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* :(:(
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 ?
seamus wrote: » Domesticated animals are by definition adapted to share a domestic environment with humans.
Mark Twain wrote: » ... my cat, Mugabe ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Artful_Badger wrote: » Glad to hear the turtles are doing well.
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 ??
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.
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.
ScumLord wrote: » Chuck (the turtle in the photo), wants to know if you waved back?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
If you don't want to have pets banned or have them phased out then what is it you are actually trying to achieve?
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?
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).
eisenberg1 wrote: » When you say pedigree dog, are you referring to ALL full bred dogs?
but you cant accuse all people who own full breeds of encouraging the breeding of abnormal dogs.
UCDVet wrote: » We've selectively breed out traits necessary for survival in the wild
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
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.
