What? You completely missed my point. When animals are hungry, they eat. When they're thirsty, they drink, etc. They don't take into account the suffering of other animals. If there's a weak link in their pack, they're the ones ending up getting killed. That ensures the survival of their species. The strong mate and pass on their genes, the weak die off. Not one person would argue that humanity is capable of some truly awful things, yet we are capable of some truly compassionate and awe-inspiring things as well.
By your logic, you'd rather save a dog than your average human given a choice?

Lack of empathy is a more salient sociopathic trait. You can call me doctor as well. But technically only after my Ph.D. is awarded this spring.

Would depend on the human. My four Greyhounds get the first seats out in our Cherokee 6.

Haha, I wouldn't argue with you there. I'd take my dog AND 2 cats before most people I deal with on a daily basis.

Incorrect, there is always charity.

Uh huh (sarcasm)

Sympathy, I doubt empathy is in his cards, usually it imbues humility, Mr. Future Dr.

The average human being? Hell yes, I'd take the dog. They are more worthy than the average scum we call humans. Look at how we massacre our own people. Over nothing. And we're cruel. We torture and maim animals mercilessly. Look at the dog meat trade in China. Look at how these people will literally take a blowtorch to these dogs while they are alive. They celebrate horrific cruel death. Humans have done this forever to each other. Draw and quarter. Ever heard of that? How about other medieval tortures. We as humans are the scourge of this planet. Yes, many are compassionate and would never knowingly hurt another animal or person, but, in general, most humans on this planet care only about one thing - themselves, and have little to no compassion for other living creatures. And we think we're the greatest thing since sliced bread to hit this planet. Smartest? Maybe. Best? Not by a long shot.

So yea, I'd take my dogs before some other nameless average human. Hell yea.

Obvioulsy you've never seen a house cat with a mouse/bird/chipmunk.

The planet is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas! :D

-- George Carlin

I enjoy our animals, will always take care of them when able, but I'll always take the people. An animal is just that, an animal, no ability to reason other than be loyal to the next person that hands them a scrap of food.

People on other hand can do great things when encouraged, trained and supported, just as many of us have been. We can live without animals, not so much without each other.

People first....especially if you have to make a split-second decision, as in hitting an animal to save a human. EVERY time.

The only reason to hit the animal is because the animal can't sue you if you hit them.

And given the choice between saving a dog and saving a human, I'd save the dog 99 times out of 100.

I hope for your sake that your fellow Man doesn't have to make that same decision towards you if you're ever in harms way.

That definition covers a LOT of people, too: eg, no ability to reason, completely dependent on handouts of food, welfare, etc.


Animals can also do many great things when they are trained and supported. Blind assist dogs, deaf assist dogs, all for human beings. In fact, animals like dogs are SO good at their job, that people exploit them via FAKE "service animal" jackets and documents to take them everywhere for free. Or pay $79 online to get ESA documentation and now no one can question it.

Jetblue brought a bunch (16 I think) airplanes to FLL and MCO to evacuate just crews and their families positive space. Yes we cancelled flights like everyone else. But I think they are handling this storm very well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let me guess, you don't have children.....

Or eat meat...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regardless your feeling of children, I like dogs better. Most kids are self centered *******s. But I bet you think yours aren't.

Yes, I'm cynical about humans, kids included. Some humans are awesome. Most are not. 53 years on this planet has proven that to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We are a self centered, cruel, despicable species as a whole.

Before you go writing me off as a miserable cynic, I'll let you know I'm a happy person around those few people I consider awesome human beings - those people who I call my friends, and my lovely wife of 30 years, an animal lover to the core. I also LOVE every moment of my time with my dogs. My dogs prove to me continuously that there is good in this world, even if it generally doesn't emanate from humans, or even despite us humans.

If, in 53 years, you have concluded that most humans are not "awesome", I submit that you have not looked very hard. In groups we are indeed capable of some despicable acts, but as individuals, the overwhelming majority of people are awesome. Perhaps you should get out a bit more often, talk to people, explore other cultures and other parts of the world.

Someone gave me some good advice once.
If you met one A hole today that guy was probably an A hole. If most everyone you met today was an A hole, then it's you.
The fact that you are basically saying you would save a dog over a child is pretty ridiculous and I call BS

There is probably a reason no one wants to have kids with him.

Before getting too upset by a post, we should remember that Internet forums are like Mardi Gras for some people: a chance to put on a mask and become an outrageous character without suffering consequences. It's not reality. ;)

My kids are adults. Were they ever selfish bleeps, sure, still are sometimes. So are you, I'm sure!

Either way, a human wins over an animal every damn time.

Btw, would you want your wife, parents, siblings or friends killed to spare an animal? If not, you're a hypocrite of the highest order.

Sooo..... Something something..... Hurricane?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

When I see someone beating up another human with a "No Hate" sign (that actually happened), I'm gonna save the dog over him. In fact I'd save an animal over most of the idiots I see on the news in a protest. Situation dependent. If I see an alligator or a dog attack a 3 yr old boy, I'd do what I could to save the boy.

So those who disagree with your politics deserve to be beaten and killed?

Dude you are a POS.

It's like when someone says they like eating C, and your response is OMG you hate eating Q! I guess that makes sense to someone like you. Nowhere did I say someone deserves to be beaten or killed for their politics or political views. The conversation was in regards to saving an animal like a dog over humans. Which somehow is in a hurricane thread.

Liberal Millennial/Antifa/Hate group question of the year.

We shouldn't be running over people or dogs, cats are ok though.

Other than humans, surplus killing has been observed among zooplankton, damselfly naiads, predaceous mites, martens, weasels, honey badgers, wolves, orcas, red foxes, leopards, lions, spotted hyenas, spiders, brown and black and polar bears, coyotes, lynx, mink, raccoons, dogs, and house cats.

And humans have the capacity for rational thought, regardless if we use it of not.

Now back to the hurricane...

I still think it's funny that people think if we only drive teslas and give up meat that the climate won't change and there will be no more hurricanes.

Stop listening to al gore.

I don't think anyone's saying that. But since the very word 'climate change' seems to throw Trumpniks into a religious, mouth-frothing sort of hysteria, keep on believing what you believe. I'll rely on science.

Well the science disagrees with you.

And instead of calling everyone trumpkin just say the majority that matter.

It's interesting to see the 180 on creditable threats. When we agree with it, like in terms of building up the military, making more weapons, spending more money on defense, we don't question it. When we don't agree with it, when scientists who have poured over the data are able to make the correlations between CO2 levels since the industrial revolution, we are in total denial, because we simply don't like the answer.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.

Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?

Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.

Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?

The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.

But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.

Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.

So use terrorism as fear/proponent to enact gas/oil changes. :rolleyes:

I'm confused. Do you disagree with his theory on geopolitical economics? Or do you literally have no counterpoint and prove that you have fallen into the sheep mindset of regurgitating what your political masters say on what should be a wholly scientific issue? I can't imagine walking into a room of scientists and having the absolute inane narrow minded stupidity to tell them they are all wrong. Do you not realize what this makes you look like?

Be true to yourself and say you don't like the economic hit we will take trying to wean ourselves off fuel. But don't sit there and pretend you know better than a body of folks whose entire academic focus is this very subject. It's stupid

All of this is thrown out the window when you realize carbon can be a renewable resource, but it has a political barrier standing against it on both sides. China is leading the way in this technology, and we will likely be going into conflict with them to prevent them from achieving it.

No, I'm just against fear grenades being tossed for various agendas. "You're supporting bin Laden every time you fill up your gas tank." Yeah ok.