Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxcoder | Hacker News Reader

That's idiotic (though I'm sure you wouldn't follow through), but it explains the results in the article.

That people care about something that you can't relate to more than their own lives isn't a sign of stupidity, it's a sign of other people having different values than you.

A claim motivated by askew morality may be objectively and self-evidently wrong.

Lack of intelligence and or sensibility has nothing to do with this, it is decision based on the relationship I share with my dogs, I am their 'pack leader', a bond created from their unconditional trust and love. Like any good relationship to survive, their needs to be a strong mutual commitment, in this case, they would unquestionable give their lives to protect their pack and myself. From the comfort of safe reflection, I truly believe I would do the same for them. Besides my immediate family and my dogs, I am not sure I can say I would make that sacrifice for anyone else.

You are equating your own worth to that of your animals, based on a role they've instinctly assigned to you. Forgive me, but I'd appreciate if you'd spare me any further explanations and attempts at justifications.

Your grandiose sense of self-worth has retarded your capacity for understanding to such a degree that it compels you to criticise someone else's decision to sacrifice themselves for other beings they love, yes, even non human ones. Have you ever loved? But yes, I forgive you.

Your unjust accusation of egotism still presupposes equal worth of humans and pets. This is wrong, regardless of your emotional attachment to yours.

From a purely economical point of view, you may claim that things have only the value you ascribe to them. But I believe in intrinsic, objective worth.

One man's teddy bear is another's broken toy. A person's life, however, is non-negotiable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com