Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

I really love German Shepherds, but....Follow

#52 Nov 06 2007 at 1:28 PM Rating: Decent
Elderon wrote:
I'm glad you understand why I made you my ***** now.


Smiley: disappointed
#53 Nov 06 2007 at 1:28 PM Rating: Default
We accept spay/neuter efforts as a necessary means to control population of animals that have no natural predators. Population control can take place at the "front end" or the "tail end" of the process. Either we avoid unwanted litters or we find a way to dispose of them. Given those options, one can argue that the more humane approach is to sterilize our pets and save ourselves the expense of burlap sacks and bricks needed to drown all the unwanted kittens and puppies.

I really dislike pets and I make a poor advocate for their rights, but it does not necessarily follow that we may render an entire breed extinct absent calamitous circumstances. If you told me that fox terriers carried a deadly virus, I might support eradication of the species. But the fact that society deems spaying and neutering pets more humane than euthanizing their offspring does not provide the moral footing to end a species.

So, yes, your modest proposal is morally wrong.

Edited, Nov 6th 2007 4:29pm by Annoyingknowitall
#54 Nov 06 2007 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
KassandrahKnight wrote:
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
"domesticated" is really just a nice way of saying "you're here to serve us, no more"


How does a domesticated, pure breed cat "serve me" exactly?


Entertainment, companionship, filling the void in your pitiful life?

#55 Nov 06 2007 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nagah wrote:
I think it's more about the government control of the situation rather than any natural or assumed rights.
That's an excellent point. Not really the angle I was going for but I can see where you're coming from and what you mean. I was speaking strictly morally and using the Powers That Be as an easy factor to explain why it'd ever be a quandary.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Nov 06 2007 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Annoyingknowitall wrote:
If you told me that fox terriers carried a deadly virus, I might support eradication of the species.
Just to be clear, fox terriers are a breed. The species of Canis lupus familiaris will live on in many, many forms.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Nov 06 2007 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Nagah wrote:
I think it's more about the government control of the situation rather than any natural or assumed rights.
That's an excellent point.


So, what's the big ******* delay on sterilizing idiot humans? I mean.. come on already.
#58 Nov 06 2007 at 1:33 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Just to be clear, fox terriers are a breed. The species of Canis lupus familiaris will live on in many, many forms.
You are, of course, correct. Though the distinction is not truly germane to my point.

And I should add ... I find domesticated pets so annoying that I probably would use a virus-infected breed as an excuse to eradicate the species.

Edited, Nov 6th 2007 4:38pm by Annoyingknowitall
#59 Nov 06 2007 at 1:34 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Annoyingknowitall wrote:
If you told me that fox terriers carried a deadly virus, I might support eradication of the species.
Just to be clear, fox terriers are a breed. The species of Canis lupus familiaris will live on in many, many forms.


Fair point, but even at the breed level, the fact that a given breed may have been influenced or even created forcefully by humans does not necessarily mean we can determine its fate unconditionally, on a strictly moral scale, that is. On a logical scale, the situation is quite different.
#60 Nov 06 2007 at 1:38 PM Rating: Default
***
1,121 posts
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
KassandrahKnight wrote:
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
"domesticated" is really just a nice way of saying "you're here to serve us, no more"


How does a domesticated, pure breed cat "serve me" exactly?


Entertainment, companionship, filling the void in your pitiful life?



You're so witty, Stubs. But apparently you've never owned a pure bred cat.

Jophiel wrote:
Nagah wrote:
I think it's more about the government control of the situation rather than any natural or assumed rights.
That's an excellent point. Not really the angle I was going for but I can see where you're coming from and what you mean. I was speaking strictly morally and using the Powers That Be as an easy factor to explain why it'd ever be a quandary.


This is more the angle I was coming at it from. Basically, you are punishing the species for the bad choices that people make, rather than punishing the people. Or you're punishing the individual who choses to smoke (because so far that's not against the law) by telling them they can't smoke in their own home, even though they may live alone and are hurting no one by doing so.

But to answer Jophiel's question, I don't personally think we have the moral right to render any species extint, even if we can find no useful purpose for them.
#61 Nov 06 2007 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
KassandrahKnight wrote:
But to answer Jophiel's question, I don't personally think we have the moral right to render any species extint, even if we can find no useful purpose for them.



I think this is your folly. It has nothing to do with a species, it's just the domesticated form of part of a species. It really has nothing to do with moral rights because the supposed gov't in this case is not tring to extinct anything. It's just telling the owners to stop breeding. And that's why I gave my argument. It's a moral issue with the gov't having control as to what consumers can do with their product.
#62 Nov 06 2007 at 1:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Annoyingknowitall wrote:
Quote:
Just to be clear, fox terriers are a breed. The species of Canis lupus familiaris will live on in many, many forms.
You are, of course, correct. Though the distinction is not truly germane to my point.
Believe it or not, I don't mention it for the sheer joy of pedantry but because I feel it's an important distinction. Elimination of a species is far more absolute than elimination of a breed.

As for the nuts and bolts of your point, I don't necessarily agree. If we are okay with preventing individual animals from breeding because we don't want an extra five fox terriers in the kitchen then I'm not sure where the distinction is between that and preventing their breeding en masse because we don't want any fox terriers, period. Or, to go from the other direction, I'm not convinced that domesticated animals as a breed have any greater rights than they do as individuals.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Nov 06 2007 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:


Consider, for a moment, the possibility that my post may have been a continuation of your joke, and that you just ruined it.


Not for Elderon. He needed it explained.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 217 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (217)