No doubt - In SF, the elite treat their dogs better than the working class. I use to live in next to a doggie day care that cost +$1000/month.

It's a bit of a false equivalence, no? People who treat their pets well aren't necessarily the same people who treat others badly. These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Maybe, just generally pointing out the discrepancy.

Unless people who treat their pets well also treat other humans badly, there is no discrepancy

Interesting, is this also an assumption?

I can totally see people put their children and interests ahead at the expense of others, the "selfish gene".

Just extrapolating, humans are not the most morally consistent creatures.

We ban accounts that post like this. Please follow the site guidelines, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I see a lot of people sleeping on the floor, outside, without any food. And, since you brought it up, also with mental disabilities.

The collective we still treats dogs a lot worse than we treat the homeless. That's even discounting questions of agency, which I don't think can be discounted. These threads really seem to be: "Look at how well this dog is treated in comparison to some homeless person," which provides a view that is a general condemnation that we don't do as much as we could in general—but not at all evidence that pets have it better.

We don't really treat homeless animals better than people, and there are orders of magnitude more homeless animals even though we euthanize them in huge numbers.