Other animals > Humans

[Expectrum]

I've noticed a trend, at least in these forums, of making a bigger deal of anything bad that happens to an animal over something related to a human. In fact, I'd say that most people act insensitively to human tragedy, but overreact when it comes to a dog or a cat or even a fucking snail.

Let me set two example scenarios:

A) Human tragedy

OP: "I just raped my sister. Am I going to jail?"

Expected replies: "Pics or it didn't happen.", "Cool story bro.", "incest ftw".

B) Animal cruelty

OP: "I just raped my cat. Can I get an STD?"

Expected replies: "You're fucking sick!", "I hope you get AIDS you fucking asshole.", "Get raped in the ass by a black guy and see if it's cool, fucking moron."

See where I'm getting at? Regardless of stories being real or fictional, you guys are easily trolled if the subject involves an animal.

[RIPclock]

go back to peta vegetarians

[Makakaov]

So basicly you're saying that if a dog raped it's sister, and posted on 4chan about it, people there would provide different answers?

[FuckSandwich]

I care more about animals than humans, personally.

[Gimmick]

I know as much as the next person.

[dark-crow07]

As long as no one's eating the animals, I couldn't give a fuck.

Winners don't eat meat!

[Expectrum]

At 6/21/11 07:15 AM, Makakaov wrote: So basicly you're saying that if a dog raped it's sister, and posted on 4chan about it, people there would provide different answers?

lol wut? I'm not talking about 4chan, anyways.

[ARGNAGRAM]

At 6/21/11 07:13 AM, YoungAndWise wrote: A) Human tragedy

OP: "I just raped my sister. Am I going to jail?"

Expected replies: "Pics or it didn't happen.", "Cool story bro.", "incest ftw".

I dont' think you'd get that kind of answer if you did that kind of thread. Or maybe you would, but they would be strictly sarcasm

[Expectrum]

At 6/21/11 07:24 AM, ARGNAGRAM wrote: I dont' think you'd get that kind of answer if you did that kind of thread. Or maybe you would, but they would be strictly sarcasm

I dare you to make such a thread. See for yourself.

[SubparTony]

If someone says he raped his sister he says it just cuz he thinks he's funny
If -------------//--------------- a pet he says it cuz he thinks that he's funny but in fact he is sick

So:
human<animal (WRONG!)
sick human<animal<funny human (RIGHT!)

[Asandir]

Yes, because every user is immature and uses such replies.

[Gagsy]

Are you telling me that when you walk a movie you don't feel sadder when the pet dog gets shot as opposed to his owner who was shot seconds before?

People defend animals because the animals can't defend themselves. They have no voice.

[FuckSandwich]

At 6/21/11 08:14 AM, Gagsy wrote: Are you telling me that when you walk a movie you don't feel sadder when the pet dog gets shot as opposed to his owner who was shot seconds before?

People defend animals because the animals can't defend themselves. They have no voice.

It makes me feel sick when people kill animals in films.

[CharltonChinchilla]

It's because humans are smelly.

[Expectrum]

At 6/21/11 08:14 AM, Gagsy wrote: Are you telling me that when you walk a movie you don't feel sadder when the pet dog gets shot as opposed to his owner who was shot seconds before?

It's irrelevant. I could see a human get killed in a movie and not care, just like I could see another one die and feel sad. I could see a puppy get shot and shed a tear, but then I could see a doberman get cut in half with a chainsaw and think it was awesome.

In your scenario, if the person that died was an innocent child and the pet dog was killed too, I would probably feel more sorry for the loss of the child. I will feel sad depending on the context, not the species of the victim.

People defend animals because the animals can't defend themselves. They have no voice.

I'm not saying that animals don't deserve to be protected. It's just that we can be as defenseless as them too, so that's not an excuse for feeling more compassion towards them.

People don't make as big of a deal when it is an animal that kills an innocent person, for the most part.

[ohbombuh]

Humans are supposed to be smarter than animals, so we assume either that their problems are their fault if they're not smart enough or that the human somehow deserved it if their problems are beyond control. This trend also applies a little within the animal kingdom; most people would sympathize more with dogs than cats in the same bad situation because dogs are generally seen as far less "selfish" (i.e., able to think for themselves) than cats.

[ARGNAGRAM]

At 6/21/11 07:32 AM, YoungAndWise wrote:

At 6/21/11 07:24 AM, ARGNAGRAM wrote: I dont' think you'd get that kind of answer if you did that kind of thread. Or maybe you would, but they would be strictly sarcasm

I dare you to make such a thread. See for yourself.

As I said, it would probabaly be sarcasm or people trying to be too funny or witty. Besides, making it now wouldn't proof anything considering this post, people would try to follow what is said here just for the joke.

[Entice]

It's because almost all of the things involving people is a joke, and some of the animal stuff here is real.

And AFAIK no one here has ever taken a comment about raping a cat seriously. Nice try though.

[Conjecture]

At 6/21/11 07:19 AM, dark-crow07 wrote: As long as no one's eating the animals, I couldn't give a fuck.

Winners don't eat meat!

Winners deep fry every ounce of meat they see, you prawn.