or Connect
VeggieBoards › Forums › Activist Forums › Animal Rights and Welfare › True Companion Animals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

True Companion Animals - Page 2

post #31 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind View Post

I think it was someone else. I am fine with pets under certain conditions and don't have a problem with domestication. I think you just remember disagreeing with me from my introduction thread. I am against desexing and feeding pets meat.

Somebodyelse, that's awesome!

You're against "desexing" pets? Do you mean neutering and spaying?

Because you'll get a hell of a lot of backlash from that opinion by many here, myself included.

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply
post #32 of 50

deleted


Edited by Beetlejuice - 6/3/12 at 11:33am
post #33 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbitLuvr View Post

So you're against people keeping dogs or cats as pets, but you're also against spaying/neutering dogs and cats already in existence? That is irresponsible.

What other people do isn't their responsibility! Leave them alone!

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply
post #34 of 50
deleted

Edited by Beetlejuice - 6/3/12 at 11:33am
post #35 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbitLuvr View Post

So you're against people keeping dogs or cats as pets, but you're also against spaying/neutering dogs and cats already in existence? That is irresponsible.

1. Where'd you get that idea?

2. We already do that with every animal that isn't a pet, so even if I did hold the opinions you think I do, it wouldn't be more irresponsible than how we treat other species.
post #36 of 50
deleted

Edited by Beetlejuice - 6/3/12 at 11:33am
post #37 of 50
Thread Starter 
When did I say I'm against people keeping dogs or cats as pets?

Why is it more irresponsible?
post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind View Post

When did I say I'm against people keeping dogs or cats as pets?

Why is it more irresponsible?

Why do you answer answers with questions when the answers to the questions should be blatantly obvious?

It's irresponsible because if pets aren't "desexed" then they will likely breed and create more unwanted pets.

Which a person like yourself should be against.

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply
post #39 of 50

deleted


Edited by Beetlejuice - 6/3/12 at 11:34am
post #40 of 50
Thread Starter 
If an animal has never threatened you, how can you justify harming it? If so stray animals start threatening your health, it would be self-defense to kill them. Going around maiming animals because of a possible future is not at all reacting to an imminent threat.

And I'm still waiting for a quote of when I said I'm against keeping cats or dogs as pets.
post #41 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind View Post

Going around maiming animals because of a possible future is not at all reacting to an imminent threat.

So you're saying that if you had the opportunity to save a pig in a factory farm, you wouldn't save it because hey, maybe it'll escape and won't be butchered! It's just one possible future.

Maybe that cat that you wouldn't "maim" won't go on to have tons of babies that live in squalor and contribute to the extremely f**king massive pet overpopulation. But why take the chance?

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply
post #42 of 50
Thread Starter 
So do you think that people living in squalor should be involuntarily sterilized?
post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind View Post

So do you think that people living in squalor should be involuntarily sterilized?

That's quite a leap.
post #44 of 50
Thread Starter 
I'm applying his logic to humans. If allowing cats to breed even though there might not be enough food is unethical, then why is it okay to let humans?
post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind View Post

I'm not responsible for the actions of other humans. It would be unfortunate, but I'm not going to punish myself for what other people might do in the future.

If you teach an animal to need you, you become responsible for that animal, and if it encounters danger from trusting other humans, it is your fault.
Ever hear "don't feed the animals?" Good reason for that.

Humans have changed the nature of cats. Vegans often say they don't want to have carnivorous animals in their care, yet humans need to take responsibility for what they've changed.
post #46 of 50
Thread Starter 
You're implying some kind of blood guilt--that because I am a human, I am responsible for what all humans have done in the past. I simply don't agree with that.
post #47 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind View Post

If an animal has never threatened you, how can you justify harming it? If so stray animals start threatening your health, it would be self-defense to kill them. Going around maiming animals because of a possible future is not at all reacting to an imminent threat.

And I'm still waiting for a quote of when I said I'm against keeping cats or dogs as pets.

You're okay with animals that HUMANS have changed throughout centuries, suffer conditions that they're not suited for, and breed as wild animals, even though domesticated? Maybe you'd also like orphaned children to create feral colonies, and breed without abandon.
See, the difference here is no one would allow human children to roam uncontrolled anyway. They do with cats and dogs. Which is why controlling their breeding is the only compassionate way to reduce the spread of disease, and the threat of abuse.
I find it most interesting that you'd rather allow them to breed until people get so enraged they can kill when (with your blessings!)

Again I call you speciest.
post #48 of 50
Thread Starter 
I'm suggesting we treat animals people consider pets the same as any other animal. I think it's really strange that people keep calling me speciesist for applying the same ethics to every species.
post #49 of 50
I think it's specist for to think you can apply human ethics to all animals.
"Pets" are animals that have domesticated for thousands of years to the extent they depend on humans, for shelter, nutrition, clean water, and all needs. Cats and dogs are not the same as their ancestors, as anyone involved in rescue can attest to.
post #50 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post

I think it's specist for to think you can apply human ethics to all animals.
"Pets" are animals that have domesticated for thousands of years to the extent they depend on humans, for shelter, nutrition, clean water, and all needs. Cats and dogs are not the same as their ancestors, as anyone involved in rescue can attest to.

+1

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Animal Rights and Welfare
VeggieBoards › Forums › Activist Forums › Animal Rights and Welfare › True Companion Animals