Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[modest]

Counties keep loose leash on bad dogs - OregonLive.com

Counties keep loose leash on bad dogs

...Tim Vanagas, a plaintiffs attorney in the Great Danes case and others, says it's time for county officials to put some teeth in their animal-control policies.

 

He noted that if a dog attacks a child in a public space in Clackamas County, a hearings process is required before the county can take action.

 

But if a dog attacks a chicken, it's a different story.

 

As Clackamas County's code puts it, if a dog sneaks off the owner's property and attacks farm animals, "such a dog is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person."

 

I looked up the code,

• Linn County Oregon: Dog Control
  
• Relating to dogs; creating new provisions; amending ORS 609.090, 609.140, 609.150, 609.155, 609.157, 609.160, 609.170, 609.180 and 609.190; and declaring an emergency.
  

and it's true. In Oregon you can legally kill a neighbor's dog who has attacked your chicken, but not if it has attacked your children. That's just down-right crazy :evil:

Q:Is it silly to put livestock interests above human?

A:No; it's reprehensible.

 

I guess this means keeping livestock is reprehensible now too :doh:

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Food for thought...

 

Paintball is a multi-billion dollar industry. If it ceased to exist tomorrow would there be billions of dollars available to feed the hungry and would it get spent that way? Is paintball as reprehensible as keeping pets?

 

Well, how many people are killed by paintballs? How many hospital visits for people who trip over their paintball equipment? How many paint ball guns get out and attack a neighbor on their own? How many paintballs... well, you get the picture. :doh:

 

Hardly a balanced comparison I think, but my ranting on the waste in entertainment of other sorts is for another thread. :evil:

[JMJones0424]

Later we can get back to my right not to step in a pile of dog **** in my own yard, or turn up cat **** in my vegetable garden.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that anyone was forcing you to have a pet. I too would be upset if someone forced me to have a cat. Then again, if you are referring to someone else's pet trespassing on your lawn, I believe you would find that local laws should provide a legal recourse, and if not, perhaps that is where you should focus your wrath.

 

As to the quoted text you provided, I think it would not only be ridiculous to provide the same legal rights to "pets" as to children, but I also fail to see where this helps your case that the act of keeping pets is reprehensible. There are particular cases where keeping particular pets should be restricted. For example, in Hawaii, it is illegal to own snakes, as there have been too many instances of snake owners growing tired of their pets and releasing them to wreck havoc on the natural environment. In another way, it is illegal to have some aquarium plants in some areas because if they were released, they would overwhelm the natural habitat. But I don't believe that this is the argument that you are making. Correct me if I am wrong. I fail to see the logic in your argument.

 

Let's say I find personal gardening reprehensible. After all, by gardening, I am depriving someone else of the ability to have gainful employment by producing the food that I need. Under what circumstances would this view be legally enforceable?

[Turtle]

I looked up the code,

• Linn County Oregon: Dog Control
  
• Relating to dogs; creating new provisions; amending ORS 609.090, 609.140, 609.150, 609.155, 609.157, 609.160, 609.170, 609.180 and 609.190; and declaring an emergency.
  

and it's true. In Oregon you can legally kill a neighbor's dog who has attacked your chicken, but not if it attacks your children. That's just down-right crazy :doh:

 

 

I guess this means keeping livestock is reprehensible now too

 

~modest

 

Well, the guy I quoted a couple posts back seems to agree with that, but he's a vegan. :) Certainly some livestock practices have reprehensible aspects, but livestock-keeping is not pet-keeping so that is a discussion for another thread. :evil:

[Turtle]

Later we can get back to my right not to step in a pile of dog **** in my own yard, or turn up cat **** in my vegetable garden.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that anyone was forcing you to have a pet. I too would be upset if someone forced me to have a cat. Then again, if you are referring to someone else's pet trespassing on your lawn, I believe you would find that local laws should provide a legal recourse, and if not, perhaps that is where you should focus your wrath.

 

Yes, I'm aware of legal recourse. That you ask suggests that you have not read this thread in its entirety.

 

Let's say I find personal gardening reprehensible. After all, by gardening, I am depriving someone else of the ability to have gainful employment by producing the food that I need. Under what circumstances would this view be legally enforceable?

 

Strawman. (Scarecrow? :doh:) :evil:

[modest]

Well, the guy I quoted a couple posts back seems to agree with that, but he's a vegan. :doh: Certainly some livestock practices have reprehensible aspects, but livestock-keeping is not pet-keeping so that is a discussion for another thread. :evil:

I propose an addendum then...

Keeping pets is reprehensible unless said pet is consumed by the owner within 6 months of reaching maturity.

Would this not take care of your concerns?

 

~modest

[JMJones0424]

Yes, Turtle, you are correct. I have failed to read the eighteen pages of this joke of a thread. Please forgive me, I will cease and desist.

[Turtle]

Let's move to also address the damage done by keeping pets of the non-domestic kind. :evil:

 

The introduction of the Internet and advancements in international shipping has brought the world closer together as well as elevated consumers’ interests in the exotic aspects of different countries. The majority of such interests are positive in that people are learning more about other cultures than their own and many countries have benefited financially from international trade and tourism. Some consumer interests cause more harm than good, however, one such interest is the exotic pet trade.

 

The exotic pet trade is the trade of live animals that have not been domesticated and are typically native to developing countries. People not interested in having the simple dog or cat, which have been domesticated for thousands of years, increasingly have expanded their idea of a pet to include more novel animals such as non-human primates, parrots, reptiles, and even big cats. The inclusion of exotic pets into the home can have devastating effects that not only affect the animals, but the owners and environment as well. ...

 

Full Article

[C1ay]

Well, how many people are killed by paintballs? How many hospital visits for people who trip over their paintball equipment? How many paint ball guns get out and attack a neighbor on their own? How many paintballs... well, you get the picture. :doh:

 

Hardly a balanced comparison I think, but my ranting on the waste in entertainment of other sorts is for another thread. :evil:

 

Some might say that all the people that literally starve to death each year are indirectly killed by the money spent on anything but food and distribution. I am not one of those people just posting and acknowledgement that there are people that think that way.

 

I also did not intend it as a balanced comparison. SImply as an example of money spent on one thing that would not necessarily be spent on something else if the first item didn't exist.

 

Sometimes I like to acknowledge the existence of certain points of view even if I do not share them myself.

[C1ay]

Yes, Turtle, you are correct. I have failed to read the eighteen pages of this joke of a thread. Please forgive me, I will cease and desist.

 

Hmm...my profile setting only results in 5 pages. If you find the debate a joke then why are you participating? Has someone forced you to participate against your will?

[Turtle]

Well, how many people are killed by paintballs? How many hospital visits for people who trip over their paintball equipment? How many paint ball guns get out and attack a neighbor on their own? How many paintballs... well, you get the picture.

Some might say that all the people that literally starve to death each year are indirectly killed by the money spent on anything but food and distribution. I am not one of those people just posting and acknowledgement that there are people that think that way.

 

I also did not intend it as a balanced comparison. Simply as an example of money spent on one thing that would not necessarily be spent on something else if the first item didn't exist.

Sometimes I like to acknowledge the existence of certain points of view even if I do not share them myself.

 

Acknowledged #1. I'd like to expand on the boldened a bit, and I think Craig touched on that too. Let's for the moment never-mind the spending on something else with what is saved by not keeping pets and look at simply the savings in, ohh I don't know, maybe, CO2 emmissions? :doh: Fuel is getting burned to support every step & stage of pet-ownership. ? Period. Question mark? :evil:

[Moontanman]

I think it's important to ask "Is doing anything beyond the absolute bare necessity of what it takes for a human to survive reprehensible?" If your answer to this is yes then you have to ask is keeping a pet absolutely necessary for a human to exist? If your answer is "No, keeping a pet is not nesesarry" then the answer is "Yes, it's reprehensible to keep a pet".

[CraigD]

Turtle’s position, it seems to me, is based on the assumption that if consumption of food of one kind, such as the feeding pets, is reduced or eliminated, then a surplus of producing and distributing capacity will occur, and people who were unable to get food before, will. I don’t believe this is true, because how much food is produced, and to whom it is distributed, is, I believe, driven by the interest of the people controlling the means of its production and distribution. This interest is, I believe, dominantly financial. Because most starving people can’t pay for food, those who produce it are little interested in producing and supplying it to them. People with the means to do so are interested in producing pet food, because pet owners pay for it.

So basically you're saying that because there's a buck to be made, everything is hunky dory?

No.

 

I’m suggesting that a major cause of starvation is that, because there is not a buck to be made in alleviating it, not enough people with the means to do so, do. Whether this is morally reprehensible, is, I think, a subject for another discussion.

 

My major point is that humankind has sufficient food production and distribution means, health, safety and sanitation systems, etc, that no human need starve of otherwise suffer preventable injury or death for lack of available food or medical care, while at the same time feeding and caring all the pets wanted by humankind.

 

I believe that the either-or scenario you propose, Turtle – either have starvation and pets, or no starvation and no pets – is a false dichotomy fallacy. People who derive benefit from pets and abhor human suffering should not, I think, give them up in the hope that doing so will reduce human suffering, because doing so will not reduce human suffering. You can be an effective human aid advocate, and also have pets.

People don't need pets, they want pets.

The venerable want vs. need argument is a dreadful, slippery slope upon which I think we should not far tread.

 

We don’t need Nintendo Wiis and DSs, but I say with passion, the government can have mine when they pry them from my cold, dead hands!

Q:Is it silly to put livestock interests above human?

A:No; it's reprehensible. :hihi:

If you accept this, I can’t see how you can fail to accept that it’s reprehensible to put any property interests above human.

 

Following this logic, you should renounce all luxuries, and redirect your efforts toward helping your fellow humans. You should not choose a style of life that results in you having less ability to help humans, striving rather to be richer than Bill Gates, and give all but what you need for your work and most meager maintenance to charities.

 

I think this definition of morality – of what’s reprehensible, and what’s not – is unworkable, except by a small number of devoutly altruistic people. Even these people, in my experience, stop short of the absolute estheticism to which this reasoning leads.

[CraigD]

Paintball is a multi-billion dollar industry. If it ceased to exist tomorrow would there be billions of dollars available to feed the hungry and would it get spent that way? Is paintball as reprehensible as keeping pets?

Well, how many people are killed by paintballs? How many hospital visits for people who trip over their paintball equipment? How many paint ball guns get out and attack a neighbor on their own? How many paintballs... well, you get the picture. :D

 

Hardly a balanced comparison I think, but my ranting on the waste in entertainment of other sorts is for another thread. :hihi: ;)

I think C1ay’s comparison is good and to the point of this thread. However, I think substituting a sport with a higher number of annual injuries and deaths, such a skiing, or a behavior with a greater incidence of injuring ones neighbors, such as driving a car, answers Turtle’s objections.

[lemit]

Please don't take my pets away from me. I love them. They love me. They are the only family I have. Various veterinarians and Humane Society officials have told me my animals benefit from being around me. I know I benefit from their being around me.

 

Please don't take my family from me.

 

And please don't assume you know me well enough to know how I treat animals. I'd never make that kind of assumption about you without at least a minute or two of scientific observation. If we are about science here, we should be about withholding judgment when there is no observation.

 

Also, the nurses in the nursing home where my mother passed away told me I was the most involved family member any patient had, so I'm not speaking out of some kind of misplaced species identity. I attended my father at his death. I lived with my mother two years until she fell and was put in the nursing home by doctors. I was there for her when she died. I have helped several co-workers and friends deal with the slow death of cancer. I was the only male worker who would discuss breast cancer with my suffering female co-workers. If I now choose to give animals a better life than they could have otherwise, I have earned that choice.

 

So I am begging, please don't take my pets away from me.

 

--lemit

[Turtle]

My major point is that humankind has sufficient food production and distribution means, health, safety and sanitation systems, etc, that no human need starve of otherwise suffer preventable injury or death for lack of available food or medical care, while at the same time feeding and caring all the pets wanted by humankind.

 

I believe that the either-or scenario you propose, Turtle – either have starvation and pets, or no starvation and no pets – is a false dichotomy fallacy.

 

I don't think I proposed an either/or, and the misdirestion of food is only one of the many arguments I have put forward here in objection to the keeping of pets. Waste by definition is

1. To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly.

, and when I said "waste is waste" I meant that any such use/consumtion/expenditure on pets is thoughtless & careless because it does not consider the wider damages and I find thoughtlessness & carelessness reprehensible.

 

We don’t need Nintendo Wiis and DSs, but I say with passion, the government can have mine when they pry them from my cold, dead hands! If you accept this, I can’t see how you can fail to accept that it’s reprehensible to put any property interests above human.

 

Here again we have the argument that pets are property, but surely you don't suggest that an inanimate object is akin to a live animal regardless of "ownership".

 

Following this logic, you should renounce all luxuries, and redirect your efforts toward helping your fellow humans.

 

I'm dancin' toward that as fast as I can Doc. :hihi: I think you know me well enough here to also know I do a lot o' denouncin' of human folly, and in defense of that I point out that our dear friend Mark Twain made his career on just such writngs. Like Mark, I include myself as just another silly human sack of water & gladly entertain the pointing out of my silliness when it is fitting.

 

 

I think this definition of morality – of what’s reprehensible, and what’s not – is unworkable, except by a small number of devoutly altruistic people. Even these people, in my experience, stop short of the absolute estheticism to which this reasoning leads.

 

Indeed we do. ;) See above. As it is, I am torn for several weeks now over trapping a loose cat I saw attack a bird in my drive. I quit feeding the birds last year because the cats were killing them at the feed station. While the County promotes this trapping by renting traps and picking up the animals, I am acutely aware of the backlash this may bring on me and my roommates.

 

Every pet owner responding is of course a "good" pet owner and it's someone else that is the problem. That's humans for ya; as long as I'm happy everyone else can be damned. :D

[Turtle]

 

This is a 3 1/2 month old baby named Jaden Mack, from a village in Wales. He is now dead, killed a Staffordshire bull terrier and a Jack Russell at his grandmother's house. She was taking care of him while his parents were briefly away.

 

According to the BBC report on the child's death, one villager said the dogs were playful and "never seemed to be vicious". You've heard this one before, right? "Oh, he was such a sweet dog, he wouldn't hurt anyone." Until he does, that is.

 

I first became aware of this problem back in the 1980s, when I was researching a story for Los Angeles Magazine called "The Dog Wars." The story was really about the conflicts over what public spaces, such as parks, should be open to dogs and which not, plus neighbor conflicts over barking dogs. But when I began looking at newspaper clippings about dogs, I was absolutely shocked to find out that thousands of children in the United States and other countries are mauled and killed by dogs every year. ...

 

Balter's Blog: Another child killed by dogs

 

Anyone think keeping a pet is worth a child's life?