8 ms·
There was a comment that is now removed that said: > Spoken like someone who's never lost family. in reply to the parent's comment that said: > You killed so
by throwaway713 8y ago
There was a comment that is now removed that said:
> Spoken like someone who's never lost family.
in reply to the parent's comment that said:
> You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family."
My comment will probably be flagged as well, but fine, I'll sacrifice some karma to show my support. I lost my mother due to cancer when I was eleven and I personally find it offensive when someone tells me they know "what it is like" because they lost a pet.
Sure, there are people who have horrible family members that mistreated or abused them, so the loss of a dog means more than the loss of that relative, but if you're going to claim that it is comparable to lose a human being that meant everything to you because an animal died, then we just have a totally different set of moral axioms and are fundamentally incapable of seeing the world in the same way.
- Sholmesy 8y agoAs someone who has lost friends and family members, as well as pets, it feels the same. I see this dichotomy quite a bit in the public discourse, regarding dogs especially, where 1/2 the world treats dogs as family and the other half thinks they are some play toy/object. We have been living with wolves/dogs for a long time now, we're responsible for how they have evolved, and part of that is how they have evolved to bond with humans. It's not surprising to me that losing a dog feels like losing a child for some people.
- throwaway713 8y agoI appreciate you responding and explaining your perspective, even though we may disagree on the issue. > 1/2 the world treats dogs as family Do you think that half the world, if given the choice between saving either their dog or a stranger's child in a disaster situation (e.g. a house fire), would choose their dog?
- Sholmesy 8y agoI have family friends who were unable to conceive. They have had border collies all their lives, who were all astonishingly clever (not just "tricks", but just with intuition etc). These dogs are basically their children. The "child" part of your hypothetical makes it difficult to know. I think they would save their own dog over an adult, however they are both very compassionate and love kids so I imagine it would be difficult to fight that human impulse to protect a child.
- tallanvor 8y agoIt wouldn't surprise me at all. My dog is part of my family. She comes before any stranger.
- throwaway713 8y agoI can't argue with an opinion, but this is just mind-blowing to me. Judging by everyone else's comments, it doesn't appear like yours is an isolated opinion either. I'm just at a total loss for words. I had no idea so many people value animal life above human life.
- msl 8y agoWhat if they value all animals' (that is, including humans') lives equally? Would you rather save someone close to you or a stranger?
- ikurei 8y agoI don't think (yeah, please answer if I'm wrong) that's true for anyone. You may value a dogs life as much as a human, some do. But those same people don't go around with extreme care to avoid stepping on an ant, and would kill insects if they where an annoyance or risk to health. So they do stablish a difference between some animals, where ants are in a different tier than dogs, but humans and dogs are together in the same tier. Personally I don't think it makes any sense. I do value animal lives greatly, and between a dog and a man I might save the dog in a split-second gut decision (and regret it later). I reckon many people use feelings to guide (or greatly inform) their morality. Which might or might not be that bad to be honest, I don't really have a solid basis for my morality either.
- tallanvor 8y agoI don't think you understand the unconditional love that a dog has for its owner, and the commitment good people make when they choose to get one. For me it is moral and ethical that I put the safety and well being of my dog above people. That doesn't mean that I don't care about others, and it doesn't mean that I would ignore trying to save them once my dog was safe, but it is what is right for me.
- barrkel 8y agoThere would be more social opprobrium to save the pet, and the grief would undoubtedly be greater if the pet died instead. If nobody was looking, I think most would save their pet. Unknown unrelated people simply aren't very important. Wars would be impossible if it were otherwise.
- scarejunba 8y agoInteresting. Do you ever test your hypotheses? Here is some evidence regarding your "most" claim. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201306/would-you-save-puppy-or-child-burning-building%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog...
- adar 8y agoTest his hypothesis how, exactly? By putting a child and a dog into a disaster situation?
- scarejunba 8y agoExamples available in the link in the comment you responded to. In order to attempt to falsify a hypothesis you don't need to necessarily run a direct experiment on it. In fact, few things are testable like that. Anyway, I think I have what I need to know as to how he tests his ideas.
- barrkel 8y agoSo 40% admit that they would save their own dog over a foreign tourist, when asked. Now, ask yourself how many would save their own dog if they weren't being asked or observed (and implicitly judged)? I consider the link fairly strong evidence for my claim.
- scarejunba 8y agoVery interesting knowledge acquisition technique. Thank you for sharing.
- mynameishere 8y agoDude, you're arguing with crazy people. Just forget it.
- Sholmesy 8y agoIt's not constructive to call people crazy =\ This is a fairly divisive issue (what my original comment was about), and further ostracizing either side of the debate is not productive.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- harimau777 8y agoThis situation probably doesn't apply to people on HN, but as a thought experiment: In a pre-industrial society or one where rule of law has broken down I could see a situation where the labor and protection provided by an animal made them a part of the family in a very real way. In those circumstances I could see that the life of an animal might be much more important than the life of an outsider; even if only in a strictly practical sense. Note that I'm not necessarily trying to argue whether that would be correct in a moral sense.
- throwaway-dogs 8y agoYes, absolutely. I know I personally would. Now, if it was between a stranger dog and a stranger child I'd choose the child.
- andrepd 8y agoThen you are a terrible and deeply selfish person.
- throwaway-dogs 8y agoWhy? This may be how you feel, but you have no reasoning to back it.
- andrepd 8y agoI do. See my other post.
- belorn 8y agoChange that scenario just so slightly and I would bet that answers would significant change: Do you think a dog owner would risk their own life (to varied degrees) to rescue a family dog if their house started burning?
- Sholmesy 8y agoThis is an excellent pivot of the original question, and I think the obvious answer for most answers is yes.
- glangdale 8y agoI'm going to say after reading some of the other responses that there's something seriously fucked up about the idea that you would save your dog. If you even, for a minute, thought that saving a dog with a life expectancy of 10-20 years tops living as a pet for someone's indulgence is remotely comparable to saving a child - who might live to 80 as an independent being - give yourself an uppercut. I'm a dog lover and love my dog, but I would sacrifice her in a heartbeat for a child - any child, regardless of whose it is.
- SCHiM 8y agoThis is exactly it! Why don't people feel that they should sacrifice themselves and carry their grief and their emotional loss, and save the child? I agree with some others in this thread, those that would save their pet are selfish beyond my wildest imagination. To save themselves the grief of losing a subjective family member they sacrifice human life for what is to outside observers just an animal. Be as you want to be, but in this I feel justified in judging those people most harshly indeed.
- glangdale 8y agoAlso, while this is a wild hypothetical, a lot of uncritical celebrators of their dog's apparently human-like right to life and liberty seem overly willing to make the choice between (a) a hypothetical threat to their dog's continued liberty and (b) an unconscionable threat to the well-being of other people - kids, particularly - around them. Everyone who has a dog of some sort of 'questionable breed' who doesn't do everything in their power to socialize and control said breed is gambling with the lives of the animals, humans (kids and adults) around them. The demented sentimentalizing of All Sacred Canine Life has cost a few humans theirs instead.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sctb 8y agoSometimes these sorts of hypotheticals lead to interesting discussion and insights, but other times we get this sort of thing. Sparks are just sparks, but we should be careful because of the possibility of utterly bleak flamewars such as this.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago>>As someone who has lost friends and family members, as well as pets, it feels the same. No doubt to many it feels the same. Others may feel that their pet is more valuable than the entire world. But let's be realistic, if a driver kills your dog you will not be awarded $x-$xx million. Now if they run over grandma or worse, a child...
- Sholmesy 8y agoSure, that's a financial/legal thing though, which is fairly detached from human emotion.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago>>Sure, that's a financial/legal thing though, which is fairly detached from human emotion. That's the "It happened. We're sorry, how do we go from here..." thing. At some point it has to be valued by others. I also said that emotion is relative.
- sigi45 8y agoWould be nice if people would be less selfish. We bread dogs to a form where there pure existens is our contact with them. We bread them in forms and colors as we see fit. We bread them in forms which makes it hard for them to breath, which gives them cancer with a high rate. We should stop buying dogs because we like dogs. We should stop putting them in small appartments and get a service for handling our dogs because its inconvinient.
- barrkel 8y agoDo we really want to create a hierarchy of grief, to say other people's pain is invalid? I know that losing a pet hurts a lot more than losing a grandparent or aunt or uncle when they're not ever-present in your life. I have not lost parents yet, but at this remove in my life they are in many ways just people I used to know - my personality and values are quite different to them and I find it hard to empathize with their life choices. I think losing them would be similar to losing the little kitten I reared from a few weeks old. The actual relationship with my parents is mostly dead already, because it's been decades since we were close. It's not about losing a human Vs losing an animal. It's about losing a relationship that is part of your daily life.
- zius 8y agoI wholeheartedly agree with you. Maintaining some artificial hierarchy of grief (akin to 'but I loved mom more than you') is toxic at best. I lost my dad at age 20 and in the months after was mostly surrounded by friends that had no idea what losing a parent felt like. In their attempts, I never felt I had the right to discredit their grief as being lesser, be it for an ex-girlfriend or a dog they grew up with.
- zimablue 8y agoYou already maintain a hierarchy of grief. If you found that a colleague was inconsolable because they'd snapped a nail, you'd judge them and respond differently than if their parent was dead. It's also not just based on how "normal" the grief is, there are plenty of very religious people who would be very upset at a relative being gay. The question "do we want to maintain a hierarchy of grief" is absurd, there is not one human alive who doesn't already do that on some level.
- hvidgaard 8y agoGrief is subjective, there is no hierarchy, except for the individual.
- adriand 8y agoA wise and correct perspective. Grief is an emotion and emotions are inherently subjective. Our cat died two years ago and although we've had a few cats over the years, this cat was special. I was totally unprepared for the grief and pain that I, and the rest of my family members, experienced. I didn't feel like I could really even talk about it with people outside the family because it sounded ridiculous to so many people with the view of "it's just a cat!" But not this cat, and not to us. My aunt died the same year. She was my mom's best friend and growing up I was at her house, hanging with my cousins, all the time. She was a total sweetheart: a kind, goodhearted, sweet woman with a heart of gold. When she passed I grieved, but although I feel genuinely ashamed to write this, the level of emotional intensity - the raw pain - did not reach the same level as when our cat died. Grief over the loss of a beloved being does not come from a rational calculus of that being's worth.
- Beltiras 8y agoThrowaway account has Karma to burn?
- golergka 8y ago> comparable to lose a human being Of course it's comparable. The result of comparison is what matters - and among those people who downvoted these two comments, there's not a single one who thinks that these two are equal. However, it's reasonable to assume that while they differ significantly, they're on the same order of magnitude - say, a tenfold difference.
- madaxe_again 8y agoAh, we’re playing grief top trumps, are we? How about losing a child? Have you done that? Well, I find it offensive that you can say you experienced grief over the loss of your mother. Until you’ve lost a child you can’t say you know grief... What a daft stance. Grief is grief. What someone feels is entirely subjective. I think you might want to consider counselling, as you seem to be harbouring some real anger over what was presumably a long time ago. I know it’s not easy to deal with the untimely death of a parent - been there - but lashing out at others and holding your grief above theirs isn’t a healthy mechanism.
- popnroll 8y agoYep, lack of empathy is usually disguised as politically correct (fake) empathy.
- sametmax 8y agoSuffering is subjective, contextual and personnal. Suffering linked to attachment to something can be great, not matter the something. It's the attachment that matters, and it's not produced by the nature of the thing, but by the experience the person had of the thing. It's created suffering anyway, so the amount you generate is up to you, and is not related to the loss.
- pas 8y agocreated? well, yeah, oxytocin is a hell of a drug. sure, you can shut it down, process it, ride it out, walk it off and whatever, but if there was attachment, memories, associations with places, events, other persons, or even with music, activities, etc. it can and usually will get emotional. Some people are quick to get over it, some will die - literally - grieving.
- HeavyStorm 8y agoI really don't belive the parent meant it like that. He said "like", which means similar, and to many people it is. Losing a cousin is different to losing a father, which is different to losing a grandfather. And all that is completely different to losing a child, right? And everyone responds differently. So you took offense because you decided he was comparing dogs with mothers. Certainly he was not; and that was not the point, after all.
- pas 8y agocomparing to family, as usually a dog is pretty much part of it. and in comparison a lot more family (a lot more like a mother) than a stranger on TV hit by a car.
- trhway 8y ago>we just have a totally different set of moral axioms and are fundamentally incapable of seeing the world in the same way. yes, definitely. I think what you're doing - dismissing the pain of others - is cruel and completely lacks empathy. I'm sorry that life treated you in such a cruel way, yet it doesn't excuse your emotional cruelty toward others. Note: i did lost members of immediate and extended family, including my father and our cat, to cancer, so i know the pain. Just step back and think what you're doing here - people from the original post are heartbroken by the tragic loss of their dog, and the commenters express their condolences and empathy toward the grieving family ... and here you rush in with your pain and start shouting that their pain is incomparable to yours. I only hope that your actions here make at least your pain easier even if just a bit, otherwise it is just senseless.
- hvidgaard 8y agoThe grief you felt when you lost your mother may or may not compare to the grief I felt when I lost my mother. So how dare you say you know "what it is like" - you have no idea. My point is that grief is subjective - people spiral into depression over losing pets, while their parents can die without them batting an eye. Teenagers, with all the out of wack hormones can feel the same way over losing a girl/boyfriend. When people say "I know what it is like because I lose my dog of 10 years when I was 13", they're telling you that they too have felt great despair, grief and sorrow. They know the feeling deep in their heart and they're expression sympathy. Instead being offended and being angry, let the sympathy help you.
- bloak 8y agoLet me quote Leonard Cohen (why not): Everybody got this broken feeling / Like their father or their dog just died The strength of the feeling might be different and vary depending on all sorts of things, but it's a similar feeling, it is claimed. Morals only come into it when we have to choose which one dies: not relevant here.
- fhayde 8y agoI can understand why you are offended; from your perspective it seems like people are equating your mother to their dogs. But this isn't how attachment works. It's not about who we are connected to, but about how much we are connected to them. We suffer when we lose what we are attached to. Whether that is a family member such as your mother or a family pet such as their dog. It's not about whether the woman who was your mother or the animal who was their dog are equal or greater/less than each other at all. It's about the attachments we have to them and how badly we desire for them to still exist in our lives. That's where the common element of suffering exists between losing a mother and a dog. Our attachments are defined within us, and not by what we are attached to.
- snthd 8y agoThe problem is not that the comparison is valid or invalid, but that someone supporting you shouldn't be making it about them. Brené Brown on Empathy - The RSA https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw
- harimau777 8y agoCouldn't trying to find common experience be a useful/valid way to express empathy?
- StrangeOrange 8y agoThankfully offence isn't fatal. And dogs are wonderful things
- dTal 8y agoWell, I am also offended by your stipulations. Now we are both offended. Let's use this as a chance to practice seeing eye-to-eye even in the face of irreconcilable moral differences, eh? It's a skill we're probably going to need as a civilization. Now, the specifics - it seems to me the particular moral axiom in question here is that "human life is always worth more than non-human life". Others in this thread have pointed out that you can't use that to make statements about what sort of grief people ought to feel, and I would hope that whatever your moral framework, compassion for grieving humans (whatever their moral framework) should factor into it. However, I also think it's worth tackling this particular moral axiom head-on. The value of a human life is not constant or consistent between people - your own family is worth more to you than a stanger's, and you even admit that a dog might warrant more grief than a terrible person, even if that terrible person is family. Well, the value of a canine life isn't constant either. If it's possible and justifiable to love a dog more than family because the family is bad, why shouldn't it be possible and justifiable to love a dog as much as family, because the dog is good? There's a continuum, not a hard cutoff of "humans > dogs". Even if you think the average human is worth more than the average dog, you shouldn't be surprised - or offended - by other people's bereavement. (I'd like to add an argument-from-Hollywood: They even made a whole film about a man cutting a swathe through evil, violent mobsters in a righteous fury, because they killed his dog. They made a very similar film about a man doing this because evil, violent mobsters kidnapped his daughter. Clearly, the emotions are comparable, and according to hollywood dogs and family are both worth more than evil, violent, human mobsters).
- adar 8y agoYou seem to be overreacting hardcore. They didn't say it was like losing your mother. They said it was like losing family. There are many different types of relationships in families, some more or less important than others. I'm pretty sure you'd be more torn up about losing your pet who you see every day than hearing that a cousin you've seen twice in your life has passed. What a weird thing to get worked up over.
- ikurei 8y agoThere is no "how it feels to lose a X", there is "how throwaway713 felt when they lost X". One may have a good but not very deep relationship with a close family member, but spend every day with their pet for 15 years, so to them it might be comparable. Of course, saying "I know how you feel about your mother cos I lost my dog" is incredibly insensitive and stupid. > you're going to claim that it is comparable to lose a human being that meant everything to you because an animal died If that person was that important to you, of course it's not comparable. I don't think that's what the other comments were saying though. I lost grandparents I was close with; one was after many years of several diseases fighting for the kill, death itself came as a mercy. I love my dog dearly, he's very old and his last breath is near and I get teary-eyed just from writing about it. And still, he's nothing compared to the loss of my grandmother. But that's me.
- klibertp 8y agoThere are people capable of loving their pets as if they were their own children. Just because you're not, doesn't mean they can't. Losing things you're emotionally attached to is very painful. Just because you wouldn't have loved that particular "thing" doesn't mean they can't and doesn't invalidate their suffering. I know it's hard to see beyond your own pain, but that's exactly what empathy is all about. Maybe try it sometime? > we just have a totally different set of moral axioms and are fundamentally incapable of seeing the world in the same way. That set of moral axioms you hold was what allowed people - you spiritual ancestors, no doubt - to murder millions and millions of people of different skin color or believing in another god. It's what allowed people to abduct and enslave and murder whole populations for hundreds, thousands of years. The belief that "they are not people, they are beasts, so we can treat them like livestock" is what underlies nearly every atrocity ever committed by the "human beings" you hold so dear as a race. Today, the set of humans seen as people expanded, which is a good thing. People seem to have learned that people everywhere are fundamentally the same: they feel joy, sadness, rage, love; they all bleed the same when hurt; they all live their lives enduring hardships and enjoying good things. The thing is, all of that is also true for animals. They are capable of feeling joy and sadness, of getting depressed, of jealousy, of loyalty, of empathy, of fear and anger, of suffering. They cannot voice their opinions, but you know - there are disabled people who also cannot do this, due to disability or brain damage. Such humans are no worse as people than the others: their families love them, care for them, and grieve for them once they depart. Your "moral axioms" are then inconsistent: you should either promote all animals to human status or demote disabled people straight into gas chambers. Just so you know, we've already tried the latter, it wasn't great. --- None of the above should be particularly controversial, these are the basics, so let me finish by citing a poem of Andrzej Bursa I quite like, which (roughly translated[1]), goes like this: Children are nicer than adults animals are nicer than kids you say that thinking this way I'll find that the dearest to me is paramecium caudatum[2] so what I prefer paramecium than you you son of a bitch [1] https://wiersze.annet.pl/w,,11217 https://wiersze.annet.pl/w,,11217 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium_caudatum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium_caudatum
- dkersten 8y agoI lost my father when I was younger and I lost a cat that meant a lot to me a couple of years ago that and while they were obviously very different, the pain and loss I feel was quite similar and I miss both of them dearly. That cat was there for me through some very hard times, in a way no human was. To me, that cat had more value than a lot of humans do. Humans are largely (but luckily not entirely) self absorbed in their own lives and their own problems, the cat was always ready and happy to be with me, no matter what. Obviously there are caring people in the world who go above and beyond for others, but there were few of them when I needed people, so to me, that cat was more important than most people, as she helped me when no person could and gave me the emotional support I needed. So of course losing her was just as painful as losing a person.
- schindlabua 8y agoReading through this thread maybe my opinion is particularly un-nuanced, but I have always assumed that people who say stuff like this are just speaking clickbait and they don't mean it and me and them know it. People seem mostly fine a week after losing their dog and once they get a new one it's like the old one never existed. Meanwhile in my family so many things have changed in ways that are hard to describe ever since my father passed away years ago, and one can still feel the repercussions.