PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

luchog said:
The whole vegan argument is the least convincing one, since humans are not naturally vegan. We are obligate omnivores, and cannot survive on a purely vegan diet for very long without the aid of modern genetic-engineering technology.
Click to expand...

If we can survive on a vegan diet with the aid of technology, then we aren't obligate omnivores.

Not sure what argument you are referring to when you say "the whole vegan argument", BTW.
 
elipse said:
Um...you probably should cut your dog's balls off, because dogs whose balls aren't cut off are one of the reasons there is so much unnecessary dog death.

Also, why are people who are against s/n always against it because of dog balls and not dog uteruses? Is it because balls are visible? Is it empathetic projection? Is it because they need to perceive their dogs as masculine?

I realize you can't answer for all dog owners. It's more a rhetorical wonder, but you can answer for yourself if you're so inclined.
Click to expand...

Dog balls = unnecessary dog death? Really? And do dog teeth mean unnecessary dog bites? Neutering is done for the convenience of humans.

I'm against it because it seems like gratuitous surgery to solve a management problem I would rather see solved by owners in other ways. I feel the same way about balls as I do about uteri, but I chose balls as a more rhetorically dramatic example.

The cognitive dissonance comes in when I try to see things from the pet's point of view. Caging is another example. I think I've seen the rise of "crate trained" sold as a good thing for dogs when it seems more like something convenient for dog owners. On the flip side, be very careful if you leave your pet in a car - no matter what the weather is.

The question is what do we want "standards of care" to mean? Is it that I should care for my pet to the same extent I might care for myself? Or, since I am the responsible party, should the standards be even higher? And, what does the animal prefer - if that is even relevant?
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Dog balls = unnecessary dog death? Really? And do dog teeth mean unnecessary dog bites? Neutering is done for the convenience of humans.

I'm against it because it seems like gratuitous surgery to solve a management problem I would rather see solved by owners in other ways. I feel the same way about balls as I do about uteri, but I chose balls as a more rhetorically dramatic example.

The cognitive dissonance comes in when I try to see things from the pet's point of view. Caging is another example. I think I've seen the rise of "crate trained" sold as a good thing for dogs when it seems more like something convenient for dog owners. On the flip side, be very careful if you leave your pet in a car - no matter what the weather is.

The question is what do we want "standards of care" to mean? Is it that I should care for my pet to the same extent I might care for myself? Or, since I am the responsible party, should the standards be even higher? And, what does the animal prefer - if that is even relevant?
Click to expand...

Help me out? because Siki will not tell me. I mean, why would he want to be neutered but somehow I feel that is not valid question. I agree though that its possible to keep him away from mating opportunities, as owner. Then again, would he want to be kept away? I suspect answer to that ;) Help me out, not keeping the agreement will result in financial fine. I do not think there will be any task force devoted to securing him. Making decisions for someone else, at the same time, non-interference is not compatible with co-living.

He also has little hernia after naval string detachment and she said he could get that fixed, though he seems ok, when having his balls cut off. I need some moral landscape here.
 
tuco said:
Help me out? because Siki will not tell me. I mean, why would he want to be neutered but somehow I feel that is not valid question. I agree though that its possible to keep him away from mating opportunities, as owner. Then again, would he want to be kept away? I suspect answer to that ;) Help me out, not keeping the agreement will result in financial fine. I do not think there will be any task force devoted to securing him. Making decisions for someone else, at the same time, non-interference is not compatible with co-living.

He also has little hernia after naval string detachment and she said he could get that fixed, though he seems ok, when having his balls cut off. I need some moral landscape here.
Click to expand...

I can't really help with any moral authority. I only have my own opinions. The landscape is mixed. Altering sexual function is generally approved of, but altering other things - like tail docking and ear cropping - is generally frowned on. Although, if you ask supporters of any of those surgical alterations, they can give you plausible-sounding reasons.

One moral stance is to agree to accept the pet as it comes - natural condition as the default. If you think your Great Dane's ears look funny unless they are modified to stand up all pointy, well then, don't get a Great Dane.

It has to do with how much a pet is mere property and how much they should have an attachment to moral considerations, usually revolving around anthropomorphism and ideas about suffering. But there's a scale involved that ranges from "my cat/dog is my baby" all the way to "it's just property."

Mostly, my point of view is driven by the same anthropomorphizing. To get the emotional hook and pleasure I derive from animal companionship, I need to believe in certain fictions about the animals I associate with. Without these fictions, I wouldn't bother keeping the pet in the first place. I think there's much more psychology than science going on here. And that's where the difference in opinions come from.
 
marplots said:
Dog balls = unnecessary dog death? Really? And do dog teeth mean unnecessary dog bites? Neutering is done for the convenience of humans.

I'm against it because it seems like gratuitous surgery to solve a management problem I would rather see solved by owners in other ways. I feel the same way about balls as I do about uteri, but I chose balls as a more rhetorically dramatic example.

The cognitive dissonance comes in when I try to see things from the pet's point of view. Caging is another example. I think I've seen the rise of "crate trained" sold as a good thing for dogs when it seems more like something convenient for dog owners. On the flip side, be very careful if you leave your pet in a car - no matter what the weather is.

The question is what do we want "standards of care" to mean? Is it that I should care for my pet to the same extent I might care for myself? Or, since I am the responsible party, should the standards be even higher? And, what does the animal prefer - if that is even relevant?
Click to expand...

Yes! It's exactly like that, in that when dogs have their teeth, those teeth churn out dozens of little sets of chattering dog teeth, that then go out into the world and bite people and things, and then chatter away drunkenly in another direction, leaving a swath of destruction in their wake.

Oh, man, I'm totally in love with that version of reality. Imma just sit in it for a minute, because I'm totally amusing myself right now.

I actually see your point about a better way to manage population, but you gotta work with the world you have. Unless your dog is always either indoors or on leash, he has the potential to make puppies with some strangers dog, or with a stray, and in either case you've got no control over what happens to those puppies. So if you want to keep dogs from dying in the practical world, not just the theoretical one, I don't have a better solution than neutering. It's a very small amount of suffering, contrasted with lots of death. Seems like an easy choice to me.
 
elipse said:
I actually see your point about a better way to manage population, but you gotta work with the world you have. Unless your dog is always either indoors or on leash, he has the potential to make puppies with some strangers dog, or with a stray, and in either case you've got no control over what happens to those puppies. So if you want to keep dogs from dying in the practical world, not just the theoretical one, I don't have a better solution than neutering. It's a very small amount of suffering, contrasted with lots of death. Seems like an easy choice to me.
Click to expand...

The problem I have is that buying into that logic puts me on the PETA path. After all, euthanasia is just another solution for the same problem. Whole body neutering. And even better, it not only reduces future breeding, but reduces the current population by one.

I'm curious to know if the rise of Bob Barker's dream has actually had the effect expected. Are there fewer animals around, now that neutering has become popular? Lots fewer? A few fewer?

It might be reflected in stray dog numbers at animal shelters - I'm not sure. Maybe the holdouts like me, who prefer intact animals, are ruining it for the rest. Although, considering it takes two to tango, you'd need somebody else who didn't have it done to their pet.

I found this on the ASPCA website (no date for the data): "Only 10%of the animals received by shelters have been spayed or neutered, while 83% of pet dogs and 91% of pet cats are spayed or neutered."

That could mean there's a 'wild' population of strays who are breeding a bunch, or that pets who aren't neutered stray more often, or some other thing going on. You'd think though, at an 83% neuter rate for pet dogs, the amount of overpopulation would be reduced enough to see the effect. Maybe not though. It would be interesting to see a definitive answer.

Anecdotally, I have been looking for a pure bred pup. In the past, I have been able to find owners selling cheap or trying to give away a litter at cost. My assumption was these were the result of "surprises." However, this time around it looks like I'll need to buy from a breeder, or at least a private party who intentionally bred their mutts (I assume for profit). So maybe the rise in neutering has had that effect - fewer "give away" dogs to choose from.

ETA: Found this: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...urebreds-in-us-animal-shelters-300112635.html Apparently, neutering is working well, at least for dogs. It also mentions why I am having such a hard time finding a pure bred as a "rescue." So this answers the question I asked above.
 
Last edited:
The veterinary community is convinced, for some reason, that neutering pets has significant prophylactic benefits for the patient, in addition to being appealing to the human owner. At the practice where I work, overpopulation isn't even among the top concerns brought up.

For surgeries that are only appealing to the owner, like tail docking and eat cropping, we are thankfully seeing a movement away from such things.

These are ethical concerns being discussed by the veterinary community, not just human owners acting irrationally.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
The veterinary community is convinced, for some reason, that neutering pets has significant prophylactic benefits for the patient, in addition to being appealing to the human owner. At the practice where I work, overpopulation isn't even among the top concerns brought up.
Click to expand...

Is that because the method's working?
 
Dessi said:
I've always wondered why "modern technology makes it easier to be vegan" is an argument against, rather than for veganism. If the conveniences of modern technology make it easier to go about our business without hurting and killing animals, why wouldn't we do exactly that?
Click to expand...


And here is where ideology overrides reason. Why is it important that we never kill animals for any reason? Why is eating animals such a bad thing? Why is using animals for research such a bad thing?

You're taking as axiomatic that killing and eating animals is a bad thing that cannot be justified. That isn't an axiom, it is an assertion that needs to be demonstrated with evidence, or a simple point of belief that you cannot expect anyone else to share just on your say-so.

xjx388 said:
Why? I don't need to tend a garden and understand what it takes to grow vegetables in order to enjoy a salad. I don't need to fully understand what it takes to make a computer in order to use one. I don't see the same need you do here.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Can't say I agree. If I use electricity, should I work at a power plant in order to understand the process?
Click to expand...


Because vegetables and and electricity do not generate the level of squeamishness and ideological outrage that eating meat does. I've encountered many people who are firmly against using animal testing for medical research, yet happily eat meat. People who rant about how horribly we treat animals, while munching on fried chicken and BBQ pork ribs. People who cry over nature specials where "cute" animals get killed by predators, while eating their steak dinner. I can guarantee you that a whole lot of people donating to PETA still eat meat.

And for the records, I do believe that all humans should be able to grow their own food. They may not need to, but they should be able to.

More knowledge and understanding of the world we live in is never a bad thing.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I am skeptical.
Click to expand...

Look up Vitamin B12 Deficiency.

What that article doesn't mention is that long-term deficiency causes neurological damage and possibly result in death if severe and persistent enough.

Vitamin B12 is not naturally available from any vegetarian source, only from animals sources. It is currently available from yeasts that have been genetically engineered to create it. Prior to the development of these yeasts using modern technology, the only source for vitamin B12 was extraction from animal products, typically organ meats. It's also obtainable from animal feces, and some old books on veganism that I've encountered provide instructions on how to do so. Indian vegetarians are chronically vitamin B12 deficient; but have the "benefit" that much of their water is contaminated with feces, and thereby the bacteria that create B12.

However, since B12 deficiency is not an immediate killer, and is very often misdiagnosed when it is seen (I've had this personally happen, as has my stepdaughter), most people simply don't understand how much of a problem it can be. Especially "ethical" vegans who don't adequately research their diet first (eg. most of them in my experience).
 
Last edited:
Because I am a diabetic and Metformen can potentially cause B-12 deficiency, I have to take a B-12 vitamin.
 
elipse said:
Um...you probably should cut your dog's balls off, because dogs whose balls aren't cut off are one of the reasons there is so much unnecessary dog death.
Click to expand...


There is also evidence that sterilized animals live longer and have fewer of certain types of health problems.
 
cornsail said:
If we can survive on a vegan diet with the aid of technology, then we aren't obligate omnivores.

Not sure what argument you are referring to when you say "the whole vegan argument", BTW.
Click to expand...

Until the neo-luddites get their way, because, you know: Technology is bad and is destroying the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom