PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[Belz...]

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

Dodge noted.

The use of "I know you are but what am I" reflects poorly upon you, not me.

I'm not sure; you've never contributed anything meaningful to the topic.

Let's test that now. Do you have any question or comment that I could address?

 

[Cain]

Dodge noted.

See, this is the kind of thing that suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. You've seen other people write things like that and you're aping their language. You wrote an assertion, one that happens to apply more to your posts thus far (you know the ones complaining about "bitching"). One can "dodge" a question, and one can disobey a command, but it's a poor choice of words to say one "dodged" a command, particularly in how I replied. Maybe pointing this sort of thing out will help you one day achieve a kind of realization.

The use of "I know you are but what am I" reflects poorly upon you, not me.

It's more like, "I know you are." And I know because of years of history.

Let's test that now. Do you have any question or comment that I could address?

Nope; I'm just not interested in your numerous opinions as they relate to animal rights. My time would be better spent getting into arguments with random people on Youtube. Or getting into arguments about your posting history. If you want to contribute something meaningful on this topic, then go ahead. Generate an argument. Maybe someone will reply. Good luck!

 

[Belz...]

See, this is the kind of thing that suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. You've seen other people write things like that and you're aping their language.

What a ridiculous thing to say. We all learn all our language from other people all the time. The fact of the matter is that you continue to dodge the issue and make your posts personal which, by the way, is against the MA.

Nope; I'm just not interested in your numerous opinions as they relate to animal rights.

I'm still waiting for a question or comment. So far all I know is that you think it's repugnant. I've asked why, and you went into a rant instead of answering, presumably because you don't even know, yourself. And now that I've asked about what you'd like to discuss, you continue to be vague and whiny. Perhaps you like the sound of your fingers on a keyboard, but it's not very helpful in the thread.

 

[Cain]

What a ridiculous thing to say. We all learn all our language from other people all the time. The fact of the matter is that you continue to dodge the issue and make your posts personal which, by the way, is against the MA.

I'm still waiting for a question or comment. So far all I know is that you think it's repugnant. I've asked why, and you went into a rant instead of answering, presumably because you don't even know, yourself. And now that I've asked about what you'd like to discuss, you continue to be vague and whiny. Perhaps you like the sound of your fingers on a keyboard, but it's not very helpful in the thread.

This is funny.

 

[luchog]

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.

People survived for millenia without modern amenities. No one has ever survived for long without Vitamin B12.

Your goalposts are so mobile that it's hard to even see where they are anymore. You're clearly more invested in winning Internet points than in understanding the actual science. I'm done.

 

[Belz...]

This is funny.

So you in fact have nothing to contribute to the discussion. You just wanted to pretend to be outraged and disgusted.

 

[Meed]

People survived for millenia without modern amenities. No one has ever survived for long without Vitamin B12.

I still don't know why you think this has any relevance as to whether one (living in modern times) should or should not adopt a vegan diet.

 

[luchog]

I still don't know why you think this has any relevance as to whether one (living in modern times) should or should not adopt a vegan diet.

It doesn't, it is simply an evaluation of the actual, real science. It does have relevance to the claims made by vegan diet supporters; and points out quite clearly that veganism is ideological, not rational, and was not actually possible throughout the overwhelming majority of history. Claiming it is "morally/ethically superior" is just begging the question.

 

[Meed]

It doesn't, it is simply an evaluation of the actual, real science. It does have relevance to the claims made by vegan diet supporters;

So it has relevance to some unspecified claims that have been made by some unspecified vegan diet supporters? Are you going to share what those claims are?

and points out quite clearly that veganism is ideological, not rational, and was not actually possible throughout the overwhelming majority of history.

Why would demonstrating that veganism was not possible in the past demonstrate that veganism today is "not rational"?

Claiming it is "morally/ethically superior" is just begging the question.

No it isn't. I'm curious whether you would say that about all ethical claims? However, it's also not something anyone in this thread thus far has claimed, as far as I can tell.

Personally, I would say that avoiding animal product consumption is ethically preferable in a majority of cases due to the high levels of cruelty that are a reality of modern animal farming.

 

[tuco]

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.

Yeah I know, nobody can, thanks anyway. Well, I guess I pay the fine.

It was just .. many seem to have strong opinions, some even sound like "being right", and when it comes down to solving dilemma like the one I presented, they have not much to say, naturally. And I dont mean you btw.

 

[DragonLady]

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.

I can't help with moral landscape. But I can give you my own opinions:

I believe dogs should be spayed or neutered unless you plan to breed them -and then I believe you should only breed them if you're both willing and able to provide a permanent home for all of the puppies for the rest of their lives. Breeding dogs for money is fine by me, but "no fair" sending dogs who are not purchased or adopted to shelters or the pound.

None of us knows for certain what the future holds, but we can make sure it doesn't hold litters of unwanted puppies for ourselves or anyone else. It's a simple operation (especially for the males), carries few risks, and prevents your pet's progeny from landing in a shelter, or a puppy mill, or suffering any of the terrible things that can happen to stray dogs.

 

[tuco]

I can't help with moral landscape. But I can give you my own opinions:

I believe dogs should be spayed or neutered unless you plan to breed them -and then I believe you should only breed them if you're both willing and able to provide a permanent home for all of the puppies for the rest of their lives. Breeding dogs for money is fine by me, but "no fair" sending dogs who are not purchased or adopted to shelters or the pound.

None of us knows for certain what the future holds, but we can make sure it doesn't hold litters of unwanted puppies for ourselves or anyone else. It's a simple operation (especially for the males), carries few risks, and prevents your pet's progeny from landing in a shelter, or a puppy mill, or suffering any of the terrible things that can happen to stray dogs.

Thanks, I did not think it through .. that by posting what I posted it will go off topic.

I will not delve into my personal dilemmas surrounding this subject and there are more, however, would it change his behaviour? Lack of balls?

 

[DragonLady]

Thanks, I did not think it through .. that by posting what I posted it will go off topic.

I will not delve into my personal dilemmas surrounding this subject and there are more, however, would it change his behaviour? Lack of balls?

Not really. It will make him less likely to wander away, as he won't be looking for females that are in heat, and he'll be less likely to be in fights with other dogs. Otherwise, no, you really won't see any difference in behavior compared to intact males of the same age.

If you'd like to talk about further, why don't you send me a private message? Or start a separate topic in the "community" section?

 

[marplots]

Not really. It will make him less likely to wander away, as he won't be looking for females that are in heat, and he'll be less likely to be in fights with other dogs. Otherwise, no, you really won't see any difference in behavior compared to intact males of the same age.

If you'd like to talk about further, why don't you send me a private message? Or start a separate topic in the "community" section?

There's a mixed bag on the behavioral side of neutering male dogs:
"Testosterone and aggression

Testosterone tends to lower thresholds for aggression (making aggression more likely). It can also make aggression more intense and longer lasting. Thus entire males may be more likely than neutered dogs to respond aggressively in situations where they are feeling threatened or frustrated. Because of the role that testosterone plays in aggression, many dogs behave less aggressively once testosterone levels drop after castration. But the confounding issue here is that testosterone may also act as a confidence boost, and in some cases its absence after castration may mean a dog becomes more brittle emotionally, and more likely to react aggressively when feeling under threat." http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/neuteringmaledogs

This shouldn't be surprising. Hormones have complex, multi-tiered effects.

 

[DragonLady]

There's a mixed bag on the behavioral side of neutering male dogs:
"Testosterone and aggression

[snip]

and in some cases its absence after castration may mean a dog becomes more brittle emotionally, and more likely to react aggressively when feeling under threat." http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/neuteringmaledogs

This shouldn't be surprising. Hormones have complex, multi-tiered effects.

Agreed. But...in my experience (for whatever it's worth) most dogs that are acting aggressive benefit most from increased attention and consistent training sessions.

I would not expect neutering to make a really aggressive dog less aggressive; but I do think it may help as a part of a concentrated effort to change the dog's behavior.

Dog training is always a two-part process: using a consistent command/act to stop a behavior, followed by an immediate reward when the animal complies. He not only needs to know what you don't want him to do, but also needs to know what you DO want him to do -and that part can require more time and effort to constantly reinforce, but is well worth it in the long run.

 

[Cain]

Belz... pay attention: luchog is someone you may want to criticize for exhibiting outrage and disgust. I'm just ignoring your questions because they have been answered before, and you have nothing interesting to say on this topic.

People survived for millenia without modern amenities. No one has ever survived for long without Vitamin B12.

Your goalposts are so mobile that it's hard to even see where they are anymore. You're clearly more invested in winning Internet points than in understanding the actual science. I'm done.

This would not be half as funny if you weren't so serious. I especially like how you storm off and then come back. It's as if you're lobbying to get this bad argument into the Hall of Fame of Bad Arguments.

This is not a matter of goalposts but special pleading. You're somehow trying to argue that modern access to vitamin B12 runs contrary to "fact"(!) because historically people needed to supplement their diets with meat. The fact of the matter is that we do not reside in state of nature, so what you're arguing is irrelevant.

It doesn't, it is simply an evaluation of the actual, real science. It does have relevance to the claims made by vegan diet supporters; and points out quite clearly that veganism is ideological, not rational, and was not actually possible throughout the overwhelming majority of history.

It does not matter if veganism was not a viable option throughout human history. If you wan to talk about survival, it's a matter of fact that billions of people would not be alive today without scientifically engineered medicine. In a state of nature, people would have died, and many more never would have been born. So? Focus instead on what is relevant -- the choices we face right now.

 

[marplots]

Agreed. But...in my experience (for whatever it's worth) most dogs that are acting aggressive benefit most from increased attention and consistent training sessions.

I would not expect neutering to make a really aggressive dog less aggressive; but I do think it may help as a part of a concentrated effort to change the dog's behavior.

Dog training is always a two-part process: using a consistent command/act to stop a behavior, followed by an immediate reward when the animal complies. He not only needs to know what you don't want him to do, but also needs to know what you DO want him to do -and that part can require more time and effort to constantly reinforce, but is well worth it in the long run.

I agree. And the benefits extend further than reducing/controlling aggression.

In general, I am suspicious of surgery offered as a "cure" for unwanted behavior for a couple reasons. The first is that the envelope of possible modification in animals is limited enough that one should be careful about unrealistic expectations - "My tiger won't bite, ever." The second is related to the first - at some point, one has to wonder how far surgery can be pushed to meet an ideal before you cross the line into some grotesque parody of pet-keeping. I suppose that a bit of a frontal lobotomy might quickly and efficiently reduce aggression in dogs. Does that justify the procedure?

Just how far we will accept modifications for our desires is debatable. There are those who do not like the idea of purebreds and see them as cruel mutants created with terrible congenital flaws simply because of fashion. On the other end of the scale, you might have someone who says that anything at all is permissible, since a dog is an animal whose existence is entirely dependent on my desires anyhow. Sculpt them with abandon. Eat them if you like, fight them, torture them - no moral stain attaches.

I'm closer to the dog-lover side, but even I distinguish between dogs as pets and dogs as companions. I have three dogs now, all adopted, all in the pet category. I am kind and caring toward them. They have a good home. But they aren't "companion" animals. That, to me, is a higher status. More intimate. I'd put it as similar to the difference (in humans) between a close acquaintance and a true friend.

 

[DragonLady]

I agree. And the benefits extend further than reducing/controlling aggression.

In general, I am suspicious of surgery offered as a "cure" for unwanted behavior for a couple reasons. The first is that the envelope of possible modification in animals is limited enough that one should be careful about unrealistic expectations - "My tiger won't bite, ever." The second is related to the first - at some point, one has to wonder how far surgery can be pushed to meet an ideal before you cross the line into some grotesque parody of pet-keeping. I suppose that a bit of a frontal lobotomy might quickly and efficiently reduce aggression in dogs. Does that justify the procedure?

(nods) I feel much the same about using drugs or surgery to change human behavior. While I do think it can be beneficial, and in some cases may be a perfect cure, I'd like to see it always be the last resort rather than the first. Whether human or animal, I think time and attention are far more valuable tools and simple praise and rewards are worth far more in the long run.

{snip}

I'm closer to the dog-lover side, but even I distinguish between dogs as pets and dogs as companions. I have three dogs now, all adopted, all in the pet category. I am kind and caring toward them. They have a good home. But they aren't "companion" animals. That, to me, is a higher status. More intimate. I'd put it as similar to the difference (in humans) between a close acquaintance and a true friend.

I think you've pretty much summed up my own stance.

 

[Meed]

Belz... pay attention: luchog is someone you may want to criticize for exhibiting outrage and disgust.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300736&page=12 (?)

 

[Belz...]

Belz... pay attention: luchog is someone you may want to criticize for exhibiting outrage and disgust. I'm just ignoring your questions because they have been answered before, and you have nothing interesting to say on this topic.

You're not ignoring anything. You have a strange obsession with addressing me without actually doing so.