man... it's not until we got onto animal rghts that i realised how little you know.. well done for your work in the past, but what are you doing now?... thats it... i'll carry on doing ... you carry on talking Nothing more to say i guess... over to you...
So I assume you've never actually been involved in rescuing feral cats then? Why don't you go and ask some animal rights activists what they think on the issue? Every single person I ever came into contact with in the animal rights movement supported neutering as an unfortunate necessity. Not only that, but animal rescue centres all ensured that any cats or dogs they re-homed were neutered first. I dunno what's going on in your personal life Claire, but you might wanna sort it our before you start unloading on people. *edit* Oh yeah, and what, exactly, do I know so *little* about? Can you be specific, or was that just a random personal attack?
It seems to me that certain schools of thought within the animal rights movement do more harm than good. We either turn our backs on the damage we've done without trying to correct it or be accountable for the consequences ... or we accept responsibility for our shit and do our best to clean up the mess. For example: Someone might keep a tropical bird in a cage ... as wrong as I think this is, it would be unfair to release it into the wild because it wouldn't cope with our climate and other birds might see it as a threat and attack it ... So therefore the best solution would be to care for that pet; ensure it has a good life and can fly freely ... but make sure that the mistake isn't perpetuated through future generations. We really do need to think beyond the here and now; look at the future, not only of the individual animal but also of the species and how they will survive and effect other species.
I agree entirely Paul. Which is why neutering (or any other form of animal birth control) is the only solution. In the long term, we need to move away from keeping animals as pets. However, the day when this becomes a reality recedes further into the distance with every cat or dog that's born.
personal life? dok that is sooo low even for you bud... my life is grand thanks.. just got back from barcelona... wild times i don't do personal attacks... anyone who has been round a few months here knows that isn't my style... plus i would count you as a friend but... don't cut me off for my opinion Dok... don't do it... i WIll say what i think... and i DO live by my words... Getting back to the initial question.... cutting off animal life forms anatomy without there consent is mutilation / degredation .. we may think we have that right.... i don't believe we do animals feel as we do... they have families and relationships akin to us... i honestly believe we shouldn't mutilate them again "end of" ... you're not gonna change that view... i can see the arguments for and against... but still... mutilation=wrong i will discuss it... but a life is a life and we all deserve our freedom... And trust me, the shit that i have seen and dealt with bases that far deaper than the "vacuous hippy freedom ethic"...
Well you kinda just did. Unless you had something specific in mind that I "know so little about"? Either you can tell me what area of my knowledge you consider to be so deficient, or that has to qualify as a personal attack, surely? You do? That kinda surprises me at the minute. Glad to hear it, but still kinda surprised. Claire, I dunno what the hell you're talking about. Frankly, you ain't making any sense to me. What do you mean by "cut you off"?!? And when did I say you couldn't say what you think? Say whatever the hell you want, and if I agree with it I'll say so, and if I don't I'll say that too. Do we have to always agree with each other in order to respect one another these days? It's not a question of rights. It's a question of lesser evils. We also don't have a 'right' to imprison animals as pets. Are you suggesting we turn them all free? We don't have a 'right' to tie dogs to leads. Are you suggesting we should let them run wild through the streets of our cities? Black and white, right and wrong.... life isn't that simple. I really, really wish the fuck that it was. I doubt the world would be quite so fucked up if morality always boiled down to such simple equations. Am I disputing this point? In the long term, I hope we can achieve a world where this isn't a necessity. In the short term, it is. I've asked you twice now what you're suggestion is for an alternative. Do you have one? If not, then what do you suggest? You can't just ignore the problem. That won't make it go away. Should we imprison animals indoors so that they can't breed? Yes, but when the alternatives are wrong too, you're left with a situation where there are no rights.... just lesser evils. Freedom's not the question. The question is how we best achieve that end.
I've replied to your PM... NOOOOO i have no concrete solution... gees i said that already Stu... i see your arguments... i can see they would offer *solutions* but i don't agree on an ethical level my point here is clear torture / mutilation is barbaric and wrong it was seen as ok to do this to black people decades ago *sick as fuck*... shit... let nature run its course... who are we to enforce our idea of what is right and wrong on it? a life is a life and deserves its freedom why do you not let me hold that view?... do i have to agree with everything you say? it's frustrating stu grrr
But if you can't offer an alternative way forward, then don't you think it's a little premature to be talking about allowing the uncontrolled breeding of domestic animals? Yes, and like I said, keeping animals as pets is barbaric and wrong, but you don't seem to be suggesting we should turn them all free overnight? So unless you are suggesting that, then we've established that you think there are exceptions where the greater good justifes the lesser evil. That's how I see neutering. The point is we already have done. The question now is how best to put that right. Aside from which, not interfering with nature would also mean allowing disabled people to die, so that's not really any argument at all. That's a slogan, not a line of reasoning. Claire.... this is a discussion forum!!! If you don't wanna discuss, then don't post!!!
It was once also accepted practice to do it to white people too, just so they could sing soprano: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato
ok my way forward would be just to let the animal kingdom just get on with it itself... who knows if that would be good or bad but it would mean freedom and natures order (ish after our fuck up of it) and Stu? a discussion forum.... nah... really? Cxx
yup heard that on R4 a few months ago(yup i do listen to it...eeek) sick... what do we do? we is crazy animals Cxx
But that's never gonna happen while we keep domestic animals as pets. If domestic animals are allowed to breed in an uncontrolled fashion, then we'll end up with more pets. The more pets we have, the further away we are from "letting the animal kingdom just get on with itself". I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't make sense. Well you did complain about discussing things......
Would this be a good time to say: Neutering stops pets such as cats and dogs from starving in the streets cos there would be too many for the food supply and for homes, sure they would regulate themselves but who cleans up the bodies and shit from the streets? and what happens when pack animals like dogs start taking babies from prams etc... (it happens with dingo's in australia...) i am all for animal freedom rights etc but this argument is a little weak on both sides... Neutering = sustainable numbers of animals, meaning no starving and less homeless pets, but having pets in first place and neutering itself is cruel and wrong really, moralistically anyway... No Neutering = many pets with out homes, starvation, potential attacks on humans by pack animals like dogs (ever read Daz4Zoe?) and such like. But it means that animals are free and not given the chop, Humans also may suffer when dogs and cats run in front of cars, intimidate people in parks, at night etc. But at least the dogs and cats will be happy right? I guess its a case of, do we let domestic animals go back to being non domestic?
good points... am open to suggestion here... i would go with wild everytime... but yeh fucking good points bro:sunglasse
to do that instantly would be to just drop it.. to just let all pets be free. free all tropical animals, all animals which all they have ever known is human care... even to throw out animals who LOVE their "owner" ... because it happens not all pet "ownership" is one sided, often it is a mutual love. When a wild baby animal is hurt by a human... it is taken into care... resored back to health... but its not them just pushed out the door ... its SLOWLY released back into the wild... slowly it learns to not need human attention. You wouldnt dream of "leaving" those animals to get on and be animals after helping it recover, knowing that all it knows is human care. What Doc is saying is not "neuter FOREVER!! stop those beasts living!!" ... hes saying "right now weneed to control the presant problem and then look to the future and slowly but surely take control of the problem. It cant happen over night. If neutering pets now help save millions of other animals living lifes of toture and pain caused by humans then id rather do that." ...its almost a form of euthinasia.
Main problem with this line of reasoning: not likely to happen any time soon. People aren't about to give up their pets. So the best we can do for now is manage a bad situation, and that means neutering.
Just to add my tupence worth..... I'm in complete agreement with Stu, Fleassy, Paul and Island Dweller here Claire. The fact is, no-one's actually disagreeing with you, but it feels like you just wanna 'fight for the cause'. Frankly, you're sounding like an over-emotive extremist i.e. your feeling the cause but your ideas about 'the wild' and 'nature' are completely overriding the reality and rationality of the situation. There is no 'wild' anymore. We have roads with very fast cars. We have trains. Hell, we even have crazy-arsed cyclists! It's an urban jungle out there, one that's only fit (only just!) for humans. Cats can hunt down mice and birds but they're so over-domesticated that they don't even know how to eat them anymore! Dogs have been at the side of humans for thousands of years, there's nothing left to hunt and no where to do it. So, if we let dogs n cats breed like they would in the wild, there's no 'natural' environment for them. Oh, and not to mention the sort of shit that people do to unwanted puppies and kittens So, given that we have a large culture and population of pets in this country, what's the best descision? To anaesthetise the animal and operate whilst they feel no pain and wake up feeling mellower and live their lives content? Or do we let them breed and end up with a serious amount of unwanted animals who can't fend for themselves? Or is it ok that they starve to death of die slowly of disease because it's 'natural'? Our society has moved so far away from natural and our consciences have moved with it. What was once a natural part of 'survival of the fitest' amongst humans would now raise a moral outcry.
*Bows out of the discussion* p.s. no more pm's please guys... unless they are asking me about my christmas and new years adventures. Thanks
Fucking hell Claire, you make it sound like you were being persecuted in PMs or something. If you didn't want to discuss anything in PMs, all you had to do was reply saying as much. I was under the impression we'd been having a civilised conversation.
