4 ms·

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But pugs do not have to suffer pain and discomfort throughout their lives _if_ the owners are responsible.

by milesf 10y ago

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But pugs do not have to suffer pain and discomfort throughout their lives _if_ the owners are responsible. Many aren't, and sadly those dogs are going to experience pain and discomfort.

Nursie 10y ago
Wrong - many pugs and other breeds are anatomically disastrous, and will suffer throughout their lives regardless of their owners. That's the whole point of the article.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Since nobody is obligated to care for a dog of any sort, the bar is somewhat high for the claim that owning breeds with genetic defects is unethical. If you can support with evidence the claim that no matter how carefully the dog is kept, its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence, then you've made a powerful argument against those breeds. Otherwise, you probably haven't.
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Nobody is obligated to create a creature that will suffer for its entire life either. I'm not sure one needs to prove that its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence - merely that a sufficient amount of suffering is likely, and the benefits are equally obtainable from a dog without these problems. It is unethical to bring into existence a dog that will suffer pain every day of its shortened life, even if it is a happy dog and brings joy to ita owners, if the alternative is to bring one into existence with a slightly less deformed head that does not suffer so.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      We own a rescue and a brachy purebred. We acquired the brachy dog due to the temperament and exercise requirements of the particular breed. Had our only option been to acquire a mixed-breed dog with typical dog exercise and attention requirements, our choice would almost certainly have been to acquire no new dog at all. I am having trouble making your argument cohere. I can't tell whether you think our brachy dog should be put down immediately to end its suffering, or not. If not, I can't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that providing the best possible life for a genetically compromised pet is worse than providing no life at all for any pet.
      - Nursie 10y ago
        At no point have I or would I advocate putting your dog down unless or until its life became unberable due to pain. What the article covers and what I agree with is that people should think very carefully before buying such a dog from a breeder, as breeders are engaged in breeding dogs for extreme looks that are very likely to experience considerable health problems. By buying such a dog you are incentivising the breeder to create more, with scant regard to the health of the animals. So I'll repeat - nobody is saying you're evil for adopting a rescue pug, quite the opposite, you did a great thing! The advocacy is to stop buying them from breeders until the health issues have been addressed - probably by introducing greater genetic diversity and ceasing to select for extreme brachcephaly. Can I ask why you feel the need to reduce everything to extremes? Why do you feel the only ethical options are "Put all the pugs to sleep" and "Yay pugs!" ? Is it impossible for you to see a middle road - the individual dogs are to be cherished, but for ethical reasons we should change breeding practices and maybe discontinue some breeds?
        tptacek 10y ago
        My purebred brachy dog isn't a rescue. It's very difficult to acquire the breed of dog we own through rescues. The middle ground you say we should be on doesn't apply to me: you've made a continuous thread of arguments that what my family did was unethical, and I'm challenging you about that. Clearly, you don't believe my family was obligated to acquire a second dog. Clearly, you don't believe my brachycephalic dog should be put down. You concede here that whatever suffering my dog endures due to its genetic defects, they don't make its life unbearable. Thus, you implicitly concede that my dog obtains benefits from being alive. I agree, my dog does not obtain all the benefits that a well-cared-for mixed breed dog of good health would obtain. But since the alternative to the dog we have is not "a healthier dog", but in fact "no dog at all", I am still having trouble reaching the ethical problem you claim exists with these dogs. Some benefit is better than no benefit at all.
        Nursie 10y ago
        In which case yes, I believe what you did was unethical, in suporrting the continued production of dogs known to suffer severe health problems. You chose, deliberately, a.dog breed that would suffer, when there are others that would have suited the situation just as well.

by milesf 10y ago

Nursie 10y ago

Wrong - many pugs and other breeds are anatomically disastrous, and will suffer throughout their lives regardless of their owners. That's the whole point of the article.

tptacek 10y ago
Since nobody is obligated to care for a dog of any sort, the bar is somewhat high for the claim that owning breeds with genetic defects is unethical. If you can support with evidence the claim that no matter how carefully the dog is kept, its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence, then you've made a powerful argument against those breeds. Otherwise, you probably haven't.
- Nursie 10y ago
  Nobody is obligated to create a creature that will suffer for its entire life either. I'm not sure one needs to prove that its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence - merely that a sufficient amount of suffering is likely, and the benefits are equally obtainable from a dog without these problems. It is unethical to bring into existence a dog that will suffer pain every day of its shortened life, even if it is a happy dog and brings joy to ita owners, if the alternative is to bring one into existence with a slightly less deformed head that does not suffer so.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    We own a rescue and a brachy purebred. We acquired the brachy dog due to the temperament and exercise requirements of the particular breed. Had our only option been to acquire a mixed-breed dog with typical dog exercise and attention requirements, our choice would almost certainly have been to acquire no new dog at all. I am having trouble making your argument cohere. I can't tell whether you think our brachy dog should be put down immediately to end its suffering, or not. If not, I can't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that providing the best possible life for a genetically compromised pet is worse than providing no life at all for any pet.
    - Nursie 10y ago
      At no point have I or would I advocate putting your dog down unless or until its life became unberable due to pain. What the article covers and what I agree with is that people should think very carefully before buying such a dog from a breeder, as breeders are engaged in breeding dogs for extreme looks that are very likely to experience considerable health problems. By buying such a dog you are incentivising the breeder to create more, with scant regard to the health of the animals. So I'll repeat - nobody is saying you're evil for adopting a rescue pug, quite the opposite, you did a great thing! The advocacy is to stop buying them from breeders until the health issues have been addressed - probably by introducing greater genetic diversity and ceasing to select for extreme brachcephaly. Can I ask why you feel the need to reduce everything to extremes? Why do you feel the only ethical options are "Put all the pugs to sleep" and "Yay pugs!" ? Is it impossible for you to see a middle road - the individual dogs are to be cherished, but for ethical reasons we should change breeding practices and maybe discontinue some breeds?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        My purebred brachy dog isn't a rescue. It's very difficult to acquire the breed of dog we own through rescues. The middle ground you say we should be on doesn't apply to me: you've made a continuous thread of arguments that what my family did was unethical, and I'm challenging you about that. Clearly, you don't believe my family was obligated to acquire a second dog. Clearly, you don't believe my brachycephalic dog should be put down. You concede here that whatever suffering my dog endures due to its genetic defects, they don't make its life unbearable. Thus, you implicitly concede that my dog obtains benefits from being alive. I agree, my dog does not obtain all the benefits that a well-cared-for mixed breed dog of good health would obtain. But since the alternative to the dog we have is not "a healthier dog", but in fact "no dog at all", I am still having trouble reaching the ethical problem you claim exists with these dogs. Some benefit is better than no benefit at all.
        Nursie 10y ago
        In which case yes, I believe what you did was unethical, in suporrting the continued production of dogs known to suffer severe health problems. You chose, deliberately, a.dog breed that would suffer, when there are others that would have suited the situation just as well.