4 ms·
To look at this from the perspective of animal owners: animals are not "pets" to them, they're family. To deny them bringing a dog in an airplane is like denyin
by littletimmy 12y ago
To look at this from the perspective of animal owners: animals are not "pets" to them, they're family. To deny them bringing a dog in an airplane is like denying them bringing a baby in a airplane.
That argument cannot be randomly disregarded because it is a valid one. Dogs bark, babies cry. Dogs are unhygenic, and babies are little balls of filth.
Why should a dog fly in cargo because you don't like a dog inside the airplane? I don't like babies, does that mean we should put babies in a crate in the cargo section?
- tdkl 12y agoPets != humans. There is no other perspective.
- littletimmy 12y agoWhy are you convinced that your perspective is The perspective?
- icelancer 12y agoBiology isn't a perspective. Well, not yet anyway. We haven't gone that idiotic as a society so far.
- Kiro 12y agoHow does it feel to be so cold-hearted?
- JimmyM 12y agoYes there is. http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf
- NhanH 12y agoDid you read the paper? Because the paper doesn't contradict the claims that "Pets != humans". The argument that the paper made, and I quote "I argue that we should drop the belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view that applies to animals as well as to humans.", emphasize the first half of the sentence (sidenote: the claim shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that know about Singer's utilitarian stance, he's super consistent in being an utilitarian :-) ). He isn't saying that pets is equal to human in moral status, he's saying that the difference shouldn't be explained just by species.
- JimmyM 12y agoOops. I felt that the context of the claim "Pets != humans" meant that the commenter was claiming more than just the bare bones of that statement. I interpreted my parent comment as dismissing the grandparent comment by saying that pets are not in the same 'moral class' as humans, without further justification. It was this (probably imaginary, I now realise) distinction that I was trying to provide an alternative point of view for. Sorry for attacking a straw man. I have read Singer, yes.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago>> "To look at this from the perspective of animal owners: animals are not "pets" to them, they're family. To deny them bringing a dog in an airplane is like denying them bringing a baby in a airplane." I say this as a dog owner who understands the love for a pet and how devastated I would be were anything to happen to her. Those people need help. Pets aren't humans. There is no comparison with a human baby whatsoever. People who think the two are equal are emotionally stunted.