PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[Cain]

And where did that year's worth of B12 come from? Just because it's not an extraordinary effort for you, that doesn't mean it wasn't for someone.

I think anyone with half a brain can agree this is a truly bad argument. People today would absolutely struggle to live without modern amenities, but it doesn't mean they should practice survivalist techniques, even if sewer systems and electrical grids required extraordinary effort.

And with that it's clear that there is no fruitful discussion to be had here, as I've found it's never worthwhile trying to debate science with people who prefer beliefs to facts.

That's rich.

 

[Belz...]

Still waiting for your answer, Cain. As I said, I don't keep track of all posters. Post your reasons, and we can discuss them. Or don't. But don't blame me for your reluctance to do it.

 

[deadrose]

I'm just going to address one small thing - someone wondered why trap/neuter/release is considered viable for cats but not for dogs. It's very simple and known to most people who've lived in rural areas - dogs are pack animals and cats aren't. Dogs don't even need to be feral to form a pack, they just need to be left loose. I lived most of my life on an island where this happened regularly. Pet dogs would run in packs at night and attack livestock.

Having your livestock slaughtered is far different than having the wild rodent population depleted, and has resulted in a lot of dead dogs over the years. It's hard to explain to the kids that their beloved Fido's dead because he ripped the throat out of Fluffy the Sheep.

 

[Cain]

Still waiting for your answer, Cain. As I said, I don't keep track of all posters. Post your reasons, and we can discuss them. Or don't. But don't blame me for your reluctance to do it.

You're waiting for answers I have already provided. If you're so interested, you can reread my posts from our previous exchanges.

 

[elipse]

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 sorry, this is so stupid I'm wondering if you're joking. If you're not, please know and trust I am not calling YOU stupid. One has to have a plurality of one's thoughts or actions be stupid to qualify as stupid. So far, I only know of one stupid thought you've had...but this one is really, really stupid. The kind of stupid where you don't know where to start because there is so much competing for attention.

I'm totally willing to believe you are utterly brilliant on every other point, though. Just not this one.

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.

Or a stray. Which you'd probably never know about. If the stray lives long enough in the same spot, could happen more than once with the same stray.

 

[elipse]

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

I met one once. He was a smart guy who used his smarts to attempt to make that movement sound smart.

It did not fly.

 

[elipse]

The thread has been fueled not so much by any alleged pattern in this area as a referendum on PeTA for statements and practices over the years.

There has been discussion about how their statements and philosophies inform their practices, yes. Specifically, their practices at their shelter which form a pattern into which this incident falls.

So characterizing it as a 9 page thread about one dog is disingenuous.

I realize you want to do an awful, awful dance where you make this line of the discussion about one thing,

Yes. About your claim that opponents of peta are many many times more ridiculous.

and then about something else whenever it suits you,

Nope. My conversation with you has just been about that one thing.

ut I'm afraid that will not work. My comment, which you apparently want to discuss, was that opponents who describe PeTA's views as ridiculous hold even more ridiculous views. This was mentioned in the context of arguments against animal rights.

You didn't originally say "opponents who describe peta's views as ridiculous," (nor did you qualify it with "some,") you just said opponents. However, I think peta's views (enough of them, and definitely the ones regarding pets, which are the ones mainly being discussed in the thread) are poorly reasoned and unconvincing, and I think their practices (almost entirely, and definitely as regards their shelter, which is mainly being discussed in this thread) are unethical and antisocial, so I think if we bend the definition of "ridiculous" just a tad, I still fit the bill.

Now you want to say you're an opponent of PeTA, and then you volunteer some incoherently worded background about yourself -- you're a supporter of animal rights, or welfare, or something -- and then ask if you're ridiculous. Do you still want an answer?

I volunteer every opinion and view* I have offered in this thread, or if you wish to search, on this entire forum.

And I didn't ask you if I was ridiculous. I am undoubtedly ridiculous in some, perhaps many, ways. I asked you what about my views* was ridiculous.


Essentially, you said my views are many, many times more ridiculous than peta's. I'm just asking you to clarify which ones.




*as you say, in an animal rights context. I may well hold ridiculous views in other areas.

 

[Belz...]

You're waiting for answers I have already provided. If you're so interested, you can reread my posts from our previous exchanges.

In this thread or elsewhere? I'm not going to make a thesis out of it. Instead of bitching about it you could've answered it already with the same number of characters.

 

[Cain]

There has been discussion about how their statements and philosophies inform their practices, yes. Specifically, their practices at their shelter which form a pattern into which this incident falls.

So characterizing it as a 9 page thread about one dog is disingenuous.

I am happy for others to read my comment and take from it what they will. I'm not sure why you're so vested in shoehorning these uncharitable readings into my sentence. This incident did turn into a nine page thread, which you've helped extend to eleven pages, but we really do "have a nine page thread because a PeTA employee apparently killed one dog four days too soon." You seem to want to read a contradiction between two sentences when one (rather clearly) builds on the other. This is an indicator that you are an unreasonable person not worth (any more of) my time.

Yes. About your claim that opponents of peta are many many times more ridiculous.

Nope. My conversation with you has just been about that one thing.

You didn't originally say "opponents who describe peta's views as ridiculous," (nor did you qualify it with "some,") you just said opponents.

Which clearly meant anyone, anywhere who has ever uttered a criticism or self-described themselves as an opponent is automatically many, many, many times more ridiculous than PeTA. Please, get a clue.

However, I think peta's views (enough of them, and definitely the ones regarding pets, which are the ones mainly being discussed in the thread) are poorly reasoned and unconvincing, and I think their practices (almost entirely, and definitely as regards their shelter, which is mainly being discussed in this thread) are unethical and antisocial, so I think if we bend the definition of "ridiculous" just a tad, I still fit the bill.

I volunteer every opinion and view* I have offered in this thread, or if you wish to search, on this entire forum.

And I didn't ask you if I was ridiculous. I am undoubtedly ridiculous in some, perhaps many, ways. I asked you what about my views* was ridiculous.

Granted, you did ask if your views are ridiculous, which I transformed to whether or not you are being ridiculous because, well, you are. Despite multiple invitations, I am not interested in weighing in on whatever you decide to volunteer about yourself because you have not said anything I find remotely interesting. It's mostly been muddled and self-absorbed, whereas your comments on my posts are hyper-literal and not building toward anything meaningful, just semantic wanking.

I am generally interested in discussing moral arguments regarding animals. If you want to generate a semi-coherent argument, then I may or may not comment. But I am going to comment on inchoate criticisms such as "I do not like their rhetoric or tactics" or "I oppose their goals" or whatever else you said originally. The fact you immediately attempted to make my remark about you coupled with this B.S. literalism are both red flags. Speaking of red flags...

 

[Cain]

In this thread or elsewhere? I'm not going to make a thesis out of it. Instead of bitching about it you could've answered it already with the same number of characters.

So you cannot remember if we've had exchanges in this thread?? Belz... in animal rights threads you're constantly just asking questions (or JAQing off). Your questions have been answered numerous times by me. For whatever reason you cannot retain this information, so what's the point of triplicating my efforts?

 

[Giordano]

I'm just going to address one small thing - someone wondered why trap/neuter/release is considered viable for cats but not for dogs. It's very simple and known to most people who've lived in rural areas - dogs are pack animals and cats aren't. Dogs don't even need to be feral to form a pack, they just need to be left loose. I lived most of my life on an island where this happened regularly. Pet dogs would run in packs at night and attack livestock.

Having your livestock slaughtered is far different than having the wild rodent population depleted, and has resulted in a lot of dead dogs over the years. It's hard to explain to the kids that their beloved Fido's dead because he ripped the throat out of Fluffy the Sheep.

Just posting to say thanks! I have resolved to make no other comment in this thread.

 

[Belz...]

So you cannot remember if we've had exchanges in this thread??

In this one? Not to my knowledge. Let me check back.

<<<Checks>>>

Aside from one post unrelated to our current discussion, no.

in animal rights threads you're constantly just asking questions (or JAQing off).

That's not true. I've voiced my opinion numerous times, although since I don't have a definite view of the topic the opinion is not fixed. Perhaps you're not that good at remembering someone else's posts, either.

Your questions have been answered numerous times by me. For whatever reason you cannot retain this information, so what's the point of triplicating my efforts?

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into telling me you're not going to make an effort. If you're going to engage me anyway, might as well answer my question, no?

 

[Meed]

On which definition? "Obligate"?

"Obligate omnivore".

It's not an important point. One could define it or interpret the definition in such a way that humans were "obligate omnivores", but this would say nothing about whether or not one should adopt a vegan diet. We (except for hunter/gatherers and the extremely impoverished) clearly do not have to live as omnivores in modern times.

 

[Puppycow]

Hmm, this doesn't seem to be a thread about PETA euthanizing a dog anymore, but I will say this for vegan meat substitutes: They've gotten a lot better since I was young. Recently visited my family in CA and my mom's a vegetarian so I got to try some and if I didn't know they weren't real meat I wouldn't have noticed.

If vegans can come up with great-tasting meat substitutes that aren't overly expensive I might be willing to a long way towards becoming vegan. These products aren't available in Japan because I guess there's just not many vegans here so no demand.

 

[marplots]

Hmm, this doesn't seem to be a thread about PETA euthanizing a dog anymore, but I will say this for vegan meat substitutes: They've gotten a lot better since I was young. Recently visited my family in CA and my mom's a vegetarian so I got to try some and if I didn't know they weren't real meat I wouldn't have noticed.

If vegans can come up with great-tasting meat substitutes that aren't overly expensive I might be willing to a long way towards becoming vegan. These products aren't available in Japan because I guess there's just not many vegans here so no demand.

If they get good enough, we can go back to serving meat and the vegans won't catch us at it.

 

[Cain]

In this one?

Yeah, this one. Do you need to call a search party to find the couch in your own living room?

That's not true. I've voiced my opinion numerous times, although since I don't have a definite view of the topic the opinion is not fixed. Perhaps you're not that good at remembering someone else's posts, either.

We are talking about threads that run dozens of pages, hundreds of posts, and you want to brag about expressing an opinion "numerous times." OK, but you're still constantly JAQing off. Just read the threads; if nothing else, you will certainly find an answer to the question you asked (and answers to many you didn't ask).

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into telling me you're not going to make an effort. If you're going to engage me anyway, might as well answer my question, no?

This is preferable.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, this one. Do you need to call a search party to find the couch in your own living room?

Not normally, no.

We are talking about threads that run dozens of pages, hundreds of posts, and you want to brag about expressing an opinion "numerous times."

Par for the course, since you claim to not wanting to repeat an explanation you already gave somewhere in those dozens of pages, no?

OK, but you're still constantly JAQing off.

That might be your interpretation, but it doesn't match reality. Just because I don't come into threads with an already-made-up mind doesn't mean I'm playing devil's advocate or whatever. In fact, not having a made-up mind is supposed to be considered a good thing around these parts. But I can see that it doesn't apply to the "politics" and "social issues" sections.

This is preferable.

No, it's just that you were caught pretending something that isn't true and you were called on it. You're just feigning outrage so you don't have to answer the question.

 

[Cain]

That might be your interpretation, but it doesn't match reality. Just because I don't come into threads with an already-made-up mind doesn't mean I'm playing devil's advocate or whatever. In fact, not having a made-up mind is supposed to be considered a good thing around these parts. But I can see that it doesn't apply to the "politics" and "social issues" sections.

You really should read what you've had to say about the topic.

No, it's just that you were caught pretending something that isn't true [??]and you were called on it. You're just feigning outrage so you don't have to answer the question.

I have no idea what you're going on about, especially since there's no "feigning" or "outrage," but this is neither the first nor probably the last time you've completely misread my tone in this thread.

 

[Belz...]

You really should read what you've had to say about the topic.

No, no, no. No more vague insinuations and fake frustration. Be clear; what is it exactly that you disagree with me on?

 

[Cain]

No, no, no. No more vague insinuations and fake frustration.

Really, you're going to stop now? That's great.

Be clear; what is it exactly that you disagree with me on?

I'm not sure; you've never contributed anything meaningful to the topic. I just know you ask question after question for things that have been answered time after time.