Pets.

Artful_Badger

BeerWolf wrote: »

Put the blame on the countless unlicensed morons, and [puppy] farms, that breed the animals, or those that haven't neutered their pet and let them wander about, NOT people that own them... those unlicensed lot are the primary cause for unwanted animals, and should therefore be heavily fined.

You proposing the solution to just outright have pets out of the bigger is just beyond idiotic.

Its very hard to talk to people so ignorant as to call what you say idiotic. Particularly while not really putting forth much in the way of an intelligent viewpoint themselves.

You say the primary cause of these abuses is unlicensed breeding. Which is done to selling into the market because there is profit in the sale of animals. Primary doesn't mean only. So there is still a lot of abuses arising out of the licensed sale of animals.

So this makes my view that a market for the trading of animals as commodities is wrong because it leads to these abuses from both licensed and unlicensed traders beyond idiotic ?

Frank Black

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I feel sorry for people who think animals are 'dumb' and that love needs inverted commas as if only humans are capable of it.

Well, you just keep anthropomorphising with your pet cat (it's usually a cat with people like you), but really, you'd be much better off using your time and efforts to better develop your social skills, so you don't feel the need to have a non-human crutch in your life.

And just to let you know - animals don't feel 'love' like humans and no matter how much you tell yourself they do - they don't. Sorry.

mod: banned.

pharmaton

Frank Black wrote: »

Well, you just keep anthropomorphising with your pet cat (it's usually a cat with people like you), but really, you'd be much better off using your time and efforts to better develop your social skills, so you don't feel the need to have a non-human crutch in your life.

And just to let you know - animals don't feel 'love' like humans and no matter how much you tell yourself they do - they don't. Sorry.

you're just a big bundle of joy aren't ya

ScumLord

My turtle says hi.

Artful_Badger

ScumLord wrote: »

My turtle says hi.

Is he really saying high though or is he trying to escape from the box he's been trapped in since you bought him ?

BeerWolf

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its very hard to talk to people so ignorant as to call what you say idiotic. Particularly while not really putting forth much in the way of an intelligent viewpoint themselves.

You say the primary cause of these abuses is unlicensed breeding. Which is done to selling into the market because there is profit in the sale of animals. Primary doesn't mean only. So there is still a lot of abuses arising out of the licensed sale of animals.

So this makes my view that a market for the trading of animals as commodities is wrong because it leads to these abuses from both licensed and unlicensed traders beyond idiotic ?

Yes I do see your view idiotic because the amount of responsible owners, that care about them, far outweigh those that aren't.

Unfortunately, cats and dogs are born in litters... so naturally there would be a lot of them unwanted from the kinds of people I've already mentioned...

Bannasidhe

Frank Black wrote: »

Well, you just keep anthropomorphising with your pet cat (it's usually a cat with people like you), but really, you'd be much better off using your time and efforts to better develop your social skills, so you don't feel the need to have a non-human crutch in your life.

And just to let you know - animals don't feel 'love' like humans and no matter how much you tell yourself they do - they don't. Sorry.

People like you who make declarations about people like me on internet forums are usually wrong.

As you are in this case. On both counts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/dog-emotions-like-humans-gregory-berns_n_4059371.html?ir=Good+News

Frank Black

pharmaton wrote: »

you're just a big bundle of joy aren't ya

Yes, my life is pretty good, with much joy.
But like I say, I do feel a bit sorry sometimes for those not as fortunate, like pet owners or people who have imaginary friends that they talk to - it's the same thing really, and it's not a healthy way to live your life.

DamagedTrax

Frank Black wrote: »

And just to let you know - animals don't feel 'love' like humans and no matter how much you tell yourself they do - they don't. Sorry.

an animal will initially see us as a resource. if we provide what they need they will protect that resource and provide what they think we need in return. this eventually grows into trust and mutual understanding.

that doesnt sound too much different to what we call 'love' IMO.

jimgoose

Frank Black wrote: »

Yes, my life is pretty good, with much joy.
But like I say, I do feel a bit sorry sometimes for those not as fortunate, like pet owners or people who have imaginary friends that they talk to - it's the same thing really, and it's not a healthy way to live your life.

I personally haven't much interest in pets - although Mrs. Goose quite likes cats - but you seem to have taken a fierce dislike to people who like pets, for some reason? I find that a little strange.

Jester252

Didn't know PETA where after Boards.ie users.

gobnaitolunacy

inocybe wrote: »

How do you justify spending money on yourself other than the minimum necessary for survival, when it could go to the needy?

Keep a needy person as a pet. Problem solved.
Everybody wins

Bannasidhe

Frank Black wrote: »

Yes, my life is pretty good, with much joy.
But like I say, I do feel a bit sorry sometimes for those not as fortunate, like pet owners or people who have imaginary friends that they talk to - it's the same thing really, and it's not a healthy way to live your life.

Indeed. Being dismissive, insulting and judgmental while posting anonymously on an internet forum is a much healthier way to live your life.

Tiddlypeeps

Artful_Badger wrote: »

True but I have posted quite a bit on my reasons for seeing it as such. I didnt just say it was wrong and leave it at that.

You kinda did tho. You went on to explain why negligent breeding practices are morally wrong but you never once explained why owning pets is morally wrong you just stated it as fact.

Your logic of x can be abused therefore x is morally wrong does not follow. Almost everything in the world can be abused in some way or another that does not make everything in the world morally wrong.

There are plenty of valid and morally sound reason to own a pet.

Even if somehow you achieved your goal and all pets were banned, you would still have a black market for the sale of pets, likely run by the same people who are currently involved in really bad breeding practices so your solution doesn't wouldn't even stop it.

If you have an issue with negligent breeding then that's the issue you should be directing your energy on, not overall pet ownership. Your views are naive and haven't been very well thought out.

Frank Black

Bannasidhe wrote: »

People like you who make declarations about people like me on internet forums are usually wrong.

As you are in this case. On both counts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/dog-emotions-like-humans-gregory-berns_n_4059371.html?ir=Good+News

From a brief scan of the article, I would suggest that it's some of the worst type of research, masquerading as science. It's only purpose is to pander to social misfit pet owners.

Like yourself probably.

Artful_Badger

BeerWolf wrote: »

Yes I do see your view idiotic because the amount of responsible owners, that care about them, far outweigh those that aren't.

Unfortunately, cats and dogs are born in litters... so naturally there would be a lot of them unwanted from the kinds of people I've already mentioned...

There's not much point in discussing it with you then I think. I'm not going to try engage in a respectful manner with someone who cant do the same. Nor am I gonna lower myself to a shouting match.

There is nothing unfortunate about how cats and dogs breed btw. Whats unfortunate is that people like yourself cant take responsibility for creating the demand that leads to the abuses of these animals simply because you want something.

pharmaton

Frank Black wrote: »

Yes, my life is pretty good, with much joy.
But like I say, I do feel a bit sorry sometimes for those not as fortunate, like pet owners or people who have imaginary friends that they talk to - it's the same thing really, and it's not a healthy way to live your life.

If I were to assume as you do then I suspect you're probably a very lonely individual who doesn't have the capacity for joy, let alone real life friends. You could probably work on your people skills too.

[QUOTE=Frank Black;
And just to let you know - animals don't feel 'love' like humans and no matter how much you tell yourself they do - they don't. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

You have obviously never had a dog who runs jumps barks like mad, almost knocks you over and kisses you to death because you've returned from somewhere... and thats only when you've been gone a half an hour

Dogs feel a whole range of emotions, including sorrow, when either another pet in the family dies, or when their owner dies. But you wouldnt know this, because you dont have one.

Myself and probably most pet owners dont have a need to have a non human crutch, many of us have all the help we need from the humans in our family.

Artful_Badger

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

You kinda did tho. You went on to explain why negligent breeding practices are morally wrong but you never once explained why owning pets is morally wrong you just stated it as fact.

Your logic of x can be abused therefore x is morally wrong does not follow. Almost everything in the world can be abused in some way or another that does not make everything in the world morally wrong.

There are plenty of valid and morally sound reason to own a pet.

Even if somehow you achieved your goal and all pets were banned, you would still have a black market for the sale of pets, likely run by the same people who are currently involved in really bad breeding practices so your solution doesn't wouldn't even stop it.

If you have an issue with negligent breeding then that's the issue you should be directing your energy on, not overall pet ownership. Your views are naive and haven't been very well thought out.

I kinda didnt though I said it was morally corrupt because it created demand that lead to animals suffering in the pursuit of profit meeting that demand. I said this from the outset in my very first post on the topic. I'm not saying people should be hung for it or that they are bad people, I'm just saying there is a responsibility there for contributing to the market. And given I think owning a pet is unnecessary I find it morally wrong to do so when you're adding to the demand. Similar to how buying and eating meet contributes to a demand which also leads to animals suffering.

BeerWolf

Frank Black wrote: »

Yes, my life is pretty good, with much joy.
But like I say, I do feel a bit sorry sometimes for those not as fortunate, like pet owners or people who have imaginary friends that they talk to - it's the same thing really, and it's not a healthy way to live your life.

At what point does being a pet owner make them 'unfortunate' ?

I needn't mention any names, but there's plenty of celebrities and well known people that own pets - does that make them unfortunate ?

Plenty of families with their family pets, that brings the kids joy to have and play with - does that make them unfortunate ?

And what of the elderly ? They've had a great life, but their spouse has past away - are you telling me it's sad for them to have a pet to give them companionship while they're living alone ?

Who the hell are you to judge and feel sorry for ? Cause frankly, the only sad person here is you.

Artful_Badger

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Your views are naive and haven't been very well thought out.

I'd suggest you make more of an attempt to clue yourself in on my views before making such an ignorant statement.

Bannasidhe

Frank Black wrote: »

From a brief scan of the article, I would suggest that it's some of the worst type of research, masquerading as science. It's only purpose is to pander to social misfit pet owners.

Like yourself probably.

Do you need to throw in the old personal digs?

Makes me wonder if you have some issues.

What difference does it make you if I or anyone else has a dog, cat, gerbil, hamster etc etc - yet here you are throwing around terms like 'misfit' and generally being the one is is acting in a socially inappropriate manner?

Eutow

Frank Black wrote: »

Yes, my life is pretty good, with much joy.
But like I say, I do feel a bit sorry sometimes for those not as fortunate, like pet owners or people who have imaginary friends that they talk to - it's the same thing really, and it's not a healthy way to live your life.

The only thing that's sad is you thinking that people doing something that brings a bit of joy into their lives, in this case owning a pet, is somehow unhealthy and sad. You say your life is pretty good, maybe you can make it better with a dog or cat.

Frank Black

Eutow wrote: »

The only thing that's sad is you thinking that people doing something that brings a bit of joy into their lives, in this case owning a pet, is somehow unhealthy and sad. You say your life is pretty good, maybe you can make it better with a dog or cat.

I don't need to make my life better with a dog or cat, I'm a normal well-adjusted person able to form bonds with other members of my own species.
And, it's not my fault I feel sorry for pet owners, just as it's not their fault they're not well-adjusted members of scciety.
Since when did feeling sympathy for those less fortunate become a crime anyway?
I apologise to all those pet owners who took offence and hope that you will all find true happiness one day with another human being.

Bannasidhe

Frank Black wrote: »

I apologise to all those pet owners who took offence and hope that you will all find true happiness one day with another human being.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Tiddlypeeps

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I kinda didnt though I said it was morally corrupt because it created demand that lead to animals suffering in the pursuit of profit meeting that demand. I said this from the outset in my very first post on the topic. I'm not saying people should be hung for it or that they are bad people, I'm just saying there is a responsibility there for contributing to the market. And given I think owning a pet is unnecessary I find it morally wrong to do so when you're adding to the demand. Similar to how buying and eating meet contributes to a demand which also leads to animals suffering.

As I mentioned already your logic does not follow.

Creating a market demand for something that can feasibly be produced in a moral fashion is not in itself an immoral act.

As I mentioned already if your logic did follow it would make pretty much everything we do immoral.

Everything we consume creates a demand and often those demands are met by means that could be considered immoral. Slave and child labour in asian countries, mass productions of animals for meat in factories, drugs (legal and illegal) result in all sorts of activities that are questionable at best. All anybody can do is avoid the bad where they know it is happening.

Owning a pet is almost always unnecessary, I won't argue with that, but so is almost everything we do. So unless you live in a self sustained farm out in the middle of nowhere where you don't interact with the rest of the world I don't think you are in a position to preach.

BeerWolf

Frank Black wrote: »

I apologise to all those pet owners who took offence and hope that you will all find true happiness one day with another human being.

rofl - just get lost already...

DamagedTrax

Frank Black wrote: »

I don't need to make my life better with a dog or cat, I'm a normal well-adjusted person able to form bonds with other members of my own species.
And, it's not my fault I feel sorry for pet owners, just as it's not their fault they're not well-adjusted members of scciety.
Since when did feeling sympathy for those less fortunate become a crime anyway?
I apologise to all those pet owners who took offence and hope that you will all find true happiness one day with another human being.

out of interest, taking away the household pet scenario. do you actually like animals? do you recognise them as sentient beigns deserving of rights?

Eutow

Frank Black wrote: »

I don't need to make my life better with a dog or cat, I'm a normal well-adjusted person able to form bonds with other members of my own species.
And, it's not my fault I feel sorry for pet owners, just as it's not their fault they're not well-adjusted members of scciety.
Since when did feeling sympathy for those less fortunate become a crime anyway?
I apologise to all those pet owners who took offence and hope that you will all find true happiness one day with another human being.

Sheldon Cooper alert. "I'm not insane, my mom got me tested"

You seem to think that someone who owns a pet cannot form friendships with other people. Strange thinking...... I think you are the one that is unfortunate.

shruikan2553

Frank Black wrote: »

I don't need to make my life better with a dog or cat, I'm a normal well-adjusted person able to form bonds with other members of my own species.
And, it's not my fault I feel sorry for pet owners, just as it's not their fault they're not well-adjusted members of scciety.
Since when did feeling sympathy for those less fortunate become a crime anyway?
I apologise to all those pet owners who took offence and hope that you will all find true happiness one day with another human being.

Interacting in this manner isnt exactly showing a person able to form bonds with members of your own species.