Of course a man would eat the dog first. Dog wouldnt be able to eat the man. If it were able it would eat the human
It's sad when people dont realise how stupid animals are. Dog doesn't even know ot exisist's. It's just following its instics. Dogs are loyal because we keep them alive. That's because their not capable of due to their small brains.
And no. Humans care about other stuff then surviving. But in the beginning that was humans primary mission. Not anymore. That's because in todays world, you dont have to think it anymore.
Actually your right about dogs caring.(Didnt think when wrote that sentence) They care about suriving first. It cares loves and is loyal in a different way than humans when they love and care. But they put themselves ahead of everything else. Humans can sacrifice themselves for other people. Dogs cant.
About the article, I think it was wrong to kill the dog, so dont think that I'm some kind of animal hater
Let's take your man and dog stranded somewhere scenario. If the dog were a large size dog, it would most certainly be able to eat the human first, especially if the human had no tools.
Dogs aren't loyal to survive. Have you ever seen severely abused and famished dogs that would rather die (many do) than do anything against their abusive master? I can't think of any other creature that operates that way. I have an anecdote to share about a German Pointer that was owned by my grandmother's colleague who died of cancer. When the man died, the dog stopped eating. A few days later, it ran away and the man's widow found it lying down on his master's grave, dying of starvation. She couldn't get it to come home and it died on its master's grave a few days after. How's that for dogs not being able to sacrifice themselves for the person they loved?
Back to the topic at hand, the dog in question was a Bullmastiff, which aren't aggressive dogs by nature and are known to be great family dogs, unlike what someone said earlier. Say the girl kicked it indeed, or just teased it repeatedly as children that age do sometimes. Maybe the dog reached its limit and lost it and attacked her. That would be an extenuating circumstance for the dog's behavior, but it is in NO WAY an excuse for its behaviour. It could have growled, bared its teeth, or walked away. No dog should ever bite anyone, except in extreme situations. Also, many of you forget that this is a 100lbs+ dog and it was a 9 year old girl. How hard can a 9 year old girl kick? Also, the dog drew blood, while the little girl's kick didn't. Dogs do think and make decisions on their environment (while my mother was pregnant, our hyper active and not so obedient German Shepherd male completely stopped jumping on her, out of his own will. He even stopped playing rough with her during that time.). I love dogs to death, anyone who knows me can testify to it, but the dog had no excuse in that case.
This piece of news does draw an interesting question: what if the sound from the Nintendogs game did excite the dog negatively and led it to attack? What if it attacked the console and in his frenzy mauled the little girl unintentionally? In that case, it shouldn't have been put to sleep IF its owners made it pass a behavioural test that proved that the dog wasn't normally aggressive.
In any case, the indisputable culprits in this case are the dog's owners (as in the other little girl's parents). 9 year old children should never be left without surveillance with a large dog or any animal that has the physical ability to cause harm. It was highly irresponsible of them and they should be held accountable.