NY Shelter Dog Needs Viagra Donations For Heart Condition

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

KMD, you weren't being an asshole until you made that Golden Corral comment.

Saya, there are humans who do exactly what I said, saving thousand of human and/or animal lives. No animal can do that.

Look, a tiger doesn't think the life of another tiger is of equal value to the life of a gazelle ... or a human baby. So there's that level.

I don't think the life of a member of my family is of equal value to the life of a stranger. That's another level.

Given the choice to save the life of an unknown human versus an unknown animal, I'm going to choose the human because the human life has greater value to me. That's another level.

And you had to dig pretty deep (a child rapist vs. a puppy) to come up with a scenario where I would chose the animal vs the human, so again, in general and on principal that actually proves my point.

Not really, I'd have to say if it was a absolute stranger and my own cat in a fire, my instinct would be to save the cat. I dunno if I really would since its very extremely improbable that it would come to it, but as a hypothetical I can honestly say that I'd protect my own family, which includes my companion animals.

And one final thought. A human can be a right royal bastard and yet come to a point in their lives when they change and dedicate themselves to do good. It's not common, but it does happen. We can look at a human, and even if we can look at the whole of their past behavior right up to the present moment, we cannot know what their potential for the future is. A person can transform themselves at any point in their life (quit being in a gang, get off of drugs, go to school, get a degree in medicine, dedicate the remainder of their life to helping others.) It does happen. When we look at an animal, we can measure their potential fully, and without human intervention we know exactly what they can and cannot do for the rest of their lives.

Potential of what? This is extremely subjective as you cannot measure the worth of anyone's life. Ever in high school ethics class been given the scenario where you have a bomb shelter, they give you a list of people and you choose who gets to live and who gets to die in the event of a bomb dropping? Different people will choose different groups of people based on who they think are the "best" choices, like most people wouldn't choose the old priest over the young kid because the priest is old and lived his life, but a religious person might think that the priest has devoted his life to a good cause and should get to live, and the survivors might need the comfort of religion. You can't measure the worth of a human life, so how do we even measure the life of animals and then compare them? Its just a perspective of us vs. them, that its better to help your own before you help others.

And again, a totally useless argument that has nothing to do with donating pills to a dog.

[Ben Lahnger]

Because a child rapist is nowhere close to being an average human being.

[Ben Lahnger]

You know, I've already said that people can choose what they spend their money on, including buying the viagra for the dog.

But if I had to choose between saving my dog whom I love very much, or a completely strange human in the fire scenario you listed, I would choose the human. I would not be happy about having to make that choice, but it wouldn't even be close.

[Saya]

Thats your own personal decision, other people don't feel that way and its understandable that they do.

[Pineapple_Juice]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

I hear that, but it is irrational and irritating. They're not equal, regardless of how some people "feel".

...How can you say that with such absolution, like because you personally believe it, it has to be universally right? How conceited of you.

[Ben Lahnger]

I'm not telling other people they have to believe it to be true. But I believe it to be so, regardless of what they think or feel. Absolutely. It's not conceit, but think what you will.

[korinna5555]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Look, a tiger doesn't think the life of another tiger is of equal value to the life of a gazelle ... or a human baby. So there's that level.

I'M A 700-LB TIGER. RAWRRRRR!!!

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly

I have to disagree with you there.

I mean, what makes that dog's life any less valid than yours? I would hope that if I needed it somebody wouldn't mind paying 20 dollars a day to keep me alive, even though I do little to nothing for society, just like that dog.

Dude... that's the dumbest fucking thing in this whole thread right now. A dog's life is not equal to a human's life. If you think so, you're either a liberal pussy or an idiot.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Not everyone feels that way.

And not everyone is that smart.

[KontanKarite]

Anyone on this thread who SERIOUSLY thinks the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person on any level is a total dipshit.

In the off chance that I could save a puppy or Hitler in a burning building, I'd just let the damn building fall on both of them. Do you know why? Because in that off chance, I would make the better choice and save my own ass.

Like it or not, human life is more important than animal life and if you disagree with that very basic FACT, because it is a fact, you're an asshole. In the picture of survival of a species, a dog is going to choose its own over people, if it can even make a decision like that at all. The idea that all life on this planet is equal is a HUMAN construct and idea spawned from tree hugging movies like Fern Gully. It's a stupid idea.

[Alan]

You guys are assuming value is something inherent in subjects.
It's NOT.
Value is assigned through interaction and relationships. I SHOULD be entitled to care more about my pets than my neighbor six houses from mine. I don't know anything about that guy. My pets love me. My cat stays at my side when she sees I'm stressed out. My dog likes annoying me like a little brother.
Just as well, I SHOULD be entitled to prefer spending twenty dollars on taking my pretty girl to a dinner and a film, instead of spending it on one more day for this dog's life when I feel it would be better to take awesome care of him, let him know what warmth is, but ultimately putting him to sleep humanely and well fed.
Saying that human life is more important than animal life is just as fucking stupid as saying the opposite; because it stems from the stupidly absurd premise that it's one or the other. It's not. We have the capability of connecting with anything, and though we should acknowledge that our attachments are arbitrary, it is hypocritical and borderline fascist to condemn someone for attaching to something instead of attaching to your attachments.

[Ben Lahnger]

Value isn't only assigned through interaction and relationships. Value is also established by societal judgment.


In the United States, if your house is on fire and you and a dog are in it, the firemen are going to rescue you first, because that is a societal wide value that is placed on a human live being worth more than an animal life. And even if you plead with them to save the dog first, they are going to rescue you first. Because (regardless of how vocal a tiny minority of people are about this) the society holds that human life in general holds more value than animal life.

Plus, you just know if they saved the dog, they'd get sued and 8 or 9 or more jurors are going to find them criminally negligent for not saving the human first.

[Alan]

Societal standards are based on societal relationships. The firemen have no personal value for either of them, so yeah, they will go for the person because they would rather save a person as that is the one with the higher social value.
Still, value is not on the person, it is in the relationship of fireman to person or fireman to dog. It's just an amendment to what I said, not an argument.

[Ben Lahnger]

Fuck! You argumentative bastard! You just agreed with me that society places a higher value on an unknown human over an unknown animal, and you're still arguing that this proves YOUR point?!?

[Alan]

How about because your point only apparently works with firemen and not with the people that argue against you here?
THAT'S why you prove my point. Social value does not mean absolute value, so saying that an animal's life has less worth than a human life is stupid.

[HavelockV]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Edit to respond to your last post: with health insurance that condition could possibly be rather inexpensive and plenty of people do have insurance for their pets. Many animals with chronic conditions are able to find loving homes. I believe that epilepsy is one of the most common conditions that adopted dogs have and that is something that requires daily medication but most owners aren't bothered by this, I don't see how a heart condition is any different.

What are the medical expenses associated with caring for an epileptic dog?

Medication:

The two most common medications used to treat seizures in dogs are Phenobarbital and Potassium Bromide. Either of these drugs can be used as mono-therapy or they can be used together. Both of these drugs are inexpensive and easy to administer. Phenobarbital will average between $4.00 and $10.00 per month. Potassium Bromide will average between $7.00 and $17.00 per month. The costs will depend on the amount of the drugs needed to maintain control.

Laboratory tests:

If your dog is on medication for seizures the blood serum levels of the medication should be tested every 6 to 12 months. The costs of the lab work will vary from veterinary clinic to veterinary clinic but will average about $35.00 for Phenobarbital and $50.00 for Potassium Bromide levels.

For dogs taking Phenobarbital to control seizures a chemistry panel should be done every 4 months to be sure that the liver is functioning properly. The cost will average about $30.00.


Quoted from: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/epilepsy.htm

A far cry from $20.00 per day, I should think. Furthermore, I would assume that the pet insurance vendor would examine the dog's medical history and requirements and charge accordingly. The costs of keeping an epileptic dog would presumably be much lower than what would be required to maintain the dog in this story.

[Still Jack]

My opinion on the whole value of life dilemma is that every being is equal and that equality is 0. We die and rot the same way as animals. Just because we happen to be the dominant species at the moment doesn't make human life worth any more than animal life.

[KontanKarite]

You know what... you people are clearly insane. Not all ideas are equal and neither are beliefs. Animal life being equal to human life is bullshit compared to humans being inherently more valuable to animals. Clearly the value of human life being worth more than animal life is a BETTER idea.

But despite your insanity, you can rest assured that in the most insane situation that I'd have to kill a highly endangered animal to safe your ridiculous insane ass, I'd do it without batting an eye.

We are the dominant species on this planet and well... I'm totally okay with that.

[Solumina]

Different people assign values differently, is that really so hard to understand?



Havelock I didn't intend to find an identical scenario, just to demonstrate that people don't seem to mind adopting animals with health problems, even when there are healthy animals available. I get that this is not something that you understand but plenty of people spend loads of money on pets, whether that is in the form of medical expenses, toys, special foods, extra deposits and/or rent, pet vacations, or the actual pet.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Different people assign values differently, is that really so hard to understand?

That is a bloody copout. While true, it doesn't mean animal life is equal to human life, it just means some people are bleedin' heart assholes who have a hard ass time prioritizing.

Fuck that dog. Put the damned thing to sleep and be done with it.

[Solumina]

Why put her to sleep? Keeping her alive isn't hurting anyone or anything.

[HavelockV]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Havelock I didn't intend to find an identical scenario, just to demonstrate that people don't seem to mind adopting animals with health problems, even when there are healthy animals available. I get that this is not something that you understand but plenty of people spend loads of money on pets, whether that is in the form of medical expenses, toys, special foods, extra deposits and/or rent, pet vacations, or the actual pet.

Firstly, I am not opposed to people adopting pets with health problems. I am merely questioning whether it is logical to continue to offer an animal for adoption when the medical condition reaches a certain degree of severity.

Secondly, it is irritatingly presumptuous of you to assume that because I seem to think of the cost-benefit analysis of adopting an unwell animal, I am somehow uninformed as to the lengths to which people will go to pander and cater to their pets. I will readily admit that I do not own pets myself, but I have family members and friends who do and some of them dote upon their animals quite lavishly.

Thirdly, I will concede and acknowledge that it is highly likely that a person who has owned a pet for some time, has become attached to it, and harbors strong feelings of affection for it will expend any amount of money, time, and effort to nurse it back to health when infirmity or illness strikes. I have seen it myself, for example, when my tutor put out thousands of dollars for surgeries to try and save her beloved elderly, ailing cat. However, I have a hard time imaginine a similar response for an animal who is, as others have mentioned in this thread, essentially unknown to a would-be adopter and one of many at an adoption facility. They might feel sorry for the animal, but they will most likely balk at the expenses and risks involved.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by HavelockV

They might feel sorry for the animal, but they will most likely balk at the expenses and risks involved.

This right here is what I was talking about when I said that it seems like you can't understand what I am talking about. Some people do adopt animals with costly medical problems so there is no reason to not allow the animal to have a chance to be adopted.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Anyone on this thread who SERIOUSLY thinks the life of an animal is equal to the life of a person on any level is a total dipshit.

This pretty much sums up my position on this thread.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

That is a bloody copout. While true, it doesn't mean animal life is equal to human life, it just means some people are bleedin' heart assholes who have a hard ass time prioritizing.

Fuck that dog. Put the damned thing to sleep and be done with it.

Fine, prove that human life is equal to animal life. You can't because its a very subjective value, I can't prove my life is more equal than yours or vice versa. Even if you were to leave Hitler and the puppy in the fire, it just puts you on level with Jack saying that both lives are equal at zero worth.

So, just because a stupid argument erupted because bleeding heart assholes pulled the "but 20 dollars a day could save children with malaria" card, without regard that from now on whenever someone dyes their hair a retarded colour or buys a big screen tv we can say the exact same thing, you get so utterly offended you think the dog, who isn't hurting anyone by taking donated pills, should die? Somehow I don't think Alan or Solumina are the insane dipshits here.