Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"

[amyb]

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  amyb:
Yes, it is perverted. Alone the fact, as you said yourself, dogs from warmer areas being brought into areas where they wouldn't be able to survive, BECAUSE it is too cold for them. But I wasn't just talking about the reasonable stuff, like if you have such a dog, you put a shirt on it. I was talking about the bags you carry your yorkshire in, the dedicated pet beds, the luxury versions of pots for frigging water. The pet food that is often taken better care of, in production, than food for people. And many more examples like that.
http://www.luxurypetdept.com/catalog/47/...sstrollers
http://www.luxurypetdept.com/catalog/112...llsdogbeds
http://www.luxurypetdept.com/catalog/110/dogmansions
http://www.blogsouthwest.com/files/wp/20...ulldog.jpg
http://www.marcofolio.net/images/stories...dog_20.jpg
http://www.wtfcow.com/wp-content/uploads...ed_dog.png
Not sure how you do not see anything perverse here

Humans all come from Africa, where it's warm. Does that make all the people who now live in Norway or Canada "perverted"? No, they just put on more clothing. Same with short haired dogs. That's the same reason dogs live in more sheltered areas, have houses, pet beds, etc. By that logic, I should be frolicking naked in the snow right now because it's perverse to live in a house and wear clothes. Hell, even a wild dog will find shelter from the cold. If a person provides a "pet mansion," I don't see much difference except it costs the person money.

No, a dog doesn't strictly *need* a special, pretty water dish; but I'd argue the human bought that for himself because it would look cool in the kitchen. The humans appreciate these things, not the dogs. The dogs just use them.

As for strollers, if it's not hurting the dog, I don't care. All that does is make the owner look a bit foolish.

[Leela]

This is not about humans, amyb, but yes humans originally came from one merged continent. specifically the part that is now Africa. But what makes the human race special, is that they are able to easily adapt to pretty much everything. Most other animals aren't. See your short dogs, fish, some snakes, some birds, etc.
Now you may not have a problem with things like dog strollers, the dog itself does. Dogs want to walk with their pack, it is one of the main ways to bond for them. If they don't get to walk but be carried around in a stroller, than this is harmful. You, thinking as human, have no problem with it, because it looks just like carrying a baby around, but dogs are not babies.
Anyway, you are talking all emotional, try to be a bit more objective. At least try.










Who ever had the idea for this trial debate, cool thing. It is an interesting experience to take the side that everyone hates and be the asshole. I understand those hobbytrolls a lot better now, it is actually fun to be the asshole
I think I will stop debating here now, before people start thinking that this is my actual opinion.

amyb: therefore I am not gonna answer anymore, doesn't matter if you adress my post or not

[Birdguy1979]

(27-12-2012 09:18 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  I'd like have threads that put out a proposition, and users will debate it, but make an effort to give the best possible argument they can that conflicts with their real world views. Why?
1. It allows users to explore all the potential arguments that they may come up against.
2. It may allows users to sympathize with others they disagree with.
3. It may hone their own debating skills.
4. It may give an excuse for people with particularly despicable beliefs to debate for things that they may not necessarily have had an opportunity to explore. They can explore fully what they think and why.


The topic for this trial run is "Should owning a pet be made illegal?". Users should take a side and give their best possible answer for why or why not.

I was inspired by a caller on the Howard Stern show, who would kill neighbourhood pets to console the children of those pets, in their time of grief. His argument was that he was envious of those pets, and that those children should be loving him instead of their pets. He was definitely giving off a pedo vibe. He also threw something in about god and religion. But ugh.. try to come up with something better.

Many of the animals that are kept as pets would have no chance at all in the wild, so they can't be released. We would have to kill them all. Also many exotic species that are kept as pets have a real chance of a future. Many parrots are being wiped out, because they are too efficient at stealing and making messes. I have a grey and a macaw. If at some point they go extinct in the wild, there are many in captivity that can be used to breed new generations. Also these that are kept as pets cannot return to the wild, especially since legally the ones that are alive right now have never known the wild. Not to mention that many of us are better with animals than we are with people. Some might snap.

[Vosur]

Sorry it took so long to get back to this thread, Leela.

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  Many would wish to, they just can't. Cats being held in apartments. Dogs being walked on leashes. Snakes being held in glass tanks. etc etc. We have great methods to keep our pets with us. Open your door and let the cat out, stop feeding her, and she will not come back. Same for dogs. Same for all the pets that never become tame in the first place.

Again, that's your opinion (bold parts). If you want me to take your argument seriously, you will have to substantiate it with hard facts.

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  Cheaper is only important because the economy is broken. If you release those animals and give people those jobs, you do something for the economy, you create work places and money that way. More efficient? No. You can train any human to do those things. For example, you don't need a dog to sniff all suitcases in an airport. You either invent better machines that show you what's in the suitcases or you have 5 people who quickly check every suitcase. (i don't care about privacy, our stuff is checked anyway with x-rays, who cares if the suitcase is being opened real quick to make sure you are not importing drugs)

I reiterate: Who is going to pay these people? Nobody in his right mind would spend so much money (minimum wage at the very least) on paying humans to do a job that can be done just as good, if not even better, by pets who require no payment other than food and shelter. Also, accomplishing tasks in the cheapest possible way is not desirable because our economy is broken, but because it's one of the core principles of Capitalism.

With that said, based on what you wrote, I can't help but think that you misunderstand the concept of efficiency.

efficient
Syllabification: (ef·fi·cient)
Pronunciation: /iˈfiSHənt/
adjective
(especially of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  Not true. Go to an animal shelter and let the care takers tell you the stories of starving pets, of the ill and sick being left behind, of the older ones or those who don't look cute anymore because they grew up. I am thinking about all the little bunnies being given to 5 year old kids, for easter, because they are so cute, and then the family finds out that these pets give you work, and they give them away, or set them free. I think about dogs being beaten, cats being kicked. That is not an overgeneralisation.

That depends on whether or not you want to make the assertion that this kind of treatment of animals is the norm. Well, do you?

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  I made a remark that there are some people out there who try to keep the pets well fed, and well treated and not bored.
Still that is not enough. When the family goes to work and school for 8 hours a day, what is the pet supposed to do? Some start pacing and evolve ticks, some start destroying stuff like eating shoes, scratching doorframes, some just fall asleep out of boredom. Have you ever been bored enough to fall asleep? That is why most of them do sleep so much.

You're still anthropomorphizing domestic animals. There is (currently) no empirical way of finding out whether or not they even possess a sense of boredom. Heck, we don't even know if they are conscious in the same way humans are.

[Humakt]

(29-12-2012 02:45 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(28-12-2012 11:14 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Unsurprisingly the threads derailing, the subject matter is pet ownership. Whereas, discussion of animal testing, working dogs and what have you is all very fascinating it is also not relevant.

I am raising that issue because if one would deem pet ownership an "evil", what would prevent them from perceiving animal testing as an evil as well? It is an inconsistency in the belief.

The stated aim of the thread, is to provide a topic to discuss to sharpen debating skills, part of those skills is staying on topic. Your "evil" deserves those ""s as the post doesn't mention such, the topic is should pet ownership be illegal, many non "evil" things are illegal. As to iconsistency, if as I suggested pet ownership was made illegal it would be probably be on issues of public health, this issue does not effect animal testing as animals in testing are not in contact with the public and would thus be a seperate issue.

Where as, it is acceptable to make a brief digression in debate, it is not good form to then change the dicussion to that digression.

[Humakt]

(03-01-2013 02:50 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  

(27-12-2012 09:18 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  I'd like have threads that put out a proposition, and users will debate it, but make an effort to give the best possible argument they can that conflicts with their real world views. Why?
1. It allows users to explore all the potential arguments that they may come up against.
2. It may allows users to sympathize with others they disagree with.
3. It may hone their own debating skills.
4. It may give an excuse for people with particularly despicable beliefs to debate for things that they may not necessarily have had an opportunity to explore. They can explore fully what they think and why.

The topic for this trial run is "Should owning a pet be made illegal?". Users should take a side and give their best possible answer for why or why not.

I was inspired by a caller on the Howard Stern show, who would kill neighbourhood pets to console the children of those pets, in their time of grief. His argument was that he was envious of those pets, and that those children should be loving him instead of their pets. He was definitely giving off a pedo vibe. He also threw something in about god and religion. But ugh.. try to come up with something better.

Many of the animals that are kept as pets would have no chance at all in the wild, so they can't be released. We would have to kill them all. Also many exotic species that are kept as pets have a real chance of a future. Many parrots are being wiped out, because they are too efficient at stealing and making messes. I have a grey and a macaw. If at some point they go extinct in the wild, there are many in captivity that can be used to breed new generations. Also these that are kept as pets cannot return to the wild, especially since legally the ones that are alive right now have never known the wild. Not to mention that many of us are better with animals than we are with people. Some might snap.

That topic has already been addressed by Leela, I believe. A law outlawing pet ownership could, make all animal ownership subject to license and issue no new licenses. Thus no animals need to be released or destroyed, after a decade pet numbers would have greatly reduced, after two only the odd turtle, or parrot would remain as pets. Job done, no problem.

[Logica Humano]

(03-01-2013 12:39 PM)Humakt Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 02:45 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I am raising that issue because if one would deem pet ownership an "evil", what would prevent them from perceiving animal testing as an evil as well? It is an inconsistency in the belief.

The stated aim of the thread, is to provide a topic to discuss to sharpen debating skills, part of those skills is staying on topic. Your "evil" deserves those ""s as the post doesn't mention such, the topic is should pet ownership be illegal, many non "evil" things are illegal. As to iconsistency, if as I suggested pet ownership was made illegal it would be probably be on issues of public health, this issue does not effect animal testing as animals in testing are not in contact with the public and would thus be a seperate issue.

Where as, it is acceptable to make a brief digression in debate, it is not good form to then change the dicussion to that digression.

I suggest reading the posts I am replying to.

[Logica Humano]

(29-12-2012 03:43 PM)Leela Wrote:  How is shooing dogs and cats out of the city a dangerous job? How is a "pet control" or "pet patrol" more dangerous than social service checking on abused children? If there are reports that someone has an illegal pet, the pet control would go check. Probably with a police officer coming with, just like said social services sometimes do.

Pet control produces a higher risk of an encounter with a violent animal, it would spread disease, and would make it unsafe for people.

(29-12-2012 03:43 PM)Leela Wrote:  I said you use people who are terminally ill for such dangerous jobs. Terminally ill means that they will die, no way out. So giving them a short training and having them do said dangerous jobs, works faster as they understand speech and diagrams etc, there is no death wasted, and probably the families of these people would at least see some sense, some reason, or purpose in that person's death. Not just "oh it is so unjust that he got illnessxyz" but "He got illnessxyz but at least his death was not meaningless!"

Again, your answer seems to be nothing but emotional detachment and apathy.

(29-12-2012 03:43 PM)Leela Wrote:  about the bunny example. Every animal tries to survive, so what's the problem to have the bunny survive in it's natural environment?

Because domesticated rabbits are not the same hares you see in the wild.

(29-12-2012 03:43 PM)Leela Wrote:  yes it does. Sure species die out because of natural selection, And that happens dayly. But point is, those species were not strong enough to survive. That is the reason and meaning and purpose of it. And if bunnies are unable to survive in their natural environment they die out, that's live. Most of the species that ever existed on this planet have died out > Natural selection.
That is not aparthy from my side or being irrational, that is how the world works.
And it is not about how enjoyable it is to struggle for survival, it is simply the point, if you can't survive, why should you?
Say all of a sudden there were no electricity and no working system of justice anymore. Would you be able to survive? If so, lucky you, you have earned your place in the food chain. If not, bad for you, good for the whole species because your lesser genes will not be transferred into the next generation. (that was not personal, that was a general "you").
And yes, if I (specifically) wouldn't be able to survive in that scenario, good for humanity, bad for me. I am not excluding myself from anything, as you see.

Your indifference to the idea of our species dying out completely rejects the idea of natural selection, since fighting against the extinction of our species is the pure drive for life. As I said though, there is no predetermined purpose of natural selection. A law does not exist, and then gets discovered. The observation is made, then the law is formulated based on current understanding.

You continue to support your argument with apathy and a lack of empathy. Both of these supporting ideals are ignorant of biological justice, empathy, and morality.

(29-12-2012 03:43 PM)Leela Wrote:  Nope.

So you refuse to project yourself into your own "solution"? Hm, sounds undesirable to me.

[Humakt]

(04-01-2013 12:50 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 12:39 PM)Humakt Wrote:  The stated aim of the thread, is to provide a topic to discuss to sharpen debating skills, part of those skills is staying on topic. Your "evil" deserves those ""s as the post doesn't mention such, the topic is should pet ownership be illegal, many non "evil" things are illegal. As to iconsistency, if as I suggested pet ownership was made illegal it would be probably be on issues of public health, this issue does not effect animal testing as animals in testing are not in contact with the public and would thus be a seperate issue.

Where as, it is acceptable to make a brief digression in debate, it is not good form to then change the dicussion to that digression.

I suggest reading the posts I am replying to.

Link em.

[namiloveyou]

A dog or cat (as arguably the most commonly owned pets) are not sapient beings.

Whether they perceive it as immoral, well in truth we don't know. IMO, relative species intelligence is not so black and white as we think. We may be (as we see it) on top, but not by light years as we have historically thought.

I don't think owning a pet harms it per se, so I don't see it as immoral.