PETA sues SeaWorld for slavery of whales

OhioStater said:

No one would argue that you love your dog, think of him like family, etc...but think of what just happened in the scenario; someone's brother/father/daughter, etc. just died...because of your choice.
The next interesting question is, how do you feel if you are the dead person's family?

I understand what you are saying, and most people would probably agree with you, but my dog is worth as much to me as someone else's brother or father is to them.

If you could only save one, would you save your brother, or someone else's brother? I have spent 13 years with my dog, and I feel as if he is just like a brother to me, no matter what kind of animal he is.

Let me reiterate, I understand where you are coming from, and more people would agree with you then I. I think that depends on how much you love your family pet.

However, this PETA stuff is totally crazy. lol

In my opinion, the mentality of someone who would save an animal over another human being is not much different than that of a typical PETA extremist.

Actually, I get it.

It's the same reason you cry when your cat dies, but read the obituaries or see news reports without giving it a second thought...unless you knew the person, of course.

There's probably a name for this effect, but I don't know what it is.

I don't necessarily equate emoting over my pet's death and not batting an eye when I read an obit with the choice between saving your pet or a stranger. While the psychology behind them may be somewhat related, I just can't get behind the choice of saving an animal over a person.

Gonch has elaborated on exactly my point.

Thanks.

Well it's a little different than that Gonch, I would argue...in the scenario given you actually are a witness to the other person dying, while you save the dog; not just reading about it in a newspaper. You make a conscious decision to save the life of an animal over the life of a human.

Then you can throw in tons of fun variables. Does it make a difference if the human drowning is a little girl? A little boy? An old man? A black man? (Oh, sorry..."African American" eightdotthree) Someone you hated from childhood? An enemy?

What's right or wrong is up to you.

What about someone who "unfriends" you on Facebook? ;) :)

Ooooh, can I make it a despised current Ohio governor? I'd love to not save John Kasich for Fido.

;)

If I save the person instead of the dog, is PETA going to sue me?

1. I took a drink of wine while reading Carrie's post and laughed.

2. Said wine went "down the wrong pipe" while reading Ensign's post.

3. Wine successfully traversed the nasal cavity after RBB made it a trifecta of posts.

Then our job here is done. ;)

OhioStater said:
Well it's a little different than that Gonch, I would argue...in the scenario given you actually are a witness to the other person dying, while you save the dog; not just reading about it in a newspaper. You make a conscious decision to save the life of an animal over the life of a human.

I don't know if it would be though. Very hard to say because how many times has anyone been in some kind of dire either/or situation like that. Honestly, I can say what I think I'd do, but who knows how I'd really react?

I still suspect attachment and familiarity to a 'lesser' pet just might outweigh the lack of feelings for a human stranger.

Sayeth Gonch: Honestly, I can say what I think I'd do, but who knows how I'd really react?

I don't think anyone can really be sure how they'll react in a panic/emergency situation...even people who are trained to be prepared....might not be able to act rationally when it involves a loved one.

"I'd like to hope it's not representative of the majority of it's members, but I have a feeling I may be wrong."

This is an interesting take. I've noticed that on this thread, it appears that the majority assume PETA is a group of nut-jobs. Nobody loves animals more than I, but I've always thought of PETA, and by extension their membership, as folks not to be taken seriously.

However, we have often been reminded on these forums that it is not appropriate to generalize...? I admit I'm guilty of generalizing all the time. But I know that such generalizations are often frowned upon.

I can think of all sorts of "groups" like PETA where the quote above might apply.

OhioStater said:
1. I took a drink of wine while reading Carrie's post and laughed.

2. Said wine went "down the wrong pipe" while reading Ensign's post.

3. Wine successfully traversed the nasal cavity after RBB made it a trifecta of posts.

Glad we could clear your sinuses for you.

Who knew CoasterBuzz could double as a Neti pot?

I'm not sure morality plays out quite as black/white or cut/dry as we think. I remember hearing a show on Radiolab on NPR where they took a survey of people and gave them 2 hypothetical situations.

1) You're working in a train yard and a train is out of control. It is headed for a group of 5 people and will kill them. If you throw a switch it will divert the train and it will only kill one person. Do you throw the switch?

The vast majority said yes.

2) You're working in a train yard and a train is out of control. It is headed for a group of 5 people and will kill them. You are standing next to an innocent person. If you throw the innocent person in the way of the oncoming train, a safety switch will activate (it's hypothetical) and the train will kill the one person but not the 5. Do you throw the guy in the way?

The vast majority said no.

Aamilj said:
"I'd like to hope it's not representative of the majority of it's members, but I have a feeling I may be wrong."

This is an interesting take. I've noticed that on this thread, it appears that the majority assume PETA is a group of nut-jobs. Nobody loves animals more than I, but I've always thought of PETA, and by extension their membership, as folks not to be taken seriously.

More specifically, perhaps the PR and head people of PETA may be the only crazies of the group, but their actions essentially represent the entire group and so credibility goes down with it.

As for saving a human or a dog, everyone should train themselves a hero-dog so everyone can be safe. :p

ApolloAndy said:
I'm not sure morality plays out quite as black/white or cut/dry as we think.

{...snip}

In the scenario you posted, no. However, to keep with the theme of this thread, if I replace the "5 people" with "<X number> animals," the answer becomes pretty cut and dry, in my opinion. Or should, at least.

But if you then replace "<X number> animals" with "your beloved pet of many years" it suddenly gets muddy again.

I think it's safe to say:

Humans > Animals
Familiarity/Love > Strangers/Indifference

It's when you mix and match from the different sides that the gap closes.