Please Stop Masturbating!
15 August 2006 by Bob
60 puppies die in tractor-trailer fire
LOWELL, Mass. (AP) — About 60 puppies destined to be delivered to pet stores across the Northeast died on Monday when the truck hauling them caught fire in Lowell. The driver, identified as Joseph Price, 40, of Joplin, Mo., pulled into the breakdown lane and discovered a fire burning inside the trailer. The fire, which quickly engulfed the trailer, was put out by the Lowell Fire Department. The trailer was carrying approximately 60 puppies of a variety of breeds all between the ages of 8 and 12 weeks, state police said. All died at the scene.
Looks like God no longer confines His punishment to kittens for the SINS OF MASTURBATION — so, please, everyone, please stop masturbating. Think of the kittens (and puppies).
15 August 2006, on 11:48 am
Damn, I knew I shouldn’t have masturbated 60 times last night. Never again man, never again. At least not until my arm is out of the sling anyway.
15 August 2006, on 11:50 am
Burning to death is a horrible fate, but what saddens me even more is that more puppy mill dogs will be produced to replace those lost.
15 August 2006, on 12:25 pm
What I never understood is that where ever I go I can find strays, shelter, and home litters by the dozen… why do we need commercialized pet production?
We got out last pet at a store, but it was a no kill shelter inside the store. How many cats do ou know that will play fetch?
15 August 2006, on 12:43 pm
Eric, because there’s a profit in it. Backyard breeders and puppy mill operators don’t give a damn about the domestic animal population problem, breed-typical genetic disorders and diseases, or the health or happiness of the animals they’re breeding. They only see $$$.
15 August 2006, on 12:46 pm
Eric – People want to buy a purebred pet as a status symbol to go along with their SUV and designer clothes. Hell, they’ll even pay for a mixed animal just so long as it isn’t some stray – those are for blacks, mexicans, and other swarthy unpure people.
15 August 2006, on 12:55 pm
One of my cats plays fetch. http://unbecominglevity.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/5/1745612.html
15 August 2006, on 1:29 pm
I would never buy a pet from a pet store.
Still… Bob, ya gotta stop with the Bad God! posts for a while. Please, man.
15 August 2006, on 1:49 pm
As soon as my tennis elbow’s better it’s back to indirectly killing newborn animals for me!
15 August 2006, on 1:53 pm
Chuck S: Thanks for the story about the fetching cat! Although not noted for it, some cats will discover it. When I was in my teens, we had a docile Siamese who was blind in one eye. In those days, soda bottle caps were pry-off metal; she would bring one to my sister, who would pick it up and, being careful to toss it so it would pass by the unblind eye, off the cat would go. She’d attack it, maul it a little and then come back to my sister. (I hadn’t thought of that in years.)
We also had a Labrador, that even when fully-grown was certain he was still a puppy. If you weren’t paying attention, he would jump up on your lap! It was a major “ooof!” moment…
15 August 2006, on 2:50 pm
oh man that was a funny picture…right outta cuteoverload.
15 August 2006, on 3:23 pm
Julie,
As a dog breeder, I resent being lumped in with puppy mill operations and irreponsible back yard breeders. I do care that there are far too many unwanted animals in this country. It’s not right that many people allow their animals to roam and breed at will, or in the case of animal mills, use inferior animals, questionable genetic practices, and inhumane conditions to produce animals for a profit.( Some of the Ammish are some of the worst offenders, and given their own narrow genetic tree, it’s hardly surprising some of them treat their animals the same way.) There are many who raise animals that way, but I am not one of them.
It pisses me off that any intellegent person, such as yourself, makes blanket statements about breeders only being in it for the money. NEWS FLASH: it costs me a helluva lot more in vet bills, new carpet, and food in a year than I make from the one or two litters of pups my females have in a year! As for their treatment: I currently have 3 Boxers, all house dogs, all exercised 3-5 times a week. They sleep in a room next to my bedroom and are very social animals. When I screen prospective owners of the pups, I reject more applicants than I accept. I cry when they go to new homes and I greive deeply when I loose an old friend to age.
My dogs are very well trained and well socailized with people; I have a 9 month old female that my 6 year old daughter can lead down the street. I have been very selective in choosing dogs that I think will showcase the finest qualities of the Boxer breed. Currently I am seeking to develop a line of Boxers that are calmer and less high strung than some I have been around.I am also very careful not to select dogs that are prone to genetic disorders. As to disease, taking your dog to Petco, the vet’s office, or the dog park is where you are most likely to expose your pet to transmittable disease. Genetic diseases such as cancer, heart problems, hip and back problems are out there, but can also occur just like they do in the human population- for no reason, environment, or exposure to toxic materials. As a breeder I certainly don’t want to promote any disease or defect, and sale of an animal that is sick or genetically inferior is ethically repugnent.
I am sure that you know a great deal about animals and care deeply about their welfare. You have mentioned your work in animal shelters before and I commend your actions and your advocacy for animals.I am also sure that your experience with animals and various breeds is different than mine. ( A few weeks ago you championed the cause of pit bulls as being non- agressive to humans but would possibly fight with other animals. My experience has been different.) However, I am entitled to my relationship with my animals and your opinion of those of us who raise breed specific animals may be influenced, clouded, and twisted by the animal shelter environment. Like anyone who deals with the victim in a shelter situation, you may find it difficult to believe that we all are not “Bad Guys”.
As to why some people want to raise purbred animals I will say that for me it’s because I love them. I love their looks, their actions, their demeanor. They bring joy to me, my family, and the people they meet. My first Boxer was a stray that I adopted and I still miss that dog. She was great and every Boxer I’ve had since then has been a great dog too. I’ve had dogs my whole life, mixed breeds mostly, and they were nice, good dogs mostly. But I fell in love with the breed when that first Boxer found me and I’ve never been sorry to share that joy with others who want to take the time and effort to have one in their lives.
So while I respect your right to your opinion and I doubt that you will change it much (if at all) because I called you on it, please remember that all purebred breeders are not the scum of the earth. Most of the ones I know feel similar to you when it comes to the unethical treatment of animals. It made me sick too when I read about those poor dogs. And you’re right, there is another trailer load being shipped as I write. But they won’t be coming from anybody I know. Try to remember that.
15 August 2006, on 3:36 pm
As soon as I saw that the truck was from Missouri, I knew it was Hunte. We’re boycotting a Petland store here that sells Hunte puppies. The irony is that the family doing it is very active in the human rights area, but apparently doesn’t see that our treatment of other species is a “rights” struggle, too. They feel that as long as the pups are kept clean and well-fed, they are being responsible. Overpopulation, not their problem. What happens to the animals after they leave the store, not their problem? A form of slavery? Not their problem.
Julie, you’re right, there will be hundreds more to replace them. Also, re the purebred desire, one quarter of the animals that end up in shelters are purebred, so paying a lot of money is no guarantee that an animal will not be abandoned.
Russman, why can’t you love the pups that already exist and can be gotten from shelters in all parts of the country? Why must you control the breeding and reproduction of another species? Just asking. . . .
15 August 2006, on 4:10 pm
As to why some people want to raise purbred animals I will say that for me it’s because I love them. I love their looks, their actions, their demeanor. They bring joy to me, my family, and the people they meet.
And how exactly does this make them different from non-purebreds? My family has only had mixed dogs, and they do the same things for us.
Except we had one dog who was a German Shepard mix. She had to go through extensive surgery to repair defective hips thanks to the inbreeding necessary to develop a breed.
15 August 2006, on 4:47 pm
Russman very eloquently put and I agree that some people just prefer a breed over any others. For me I love schnauzers that is the breed of dog I grew up with and I have a mixed breed schnauzer/ chihuaha. As for getting animals from shelters I have four cats adopted from the Humane Society.
Athena my dog came from a pet store near my parents house in Jacksonville, that is locally run and operated. The animals in that store are by far the best treated I have ever seen when compared to other pet stores. The two women that own the store are very responsible and very loving to all the animals in their care. They not only buy from local and humane breeders but many of the animals are rescued.
Their store is more expensive than say a Pet Smart or other national chain but, I will gladly pay the price because I know those women and trust them.
15 August 2006, on 7:39 pm
Dog breeding, even in the most humane and loving conditions, just stinks of eugenics to me. My Black Lab is a purebred but I got him from a guide dog training center/shelter-Circle Tail, where he failed out of school for shying away from loud noises. I think I’m sadder when animals die than I am when unknown humans do- sometimes even known ones. Masochistically, I watch those emergency vet or animal control cop shows and bawl my eyes out when a noble beast has to be put down without the capability to know it’s coming, especially when it’s because of some abuse or neglect from a subhuman.
15 August 2006, on 8:08 pm
Russman:
Where in the HELL did you work up that rant from what I wrote? Where did I say that I objected to purebred breeding as a whole? Where did I put down responsible breeders?
I put down puppy mills and backyard breeders. Surely, being in the breeding business, you’ve heard both terms, and know their meaning? Or did you immediately take offense to the term “backyard” breeder, thinking I meant anyone who runs a small, private breeding business out of their home?
You made a hell of a lot of assumptions about me. I think I’m owed an apology.
15 August 2006, on 8:19 pm
In many people’s eyes, even the most humane breeder is doing an immoral thing; it really makes no difference how humanely you perform this act. When dogs are slaughtered by the thousands on a regular basis in this country, for many people it is hard to respect another person’s perspective that, at best, does nothing to improve the basic problem. Furthermore, a sense of “entitlement” to breed purebread dogs for the sake of their own personal enjoyment only makes one sound very selfish. To pass off the very real problem of animal suffering that goes on in America as merely a “perspective thing” reinforces this selfishness to the point of “Ugly American” status as it tries to equate anything legal with also being moral.
Until laws change and dogs gain significant rights, rather than leaving them at a status similar to that of, say, automobilies, everyone has the right to do many things with their dogs for reasons they deem justifiable simply because they are legal. I personally am not that opposed to purebred breeding practices that are humane, but I also know that there is nothing a dog breeder can say or show me that would prove this practice of breeding dogs is a moral thing.
15 August 2006, on 8:38 pm
I wholeheartedly disagree, Godsarefake. Responsible breeders who practice selective breeding are doing it for the breed’s sake. How not? It’s extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming. Hardly two things that are appealing to those with selfish motivations. The morality comes in when the breeder truly loves and cares about the future of the breed. They want to see the most physically and psychologically healthy dogs possible coming out of their breeding programs.
These are the breeders who look into genetic family trees, choosing only the sires and bitches who are likely to produce healthy pups of good temperments. They spend small fortunes getting the dogs vaccinated, wormed and examined by a veterinarian. I’ve known breeders who go so far as to get hip, back, joint and eye diagnostics done, and refuse to breed any dog whose score is anything less than “Excellent.”
Most have contracts that bind anyone purchasing a puppy to agree to provide them lifelong veterinary care and annual vaccinations. And in the event that they are no longer able to care for the dog, to return him/her to the breeder, and NOT to a shelter.
As Russman said, I’ve worked in shelters. I’ve seen the “horrors” (personally, I don’t consider euthanasia a horrible act). I still advocate responsible breeding of purebred dogs and other species. Will I personally ever buy a puppy from a breeder? No, but that has more to do with my personal preference of older dogs than a moral stance against supporting breeders.
15 August 2006, on 9:14 pm
Only on GifS would this conversation be unfolding this way.
15 August 2006, on 9:29 pm
Change this:
“These are the breeders who look into genetic family trees, choosing only the sires and bitches who are likely to produce healthy pups of good temperments. They spend small fortunes getting the dogs vaccinated, wormed and examined by a veterinarian. I’ve known breeders who go so far as to get hip, back, joint and eye diagnostics done, and refuse to breed any dog whose score is anything less than “Excellent.””
To this:
“These are the doctors who look into genetic family trees, choosing only the men and women who are likely to produce healthy babies…..I’ve known doctors who go so far as to get hip, back, joint and eye diagnostics done, and refuse to breed any person whose score is anything less than “Excellent.””
That’s how I hear it when they say it. It’s just too much like fucking with shit that don’t need to be fucked with- you know, like those genetically Mendel’ed food crops that even the animals turn up there noses at but we’re supposed to eat and especially if you’re a thirdworlder with no choice.
That kind of shit. Not so we oogie-boogie NEVER fuck with nature, see, but that we do so only as a last resort and in pursuit of far more important ends than a less skittish Dalmatian.
fascist cats.
15 August 2006, on 9:37 pm
I was also wondering whether masturbating someone else, or mutually, might lead to the death of several species of small furry animals(which are)gathered together in a cave and grooving with a Pict? And just what sort of sexual hijinks are necessary to account for lemmings?
15 August 2006, on 9:43 pm
Yes, Julie and Russman, why do you think you feel that you can do better by the breeds (leaving aside the social/ethical implications of overpopulation and suffering) than they can (or could, if humans hadn’t taken them out of their natural niche) do by themselves. Evolution would then work on their species as it works on others.
Sean, I KNEW that’s where you were sending us (the website). Thing is, if you have a black and white cat, large odds on getting a Hitler of some kind. A real variety of mustaches, though.
15 August 2006, on 9:47 pm
Er, okay. I’m a pre-vet student who’s big on animal rights, and even I find comparing the reproductive rights of animals and humans a bit extreme.
It’s just too much like fucking with shit that don’t need to be fucked with
Yes, you’re right. Let’s allow that German shepard to breed with a rat terrier. They go at it naturally, after all. Only, wait.. I’ve seen the result of that particular “natural” breeding. The family rushed the poor mother to us for an emergency abortive spay, because the puppies were tearing her apart.
But hey, that’s the natural order of things, right? Only, no, it’s not. Domesticated dogs are not their wolf ancestors. They aren’t “natural” anymore. If we turned all of the pet dogs out into the woods to live “natural” lives, they would die. Without doubt. They are unsuited to live without human help. Unselective and irresponsible breeding on behalf of the humans who domesticated dogs to begin with has resulted in a problem that we’re now working backwards to fix. And short of killing all domesticated canine species, it is a problem that will only be fixed through carefuly controlled breeding.
only as a last resort and in pursuit of far more important ends than a less skittish Dalmatian.
Well, I suppose it comes down to whether you consider unsocialized, fearful and possibly fear-aggressive dogs important, or not. But, considering that you were just comparing a dachsund’s right to fuck to a person’s not long ago, I see this comment as slightly out of character.
15 August 2006, on 9:50 pm
Catherine, see my comment above. Evolution has nothing to do with the current state of domesticated canines. If evolution were allowed to take its course, the shih tzu and pomeranian never would have existed. The problem of severely inbred purebreeds with crippling genetic diseases will not be solved through letting them breed willy nilly.
15 August 2006, on 10:35 pm
Julie, It was meant to be an exaggeration, surely the tone implied it. Nor do I wish to see GSDs fucking chihuahuas. I advocate responsible pet ownership, which would preclude that. I watch these Westminster dog show things and they make me cringe like those awful Jon Benet pageants- or pageants in general. Yeah, yeah, there’s a difference, it’s hyperbolic, whatever. I just don’t like it.
“…the shih tzu and pomeranian never would have existed”
you’re not gonna win any points from me on that…mutter, mutter, ankle biters, mutter, mutter…
15 August 2006, on 10:41 pm
Raindog, sorry, I see I addressed my comment to Sean instead of you. And, excellent analogy.
Julie, but evolution was not allowed to take its course, that’s my point. One species – we – determined that we had the right to control all the others. Of course it would not be humane to turn out pets to the wild, though of course hundreds of thousands of people do it every year, which is why some of us spend time and money we don’t have supporting shelters and refusing ever to buy a pet-specifically-bred-for-profit. We owe domesticated animals (I’m leaving the question of farmed animals for now, since it’s such a huge issue)whatever we can in terms of shelter, food, medical care, etc. But it’s the height of disingenuousness to say that what breeders are doing is for the breed. And it’s the height of playing god, or top predator, to do it.
You say, “If evolution were allowed to take its course, the shih tzu and pomeranian never would have existed.” Can’t you see the arrogance in that statement? So what if they had never existed? Maybe other kinds of dogs would have.
What does all this have to do with Gods4Suckers, one might ask? Well, the animals-have-no-rights people like to say that God, in the babble, gave humans “dominion” over the earth. We like to say, “Bollocks.” Actually, there are less rude responses, but I’m not going to get into them now.
15 August 2006, on 11:02 pm
I agree with much of what you said but you seem to be misconstruing my opposition to dog breeding. None of your points challenged my original asertion. I asserted there is a lack of morality found in an activity that continues to breed an animal that already exists in such abundance that humans feel a need to slaughter certain segments of their population. Your position implies that purebred, when actively and humanely bred, make superior animals to you average everyday mutt. That could be true, but you know as well as anyone, that is not what is going on. Dog’s are bred primarily for the way they look. The criteria in dog shows have little to do with mental accuity or stability, superior health, or any real criteria that could be considered improving the species in a meaningful way. How is it better to selectively breed dogs primarily based on the whimsical asthetic desires of humans helping the dog species health and well-being?
Much of what the humane breeders you mentioned are doing is simply trying to restore their specific segment of the dog species to the natural health and well-being that is already exhibited in abundance among the mixed breed population (i.e. mutt) of the species.
As you mentioned in a later post, dogs need us humans, so I agree we are responsible in some way for them. I, like you, also don’t go so far as Raindogzilla as to equivocate selective breeding among humans with selective breeding among dogs (I think Raindogzilla is perhaps more enlightened in his perspective. After all we are merely being speciesists by not agreeing with his position, but that is a different argument). HOwever, neither selective breeding programs can be considered a moral act. In the case of dogs, it may simply be a necessary evil since they lack the ability to solve their population problems on their own.
Back to my origianl point, however, how is producing more dogs of one kind, thus producing a need to destroy more dogs of another kind necessary, a good thing? Even the best intentioned dog breeder can be morally correct in some of their practices, but breeding them is not one of those acts. Simply by treating your dogs morally in one way does not justify treating them immorally in another. Thus, I can only conclude their motivations for continuing such a practice is due to their own selfish needs.
15 August 2006, on 11:14 pm
which is why some of us spend time and money we don’t have supporting shelters and refusing ever to buy a pet-specifically-bred-for-profit.
Neither do I. I refuse to buy from pet stores, backyard breeders, or anything that even hints of a puppy mill. Those are the people who are truly in it for the profit. As Russman has already pointed out, responsible breeders break even more often that not, with the money they put into their litters.
But it’s the height of disingenuousness to say that what breeders are doing is for the breed.
It’s the height of ignorance to completely ignore two very knowledgable people who work and operate in the animal welfare world, who have given informed statements backed up with experience and study. To me, you sound like every Christian coming in here promoting abstinence as the end all, be all, cure-all for all of societies woes, while ignoring the people who work with Planned Parenthood, women’s shelters, CASA, etc. who know that it just doesn’t work that way.
You say, “If evolution were allowed to take its course, the shih tzu and pomeranian never would have existed.” Can’t you see the arrogance in that statement? So what if they had never existed? Maybe other kinds of dogs would have.
No, I don’t, because you’re twisting it to mean something other than what it was intended. What I meant was, these dogs are here, now, for whatever reason. Evolution played no part in their development, and it isn’t the answer for their furture, either. These breeds exist, and in their current incarnation, they are flawed. It’s been proven that through selective and careful breeding, the genetic health problems that they suffer from can be greatly reduced. That’s why I support responsible breeding.
Playing God? Maybe. But it’s helping to fix a problem that we made in the first place.
15 August 2006, on 11:24 pm
Godsarefake, simply because there are dogs in shelters does not mean that people are morally obligated to choose them over a purebreed. A shelter dog is an unknown. You don’t know its genetic history, the temperment history in its family, etc. Shelters dogs can be great pets, but if someone has children and wants a dog that is laid back, doesn’t jump, is gentle during play, etc. they can more easily go to a breeder of a breed that is known for those qualities, where they can see the mother and father on site and look through their line history, and select the perfect dog for their family. A much better bet than the hit and miss rate of shelter adoptions.
Let’s not forget, a lot of dogs end up in shelters because they were unsuitable for their homes. Either they were too hyperactive, too rough, and on and on. Breeders (resonsible ones at least) will inform potential adopters if their home is unsuitable for the breed they are offering.
15 August 2006, on 11:35 pm
Whoops, hit submit before I was done.
Your position implies that purebred, when actively and humanely bred, make superior animals to you average everyday mutt. That could be true, but you know as well as anyone, that is not what is going on.
I do? And here I’ve been maintaining that that is exactly what is going on. In small doses, perhaps, but responsible breeders DO exist. Those are the types of breeders that I support. I can’t believe how many times I’ve had to restate that.
Dog’s are bred primarily for the way they look. The criteria in dog shows have little to do with mental accuity or stability, superior health, or any real criteria that could be considered improving the species in a meaningful way.
Actually, you’re wrong. Big league dog shows look at temperment and general health as well as the breed standard look. They also require documents proving that the dog is from a strong line, as well as a health certificate signed by a veterinarian showing that the dog is in good health and up to date on all of its vaccines.
15 August 2006, on 11:55 pm
# MLE Says:
August 15th, 2006 at 2:50 pm EST
oh man that was a funny picture…right outta cuteoverload.
It’s a reference to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_time_you_masturbate%E2%80%A6_God_kills_a_kitten
16 August 2006, on 12:38 am
“Hmmm…so, after all is said and done; you’re Right hand can hold the ‘Life and Death’ Power of the Lawd?”…
“Yeah, but what about the Left hand?”
I don’t know what I just said!…It’s just ‘HARD Work’, that’s all!
16 August 2006, on 1:43 am
Humans have fucked dogs over.
Cats at least retain their basic species form.
This is speculation only, but it may be right; extroverted animals such as dogs receive more attention from human beings and therefore more breeding attention – and from our ancestors thousands of years ago.
It took a more advanced culture (Egyptians – I may be historically inaccurate here) to domesticate an introverted species – the cat.
I like cats – they poop in a box and smell good.
My dog (even though I love him) poops everywhere in my yard and digs holes everywhere. [Like my lovable but theistic family.]
My cat combines the least offensive behavior with the more lovable behavior.
16 August 2006, on 3:19 am
Julie, I must give up on discussion…I think its time to go “kill a puppy” and release some of the frustration I have built up this evening trying to make my point.
16 August 2006, on 6:48 am
We Go To RavenHolm cats have also been distorted by breeding over the years like dogs. Take Persians for example a lot of them have breathing and eye problems due to the shape and, in some cases almost absence of the nose. I do not think the genetic problems with cats is as bad as it is with dogs yet though I could be wrong.
16 August 2006, on 8:19 am
Dogs are the first animal that humans domesticated, so we’ve had a lot more time to turn them into chihuahuas and great danes. We’ve had thousands of years less time with domesticated cats. We also breed dogs for specific tasks like herding or retrieving, leading to many breeds. Cats provide one useful function: killing small animals that we don’t like.
16 August 2006, on 9:21 am
Cats are also an accurate measure of sanity. Owning one means you’re a little sketchy, two or more means you’ve gone around the bend. I agree with some of the others as to domestication but it’s always seemed to me that dogs were pets- actual members of the family pack, while cats were just animals who happened to live in the house with you. Okay, I’m not a cat person.
“Godsarefake, simply because there are dogs in shelters does not mean that people are morally obligated to choose them over a purebreed. A shelter dog is an unknown.”
Sure it does, Julie, if they give half a shit about dogs and aren’t keen on them being put to sleep for no other reason than there just isn’t room for them. Don’t get me wrong, euthanasia has to happen, but, if the choice is between a lovely, fluffy, expensive purebred versus saving some less desirable critter from a date with the executioner, the only moral choice has got to be the latter.
And, just so you know, I’ve been involved with shelters- from raising money to playing benefits, to slopping out kennels, to feeding, bathing, walking, and loving on the occupants, to fostering more difficult placements, to doing some animal control work- for almost twenty years. Honestly, while the shelters are full of wonderful animals who deserve a good home and someone to love them, opting for a purebred is just selfish and irresponsible- no matter how perfectly humane and responsible the breeder.
Doesn’t the term “standards”- in reference to breed, just grate on you?
Also, for those who still insist on purebreds, just about every breed has a breed-specific rescue association with dogs available for adoption.
16 August 2006, on 11:06 am
“Playing God? Maybe. But it’s helping to fix a problem that we made in the first place.”
Julie, but it isn’t – helping, that is – which is the point I and others have been trying to make, without success.
Godsarefake, my eyes and perhaps brain keep wanting to see your name as “Godforsaken.” Hee. Excellent arguments, also Raindog, though I fear we’re shouting into the wind here.
16 August 2006, on 11:48 am
Julie, but it isn’t – helping, that is – which is the point I and others have been trying to make, without success.
Isn’t helping what? I think we’re talking about different issues here. It doesn’t help the overpopulation problem, no. But bettering the breed? Yes, responsible breeders have done a lot over the past few years at reducing genetic illnesses and temperment problems in their specific breeds.
Raindogzilla, just because there are starving/sick/suffering people all over the world does not mean that I am obligated to donate to charities. Just because there are children that need adopted into good homes does not mean that I should forfeit my right to have a baby.
You seem to hold the opinion that people are morally obligated to chip in and help fix all of the world’s woes. I vehemently disagree with that.
16 August 2006, on 12:25 pm
Isn’t helping what? I think we’re talking about different issues here.
Yes we are talking about different issues here but not in the way you see it. You have consistently been defining moral behavior in terms of decent and responsible behavior and have failed to see/acknowledge that they are not equal. Every point you made in this discussion exhaults breeders you know as people trying their best to do a good job at breeding dogs, but you consistently have failed to recognise that the best behavior exhibited by someone doing an immoral act does not justify the act. This mistake you made in every exchange we had and your failure to even see the difference has been extremely frustrating.
If you go back and review many of your posts, your agruments could all apply to responsible slave owners as well — but no matter how good a slaver owner was to his slaves, their actions do not justify slavery as moral. I think if you stop equating responsible acts as justification for perpetuating a basically immoral practice we will begin to see some common ground. If you still see dog breeding as a moral pursuit, perhaps you can tell us how you see it this way? So far you have only shown dog breeders to be kind-hearted immoral people.
16 August 2006, on 12:33 pm
Alright now, moral obligations about saving animals in shelters is an interesting debate, but we’re missing the real moral question: if a kitten(or puppy for heathens that don’t like cats) die every time you masturbated, would you not masturbate anymore? For me, I like cats but I like Little Helmeted Will a whole lot better.
C’mon now, these are the real questions that matter.
16 August 2006, on 12:34 pm
Godsarefake, my eyes and perhaps brain keep wanting to see your name as “Godforsaken.”
Catherine & Godsarfake, the same thing keeps happening to me! I blame it on specks of residual xian programming and guilt that needs to be cleaned out of my brain.
16 August 2006, on 12:53 pm
Of animal suffering, Darwin wrote:
“That there is much suffering in the world no-one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful, and so full of knowledge as God who created the universe, is to our fine minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?”
Theists and atheists will generally agree with the following:
A perfectly good and powerful god will prevent any suffering not logically necessary for some greater good. The theist maintains that the actual instances of suffering are necessary in the sense that if God were to prevent them, God would at the same time prevent the realization of a greater good. But the problem of animal suffering appears, on the face of it, to be intractable. William Rowe considers a fawn trapped in a forest fire.[3] The fawn cannot escape and in the end suffers horribly for many days before finally dying. What greater good could possibly be logically dependent on the fawn’s suffering? The suffering of the fawn and animal suffering generally are often labeled “inscrutable evil.” But a few theists have been up to the task of actually trying to provide a theodicy for animal pain.
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jlynch/Lynch.html
16 August 2006, on 1:11 pm
Julie,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you.
Your quote: “I put down puppy mills and backyard breeders. Surely, being in the breeding business, you’ve heard both terms, and know their meaning? Or did you immediately take offense to the term “backyard” breeder, thinking I meant anyone who runs a small, private breeding business out of their home?”
Obviously I owe you a HUGE apology.I inferred “Backyard Breeder” was refering to people who breed pets out of their homes. Very, very sorry that I lept to that conclusion. You and I agree on far more points than we disagree on as is evident in the passionate argument that has evolved since my last look at this post. Again, Very, Very Sorry!
However, this has kicked off one great debate! That’s always good for the mind!
Catherine,
You asked “Russman, why can’t you love the pups that already exist and can be gotten from shelters in all parts of the country? Why must you control the breeding and reproduction of another species? Just asking. . . .”
I have had and loved many animals in my home over the years that were shelter/rescue animals. Most of my dogs before I adopted my first Boxer (who was a stray) were pets that needed a good home.Two of the 4 cats in our house were adopted. So over the years I have done what I could to give strays and unwanteds a safe home. Some have worked out better than others. I have had cats that were “markers” with no physical causes (Bladder issue, etc.) that didn’t work out. I have had dogs that were not family friendly, and with children in the house, I take no chances. I have had good mixed breed animals, and some that were not so good.
This brings me to the second part of your question – When I breed my Boxers I know what lineage I’m dealing with, the temperment, the health issues (Lack thereof is what I prefer) and the form and appearence of the dogs I’m likely to get. I know none of those things when I adopt a stray.
I would point out that man controls the breeding and reproduction of many domestic animals that are employed in a variety of ways by humans. In fact, when you adopt an animal from a responsible shelter the breeding choices of that animal are controlled- they are spayed or neutered! To allow animals to breed as they choose would make the pet population worse.
Without controlled breeding, the species reverts to essentially a wild animal in a few generations. If you have ever been around farm/alley cats you will notice that each generation avoids human contact more and more until the offspring, even if captured, could not be domesticated. Many wild dogs are now interbreeding with coyotes and the result is not a cute puppy you would want to trust in your home. So that is why it is the responsibility of humans to choose wisely the genetics and reproduction choices of animals. I will admit that not every choice and standard for purebred animals is in the best interest of the breed. Cases to point: German Shepards and Persain cats. Really sad and wrong where the “standard” has led those breeds.
RDZ,
You opine “if the choice is between a lovely, fluffy, expensive purebred versus saving some less desirable critter from a date with the executioner, the only moral choice has got to be the latter.”
Not so sure about that. Not every animal with unknown pedigree makes a good pet, nor does every purbred animal. All the morals in the world won’t put the face back on the child that’s been mauled. You must be very cautious when rescuing that dog or cat from the executioner because that date might have something to do with a hidden behavior problem. When they are picked up as strays, nobody knows their history. When they are dropped off, few people honestly disclose the real reason they are leaving the pet at the shelter. Just be really careful if that’s the direction your moral compass points…
As to rescues: Yes, they are available and I could have a house full of unwanted Boxers if I wanted. It’s a bit like having children. There are millions of unwanted human children that could be adopted. I could suggest that every person that wanted a child (or ten) should adopt. The reality is that most people want their OWN, not somebody else’s baby.It’s selfish to say that, but it’s also honest and true. If you don’t believe it, suggest to your significant other that you adopt a child the next time the subject of procreation comes up. I’d like hear how that discussion goes. And to all of you wonderful people who have adopted, are adopted, or are thinking of adopting: I AM NOT BELITTLING OR DISCOUNTING YOUR CHOICE! I am simply stating that adoption is not an option for everyone.To those who chose adoption: I admire your choice and hope it enriches your lives beyond your wildest dreams!As for myself and adopting pets; been there, done that and will probably adopt more animals at some point in time.
Godsarefakes,
You say: ” Simply by treating your dogs morally in one way does not justify treating them immorally in another. Thus, I can only conclude their motivations for continuing such a practice is due to their own selfish needs.”
Breeding dogs is no more immorral than breeding sheep to produce a better wool or cows to give more milk with less milkfat. I breed Boxers because of their temperment, family loyality, and compatibility to my family’s life style. Are there mixed breeds available that would suit my criteria for a dog? Sure, they are out there. For me though, why would I want to take a chance when I know what I’m getting when I go with a respectable, purebred dog. To use an analogy: Would you buy a car that was manufactured with miss-matched, unknown parts, that had a transmission that didn’t quite match the engine,that had an electrical system from another brand auto, that had no warranty or backing behind it and let a loved one drive it across the country? No. You buy a car that you trust; the name brand and the service behind it. It’s much the same with breed loyal dog owners. We trust them (our dogs) with our family’s lives and well being and I feel better knowing what I’ve got playing with my kids in the backyard.
In closing, I will concede that part of my love of purebred dogs is vanity. They get noticed and because they are noticed, so am I. That’s no different than some one who drives a nice car, lives in a nice house, wears fashionable clothes, brags on their acheivements, primps in the mirror, puts on make-up, combs their hair, sends their kid to sports camps, becomes a gourmet chef, or a thousand other things humans do to stand out, to be noticed, to be different. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, it’s a human thing! Show me someone with no vanity, no pride, no individuality, and we will view their deprived existance together. Selfish? Perhaps. Vain? Perhaps. In the grand scheme of things, I can live with my choice without guilt and feeling morally inferior.
And Julie, I am sorry and I hope you will accept my apology. I have been chastised by my militant “Save the Animals, Fuck the Humans” neighbor so many times that when I see that attitude coming (or imagine I see, in this case) I mount my high horse and charge right into battle. Sorry about that. You got the mace when I should have offered you a ride!
16 August 2006, on 1:18 pm
Godsarefake, my eyes and perhaps brain keep wanting to see your name as “Godforsaken.”
Catherine & Godsarfake, the same thing keeps happening to me! I blame it on specks of residual xian programming and guilt that needs to be cleaned out of my brain.
Ah, you have seen through by subliminal message…
I could go back to using my real name, but people often misread that as “puking on me”. I guess it is a scarlet letter I must bare all my life: to use handles that degrade my very soul. Another handle I have liked is “Bhuttfuqueen”, taken from an obscure ancient Buddhist text that roughly means “one who questions” — would that perhaps be less open to misenterpretation?
16 August 2006, on 1:34 pm
Godsarefake:
Every point you made in this discussion exhaults breeders you know as people trying their best to do a good job at breeding dogs, but you consistently have failed to recognise that the best behavior exhibited by someone doing an immoral act does not justify the act. This mistake you made in every exchange we had and your failure to even see the difference has been extremely frustrating.
Perhaps that’s because I don’t see dog breeding as an immoral act? Every point I have made has been trying to show you why I believe responsible breeders to be morally good. You want to talk frustrating? Try having someone tell you that their morality trumps yours.
If you go back and review many of your posts, your agruments could all apply to responsible slave owners as well
Simply because an argument can be used to defend two different things does NOT make the argument irrelevant.
If you still see dog breeding as a moral pursuit, perhaps you can tell us how you see it this way? So far you have only shown dog breeders to be kind-hearted immoral people.
Everything I have said in this debate has been an effort to explain why I find responsible dog breeding to be a good act. We are not going to agree on the morality of dog breeding. Nothing I can say will convince you that it could possibly be morally good, and no amount of telling me “but there are dogs in shelters that need homes” will convince me that it is immoral. The fact is that you have and will discount everything I have to say simply because you have already made a judgement call regarding the ethics behind dog breeding. You have a bias. Working against it is nearly impossible. It would be like trying to explain that abortion is morally acceptable to a pro-lifer.
Russman, no problem. Apology accepted.
16 August 2006, on 1:39 pm
Stardust,
The question of “suffering” may be an uncomfortable one at best. Suffering often is the last step preceeding death. And death is required so others may live. That’s the nature of the universe: The atoms of the sun burn so the life on earth can exist. Do the atoms of the sun suffer? We don’t really know. Suffering may be a human condition characterized by pain, mental or physical. We suspect that all “higher” forms of life experience pain and perhaps anguish. But does a bug crippled by a footfall suffer? Does a virus destroyed by the heat of fever suffer? Does an atom smashed suffer?
Perhaps suffering is nothing more than nature’s warning of our own fragile existance and our pending demise and the ever changing essence of the universe.
16 August 2006, on 1:45 pm
Julie,
Thank you.
Helluva can of worms Bob opened, eh? Who knew the subject of masturbation would get so many people so riled up!
16 August 2006, on 2:19 pm
Russman, believe it or not I used to be on the exact opposite end of this debate. I defended hybrid vigor and the merits of the mutt over purebreeds like a shreiking banshee. This also just happened to be when I was doing the majority of my shelter work.
Since I began working in a clinic environment, two things have changed my mind:
1. Working with people who buy their adorable new puppy from a bad breeder. Then it comes to us with worms, kennel cough, Parvo and no vaccine history. The same people are back months later for training classes, because the puppy has separation anxiety issues, or is destructive, or fear-aggressive. The same people are back next year for skin allergies. Those same people are back in ten years for hip and back problems, renal failure, diabetes. All due to bad genes.
2. Working with truly wonderful breeders. The ones who are in at six and eight weeks for puppy shots, worming and health checks. And if a client should adopt one of their pups, we see a great, healthy, happy dog with a wonderful temperment. Looking at their chart you see nothing but annual exams and vaccinations.
I’ve seen firsthand the damage that poor breeding can do, and the benefits that responsible breeders bring to their breeds. It made me eat crow and go back on my longheld and very vocal preference for mutts.
16 August 2006, on 2:52 pm
Breeding dogs is no more immorral than breeding sheep to produce a better wool or cows to give more milk with less milkfat.
This is not true. First, if it were a huge overpopulation problem with sheep, cows, etc. The moral issues may be similar, but the the failure of mankind to fix this population problem first before going down the path of yet breeding more animals makes the situation for dogs a different moral equation than other domesticated animals.
Furthermore, dogs, unlike these other animals, are also hard to see as anything more than a superficial affectation to mankind (like fashion, etc. ) for the most part. Thus I have an easier time standing against the practice of dog breeding because the driving reasons behind it seems so superficial at times. In contrast, good wool, nutritious milk, ample meat production, etc. are very basic benefits that allow many people in the right to survive, thus, I am more willing to mitigate my moral objections to animal husbandry as a whole in order to receive the very real benefits received by mankind through the violation of the rights of these other creatures.
I think that animal husbandry has been so widely used most people have lost their sensitivity to the moral issues imbedded along side these practices. Humans cannot simply look at dogs as merely another animal being bred for human use. We have to balance the needs we gain against the moral violations we extoll upon the species. If we deem the benefit to humans to be greater than the violation to tha animal along with our own moral objectiosn to such practices, we can be comfortable in the moral conundrum as merely following a path of lesser evil. In the case of dogs, however, as you pointed out, when such “benefits” are merely affectations of status, image, and ego — do the great violations animal husbandry has heaped upon dogs, all for the sake of image, really that morally fair trade off? I think there is something quite fishy about answering “yes” to this question too easily.
16 August 2006, on 5:21 pm
Julie, I am not the intractable contributor here. I am merely trying to get you despirately to address your original claim to “wholeheartedly disagree” with me. Generally, you haven’t said anything I disagree with (other than the little peurile impatient judgements you have chosen to rained down upon me and others from time to time) nor have you shown any indication that you truly understand the original point that I was addressing — you know, the one you so “wholeheartedly” disagreed with.
16 August 2006, on 5:21 pm
Godsarefake,
Sorry, I don’t buy into the “moral” premise that your argument is founded on and, therefore, respectfully decline further discussion with you on this matter. In short, I think you are weilding the moral axe like the xians that appear on this site, expecting to gain a “Gosh, you are so right” victory. You won’t get your validation from me.
16 August 2006, on 6:14 pm
Sorry if I offend you, Russman — I simply find it difficult to accept the obvious contradiciton people exhibit by, on one hand, saying the love and adore animals but, on the other hand, have no objection to reducing these same animals to little more than playthings to be toyed with. Perhaps I argue this topic with vigor like some moral axe weilding xians you have had the displeasure to meet, but you certainly are embracing the xian sense of hypocracy in spades.
16 August 2006, on 6:47 pm
Godsarefake, all I’ve been able to deduce from your “frustrated” attempts to impose your morality on me is that you like to confuse the issue, evade arguments by claiming that they don’t address you points, and have a seriously improper relationship with your thesaurus. Seriously, man, seek help with that last one.
Just to clear up any remaining cobwebs, this is the point that I wholeheartedly disagreed with:
even the most humane breeder is doing an immoral thing; it really makes no difference how humanely you perform this act.
16 August 2006, on 7:14 pm
Thesaurus problems? I am not quite sure what that means, but I will put that on the list of my personal flaws next to my ability to spel korrectly.
Thanks for the clarification on your objections to my point. However, is there any real reason to continue on with this thread? I am under the impression the bridge of communication that may have once had been between us, has been doused in gasoline, lit on fire, and the ashes have been reclaimed by Purina to use as a pet food additive. no?
16 August 2006, on 7:36 pm
and the ashes have been reclaimed by Purina to use as a pet food additive.
*laughs* That’s one thing we can agree on, at least.
16 August 2006, on 7:51 pm
“Raindogzilla, just because there are starving/sick/suffering people all over the world does not mean that I am obligated to donate to charities. Just because there are children that need adopted into good homes does not mean that I should forfeit my right to have a baby.
You seem to hold the opinion that people are morally obligated to chip in and help fix all of the world’s woes. I vehemently disagree with that.”
If you don’t feel obligated to help those less fortunate, Julie, then your morality is, indeed, inferior- or you have no heart (or, worse, you’re a Randite). Morality is at least superior to the lack thereof.
What if it was decided that, say, your callousness or lack of emotional response made you unfit to breed, hmm?
Godsarefake is absolutely right that breeding more dogs- no matter how new and improved, when there are more than can be cared for already is irresponsible at best, inhumane at worst. You just can’t get around that with kinder, gentler husbandry.
16 August 2006, on 8:05 pm
RDZ — you rule! I was feeling soooo alone….sniff sniff. Then, out of the rainy clouds your beam of sunshine struck me and made me feel so much better. Okay, I’ll shut up now.
16 August 2006, on 8:44 pm
Assuming that I have no morality simply because it differs from your own. I smell Xian bullshit. Nope, I definitely avoid Rand. Even I think she’s a crazy bitch.
What if it was decided that, say, your callousness or lack of emotional response made you unfit to breed, hmm?
Once again, comparing human reproductive rights to that of dogs.
16 August 2006, on 8:57 pm
RDZ,
I guess I can live with the “irresponsible” title…After all I’ve been called a “godless heathen” before and I don’t suppose that really mattered much to anyone except the person who was busy passing judgement…”Inhumane” is getting a dog, tying it to the broken down Chevy in the back yard, never taking it to the vet, feeding it table scraps and road kill, beating when it barks too much, and taking pictures while every stray un-neutered male has a go at your un-spayed bitch when she’s in heat, dumping the bastard pups in a sack in a creek while on the way to pick up another dog who’s “the best damn coon dog in the county”. Sorry, “Inhumane” doesn’t mean that I’m an bad guy for not adopting someone else’s failure of responsibility.
16 August 2006, on 9:10 pm
Wow, guys, great discussion; you’ve given me a lot to think about. I think I understand both points of view…
Can we maybe all agree that puppy mills, backyard breeders, and unprepared, irresponsible (not to mention downright criminal), and/or uncaring animal owners are the main problems when it comes to dogs (and to a somewhat lesser degree, cats too) in this country? I’m not too up-to-date on current measures to fight these, but it seems to me that these are the areas that need immediate attention, not to mention more concerted, effective action.
We could also call upon the national and regional breeding associations to take a serious look at the whole matter of breeding in general, perhaps starting with an across-the-board reform of what constitutes a breed’s desirable qualities. I personally would like to see serious discussions and plans of action for how to diminish and eventually eliminate the extremes in the purely aesthetic characteristics (such as the Siamese cat’s crossed eyes and the Pekingnese dog’s exaggeratedly-snubbed nose) to begin with.
I know some of you disagree with the concept of “breed” right off the bat, but since it’s still very firmly entrenched in human society with millennia of history behind it at this point in time, perhaps that particular bone of contention (pun intended) is not the best place to begin to try to change minds?
Just some thoughts…
16 August 2006, on 9:32 pm
I personally would like to see serious discussions and plans of action for how to diminish and eventually eliminate the extremes in the purely aesthetic characteristics (such as the Siamese cat’s crossed eyes and the Pekingnese dog’s exaggeratedly-snubbed nose) to begin with.
Eve, if you go to the AKC website, they have a list of Pekingnese breeders. I’m sure that (if they have a website) most of them will list one of their goals as trying to diminish sinus problems in the breed. I’ve heard from a pug breeder that I know that this is becoming a big concern among the breeders who work with the “smush-face” breeds.
16 August 2006, on 10:12 pm
“Assuming that I have no morality simply because it differs from your own. I smell Xian bullshit. Nope, I definitely avoid Rand. Even I think she’s a crazy bitch.”
I don’t assume that you have none. I simply stated that if you feel no obligation to help the least among us, then you either have none or not enough. I base that on yourstatement:
“…just because there are starving/sick/suffering people all over the world does not mean that I am obligated to donate to charities. Just because there are children that need adopted into good homes does not mean that I should forfeit my right to have a baby.”
And, since we’ve established that there is a difference between eugenics in dogs and humans, what do your reproductive rights have to do with the price of tea in China? Though, in reality, since humans unaltered by fertility treatments don’t tend to have litters, one could both adopt and breed.
16 August 2006, on 10:19 pm
Did someone say Purina? Tha reminds me. I was in Wal-Mart buying a large bag of Purina for my Labrador Retriever and was in line to check out.
A woman behind me asked if I had a dog.
On impulse, I told her that no, I was starting The Purina Diet again, although I probably shouldn’t because I’d ended up in the hospital last time, but that I’d lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Purina nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry & that the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a tall guy behind her.
Horrified, she asked if I’d been poisoned and was that why I was in the hospital.
I said no…..I’d been sitting in the street licking my balls and a car hit me.
I thought the tall guy was going to have to be carried out the door.
HA! I just had to.
16 August 2006, on 10:42 pm
Jimmer,
And we’ve come full circle to that masturbation thing again. That is a great story and I may be using it the next time some one asks the obvious…Too fiucking funny!
17 August 2006, on 12:44 am
I don’t assume that you have none. I simply stated that if you feel no obligation to help the least among us, then you either have none or not enough. I base that on yourstatement
I have morality. I have my own system of beliefs of right and wrong conduct. Your version obviously differs from mine. But to say that I have none is, to me, the same as when Christians come in here and say: “God dictates morality, so since you don’t believe in God, you have no morality.”
Our beliefs of right and wrong differ, but then morality is a very subjective and personal thing. For you to impose your own as an absolute standard is very much the same as the Xian bullshit we fight against here.
17 August 2006, on 10:02 am
Julie, what kind of morality doesn’t obligate the adherent to help those less fortunate? Conservativism? Republicanism? George W. Bushism? William F. Buckleyism? Wal-Martism? Louisville Cardinalism? Apparently, you believe that morality is relative and, in general, it is, but some things- like philanthropy, transcend such narcissism.
17 August 2006, on 10:22 am
RDZ,
Often in an attempt to define “morality” and “morals” we fall dangerously close to the behavior of xians. You should know that “morals” and “moral standards” are subjective at best. I don’t share your beliefs so my behavior is immoral? C’mon, you know better!
And morals are relative. Example: I believe killing other humans is wrong. Someone attacks me and in self-defense I kill them. I have a car accident and somebody gets killed. I don’t like my neighbor much and he pisses me off so I kill him. Three scenerios. Which one(s) make me immoral?
17 August 2006, on 2:20 pm
Russman and Julie,
Are you really denying that there are some principles that the vast majority of humans share; do you really beleive that ALL morals are completely subjective? Clearly, you are correct, some morals — like many sexual practices — are highly subjective, but don’t you notice that some are shared across virtually all societies of humans, like the sense that indiscriminate murder is considered wrong, or that sex with newborn babies is not a good thing?
To me, it seems that RDZ is plainly pointing to one of these latter kinds of moral principles: human societies generally uphold principles of helping out the unfortunate as good thing, and when a particular society, like those in the first world, are wealthy enough, it is also generally a shared principle that social welfare, on some level, is an obligation, not merely a choice.
Whether or not you personally participate in some way to aid these unfortunate people is another issue altogether (after all, I do not know your economic situation). However, I hope you can at least see that there is little subjectivism here. Furthermore, you do not have to be an xian (or even religious) to have another common human reaction — to label these kinds of callous people (at best) as selfish assholes or (at worst) to consider such people as very dysfunctional and immoral. This kind of persona could, in fact, be exemplary of immorality.
You and Julie, by arguing against this particular social value as a common value you share with RDZ, and claiming it as subjective, and by saying you don’t share “RDZ’s beliefs”, are implying that you do not give a rats ass about people less fortunate than you. Is that really the message you want us to get from this?
17 August 2006, on 4:53 pm
Actually, Russman, I only said Julie was immoral(well, “amoral” technically)- because she said she wasn’t obligated by morality to help those less fortunate than her. I don’t think you’re immoral- actually I don’t think Julie is either, she just keeps saying things that beg the question.
17 August 2006, on 6:45 pm
You and Julie, by arguing against this particular social value as a common value you share with RDZ, and claiming it as subjective, and by saying you don’t share “RDZ’s beliefs”, are implying that you do not give a rats ass about people less fortunate than you. Is that really the message you want us to get from this?
I’m not implying it – I’m blatantly stating it, outright. Jimmer and I already covered this in an earlier conversation, actually. While I can recognize humanistic principles as a good thing over all, in a detatched sort of way, I am not motivated by emotion or empathy to embrace them.
17 August 2006, on 8:29 pm
Thanks Julie that does clarify the discussion for me. Your objection, then, when RDZ called you amoral (I know originally he used the term immoral — but he corrected it later so I went with that), revolves around the general application of the term to you. While it seems clear from your last post that (and your conversations with Jimmer), when it comes to helping out other humans, you have no moral inclinations (i.e. amoral) to do so, but that does not imply you lack morals altogether in other aspects of life (such as, I assume, when it comes to dealing with dogs).
Am I getting any closer here to understanding you and your objections?
17 August 2006, on 8:58 pm
You’re getting very close, yes. And I did take offense to the general use of the term. Although, I would use “few moral inclinations” as opposed to none. I operate on a basis of work, eat, sleep, protect myself and what’s mine, all while doing the least harm to others possible. But I rarely feel the motivation to actively help others.
17 August 2006, on 9:58 pm
Then I guess I do owe you an apology. I did wrongly assume you had a more “robust” sense of morals regarding the ones we did discuss — and I now clearly understand why you felt I was moralizing (which, due to the circumstances, I now agree with you; I was). Now, as to my seriously improper relationship with my thesaurus, you are simply going to have to tolerate my enthusiastic, and perhaps occasionally grandiloquent, appreciation for our mutual lexicon. It is merely part of me much like your sense of morals is part of you. Thanks, too, for answering my questions honestly.
I am sure we will bump heads again sometime and elsewhere here on GifS, and I will keep in mind the little glimmer I think I have received here into your inner thinking and try to better respect (okay, that’s not really possible, but I will try to avoid) our differences.
17 August 2006, on 10:48 pm
Godsarefake and RDZ,
This is what I love about this site! A debate sparked by one thought morphs into another thread entirely!
On certain points you both are correct: as members of civilized society, most of us share a basic (although subjective) agreement that certain acts are moral, others are not. Sex with innocents, bad. Helping the needy, good. Etc. What we have in this particular debate is the comparision of apples and oranges; people and animals. We all agree that human slavery is not a morally acceptable practice. However, ownership of an animal is accepted by every society on earth. Making your child live in a barn is abuse, but sheltering a horse in a barn is humane. Killing humans for food is taboo unless you’re a canibal, harvesting livestock is acceptable to every body except vegetarians.As a society, we clearly apply different acceptable moral practices to animals and humans, circumstance and necessity.
So the impass we have reached has been largely fostered by individual moral beliefs as they apply to humans and/or animals. I don’t think it is inconsistent to have two different moral standards for people and humans. Society, as we know it, largely supports the distinction.(And I am glad that animal rights have evolved so people are forced to at least offer minimum care to their animals. Believe me, it was much worse not too long ago; and it still has a a long way to go.)
I can not and will not speak for Julie on the subjective nature of morals. I personally believe that there are certain moral codes that seem to serve as a foundations or cornerstones for most (but not all) civilizations on earth. I believe that one foundation piece could be the “love thy neighbor” or “The Golden Rule” cornerstone. Both seem to sum it all up concisely. But beyond that, I think that the moral decisions one makes are subjective and based on circumstance and necessity. And to slap the label of “amoral” or “immoral” on another person because they disagree about the exact “shade of gray” that you see is where you skate dangerously close to the thin ice of xian-esk judgemental behavior.
As to whether I give a “rats ass” about those less forunate than I, or if I contribute to the social welfare of the human residents of the third world; Yes, I do. But I still believe my moral position does not trump your moral position and vice versa. It merely makes both of our moral beliefs subjective; in some areas they agree, in other areas, we may agree to disagree.
17 August 2006, on 11:28 pm
Russman:
Glad to see that I haven’t permanently pissed you off. One quick request for clarification — I am still mulling over your post.
you say:
I don’t think it is inconsistent to have two different moral standards for people and humans.
Am I right to assume you meant “animals and humans” or “people and animals” ?
17 August 2006, on 11:53 pm
Whoa. Godsarefake, I do believe that this is the first and only time I’ve ever had this conversation unfold quite like this. It’s throwing me for a loop right now that you’re actually apologizing to me, and not going into a caps-lock of rage fit about what a cold, heartless bitch I am.
All I can say is thank you for having an open mind, and realizing that not everyone is equipped with the same ability to experience emotions and empathy. Whether that’s down to one’s experiences, their genetics or a combination of both, who knows.
And sorry for that thesaurus dig.
18 August 2006, on 12:38 am
I go back to what I originally said!
18 August 2006, on 1:13 pm
Sean,
Yeah, you said it first- 49 statements ago! I take it this has happened repeatedly? I just tuned in so you’ll have to forgive me…
Godsarefake,
You remind me too much of a college roomate I had a quarter of a century ago who would still be arguing a point just for the fun of it if I hadn’t killed him and buried him in the Quad…Just kidding… He’s actually a Lutheran fundie now and so what was once a slightly endearing quality has become just fucking annoying…
To your question: “People and animals” was the intended phrase.
18 August 2006, on 3:34 pm
I completely agree with Russman. Both humans and dogs alike are domesticated species. To call breeding eugenics is quite naive. All people who are against domestication (eugenics, controlled reproduction, you name it and all) had better be 100% vegans (and in addition must eat non-domesticated fruits, veggies and grains … which is extremely limited in almost all localities) … with the exception of people who live in the wild and live completely off of what they hunt/fish/scanvenge … and if they are not … can be completely written off in this argument.
Instead of blaming breeders (at least the large number of decent and caring ones) … I blame the idiots who adopt an animal, from a breeder/store/shelter, and then decide to neglect that responsibility. Of course … many humans should not be allowed to reproduce … but that is all fault of our own domestication (which has been ongoing for the past 15,000 or so years). So interesting how people are so quick to scape goat the wrong entity. We are all guilty of the sin of ignorance.
18 August 2006, on 4:42 pm
You remind me too much of a college roomate I had a quarter of a century ago who would still be arguing a point just for the fun of it…
No offense taken (I think) — it does sound like I may be a lot like your ex-roomie (except for the religious/fundie part)…but do remember it does take two to tango in a conversation and I have hardly been writing a monologue here.
I often admire the ardor and enthusiasm of some fundies to stay in an argument long term — the vast majority of people, atheists included, lack the the emotional control to stick it out long enough to truly figure out what the other person is really trying to say. Instead of developing a talent of actually listening/understanding, the majority of people chose to draw errant conclusions and degrade their side of the discussion to merely ranting/raving.
Fundies, too, invariably lack any sense of logic which is what invariably degrades a good argument to the point of being fucking annoying, as you say.
I hope it is the former aspect of fundie ardor and not this latter point of being fucking annoying, you are seeing in me — otherwise, I really need to question your wisdom in continuing addressing me directly.
18 August 2006, on 6:12 pm
…so, perhaps I do argue like my pitbull plays tug-a-war, but I am going to address your former post now, and, yes, I am doing it just for the fun of it!
What we have in this particular debate is the comparision of apples and oranges; people and animals….So the impass we have reached has been largely fostered by individual moral beliefs as they apply to humans and/or animals.
That isn’t how I would characterize our discussion. To the contrary, I agree with this latest assertion of yours wholeheartedly: there are clearly different moral conclusions to be drawn for different species of animals, even if the moral being applied in both cases is the same one. I even brushed on this topic earlier (#50) where I mentioned varying moral concerns about humans use of different animal species (namely dogs and other animals mankind has domesticated). I think it an easy deduction from there to see that I have no contention with also applying the same moral different between humans and animals..
I think our “impass” is far more basic. I would like to begin by pointing out that I think there are two primary, and seperate ,debates that we have been going on about.
The first one began, I think with a disagreement over — or perhaps it is better to characterize it as when you and Julie took tremendous umbrage with — my characterizing the act of breeding dogs as, ultimately, immoral — an activity that you do and Julie thinks is a good thing for dogs as a whole. Whether or not this asertion of mine is wrong or right has yet, to my knowledge, been discussed much at all. You and I started to address it, but you shut that discussion down on #52, because of your own personal experiences that, I assume, make it too much of a hot button issue for you. Thus, if there is any impass at all, I see it resting on your shoulders with this first discussion. I have respected your wishes and dropped this topic. You have characterized this as merely a “differeing of morals” but I disagree. I may have asserted a differing opinion than yours, but I contend that I could have been completely wrong and you could be completely right — but as we have left this topic mostly undiscussed, it is entirely premature to think we actually differ morally here.
The second conversation that ultimately supplated the first, involved discussing the general nature of morals, independent of the animal/human question. From what I have read from you, we are, for the most part, in agreement. Our only difference I see is in how we choose to interpret the fine details.
Now, I would love to continue discussing any and all of these topics with you, Russman, but we first have to be on the same page — as it stands we can’t even seem to agree what the hell we are talking about right now. I leave it in your hands to direct the next step in this conversation if you choose to — since I am still not sure if you simply find me “fucking annoying” and I would be better off merely ignoring you in the future.
18 August 2006, on 6:27 pm
Godsarefake,
I don’t always agree with you but admire and respect your ability to banter and discuss a passionate topic in an extended fashion. If I didn’t like the conversation I wouldn’t address you; I’m not always wise, but I’m not ignorant either.
My ex roomie went Christian long after we were roomies and it always suprised me that a guy that questioned everything fell into the religious lifestyle so easily. I don’t really talk to him much so he doesn’t annoy me except when he sends out those “The lord has blessed my family and al is for his glory” newsletter/xmas cards.My wife and I just shake our heads and wonder how this guy became religious. The only thing we can figure is that his jeebus loving wife is the best sex ever and she’s got a coochie spell on him. And we always thought he was smarter than that…
18 August 2006, on 9:14 pm
Julie, thank you for the note about “smushed-nose dog” breeders; like I said, I’m not too “up” on what’s going on in the canine world. The Peke my mom once inherited was a sweet little dog, but had the usual breathing problems and a weak heart besides.
Sean, ramen, and rock on, GifS…
18 August 2006, on 10:42 pm
Godsarefakes,
You and I seem to of addressed the other at the same time-I responded to post # 81 with #83 and your position statement appears as #82.
I need to revisit all of our posts before I comment on your position as stated in #82. You are correct in saying animal breeding is a hot button issue with me and I slammed the door on discussion when I felt you were just goading me for personal amusement and to “notch your belt” so to speak. However, in the spirit of good discussion, I would entertain reopening that debate as I am interested in gaining a clearer understanding of your position.
As to what we’re talking about, I would like to take a look at our posts to date and move forward with a line of discussion on (1) morals as they apply to the relationship between man and animals, (2) or as you suggested the discussion of morals indepedent of the human/animal relationship, or(3) whatever else we can debate. Quite frankly, I haven’t had an intellegent debate with someone who provoked my thought process as much as you have in sometime. And as I tell my kids, I get pissed off but I get over it. I’m sure we will cross again but, overall, I concur that you and I agree more than not and sometimes take great delight in just stirring things up!
19 August 2006, on 12:03 am
My ex roomie went Christian long after we were roomies and it always suprised me that a guy that questioned everything fell into the religious lifestyle so easily.
My college roomie also inexplicably went off to a weird religious place long after we left college, so I can totally sympathize with your story. After spending a well over a decade as an atheist, my “ex” decided to become “enlightened” somewhere back in the early 1990’s by first spending many years in a Malaysian Buddhist monastery followed up by several more years wondering between many ashrams in India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka. Perhaps he is more colorful than a meer Luteran fundie convert (and probably not nearly as annoying), but, nonetheless, he no doubt remains an enigma to me much like yours does to you.
Perhaps there is evolutionary advantages associated with being more “colorful”, thus compensating for our diminishing sex appeal, as we find ourselves on the wrong side of forty.
The only thing we can figure is that his jeebus loving wife is the best sex ever and she’s got a coochie spell on him.
LMAO, I guess I have never given the proper weight to the magical coochie spell before. I have always thought the opposite reason, you know lack of good sex, as the driving force behind the success of xianity (i.e. misery loves company syndrome).
19 August 2006, on 2:51 am
Russman:
I am following our leap frogging threads just fine —
As to moving forward, I think for continuity’s sake I will continue with your (2) — since that is where we are currently in the conversation. I think having had the more general discussion first, will make reaching the original, more specific discussion ( your (1) ), a lot easier going.
—–
There was an earlier hypothetical that you posed back in #68 that I think makes a good jumping back-in point. You stated the example:
I believe killing other humans is wrong. Someone attacks me and in self-defense I kill them. I have a car accident and somebody gets killed. I don’t like my neighbor much and he pisses me off so I kill him. Three scenerios. Which one(s) make me immoral?
My first point is merely an observation. I think we need to distinguish between a (im)moral person and and (im)moral act. I personally have never met, or could even site from history, an example of a moral or immoral person, can you? I don’t think a single act, or subset of acts, can define an entire person as one or the other. Thus, in your example above, I would think none of these scenarios, especially since they contain a single act, could make you an immoral person — even if you murdered your neighbor.
My second point is an assertion based on this distinction. I think that any act of killing another human being is alway an immoralact, no matter how it is accomplished.
My position, of course, depends upon how we each define a moral. Personally, I think our morals are something embeded in our DNA, thus I do focus on my emotional response to a situation to figure out whether it is a moral issue or not. Do you do something similar?
If you do, turning back to your three scenarios, and merely ask myself, do any of these three scenarios (or any others I can think of, for that matter) make me think that my killing another person actually makes me feel completely good — say, like how I feel when I help a distraught blind man find his seeing eye dog.
Even if the overall outcome is necessary (as in personal protection), or something I desire (such as in the case of fulfilling vengence), or I can “write off” the death as an unavoidable accident, I ultimately don’t feel totally comfortable with the idea of someone dying at my hands. If I could remove this one aspect of the scenario, yet still achieve the exact same result, I find I always prefer the alternate scenario (i.e. the one not involving death). Wouldn’t you ultimately feel more comfortable accomplishing anything that could involve you killing someone, sans the killing part?
If you agree with me here, I think this is an indication that the act of killing another human, however one commits it, would be therefore an immoral act: it is always bad no matter the final results. Note, I am not saying all three of the hypothetical situations are equally bad, just that all these scenarios lean in the “bad” direction.
So, enough on my suppositions for now — Russman, I am curious to hear your take on these points to see if you find my perspective too “out there” or if there are some things I am being merely a bone-head about.
20 August 2006, on 11:32 pm
Godsarefake,
Sorry I’ve taken so long to respond. A beautiful weekend spent outdoors and with family supercedes a good debate any time!
First, I would say that you are basically correct in the difference between “immoral people” and “immoral acts”. I can think of a number of people who by engaging in immoral behavior have been labeled as immoral people; Hitler and Goebel come to mind as well as several mass murders and child molesters, dictators, etc.. However, I have no direct knowledge as to their private lives and for all I know each may have been a kind and generous individuals when not acting out their particular disfunctional psychosis. That of course can lead to the discussion of whether a man is defined by the sum of his actions or if one act equals the sum of a man…In some cases I would have to say it might be a bit like a head of lettuce that has gone bad in the crisper- You might be able to peel away enough slimey layers to find an acceptable salad, but do you really want to?
This may go to your DNA/nature theory about morals. Perhaps some people are just “bad” at the molecular level. As we know, not everything in a genetically defective organism is wrong, just enough of the code is off to cause the abnormality. If we accept the premise of DNA based morals as a possibility (it may be tough to prove this scienifically as much of the testing would be based on subjective observations) perhaps the same thing happens. Let’s suppose that a certain sequence defines moral behavoir and if a second sequence were present then it would be defined as the dominant moral gene. It would be much like determining blood type or eye color. Of course the reverse would be true as well and individual responsibility for bad acts could be blamed on faulty DNA.
Of course this may well track the discussion into the subject of eugenics and how some linages may be morally superior due to superior genetics…A scary and unscientific place to go, as you pointed out in your comment about Social Darwinism posted in the article on Hitler and Darwin.
To get back to the three scenarios. I put those forth as a test; with each lacking enough information to make an informed descision. The moral or immoral act of killing may be justified by circumstance which of course is subjective. Killing an intruder in your home that suprises you is defendable if you do not premeditate killing him.An accident in a car is just that, unless your driving actions were willful and negligent. Being pissed and killing your neighbor is probably not defendable unless he was directly harming you in some way. Is the act of killing morally wrong? I would say yes, if it is premeditated. If it is in defense of your personal safety or an accident, probably not, but I am sure that it would weigh heavily in your thoughts for along time.
I will sum it up for tonight by saying that I think basic morals are present in most people. I think circumstances and who we are as individuals can change the way we apply the morals. What works for you won’t always work for me because our cicumstances are always slightly diffrent. That, my friend, is why morals are subjective.
21 August 2006, on 10:51 pm
Russman:
No problem with any delays. I seem to be having technical difficulties with posting length…trying again with two parts.
Part I:
I am a proponent of enjoying life outside of GIFS. Loved the lettuce analogy! Yes, I, too, think people are defined by the sum of their actions, but, as you say, that is another topic. The DNA/morals/eugenics discussion is also another place that could become quite another discussion altogether. My poorly worded reference to genetics was merely my stupid way of saying that I believe our morals are rooted in our emotions, which are a product of our biology. You brought up a very interesting alternative point that if there could be a direct link between genes and personality traits, like moral convictions, the door to eugenics does begin to open a little wider – not a comforting thought. These real-life customize-a-baby options that have been popping up in the fertility world recently, have both been intriguing me and freaking me out at the same time. I think being able to pick gender and eye color are currently the only “customizable” features a couple can currently “buy.” The wacko ramifications of these kind things seem boundless to me…But I digress…we can certainly come back to this later.
The moral or immoral act of killing may be justified by circumstance…I think circumstances and who we are as individuals can change the way we apply the morals. What works for you won’t always work for me because our circumstances are always slightly different. That, my friend, is why morals are subjective.
Your conclusion highlights the subtle misunderstanding that I think was the seed from which this whole disagreement blossomed. For some inexplicable reason subtle differences between people cannot come to the surface easily. People, it seems, have an instinctual need to dance (or fight) first for a while before just getting down to fucking (or drinking their beer). I think we have reached the end of the fight and the gist of disagreement in the “subjective morals” conversation is here.
(see part II, below)
21 August 2006, on 11:10 pm
Russman: (Part II)
Simply put, the logic of your thinking here is based upon “the ends justify the means” kind of reasoning.
I do agree with you, that moral subjectivity is HUGE when we are evaluating the morality when looking at the overall situation. However, as I kept pointing out to Julie, one can’t merely look at a series of acts and, somehow, sum the morality up in the end, and let the morality of good acts cancel out the immorality of bad acts. That is merely another way of saying “the ends justifies the means”, which, I am sure we both agree is not an accurate way of looking at any situation – despite the number of times G.W. Bush says it is. One must always look at both ends and means at all times.
What everyone does (at least, this is how I interpret it) is merely accept (justify, rationalize, swallow, etc.) the immorality of their acts when balanced against the benefits of the ends/results — our sense of what this immorality means to us merely pales in comparison to the greater benefits and morality of our results. This, however, does not dismiss the immorality that occurred. We are simply living in denial if we deny the fact that something immoral occurred.
The subjectivity, therefore, is not found in the morality of the acts (i.e. in terms of our hypothetical situations, in the act of you killing someone) it is in the “balancing act” that we all must do once we see the big picture.
22 August 2006, on 1:42 pm
Godsarefake,
“The subjectivity, therefore, is not found in the morality of the acts… it is in the “balancing act” that we all must do once we see the big picture.”
I can agree with that conclusion.And I can also see how your understanding and self-awareness of your “balancing act” would lead you to question my “balancing act” in regards to breeding animals.
And I also think you are correct in the “ends justify the means ” thinking on my part. As you pointed out, that is a slippery slope on which to tread. I think that is often a human response to most situations. Even our basic neeeds are driven in that way. The obvious example is food: I may or may not agree with eugenics being utilized in the production of food, but the bottom line is that I have to get past any objections if I want to eat. I eat meat but I won’t eat veal because I object to how it’s produced. But I will eat chicken and the production of chicken and the prduction of veal aren’t that different.
So I offer this paradox as an example of the little white lie we all tell ourselves when we reach that crossroad of moral descision. An old farmer I worked for when I was a teenager may have summed it up with this saying: “Nobody’s perfect except me and thee, and most days I think thee’s a bit off.”
22 August 2006, on 6:50 pm
Russman, it’s refreshing to find a person who has the capacity to just “get it” and you got it in such a complete way I practically soiled myself. Okay, so it took several days for us to get there, but to be able to sum up everything so effectively in a mere post or two – I am blown away at the ease you were able to see the logic in the end. That is a most admirable gift to have.