10

10 log in or sign up to start earning Butterfly Credits today!
learn more »
earn credits for web search

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

Groups > PETH > Discussions > Topic: hello all humanitarians
Topic: hello all humanitarians

powered by Care2.com • Care2 Home • E-cards & Fun • Shopping • Healthy Living • News Network • Petitions • Click to Donate

This thread is displayed with the most recent posts first.


	April 21, 2006 11:24 PM I am wondering about this also. Protecting your pets in a disaster. I will and would want to. Although if it came down to a house fire I'd get myself and my family out first then my pets. And to go back into a burning house for them is something I cannot do for alot of reasons. I have to say I sign and donate to and for animals more then humans. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 21, 2006 11:07 PM Again. no one is saying that all life isnt sacred... no one is saying that animal life isnt important.... All I am saying is that human life comes FIRST... That doesnt mean that no other life matters...But I would not risk my life to save an animal.. I would to save a human... [ send green star]
Tanya R.	April 21, 2006 1:53 PM You value human life above all other life, thats a normal thing for humans to do. But everyone doesn't think a human deserves to be here more than any other creature. It isn't really about measuring someone's worth, it really has to do with the fact that we are not better and more important than every other thing just because we choose to believe that. I think human life is sacred. and I think all life is. [ send green star]
Kathy G.	FD April 21, 2006 7:35 AM I'm actually beginning to find you very amusing with your love for an "arguement". It says a lot about you. Have you ever rescued a drowning person or, even someone who thinks they're drowning?!?!?!? I HAVE. And let me tell you-you DO "risk your own life" because they panic..whether it be a young person OR adult. (sadly-I've had to swim after both at different times at a beach that had no lifeguards) I've always been a strong swimmer, BUT-in their flailing and panic-no matter how many times you tell them to calm down-if they can't (which is kind of understandable-fear can take over) you DO get taken under and you must fight this to stay above water yourself.(and for them) Quite exhausting, really. Stopping to tread water can help you regain some strength, but if that person is still too worked up-forget it. So no-it was not just "thrown in there"...it's a very valid point. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 20, 2006 11:28 PM No it doesnt assume the dogs life has little value.... A human life obviously has little value if you would put the life of a dog before the life of a human. I love dogs.. I have two of them... One I stole because the people were not taking care of it. it didnt have a dog house it was chained to the fence and there was a foot of snow on the ground... It was a puppy then, Ive had it for 7 years... One of its legs is shorter than the other because someone kicked it or something and stunted its growth... Im not a guy that doesnt like animals.... But Human life comes first.... [ send green star]
Freediver O.	April 20, 2006 11:10 PM Kathy I don't think there was anything in the question about risking your own life. That is pretty much beside the point - you just brought it up to evade the issue of whether it is legal to deliberately let someone die. [ send green star]
Tanya R.	April 20, 2006 11:08 PM that would be assuming that the dog's life had little value. if my point of reference is different than yours to begin with, then you would have no idea how much I do or do not value human life [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 20, 2006 9:12 PM Of course you would go out prepared.. We all would.... It doesnt matter if its by drowning or fire or whatever. Saving a friggin dog over a human being is wrong... Its not an opinion.... It is morally wrong... It saddens me to know so many people hold so little value to human life... [ send green star]
Kathy G.	April 20, 2006 8:18 PM Mike-stating that not saving the human stranger is "wrong" is simply your opinion. Your own opinion. It is not a law that I MUST risk my life for a stranger. (I CAN, however-choose to) Ethics? Maybe. When a being-whether it be human or non-human has devoted their life...possibly even inadvertently saving your own life at one time or another just by their very presence....they are more than worthy of saving. But-again, you neglect to hear what I said. I am not stupid enough to go out on the water without being prepared for an emergency...I am too seasoned a boater for that. So if I was TRULY in your hypothetical scenario-both animals would have been able to be saved-the human would have the advantage of the floatation device (and rope) till I got the dog to safety (since most dogs cannot use one) and then the person would have been brought onboard. Any compassionate person who reveres life (PERIOD) would attempt to save both. [ send green star]
Freediver O.	April 20, 2006 7:37 PM Not all humans can swim either. Saving a dog and letting a human drown would probably be criminally negligent or something like that. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 20, 2006 7:31 PM Right.. You would save your dog over a human being.. Thats very sad... And its wrong... [ send green star]
Kathy G.	Mike April 20, 2006 6:28 PM I have absolutely no qualms with answering your hypothetical question. But I pointed out the twisted situation, because if the boater was prepared to be out on the water as required by Marine Law (boats require life jackets, or some other floatation device..and for all intent and purposes-they would include some rope too-but the life jacket would be sufficient for your scenario)..the boater would have been able to throw the line, (and / or) the floatation device to the human-while, at the same time saving their beloved dog. Put the dog in the boat, and if the human had not been able to pull themself aboard-the boater could do so. In these few short minutes-the drowning human would have at least been kept above water-hence, no longer drowning. But I'm not stupid enough to ever go out on the water without life-saving equipment. But, I would like to point out-being in the animal-medical profession, I can tell you that not all "dogs can swim". (as you stated in your hypotheitical scenario) But in your scenario-my family dog likes to swim..but something has gone terribly wrong...and I am faced with rescuing our beloved family dog of 10 yrs, or a stranger. I would save my dog. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 20, 2006 4:51 PM Yes, twisted by those that just dont want to answer the question...That was my point.... [ send green star]
Kathy G.	Well, Mike... April 20, 2006 8:25 AM Quite frankly, as a former boat owner-I would say that boater had NO business being in the water, if they were not prepared for the unforeseen.(rope,lifejackets,etc....) So, as you see-the situation can be "twisted" (as you seem to be inferring) no matter how you look at it. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 19, 2006 1:09 PM Its funny how people always want to add to possibility to save both.. Why not just answer the question... You have no rope.. No life jackets no nothing.... Only one cane be saved. Which would it be? A dog? Really? Over a human being? It goes beyond any rational thinking to save a dog over a human being.. Man, Woman , Child, doesnt matter.. A human is a human and a dog is a dog.... I would save the human.... As I suspect, would most people.. [ send green star]
Kathy G.	April 19, 2006 10:36 AM Thank you, Michele...thank you-for stating examples so eloquently, when I simply fall short of this. [ send green star]
Michelle M.	Che, in answer to the boat question, it's too contrived. April 19, 2006 10:23 AM Why can't I save both? You'll hate me, Che, but I would ultimately save my dog, and here's why. The dog would not be in deep water if it weren't for me. The human, on the other hand, made his own choices. I OWE the dog something I do not owe the human. I am responsible for him. He is like my child. Now, if it were actually a choice between the animal and a child, of course I would choose the child. The thing is, in order to envision a situation which forces you to choose between a beloved companion animal, and a human, you must envision a contrived situation. In reality, you probably could in fact save both, by throwing a rope to the human and allowing him to pull himself on board, while you swam out for the dog, or by steering the boat to one of them to grab, while swimming out for the other. I used to have a cat I loved, who would go running with me for the first two or three blocks. Because he sometimes ran on the opposite side of the street, people often didn't realize he was with me, and on one occasion someone literally drove up onto someone's lawn, to try to run over the cat. I ran across the street and threw myself in front of the car. If they killed Merlin they faced no consequences under the law, but if they drove their damn car into me they'd have a world of inconvenience. (This was back in the days when I was stupid enough to let cats outside.) Because some humans recognize NO responsibility to animals, those of us who do are sometimes driven to extremes. Another extreme example: a woman once unleashed her dog on my cat, in MY yard, on purpose, not realizing I was the cat's owner. The dog started to run into my garage, pursuing my cat. When I threw myself in the dog's path screaming and flailing until he ran to hide behind her legs, she demanded to know if my cat was on a leash. "No, but he's in his own garage," I answered, slamming the garage door. I turned back around still brandishing the branch, and asked, "Where's YOUR yard?" She put her dog back on the leash fast, and ran, and I never saw her again. I wouldn't really have hurt her or her dog, but I wanted to be sure she thought I would, and I wanted to make sure she was scared of coming back to my yard. Sometimes a human has to stand for the animals, because there are plenty of humans who think animal cruelty is their right. Standing against those humans isn't the same as standing against real human rights. [ send green star]
Tony M.	April 11, 2006 3:40 PM Yeah, I really wonder what kind of "humanitarian" work these people are doing... [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 2:10 PM How is THIS group helping humans?? How are YOU being proactive just being AGAINST issues? Petitions dont help? you sure of that? Raising awareness is what groups on care2 is about! wow..very impressive list you have there for helping humans! For most people this is just common sense, it is not about helping just a normal reaction..its about being decent. [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 2:05 PM you call ARA's HYPOCRITES & yourselves HUMANITARIANS..WHAT have YOU done for HUMANS?? what is so hard to understand about this question? What about the Gay question? Why are they not worthy of the same HUMAN rights as YOU?? Are some humans more worthy than others? Wow this is starting to read like the book "Animal Farm".. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 11, 2006 2:03 PM Starting a group on care2 doesnt help anyone.. Its like signing petitions on care2.. Its a waste of time.. You help your fellow man in many ways... Helping out a neighbor who may be going through a tough time.... Helping out in the hurricane and Tsunami relief efforts..etc.... The groups are already out there.... But some people would rather give their money to PETA and fund the killing of cats and dogs that PETA claimed would be cared for until adoption.. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 11, 2006 2:00 PM And we are not making fun of anyone... Simply pointing out that human life should be treasured over that of animals... That doesnt mean we dont like animals, it doesnt mean we are against helping animals.. It just means humans come first... [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 1:59 PM well there ya go Mike..YOU are the expert! Go start a group! Help the HUMANS!!! [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 11, 2006 1:57 PM "I see someone is against poverty..go start a group to raise minimum wage & standards for the poor,start a few petitions, go FIGHT for your cause!" Raising munimum wage would do nothing to end poverty.. Thats just basic economics.. [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 1:50 PM Chicken, Steak, anything that bleeds. wow Mike..quite an answer for your favorite foods..by the way.."humans" BLEED! LMAO!! Bon Appetite! [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 1:40 PM You sure of that Mike?? You have no idea who I am or what I do..do you honestly believe I can have so much empathy for animals & none for humans?? I have no sympathy or patience for ignorance or arrogance..this is a quality very common in most humans. Please do tell..what grous have YOU started to help humans? Why so against GAY MARRIAGE?? They are humans, are they not worthy of the same rights as you? [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 1:37 PM It amazes me how you HUMANITARIANS call others hypocrites! looking at most of your profiles I can find NOTHING that any of you do to help humans. Many are against this & that but, not much PRO HUMAN issues! By the way try being PRO-ACTIVE...how are you helping humans by making fun of ARA'S?? I see someone is against poverty..go start a group to raise minimum wage & standards for the poor,start a few petitions, go FIGHT for your cause! I am really curious to see what al of you have done to change the world for humans! [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 11, 2006 1:31 PM I dont want to give my dog up for adoption... I love my dogs.... Why would I give them up for adoption? I have done more to help my fellow man than you have Im sure.. [ send green star]
Sylvie G.	April 11, 2006 1:29 PM It doesnt matter if the dog is a family member... We are arguing here right now.. We probable disagree on about everthing... I would kill my dog to save your life.... Or any other human for that matter... Please, please give your dog up for adoption! By the way, What have YOU done to help humans? [ send green star]
Jan C.	allen, April 10, 2006 2:35 PM I agree Allen. I bet any of them would kill cockroaches in their houses, or drive rats out when they've made it their home. It is impossible to live life without hurting a animal or another living thing. the cute and cuddly animals get the most attention. Look at the amount of signatures the seal hunt protest recieved in comparision with any human rights protest. [ send green star]
Mike W.	Che April 10, 2006 2:18 PM "I hate Halliburton with a passion, but I'd love to make you a co-host. How about it?" Wow... I am honored... Would be my pleasure... [ send green star]
CheWorks L.	Allen April 10, 2006 2:03 PM Excellent post. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 2:00 PM Actually Mike, its common sense to most people of sound mind that human life comes before that of any animal. Using the same logic that animals are equal with humans would also mean that we should never drive because bugs will be killed splatting against our windshields, or that we cannot cut our lawns because little creatures will be killed in the process, or even walking down the sidewalk or through the woods, their compassion towards animals must only apply to the “cute & cuddly” ones. Animal rights extremists are the biggest hypocrites I’ve ever come across, every single day we “humans” (all of us) put ourselves before animals as part of our daily lives, and so-called “animal rights” activists are no exception, the only way possible to practice what they preach would to be to end their own existence. Human life should always be put before an animals, and to be here today speaking about this means each one of us here have already done that and continue to do so, only difference being is that some of us are honest about it while others hide behind some radical “feel good” deception of reality. [ send green star]
CheWorks L.	Mike April 10, 2006 1:41 PM I hate Halliburton with a passion, but I'd love to make you a co-host. How about it? [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 1:34 PM Thank goodness... I was starting to think I was the only one that felt that way.. I was getting worried.. [ send green star]
CheWorks L.	April 10, 2006 1:25 PM Why is it that so many animal rights activists always get on the defensive and start becoming offensive? The fact that someone would put any animal life in front of any human life gives me the creeps. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 12:47 PM Me too Jan... [ send green star]
Jan C.	April 10, 2006 12:37 PM Id still save a stranger [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 12:00 PM ok Sorry, I guess I combined the two questions. Thats my answer and Im sticking to it. Whether you like it or not. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 11:58 AM Since this was your answer.. 1- MY Kid 2- MY dog 3 - stranger Why did you answer that way when the original question didnt have aq dog? [ send green star]
Mike W.	Eles April 10, 2006 11:57 AM We argued for 30 mintutes and You were talking about my question.. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 11:57 AM oh no.. i didnt pay any attention to your question. I was answer the question at the top of this thread. Since that is what apparently this group was based on. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 11:56 AM I should make it clear that I refering to my question not the original question.... Again of course we would all save our children over a cat.... But what about a complete stranger? [ send green star]
Mike W.	Eles April 10, 2006 11:55 AM I was talking about the question I asked... After all that is what we argued about for 30 minutes right? [ send green star]
Mike W.	Katti April 10, 2006 11:54 AM The question had nothing to do with children.. Of course we would all save our children over our cats and dogs.(atleast I would hope).. It was a stranger and a dog.. No children.... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 11:53 AM No, Mike - look at the top of the thread: it says: I would like to put their theory into practice if their house was burning and they had to choose between their baby and their cat I put my child first, remember? [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 11:51 AM "I still say that even THIRD I would still try to save the stranger" The question didnt have a "third" It was real simple... Save the dog or the human.. You chose the dog.. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 11:49 AM "I can not see myself saving a drowning man, and putting me in danger." Wow.... I dont even know what to say to that.. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 11:47 AM "Can anyone give some solid proof of someone being in this predicament and lived to tell about it? If not, what is the point? Just to bash those with differing opinions?" No, The point was to find out how many people value the lives of animals over the life of a human... The way you did.. [ send green star]
Stephanie C.	April 10, 2006 11:26 AM You know, I think I would. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 11:24 AM You know, if I slept in the same bed as a man who went after a child, I would have sent him away, too. And if it were bad enough would you consider putting him down ? lol [ send green star]
Stephanie C.	April 10, 2006 11:19 AM You know, if I slept in the same bed as a man who went after a child, I would have sent him away, too. [ send green star]
Jan C.	April 10, 2006 11:17 AM I didnt mean it as a "theory" It was a simple analogy. Im just saying that I do think people's welfare, especially childrens welfare, comes before animals. [ send green star]
Stephanie C.	April 10, 2006 11:13 AM I had a great dane, who I loved, she slept in my bed with me, and took up most of it, and she went after a child. Once. And she now lives inside with a man and woman who don't have kids, and don't want kids around. I think what you did was make the choice that you had to make. I appreciate your honesty. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 11:11 AM I had a dog once that I adopted from an animal shelter (as an adult), at first it seemed like a great pet but one day he unexpectedly jumped at a young boy riding by on a bike and bite him pretty bad, I did not know the boy or why my dog attacked him, I did however have the dog put down after this incident. Why? 1st because I refuse to have an animal that would intentionally and without provocation attack a human (especially a child), 2nd because I refused to give the dog to another person leaving open the possibility that this could happen again to someone else, and 3rd because I’m not rich enough to afford a multi-thousand dollar law-suit that could have been filed against me. I have and will always love animals, however I will never put an animals life before a humans. [ send green star]
	Again, I ask... April 10, 2006 11:09 AM ELES X P. 11:00 AM The "theory" is nice and all but has this ever really happened? Can anyone give some solid proof of someone being in this predicament and lived to tell about it? If not, what is the point? Just to bash those with differing opinions? I find this "theory" so ridiculous. I still say that even THIRD I would still try to save the stranger. Doesnt the fact that I would still risk my own life to save a stranger, even third, hold any merit to this silly little "theory"??? [ send green star]
Stephanie C.	April 10, 2006 11:06 AM I KNOW MY ANSWER, I would call 911. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 11:05 AM Me too KATTI! Thats was the original question at the top and this thread and that is what I answered above yet I was still scrutinized for it! Go figure. [ send green star]
Stephanie C.	April 10, 2006 11:04 AM Well, a cat can leave the house on its own more easily than a baby. The question is too broad. I can not see myself saving a drowning man, and putting me in danger. The dog, I would not be putting me in danger to save, either. I have my kids to think about before any chance I take on anything. [ send green star]
Katii L.	That said, April 10, 2006 11:03 AM If my house were on fire I can't imagine I would even think of anything else before rescuing my children. But once I knew they were safe, I would absolutely take measured risk of my own life to rescue my furbabies!!! . [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 11:00 AM The "theory" is nice and all but has this ever really happened? Can anyone give some solid proof of someone being in this predicament and lived to tell about it? If not, what is the point? Just to bash those with differing opinions? [ send green star]
Katii L.	Depending on the human, April 10, 2006 11:00 AM there are some instances I'm certain I'd save the cat/dog first. The radical right wouldn't want me to choose between one of my 4 rescued cats and the president of the U.S. Would someone please let me prove I'm being completely honest here? . [ send green star]
Jan C.	April 10, 2006 10:55 AM I agree that human life is more important, If a house was on fire I'd save one person before I'd save a dozen dogs or cats. Thats just the way I feel though... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:50 AM Well you have your opinion and I have mine. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:48 AM Again... It is sad that you would think its just an opnion.. Human life is over that of an animal.. to put animals life over human life is wrong.. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:47 AM I raised both my dogs as well.... If my dog dies I can get another, if my son dies I cant replace him... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:47 AM Well you have your opinion and I have mine. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:46 AM No one said an animals life doesnt matter.... But human life comes first.. Or atleast it should.. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:45 AM A dog is easily replaced? Not my dog. I raised her. I put my love and nurturing insticts into her. A human can be replaced. There is a human born every second (or more). [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:44 AM Both human and animal are/have: Born from a womb Nurtured and delivered by their mothers suckle from the breast have hearts pumping blood feel pain thru a central nervous system show emotions of being scared, sad and happy have eardrums, 2 eyes, a nose and a mouth have livers, kidneys and bladders, have brains connected to a spine have ingrown family values are given a LIFE that matters to THEM [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:43 AM A dog is easily relaced.... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:39 AM omg - that is SICK! How could you think my beloved dog could be that easily replace? She does not speak ill of you or anyone. She does not abuse anyone like humans do. She does not steal, cheat, lie, sin or anything else evil that humans do. I feel sorry for you Mike. I would save your life too but in the right arm while my dog is in the left. I know you disagree, so let it be... [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:37 AM You can buy another certified companion animal.. You cant buy another human.. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:36 AM It doesnt matter if the dog is a family member... We are arguing here right now.. We probable disagree on about everthing... I would kill my dog to save your life.... Or any other human for that matter... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:35 AM Mike - I need my dog to survive. She is a certified companion animal. Without her I would get suicidal. In saving her, I would be saving my own life. Call that selfish if you want to. [ send green star]
Mike W.	Eles April 10, 2006 10:34 AM The stranger is human.... You know that right? My question didnt mention a child. You put your child in there... You put he life of a dog above a human life... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:33 AM Mike W. 10:32 AM It is NOT just an opinion... Its a fact..... LMFAO!!!!!!! [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:33 AM "So how can ARA's be selfish when they also care for animals and pay human's welfare checks? " YOU dont pay welfare checks... And I have already said two or three times You have NO choice but to pay taxes so you cant say "look how caring I am I pay taxes" You do it cause you have to not because you want to be charitable.. [ send green star]
	get it right Mike April 10, 2006 10:33 AM I put my human child first - HUMAN FIRST - get it???? Then my dog, because my dog has saved my life, my dog is my family member. I put a human FIRST I put an animal SECOND I put a stranger THIRD pay attention! [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:32 AM It is NOT just an opinion... Its a fact..... [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:31 AM "MIKE: I mean are you really saying that they are caring because they take care of themselves? No, read it again. Its in response to your claims about ARA's putting animals before humans. That claim is simply STUPID " Thats what you said.. You said ARAs dont put animals first because they take care of themselves first..... Thats absurd.... And You just admitted that the life of your dog means more to you than the life of a human being.. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:31 AM I said its wrong period and I still say that... And thats just your OPINION! YES Pay attention Mike! Why cant others have a differing opinion that you???? [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:30 AM MIKE: Selfish is only caring for yourself So how can ARA's be selfish when they also care for animals and pay human's welfare checks? [ send green star]
Mike W.	Eles April 10, 2006 10:29 AM You have to start making more sense.... I said its wrong period and I still say that... Putting animal life before human life is wrong... [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:28 AM No.. Pay attention here... Selfish is only caring for yourself... Putting human life over that of animals is not selfish.... No I dont abuse animals... I guess you had to try to throw that accusation out there though.. [ send green star]
Steve B.	right wing animal first April 10, 2006 10:28 AM Lots of people, including right wingers, put animals before humans -- at least some humans. Pity the person who gets in the way of a Rottweiler or a Pit Bull. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:28 AM EXACTLY ! Its just your opinion! So why is anyone with a differing opinion wrong? You said "ITS WRONG. PERIOD!" [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:27 AM MIKE: I mean are you really saying that they are caring because they take care of themselves? No, read it again. Its in response to your claims about ARA's putting animals before humans. That claim is simply STUPID [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:26 AM No I dont hink Im GOD... I know Im NOT GOD.... Its not just an opinion.. Putting the life of an animal over that of a human is wrong... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:25 AM LOL How hypocritical! YOU are selfish too then, putting only humans first. Do you abuse animals and thats why you feel so violated by ARA's? [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:25 AM What does taking care of yourself have to do with it..... Thats pure selfishness.... I mean are you really saying that they are caring because they take care of themselves? [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:24 AM MIKE: Thats wrong.. PERIOD.... Who are you, God? Thats only your (one person's opinion) Why cant other people have differing opinions than you? You also want to stop gay's from marrying the one they love? Again, who do you think you are? God? Youre way or no way? [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:24 AM And I noticed you had the word "MY" capitalized.... Atleast you achknowledge your views are selfish.. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:23 AM Still, you are twisting it. These ARA;s you are continually putting down have roofs over their heads, food on the table. They are putting themselves first no matter what theoretic question you put to them. Why cant you let them have their opinions like you have yours without making such a big todo about it? [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:23 AM Yes... You are wrong.... Its not about opinion...You just did in FACT put the life of an animal above a human life... Thats wrong.. PERIOD.... Noone asked about your child.... It doesnt matter that the man is a stranger.. The man is a human... The dog is a dog.. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:20 AM You cant tell me that there arent alot of animal activists out there that put animals above humans... They are out there... Just look at PETA.. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:20 AM I have answered it many times but still you would bash me for it. Its nothing new to me. You ARA Bashers will still think your opinion is the only right one. My dog has saved my life and I would return the favor, but not before my own human child. Of course, I would save my child - my flesh and blood - first but my dog before a human-stranger. My dog is a family member. I dont even know the stranger. They would come third. 1- MY Kid 2- MY dog 3 - stranger So, you still want to bash me for my family values? [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:19 AM No it doesnt... As I said you HAVE to pay taxes... You dont do it to be charitable... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:17 AM MIKE: And please dont give the I pay taxes crap... Well it might not mean anything to YOU but it makes your claims of us putting animals first sound pretty phuquing stupid. [ send green star]
Mike W.	Eles April 10, 2006 10:16 AM Why didnt you answer the question I asked in my first post? [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:16 AM "I dont bash you for holding only HUMAN life first." First is the key word there... We SHOULD put human life first... That doesnt mean I am for animal cruelty.. It simply means I will always put humans before animals... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 10:15 AM He sounds great, S T B. While some may call me "extreme" I have made a huge impact on people in my community. I go out and talk to the high school kids and I am still in awe and amazement at how they have opened their minds to a more humane lifestyle. [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 10:14 AM Read my profile again... It says nothing about hating gays but what does that have to do with anything we are talking about.. No one said you dont care about humans.. I said SOME (if not most) of you care more for animals... And please dont give the I pay taxes crap... You have no choice but to do that.. That doesnt mean anything... [ send green star]
Steve B.	real world April 10, 2006 10:09 AM In my neighborhood, one of the most effective animal rights activists is a crotchety old Bush Republican. He campaigns against factory farming for environmental and community reasons, and people listen to him. The extreme animal-first activists can't get anyone to listen to them. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 9:35 AM ohhh yea thats you there Mike.. the gay-hater. (looked at your profile) [ send green star]
	Prejudice ^ April 10, 2006 9:33 AM uhm, no read the post above.. how can we? We are TAXPAYERS! We give our hard earned dollars to help people on welfare and veterans etc. That is the most kindergarten claim ever....We value life.. that is where you are getting it confused. We simply value ALL LIFE and that includes non-humans. In case you havent noticed humans are the most infested species of earth. Many non-humans are endangered because of pathetic humans. You humanoids get it confused or purposely twist it to fit your agenda so you can bash us. I will hold ALL LIFE sacred and that includes animals and you have no right to tell me to do otherwise or scrutinize me (and other ARA's) for it. I dont bash you for holding only HUMAN life first. So let it be.... [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 9:29 AM Alot of you DO put animals before humans... [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 9:25 AM ok- sorry for my attitude above - I just find it shocking that a group was actually started to bash us ARA's with this ridiculous claim. Even Freediver is for some Animal Welfare as I have seen him advocate for sea turtles. I just find this so ridiculous, it seems like just a group to bash those of us who wish to help the helpless. [ send green star]
	April 10, 2006 9:17 AM Are you kidding? You all are really going to keep claiming this Animals before Human rhetoric? Do you not realize that all us ARA's are TAXPAYING CITIZENS? We help humans first by being tax payers! Get a grip! We house, cloth and feed ourselves before writing letters to help animals. This is so phucking stupid I cant believe you whiners taking it this far! [ send green star]
Mike W.	April 10, 2006 9:02 AM I asked the following questij in another group and was shocked at the answer I recieved... Everyone in the group answered the same way.. Here is the question.. If you were on a boat with the family pet, lets say a dog. The dog has been in the family for 10 years. Its loved, its just like one of the family.... The dog decides to jump off the boat. We all know dogs can swim and your dog really likes to swim but something is wrong... It is splashing around and not doing well... Its going to drown... You start to jump in to save your beloved dog when you notice a man on just off the other side of the boat... He too is drowning.. You dont know this man he is a complete stranger.... You have no life jackets and you can only save one of them the other will drown... WHich do you save, the man, or the dog??????? [ send green star]
Steve B.	not mutually exclusive April 10, 2006 5:51 AM A conscientious person makes the world better for both humans and other life. The bummer is that there is still suffering and death, no matter how hard we try to prevent them. I share Freediver's sentiment that people living closer to nature do not go to abstract intellectual extremes about these things. [ send green star]
Freediver O.	April 10, 2006 1:50 AM Hi Che. Thanks for starting this group. This seems to be a recurring issue on care2 with the radical animal libbers and their warped values. I put it down to mostly city people becoming to detached from the fundamentals of human existence. It is only when your impact on the earth is completely hidden from you that you can pretend that the life of an animal can be compared to that of a human and still get along. Of course, the Indians (forget what religion) have an interesting take on things that does seem to work to an extent, but there are subtle differences between that and what you see here on care2. [ send green star]
Sarah T.	April 10, 2006 1:38 AM Is this a group for the converted? [ send green star]
Moonfly T.	Hello Che... April 10, 2006 12:59 AM I love animals too, but sorry I cannot debate this with you because I agree. God doesn't ask us to sacrifice ourselves for our animals! [ send green star]
Dillon M.	April 10, 2006 12:54 AM Would you enable HTML, so the print will be larger? Thanks. [ send green star]
Dillon M.	April 10, 2006 12:54 AM You may enjoy this link: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ [ send green star]
CheWorks L.	hello all humanitarians April 10, 2006 12:13 AM I am peeved at the sheer hypocrisy of some animal rights groups that say they put animals first. personally, I would like to put their theory into practice if their house was burning and they had to choose between their baby and their cat. Furthermore, I would like to say that I love animals. But the problem is that I put humanity first. i welcome proper discussions from opponents as well, so long as the debating is fair and just. [ send green star]