but you don't wanna kill those 12,000 if one of them is your loved one. think about it. we human lives matter much more than cat lives.
if there is even a way to just save one human, we needa find the best way to save him or her.
There are some cats I like more than most humans I know, but that's my personal sentiment about it. When it comes to logical reasoning, I stand by my earlier post (#59).
then, we woulda have a duel with it. just because some human troubled your life doesn't mean all are bad.
That's why I explicitly mentioned it's my own sentiment why I like some cats more than most humans I know (which doesn't necessarily mean I hate humanity in general. I just like cats a bit better). But because I acknowledge my personal sentimental preference has little value in a debate like this, I stand by my reasoning in post #59.
but what if one of those 12000 is your loved ones. see, i don't know why people can't think more wisely and unselfishly.
Actually, your reasoning is selfish if you're making the choice primarily based on the possibility a loved one is among those 12,000. Sacrificing all cats would not only affect cats, but negatively affect humanity as a whole and many other species as well, due to the heavy impact on the ecosystem because an entire species has suddenly been completely removed.
Whether you're doing this for your loved ones, humanity or felinity, more lives are ultimately saved by sacrificing the 12,000 humans instead of all cats. Even with the loved-ones reasoning, chances are more loved ones end up dead/affected if you sacrifice the cats.
no, your way of thinking is more selfish, because you fail to realize what science would do that can change that result.