not another? Is it celebrity? Or do we not have the same compassion for human beings as we do for dogs? Was the Vick case that more important?

Take, for example, the U.S. Senate floor speech of Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia.

Calling the allegations sadistic, Byrd thundered: "Barbaric! Let that word resound from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, from valley to valley, across this broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric!"

He later added: "I am confident the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt."

So, Sen. Byrd, where is the floor speech for a woman from your own home state? Where is the outrage when a woman is viciously attacked?

This is when the media gets slammed. We've determined that Vick, Paris Hilton and the shenanigans of Lindsey Lohan are far more important than the viciousness of what took place in West Virginia and Tennessee.

But maybe the problem isn't just the media. Maybe the problem is you. The reader. The viewer. Maybe you've decided that you care more about discussing a celebrity than nobodies like Megan Williams, Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom.

Full of logic holes, but hey - this thread is equal parts moral, emotional, and rational. Maybe this was what the OP was getting at?
 
For me, there's a number of rough subcategories here besides just Human and Other animals.

You've got

Human, family member
Human, acquaintance
Human, stranger
Human, that has mildly annoyed me
Human, that has caused me to wish he or she had never been born

vs

Animal, family member
Animal, family member of acquaintance or stranger
Animal, domesticated for food or labor
Animal, wild, cute
Animal, wild, tasty
Animal, wild, cute, tasty

Each will be treated differently, and will fall somewhere in a heirarchy of value to me. I'm not ashamed to say that my animal family members are higher on the value scale for me than some of the human categories above. How much higher, depends on how much I'd be punished for acting on my values.

In other words, kill my pet dog in the US, and I'll sue you if I can. Do it in an anarchy, and you'd better watch your back.
 
And just like that, CNN gives us something meaningful.

Commentary: Where is the outrage when humans are abused?

(tagline: Martin suggests the Vick case revealed the public and media care more about celebrity and animals than people.)
wtf
But maybe the problem isn't just the media. Maybe the problem is you. The reader. The viewer. Maybe you've decided that you care more about discussing a celebrity than nobodies like Megan Williams, Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom.
The problem is us? So I guess no responsibility lies with the media that spends more time talking about one subject than another? I guess it's our fault that Wolf Blitzer did god knows how many hours on Anna Nicole Smith's death for DAYS after it was announced. I guess it's our fault that Vick's case is getting more airtime, huh?

And their excuse? Oh, it's for ratings. You people watch more of this stuff so we can't air the important news!

:rolleyes: Really now? Have you bastards actually tried? Yeah, didn't think so.

Up yours, Roland Martin. Don't lay all the blame on us for the stupid crap your employer and their ilk are equally as responsible for.
 
OK, I can't stay up all night reading all these responses, and do want to have my say on the subject.

Don't mess with my family, which includes my dogs, and all will be well.

I hope you're not too offended!
 
What do I think?

I think I see virtually nothing redeeming in the human race as a whole. I don't hold that the life of a human, any human, is infinitely more valuable than the life of any animal. In fact, much the reverse.

There are many humans on whom I wouldn't even bother to urinate if they were on fire. I could feed Michael Vick, alive, to a pack of wild boars and sleep soundly after doing so.

In the occasional individual I find merit, yes, but as a whole, mankind is a pestilence. I believe mankind will be unique among nature's mistakes in that we'll be the only creature to ever willingly send ourselves into extinction.
 
Oh, hell... CNN caught one. I guess the worship of animals has gotten so out of hand that even they could sniff it out.

I'm not sure I fit in around here.

...with 1,800+ posts?

Good point. TFL let "Would You Shoot Bigfoot?" run forever ferchristsake, and I've only been this irritated a handfull of times. I can't stay mad at y'all.

Tourist, I would love to give you a rebuttal but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be rebutting...

I don't think lethal force is appropriate for the defense of animals.

And whoever it was who wrote that my time as an animal control employee probably warped my whole moral scale out of shape is probably right on the money. Unfortunately, I think that if I was warped a little too far in one direction, a lot of you have been warped all the way in the other direction by something in your pasts...

I don't know what that could be, though. Perhaps y'all had a favorite pet slaughtered by a future serial-killer?
 
oldbillthundercheif said:
I don't think lethal force is appropriate for the defense of animals.

Fair enough. But remember that we're not required to use lethal force to protect people, either. That's just a plot twist on an old Seinfeld episode.

Personally, I see no redeeming value in a man who is so callous to animals.

If a mugger or a group of Crips were assaulting a guy so bereft of compassion I'd find it hard to waste a 75-cent Gold Dot to save his miserable life.

Spend 75 cents on a 2-bit human being?

Doesn't sound cost effective to me. I'd be out 50 cents...
 
2rugers said:
My sentiments exactly Mike Irwin.

I think this statement troubles me more than a snooty attitude about animals.

There's a tremendous amount of compassion in this world, despite the recent headlines.

As it pertains to this thread, watch animal related channels on cable and you will see officers go to great lengths in helping the suffering of injured or frightened animals. About two weeks ago I saw a neglected horse that broke my heart.

If you're in the Madison area, go visit our vets' hospital. Almost all of the fetch-n-carry chores are done by volunteers.

Yeah, it's a hassle. Despite my previous work there, I'm now awaiting a fingerprint check under their new rules. Can you imagine that. Legions of folks who could pamper themselves or wile away their retirement hours waiting in line just to serve.

So don't be fooled by the haters in some of these threads. In fact, I'll bet these callous folks are in a bit of need themselves...
 
Tourist, it may just be that I am a little worn out at the moment , but I have no clue as to what you mean by your last post.
 
Went and got some caffeine and reread a little.
I see where you're coming from now Tourist.

I will clarify the statement I made aligning myself with Mike's statement if I can.
A few of the faults I recognize in myself.
I am proud.
I am selfish.
I have a big ego.
I am sometimes jealous.
I am not easy going.
I am overbearing.
I can be lazy.
I am demanding.
I sometimes let my emotions get the better of me.
I do not always treat others fairly.
I sometimes lie.

Attributes I feel I posess.
I am empathetic. (hence this response)
I recognize I am not always fair and work to make myself moreso.
I am for the most part trustworthy.
I am compassionate.
I am respectful.
I will admit when I am wrong.
I am passionate about my beliefs.
I am good looking. (see the last entry of faults):o

I feel I do not always look hard enough for the positive in people.

I still stand by my earlier statement agreeing with Mike's assessment with this one exception.
I believe mankind as a whole has many redeeming qualities but many individuals do not.
 
"There's a tremendous amount of compassion in this world, despite the recent headlines."

Did I not say that I find merit in some individuals?

But even the best efforts of a relatively few individuals doesn't come close to mitigating the whole sorry lot of so-called 'humanity'.
 
Back
Top