Pets.

OldNotWIse

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah no. Can we not keep him? We'll feed him and walk him and pet him and love him, even pay for the neutering. Pleeeeeease. It's not fair!! *stamps feet* :(:(

Unfortunately he has already been flushed down the toilet

eisenberg1

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah no. Can we not keep him? We'll feed him and walk him and pet him and love him, even pay for the neutering. Pleeeeeease. It's not fair!! *stamps feet* :(:(

No need for to pay for neutering, I will do it for free in my shed, rusty hacksaw, a vice and a gimp mask to keep him quiet. :pac:

Artful_Badger

seamus wrote: »

Unless you consider domesticated animals to be on an intellectual par with humans, then no. Domesticated animals are by definition adapted to share a domestic environment with humans. So you're not forcing anything upon them any more than having a child is forcing the child to live according to your rules.

Agreed. That's why the majority of people choose domesticated animals over wild ones.

They are adapted to some degree but its been a relatively short period in which they have been domesticated. They still have to be restricted and kept on a lead and so forth. Birds and small animals in cages etc. Because they most certainly are being forced into whatever life and behaviors the owners wants them to conform to.

A child is different. A child is dependent on its parent who brought it into this world to care for it. Its not ownership/possession or master/slave which defines the relationship. Because a child is not being forced to live a certain way for its owners benefit its being taught to live a certain way for its own benefit.

OldNotWIse

Artful_Badger wrote: »

They are adapted to some degree but its been a relatively short period in which they have been domesticated. They still have to be restricted and kept on a lead and so forth. Birds and small animals in cages etc. Because they most certainly are being forced into whatever life and behaviors the owners wants them to conform to.

A child is different. A child is dependent on its parent who brought it into this world to care for it. Its not ownership/possession or master/slave which defines the relationship. Because a child is not being forced to live a certain way for its owners benefit its being taught to live a certain way for its own benefit.

Most people have children for selfish reasons - usually to satisfy a biological urge or a desire to tick the boxes. A lot of people have kids they cant afford. Some people have kids and abuse them or worse. There are people who have kids to "save the marriage" etc.

Artful_Badger

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I'm not even sure you are reading my posts. You say creating a demand for something that can be in anyway associated with immoral activity is itself immoral. I very much disagree for reasons I've stated already. Owning a pet that has been bread correctly is no more immoral than eating free range eggs.

I quoted your posts, are you now disagreeing with what you yourself said ?

You said everything can be considered immoral because it affects someone or something and said "All anybody can do is avoid the bad where they know it is happening".

Are you now saying nothing affects anyone or anything or that you dont have to avoid it when you know its happening ?

In relation to my view in terms of the consumer demand leading to the suffering of animals I now its happening so why am I out of line to address it ??

ScumLord

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...

I would put at least 50% of the blame with the people who buy the dogs. If you want a dog to look a particular way then you're contributing to the problem. Buying a pedigree dog means you're encouraging people to breed genetic abnormalities into dogs. I have no problem with people owning dogs (well I do have a problem with city folk getting dogs as an accessory) but buying predigree dogs is wrong IMO.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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

They're some fine assumptions there Art. These are pretty much rescue turtles, I have two from two different owners that just threw them into a fish bowl and wondered why they didn't do anything. Now they have a massive tank, heated water and some serious filtration. They do actually come up to the edge of the tank and start splashing the water when I enter the room. They could actually escape at any time they want but the only time they've left the tank under their own steam was when they hang on the edge trying to get my attention and fall out. They've become very docile and they have no problems letting me handle them.

Ordinarily I wouldn't keep exotic pets, I'd be dead set against it but I've given these guys the best care I can under the circumstances.

seamus wrote: »

Domesticated animals are by definition adapted to share a domestic environment with humans.

It's more likely Dogs and Cats domesticated themselves. We were just willing participants. Horse and cattle probably got forced into servitude but they all get a fairly good deal. All our domesticated animals are worldwide, which the genes will be happy about.

Oink

Mark Twain wrote: »

... my cat, Mugabe ...

I salute you Sir :pac:

ScumLord

Artful_Badger wrote: »

They are adapted to some degree but its been a relatively short period in which they have been domesticated. They still have to be restricted and kept on a lead and so forth. Birds and small animals in cages etc. Because they most certainly are being forced into whatever life and behaviors the owners wants them to conform to.

That's only become the case recently in an overpopulated world. Dogs were not kept on leashes before the 80s and parrots lived on pirates shoulders.

OldNotWIse

ScumLord wrote: »

I would put at least 50% of the blame with the people who buy the dogs. If you want a dog to look a particular way then you're contributing to the problem. Buying a pedigree dog means you're encouraging people to breed genetic abnormalities into dogs. I have no problem with people owning dogs (well I do have a problem with city folk getting dogs as an accessory) but buying predigree dogs is wrong IMO.

They're some fine assumptions there Art. These are pretty much rescue turtles, I have two from two different owners that just threw them into a fish bowl and wondered why they didn't do anything. Now they have a massive tank, heated water and some serious filtration. They do actually come up to the edge of the tank and start splashing the water when I enter the room. They could actually escape at any time they want but the only time they've left the tank under their own steam was when they hang on the edge trying to get my attention and fall out. They've become very docile and they have no problems letting me handle them.

Ordinarily I wouldn't keep exotic pets, I'd be dead set against it but I've given these guys the best care I can under the circumstances.

It's more likely Dogs and Cats domesticated themselves. We were just willing participants. Horse and cattle probably got forced into servitude but they all get a fairly good deal. All our domesticated animals are worldwide, which the genes will be happy about.

Me too. Cut the demand to stop the supply.

Artful_Badger

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Most people have children for selfish reasons - usually to satisfy a biological urge or a desire to tick the boxes. A lot of people have kids they cant afford. Some people have kids and abuse them or worse. There are people who have kids to "save the marriage" etc.

And you wont hear me condoning it, I've spoken extensively about that before on here and ultimately ended up with he same view I'm getting here. Which was "I want this, I want that" was enough justification for a human being to do whatever they wanted.

Just to nip this in the bud now I'm not of the opinion of that last posted who got the boot. I am not judging pet owners nor do I think any less of them. I know plenty of people who have pets, I like those pets, I think animals are great and who wouldnt want a happy little well cared for creature brightening up their lives.

BUT... Just as with a lot of other things I think there is a certain responsibility which all consumers much share when it comes to the negative fall out of the demand being met. And I cannot personally justify animal ownership so as a consumer I address it the only I can. I dont contribute to demand and I explain why if I get the opportunity. I didnt start this thread, I'm not on a one man campaign, I just happened along and gave my opinion.

Artful_Badger

ScumLord wrote: »

They're some fine assumptions there Art. These are pretty much rescue turtles, I have two from two different owners that just threw them into a fish bowl and wondered why they didn't do anything. Now they have a massive tank, heated water and some serious filtration. They do actually come up to the edge of the tank and start splashing the water when I enter the room. They could actually escape at any time they want but the only time they've left the tank under their own steam was when they hang on the edge trying to get my attention and fall out. They've become very docile and they have no problems letting me handle them.

Ordinarily I wouldn't keep exotic pets, I'd be dead set against it but I've given these guys the best care I can under the circumstances.

It was a joke, I'll have to start using smilees.

Glad to hear the turtles are doing well.

ScumLord

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Glad to hear the turtles are doing well.

Chuck (the turtle in the photo), wants to know if you waved back?

Tiddlypeeps

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I quoted your posts, are you now disagreeing with what you yourself said ?

You said everything can be considered immoral because it affects someone or something and said "All anybody can do is avoid the bad where they know it is happening".

Are you now saying nothing affects anyone or anything or that you dont have to avoid it when you know its happening ?

In relation to my view in terms of the consumer demand leading to the suffering of animals I now its happening so why am I out of line to address it ??

No I did not say everything can be considered immoral.

It really feels like you are deliberately misrepresenting me to avoid addressing my point.

I said:

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.

I have no idea how you can take from that "nothing effects anyone".

Creating a demand for something that is in itself fairly innocent (a dog, a pair of jeans, painkillers) should not be considered immoral just because it is possible for someone to acquire it using questionable means. The person who acquires it using questionable means (bad dog breeder, slave labourer, drug dealer) can of course be considered immoral. But a person who buys a dog from a reputable breeder, a person who buys jeans that claim to be fair trade, or a person who buys drugs from a pharmacist should not be considered immoral for that act. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make that.

You are not out of line for trying to address the problem. Your solution to the problem is however naive and hasn't been very well thought out.

Lets say you do manage to get pets banned. What then? Do you actually think that will stop dodgy breeders from breeding more dogs?

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

I would put at least 50% of the blame with the people who buy the dogs. If you want a dog to look a particular way then you're contributing to the problem. Buying a pedigree dog means you're encouraging people to breed genetic abnormalities into dogs. I have no problem with people owning dogs (well I do have a problem with city folk getting dogs as an accessory) but buying predigree dogs is wrong IMO.

sorry, im gonna have to pull you on that one (kinda). buying 'certain' pedigree dogs from 'certain' breeders is wrong. yes a lot of them will breed for a certain look (pug, english bulldog, cavalier to name but a few).

BUT there are plenty of us who will buy a pedigree dog based on temperment and ability, from breeders who breed for these traits. looks just dont come into it. take a look at any working dog show and you will see what i mean, staffies outside the KC size guidelines, GSDs with straight backs (yes they exist!), bulldogs that arent the size of hippos and dont have folds of skin everywhere, terriers that will go to ground like their name suggests and dont just look good with their hair in pig tails.

look a little left of centre and you'll find the solid, reliable, well bred dogs.

Artful_Badger

ScumLord wrote: »

Chuck (the turtle in the photo), wants to know if you waved back?

Tell him I did and that I said he was one magnificent bastard.

eisenberg1

ScumLord wrote: »

I would put at least 50% of the blame with the people who buy the dogs. If you want a dog to look a particular way then you're contributing to the problem. Buying a pedigree dog means you're encouraging people to breed genetic abnormalities into dogs


When you say pedigree dog, are you referring to ALL full bred dogs? Then this IMO is a bit of a blanket statement, I mean I have full bred dogs, the reason being, when I buy them. I can be fairly sure how the they are going to turn out in terms of size and temperament etc, am I supposed to feel guilty. What about people who use specific breeds for hunting, guide dogs etc. I know over breeding in certain dogs has caused problems, just today I saw two German Sheperd pups, which without doubt have hip dysplasia and the parents should not have been bred from, but you cant accuse all people who own full breeds of encouraging the breeding of abnormal dogs.

DamagedTrax just beat me to it and outlined it better than I

shruikan2553

Mark Twain wrote: »

While my cat, Mugabe, sometimes lets off some absolute stinkers of farts; I don't see them as contributing massively to overall climate change. Certainly no worse than his owner after a gallon and a half of stout.

Missed a chance there to call him Meowgabe. Speaking of inappropriate names for cats we called the neighbour's Charman Meow.

Artful_Badger

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

No I did not say everything can be considered immoral.

It really feels like you are deliberately misrepresenting me to avoid addressing my point.

I said:



I have no idea how you can take from that "nothing effects anyone".

Creating a demand for something that is in itself fairly innocent (a dog, a pair of jeans, painkillers) should not be considered immoral just because it is possible for someone to acquire it using questionable means. The person who acquires it using questionable means (bad dog breeder, slave labourer, drug dealer) can of course be considered immoral. But a person who buys a dog from a reputable breeder, a person who buys jeans that claim to be fair trade, or a person who buys drugs from a pharmacist should not be considered immoral for that act. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make that.

You are not out of line for trying to address the problem. Your solution to the problem is however naive and hasn't been very well thought out.

Lets say you do manage to get pets banned. What then? Do you actually think that will stop dodgy breeders from breeding more dogs?

Maybe I did misunderstand, you said certain acts associated with meeting certain demands are immoral. All you can do is avoid them where you can etc. Ok sorry.

My point is that if those acts are deemed immoral then then contributing to the demand knowing that those acts are being carried out to meet the demand shares in the responsibility. Even if you are not directly contributing to those particular acts you are still contributing to the demand as a whole on which made these acts profitable.

I wont manage to get anything banned as I'm not seeking anything to be banned. My point as I have said is centered around the demand, the post about neutering them until they were extinct was just an AH type response to a post about putting them all down or something. And its also not just dodgy breeders who are the problem although without a market the problem would lessen. But as I have already said my point is about the morality of contributing to the demand. Any case of illegal breeding or abuse it a matter for the law and wont be solved by good intentions.

Btw you say my solution is naive and poorly thought out. In your last post you said my views were naive and poorly though out. You seemed to have switched after I called you on making such an ignorant statement. Problem is I havent proposed any solution, I have just address the fact I think its immoral and that I dont find it justifiable to contribute to something I think is immoral.

Tiddlypeeps

Artful_Badger wrote: »

My point is that if those acts are deemed immoral then then contributing to the demand knowing that those acts are being carried out to meet the demand shares in the responsibility. Even if you are not directly contributing to those particular acts you are still contributing to the demand as a whole on which made these acts profitable.

I disagree. Using this logic would make just about everything immoral. Would you consider buying a pair of jeans immoral? Even if they are purchased from a vendor who guarantees they are fair trade? Would you consider buying free range eggs immoral?

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I wont manage to get anything banned as I'm not seeking anything to be banned. My point as I have said is centered around the demand, the post about neutering them until they were extinct was just an AH type response to a post about putting them all down or something. And its also not just dodgy breeders who are the problem although without a market the problem would lessen. But as I have already said my point is about the morality of contributing to the demand. Any case of illegal breeding or abuse it a matter for the law and wont be solved by good intentions.

If you don't want to have pets banned or have them phased out then what is it you are actually trying to achieve?

Artful_Badger

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I disagree. Using this logic would make just about everything immoral. Would you consider buying a pair of jeans immoral? Even if they are purchased from a vendor who guarantees they are fair trade? Would you consider buying free range eggs immoral?

It might not be ideal but I dont think it has the same level negative fall out associated with it. Obviously clothes are a necessity though. The demand will always be there so its just a matter of minimizing your contribution.

Free range eggs on the other hand is just another aspect of the animal trade and yes I'd consider it immoral to buy animal products but again food is a necessity so its a matter of trying to minimize your contribution where you can.

If you don't want to have pets banned or have them phased out then what is it you are actually trying to achieve?

I'm just trying to live my life in as best a way as possible without causing misery for other people or animals.

Temptamperu

Pets are cool, feck the needy.

UCDVet

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

I think it is the opposite.

Pets have been kept/breed for thousands of years (if not longer). We've selectively breed out traits necessary for survival in the wild; while at the same time, destroying their natural habitat.

Needy people can help themselves.
Pets cannot.

Put another way - is it more moral to help an upper-middle class gentleman purchase a boat, or a homeless man purchase food? Needy people are many times more capable than pets; they are the upper-middle class lifeforms. The pets are the homeless folk.

markomuscle

No, because the owners want to.

ScumLord

DamagedTrax wrote: »

sorry, im gonna have to pull you on that one (kinda). buying 'certain' pedigree dogs from 'certain' breeders is wrong. yes a lot of them will breed for a certain look (pug, english bulldog, cavalier to name but a few).

Working dogs are a bit different in that they're breed for physical condition which is more in line with natural selection. But even so, if your breeding within a breed you're working with a limited amount of genetic material. It's inbreeding plain and simple. You don't need to be fixated on a breed's characteristics because they're not guaranteed, what happens to the pubs that don't show the desired traits?

eisenberg1 wrote: »

When you say pedigree dog, are you referring to ALL full bred dogs?

Pretty much all inbreed.

but you cant accuse all people who own full breeds of encouraging the breeding of abnormal dogs.

Nobody thinks twice about purebred dogs, nobody realises it's probably two closely related dogs that mated, that are based on a very shallow genetic pool. Most our breeds today are relatively new so we may not see the full effects of our interference for a while yet.

Genetic abnormalities are an accepted part of breeding purebred dogs at this stage. We accept that some dogs will have to be put down or live a life of horrendous pain so that we can get one or two dogs that lives up to our expectations. As we continue to shallow that genetic pool those problems will only increase.

Wibbs

UCDVet wrote: »

We've selectively breed out traits necessary for survival in the wild

Well... I dunno about that. Dogs can go feral very easily when humans step back. It's quite the problem in many places in the world(one "wild" dog the Dingo, is a case of a domestic dog gone feral thousands of years ago). Cats are part feral as it is in many cases. We have less issue with cats acting wild cos they're no physical danger to us and they don't gang up to take down prey bigger than themselves like dogs do.

If humans disappeared tomorrow (outside of genetic freaks like British bulldogs that can't breathe or give birth naturally) dogs and cats would be fine for the most part, well maybe cats would see a population dip with roaming gangs* of dogs about. In a thousand years time you'd have their descendants reach a predator equilibrium in the wild, probably preying on the descendants of domestic cattle, horses and sheep.




*interestingly unlike their ancestor the wolf and contrary to popular, dogs don't form family based packs when they go feral, they form loose associations depending on the needs at the time(by contrast wolves are extremely xenophopic). I suspect if we weren;t around any more they outcompete wolves because of this adaptability

Pumpkinseeds

I prefer to spend my money on the 4 cats that we have, all of whom were homeless until they wandered in to us. As for the needy, there are far more services and funding for them than there will ever be for pets. So basically feck the needy, I'm sticking with my pets:D

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

*interestingly unlike their ancestor the wolf and contrary to popular, dogs don't form family based packs when they go feral, they form loose associations depending on the needs at the time(by contrast wolves are extremely xenophopic). I suspect if we weren;t around any more they outcompete wolves because of this adaptability

Dogs would be safe enough on the British isles but I'd have to give it to the wolves on the continent, if dogs won't form packs I would think they'd be at a disadvantage. I could even see wolves targeting dogs if the dogs become competition. I'm also guessing without humans around wolves numbers would shoot up and they'd be better at tackling large prey like cattle. Wild dogs seem to be more like scavengers than hunters.

shuffles88

How do I justify spending money on my dog? Easy. It's because its my money which I don't have a lot of right now but I also manage to give donations to charities throughout the year.

I don't spend a lot of money on my dog he costs roughly €10 to feed a month. In my opinion its a small price to pay for the companionship, loyalty and affection that my dog gives me without expecting anything in return.

Maybe, OP, you should instead be asking why so many people are dedicated to the pursuit of superfluous material goods rather than directing some of those funds to helping our fellow man. Consumerism is a bigger blight on humanity than a cat, a dog or a budgie ever will be.

ScumLord

shuffles88 wrote: »

I don't spend a lot of money on my dog he costs roughly €10 to feed a month. In my opinion its a small price to pay for the companionship, loyalty and affection that my dog gives me without expecting anything in return.

It's not a one way street you know, dogs get a great deal especially now since their one of the first species in history to practically go into retirement. They get all the benefits of humanity, housing, medical and protection. Having a larger animal with a massive brain looking out for you is a huge benefit to any animal. They got such a cushy number you'd wonder which of us is really smarter.

u_c_thesecond

HA!!!! Me and my hubby work hard for our money and love our kitty and will spend whatever we like on him - seriously what are you on at all!!!!:rolleyes: He is fixed so is not contributing to any cat babies around my town... so kindly and politely shove your telling us not to spend money on our pets where the sun dont shine!!