> Is it so outrageous to say that a dog's life has less value than a human's?
The commenter I replied to said "yes"
So the commenter is saying that yes, it is outrageous to say that a dog's life has less value than a human's.
So that implies that it is outrageous to say that because a dog's life does not have less value than a human life. It has equal or greater value. I'm going to assume that the commenter means equal value.
So if a dog's life is equal in value to a humans, it follows we should dedicate as many resources to dog health as human health.
Is any of the above flawed?
> nor was any mention of values made.
We're talking about the relative value of human life vs dog here. The term 'value' has literally been mentioned. Values by definition are what we believe to be valuable. By answering "yes" to the question, the commenter has revealed some of their values as it relates to dog vs. human life.
> Is it so outrageous to say that a dog's life has less value than a human's?
The commenter I replied to said "yes"
So the commenter is saying that yes, it is outrageous to say that a dog's life has less value than a human's.
So that implies that it is outrageous to say that because a dog's life does not have less value than a human life. It has equal or greater value. I'm going to assume that the commenter means equal value.
So if a dog's life is equal in value to a humans, it follows we should dedicate as many resources to dog health as human health.
Is any of the above flawed?
> nor was any mention of values made.
We're talking about the relative value of human life vs dog here. The term 'value' has literally been mentioned. Values by definition are what we believe to be valuable. By answering "yes" to the question, the commenter has revealed some of their values as it relates to dog vs. human life.