Reply #207: You continue to misread [View All]

Your first assertion was that I think anyone who values their pet is a shitbag.

That assertion is false and a character assassination, and an assertion that is logically impossible to come to given the data I offered.

I corrected you, so now you misread AGAIN to accuse me of side-stepping my own statement to now assert something other than what I originally asserted, though you have now cleverly inserted the modifier "over you", which you didn't use in your first misinterpretation.

Since you don't seem to deal well with words, or have some kind of agenda going that refuses you to read what is actually there in favor of whatever that agenda is, let me summarize it for you:

1. I think it's great that people value their pets. In fact, I think anyone who has a pet who doesn't value it is a bastard. (see - complete opposite of what you accused me of! Now how do you feel?)

2. I value human beings. I might despise them, loathe them, or otherwise not care for them, but all human life has value.

3. In an emergency situation of the most bizarre nature in which it is required of a person to either save a stranger or save a pet and no other option is available, my ethic tells me two things: a) our duty to the stranger/other (whether human, animal, or object) is higher than our duty to our own needs, wants, or desires, and b) our duty to human life is above our duty to other life.*

Thus and ergo, I will save the stranger instead of saving a pet, given the conditions of the test as proposed in the OP.

Unfortunately, some people read this and, like you, immediately jump to the ignorant conclusion that anyone who would save a person over a pet has absolutely no regard whatsoever to any animal anywhere, at any time, ever, fuck 'em, we hate animals, hate 'em with a passion, and we would kill 'em all if we could, oooooooh God we hate animals, yes we does.



Of course, that's a stupid conclusion.




* obviously anyone can chew up and tear apart an ethic presented in one sentence; that's a merit-less and utterly trivial exercise, and so there's no need to do so. Obviously, also, there are any number of modifiers and conditional exceptions to this rule, many of which I could spew out right now and show the many exceptional instances in which my rubric is incomplete, so don't think that I think this is bulletproof or sui generis or monolithically universally applicable by any means. But given the very limited conditions of the OP's test, this is a perfectly sound framework.