Quote from: Deadtrap on October 11, 2015, 03:08:28 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 11, 2015, 03:00:13 PM

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 11, 2015, 02:55:10 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 11, 2015, 02:45:57 PM

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 11, 2015, 02:42:28 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 11, 2015, 02:41:24 PM

I wouldn't spend $5,000 on my cat.

Why not exactly? Can you give me some specifics?

$5000 is more than my current emergency fund. I know in the hypothetical scenario I have the money, but unless it's a situation where someone just handed me $5k I still have to approach it from the perspective of my financial situation. If the medical procedures were covered by my pet insurance, I'd probably do it, but if it's an old cat that's in a lot of pain, I think the best option is to just put him down.

I changed it up a bit. The medical route has no pain because the pet is medicated. Do you change your stance?

No, it's not an issue of their pain, it's an issue of me not ever wanting to spend $5,000 on an elderly pet.

Okay. That's fair. What if we changed the scenario?

You, personally, are now in a serious medical condition. You're going to die if you don't recieve medical treatment. Your significant other will have to pay a large fee for the medical aid involved. And the condition you have will come back in give or take, a decade or two. And you're late middle aged.

What would you personally choose happen to you?

And what would you prefer that your significant other do?

Well of course I'd want her to pay it.

Right then. In these scenarios, the two of you are in the same boat. You're both in your declining life stages. You both have a chance of dying later on anyway. And the cost to save both of you will be large.

It costs a lot more to operate on a person than it does to something small like a cat or dog. And you say you'd take your financial issues into consideration.

When, in all likelyhood, if your significant other had any amount of money to save you in the way, they would pay it.

In your opinion then, what's the difference between your life and another life? When both stand the chance of never existing again, but could be saved, equally, why does yours take more presidence?

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 11, 2015, 06:09:24 PM

In your opinion then, what's the difference between your life and another life?

Because I'm a sapient human being and a cat is not. I value my life, or another person's life, significantly more than any other animal's.

Even if you know that most likely once a life is gone it won't ever exist again, therefore making whatever time any living thing has extremely valuable? Even if you had the capacity to save something with decent chances, even if it was costly?

This is a scenario where you literally have the ability to make every end meet, and you still wouldn't take it? That's the part I'm not sold on. Why place such a difference on a life? This isn't "Pick either to save your family or the pet from the house fire."

Can you explain to me the sense in that? And let's not go the monetary road, because you'd end up spending more money to save yourself in the same situation than a pet. So the pet being costly, no longer counts.

I mean, it's an old family cat, right? Chances are that it'll be kicking the bucket soon anyway, and we don't have that kind of money to just throw around on anything other than bills or debts. It'd hurt, but the most realistic thing is to just put it down.

Edit: Skipped over the part saying i already had the money. If that was the case, I'd spend the thousand to give it the best chance other than the one which would assuredly bankrupt me.

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 11, 2015, 08:29:55 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 11, 2015, 07:04:27 PM

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 11, 2015, 06:09:24 PM

In your opinion then, what's the difference between your life and another life?

Because I'm a sapient human being and a cat is not. I value my life, or another person's life, significantly more than any other animal's.

Even if you know that most likely once a life is gone it won't ever exist again, therefore making whatever time any living thing has extremely valuable? Even if you had the capacity to save something with decent chances, even if it was costly?

This is a scenario where you literally have the ability to make every end meet, and you still wouldn't take it? That's the part I'm not sold on. Why place such a difference on a life? This isn't "Pick either to save your family or the pet from the house fire."

Can you explain to me the sense in that? And let's not go the monetary road, because you'd end up spending more money to save yourself in the same situation than a pet. So the pet being costly, no longer counts.

Look, I'm not even sure what you're asking at this point. Humans have more value than other animals, period. If someone gave me $5000 I probably would go with the surgery for my pet. If I needed life-saving surgery in my mid-forties and it would put me in significant financial distress I'd do it.

Primarily, and previously, I was asking why life, especially that of something "less" than a human's, can be so easily waved off for the sake of money. The way you talk about it, unless you were handed that 5000 on a silver platter, nothing more or less, you'd only go for medical treatment.

Which is why I changed the subject to you instead, because if you were in such a position, you'd more than likely try to save yourself no matter what. I understand that yes, people and what they can do is more intrinsically valuable than what an animal can do.

But you're still not higher, or lower than an animal on the scales of life and death. You both live, and you're both going to die. You're equals in that regard.

I'm curious about people's stances because lately I've been recieving flak from people on my end based on a decision I made for somebody a while back. It's got me thinking about the way people value life.