You know, I’m tempted to open a thread in GD: “If Intelligent Design was true, God wouldn’t have wasted resources creating animals.” With any luck, **Lekatt ** and **Unregistered Bull ** would spend all their time debating each other there and leave the rest of the Board alone.
Exactly my point. However, UB seems to think that if we do anything for animals, we must value them more than humans.
The fact that you presume such a level of accuracy in your analysis that anyone who disagrees must be insulted for being unable or unwilling to read carefully suggests that you are not worth reading at all.
I’m sorry but if there is a resource that can be used to either save a human or an animal I beleive the only moral choice is to save the human being. But it is rare that resources are equally usable for both saving humans and saving animals. If a group of vetinarians with vetinarian drugs exist and are able to get to a site where both humans and animals are in need they cannot do much good for the humans but they can help animals. As long as they don’t obstruct attempts to help humans then they should be welcomed as additional resources helping in a problem area. As has been pointed out many times above, helping animals does have a positive effect towards the people in the area, so even if you think only human suffering should be considered in any disaster situation they are still reducing human suffering, and as vetinarians probably doing so in the best way that they can.
Unregistered Bull made an assertion that everyone in this thread (notably including Left Hand of Dorkness) who doesn’t share his values “cares more about animals than people”. This was a strawman, which is a type of argument where you assign your opponent some imaginary viewpoint and then attack it. You have failed to provide any argument whatsoever to suggest that it’s not a strawman. In your first post in reference to what I said, you restated his general position - it’s immoral to support lower priority causes - without referencing at all the actual strawman portion of his statement - the strawman being, once again, that some people here “care more about animals than people.”
I assumed that my writing was less than clear, because you defended the wrong statement. The statement you’ve been defending is not what I called a “strawman”. I was using the term “strawman” in reference to his continual declarations that people here “care more about animals than people.” If indeed you actually understood what I was referring to, then you must have seen my argument and deliberately chosen to respond as if I had made a completely different statement. That would be a bizarre thing for you to do.
I’m trying to make this clear here. Unregistered Bull has been accusing people of “caring more about animals than people”, and this is a strawman. If you disagree that this is a strawman, feel free to come up with some sort of argument to support your point. You haven’t yet, and you probably won’t. But you may try if you like.
No one said that. People pointed out that his reasoning is flawed, his thinking is black and white, and that he doesn’t have much room to argue that resources are being wasted on animals when he’s wasting his on message board arguments. He’s been essentially called heartless, for pissing all over threads about this tragedy and constantly dismissing any thought of “silly”, “irrelevant” (his words, not mine) animals. He’s been called a hypocrite for criticizing another person’s efforts to help people and animals while he’s making basically no effort to help anyone himself. He’s been called a jackass for bringing his stupid, stupid argument up in completely irrelevant threads.
He hasn’t, however, been called a puppykicker. Which makes his constant sniveling whine of “I don’t hurt animals” all the more pathetic. He hasn’t been accused of that, but since he can’t seem to come up with any reason to think he’s not a heartless, hypocritical jackass, he’s been defending himself against statements that no one has made.
He’s pathetic. Your defense of him - which I can only assume is based upon sharing some sort of political belief, probably an opposition to animal rights activism - is incomprehensible. He’s done nothing but make it clear just how hypocritical and how stupid the extremist opposition to animal rights causes is. If you are also opposed to animal rights activism, I’d suggest you distance yourself from Unregistered Bull. The net content of his argument has been that animals are “irrelevant” (again, his words) and that the rest of us are “evil” if we so much as pick a kitten off the floor and toss it onto a bus. It does you no good to tar yourself with that brush, SlyFrog. You would do yourself and your cause far more good by making it clear that Unregistered Bull, the pathetic, heartless, hypocritical jackass that he is, doesn’t represent you or your fellows.
Much like anything even questioning what you say is met with a, “Oh my god, you’re so dumb, maybe if I type it slower you’ll be able to read it,” response.
[/QUOTE]
Were a mod to fix my shitty coding, I’d be much obliged.
Not to defend UB, since he’s being such a dick, but…
If I could rescue one human or every puppy in N.O., I’d pick the human.
I doubt there’s a single person on this board who would choose differently. What’s tragic about UB is that most of this board probably agrees with his basic premise: that given the choice between saving a person and saving an animal, the only moral choice is to save the human. Where he goes entirely off the rails is where he somehow hallucinates that pinkfreud’s husband has this option in the first place, and that anyone who can recognize that he has created a false dilemma is somehow a racist psychopath.
That’s all well and good, squeegee, but that’s not a real choice you’re gonna have to make.
God, can’t people stick to the actual situation instead of dealing with absolutes like this?
pinkfreud’s husband helped a bunch of humans with his actions. On the way back he also helped some animals. I’d say that’s acting with nobility. Even if one doesn’t think animals themselves are worth the effort, the fact is that these displaced & suffering pets matter a tremendous amount to humans who may have nothing else left.
We, as humans, are endowed with a unique capacity to love other living creatures. If some choose to help not only humans, but animals as well – or, yes, even just animals if they honestly believe not enough is being done for the pets left behind – that’s their business, and in all likelihood they’re still giving more of themselves than those who bitch and moan from behind their computer screens.
Personally, I think it’s part of the responsibility humans have to act as stewards of the earth we otherwise rule over and use for own purposes. We domesticated these little guys in the first place, making them dependent on us and ill-suited to living & caring for themselves in the wild. That means we now have the burden to care for them when they can’t do so on their own.
The vast, vast majority of resources are going to people, rightly enough. If some decide to also help the creatures we brought down there in the first place … well, I say good for them.
Unregistered Bull: St. Francis of Assisi would be so mad at you!
I just thought of something-what about service animals, such as seeing-eye dogs? Would Unregistered Bull poo-poo efforts to take care of them?
Well, I would like thank Unregistered Bull.
Because of his obnoxiousness, I found out about some organizations working to help the animals affected by the hurricane and made a donation. 
What I’m not getting is why he doesn’t have that option. There are thousands of people trying to get out who have no vehicle. Why doesn’t he grab a family or two and bring them up out of the hellpit? Am I being dense here?
There are animals in New Orleans that have no food, water, or shelter yet you claim that anyone who helps them is wasting resources. Yeah, you’re the paragon of humane treatment.
Unregistered Bull, in this thread I mentioned that you were causing me to reconsider my policy against calling another Doper a “despicable cunt”. Well, the current thread has led me to think about it again.
On reflection, I’ve decided that “despicable” is too harsh. Instead, I’d characterize you as a “willfully stupid cunt”. Your obstinacy in refusing to even acknowledge, let alone thoughtfully consider, logical objections to your position rival that of Brutus at his most obtuse.
Also, sometimes you’re just a bit impolite.
I don’t know…what if the human is my ex-husband, and there are two puppies? 
Getting abandoned and starving animals out of NO is a service both to humans and animals. Dogs (large ones especially) can be dangerous when abandoned and hungry. Dead animals are also a health hazard. NO is enough of a cesspool right now without adding more dead to the concoction.
Many, many people were forced to abandon their animals. Whether you, I, Unregistered Bullshit, or Og like it or not, people get very attached to their pets. Having pets has been shown to be medically beneficial to humans. If someone who has lost everything has a ray of hope that their pet has been saved, even if they never see that pet again, it can be somthing to take comfort in when there isn’t much else.
Yes, I have pets and love them. If I had to make the choice between saving one pet and one human, I would cry but I would choose the human in most cases. If it is a choice between saving one river rat and the one of the human scum who was raping in shelters or shooting at rescue efforts (or Unregistered Bullshit) - lets just say there would be one very well fed, happy river rat.
My cats have more kindness and compassion than the assholes mentioned above.
I noticed Unmitigated Gall hasn’t been back to check the fire he started. I’m sure he’s on his way to NO to rescue looters.
For the purposes of this hypothetical, feel free to define “human” as narrowly as you need.
Me too. That Unregistered Bull is a master of reverse psychology.
Everyone is assuming of course that there is unlimited access into and out of the affected area and that there are no restrictions to travel etc.
I would like actual information on the number of life boats VS the number who need / want out. If I went down there, I would first ask myself who it was for? Them or to make myself feel good? Then, if I chose to go, am I going to force my choice on who gets help when all the other transports are helping the most dire need. Then, am I taking up a slot that could be put to better use.
At this point, I don’t see where 90% of those INDIVIDUALS who are going down in a normal car are doing anywhere near enough good to account for the fact that they are blocking something more useful being done with that bit of fuel and road space.
Now, if the fuel, the space and the time is all there, fine… but if not, then personal forays into the disaster area are not a good decision IMO.
In cases like this disaster, good intentions carry no weight.
*;:: If I was a person without a means out of the area and a person in a car said to me, “Nope, I will only bring out animals, I brought you a bottle of water, why should I do more for you when I want to help animals instead.” At that point, I might just add to the violence…
YMMV