5 ms·

set him free - who gives you the right to enslave "your" dog?

OzyM 5y ago
Is this sarcasm? I fail to understand how taking a dog from a loving household into scrounging on the streets is at all an ethical solution.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- moralestapia 5y ago
  Would you agree to be locked at some place even if "they treat you real good"?
  - OzyM 5y ago
    I agree it's not an ideal situation, but I honestly think it's better than the alternative. In your example of me personally, this is kind of the tradeoff most small humans (including myself) made for the first ten years of life. Supervision, lack of freedom, etc. in exchange for food, shelter, and hopefully companionship. As it's not ideal, I could agree with you on reducing breeding so we don't have to make this choice in the future. But currently, for domesticated animals who can't be released into the wild without high chance of extreme pain to themselves (dogs) or major ecological damage (cats), it seems like our kindest option is to put as many of them in loving & protective situations as possible.
    - summm 5y ago
      I feel this is a false dichotomy. If we really stop breeding pets, and do this consequently and with an honest effort, this will become a non-issue in, like, 10 years.
  - borski 5y ago
    You are making unstated assumptions: we have no idea if dogs, by this point, have been bred to seek human companionship, which we believe generally to be the case. If left alone, lacking companionship (since most pet owners don't tend to be abusive, though it can happen), I would argue the animal would potentially be much less happy on the street. That has nothing to do with me wanting to own a pet, and everything to do with there being plenty of pets available who I would rather get loved by someone than, well, die on the street.
  - verall 5y ago
    Are you a dog? This kind of personifying glib is what gives vegan/vegetarian ethics a bad name. It completely ignores domestication and how dogs evolved as human-following scavenger animals. Most dog breeds are not adapted to living without humans. Dogs in the wild live much shorter lives and get parasites.
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      >Are you a dog? Yes, I am a sentient dog with an internet connection. >Dogs in the wild live much shorter lives and get parasites. This is true of humans as well. Honestly, I think a dog would outlast many of us in the wild. Your point is moot.
      - verall 5y ago
        It's not, my points are clear and well argued ;) You aren't a dog, so your preference for not living under the care of a human owner is not relevant. Dogs do not outlast us in the wild, because "the wild" is the real world we live in today. Stray dogs are invasive in most ecosystems, and are usually not well adapted to their environments. Dogs are intelligent enough to show preferences, and thanks to tens of thousands of years of selective breeding, they generally prefer people. Strays are a tragedy.
        moralestapia 5y ago
        Ok, so I cannot comment on dogs since I am not a dog, But somehow you, who are not a dog as well (I presume), just happen to know that dogs prefer domestic life. Nice dissonance there, pal.
        verall 5y ago
        There is no dissonance, the reasoning you gave was that you (or the reader) would certainly not prefer to live with benevolent captors as an emotional support object, so a dog likely would not either. This is not invalid reasoning, but Man's relationship with The Dog is more complicated than that. Domesticated dogs were created by selective breeding by humans over thousands of years, and this is well established. I posit that dogs on average prefer domestic life because they were selectively bred to prefer it for thousands of years. I am honestly surprised this is controversial. We know for a fact that many dog breeds are not compatible with living in nature without human help, and would not survive. What is the ethical thing to do now, that we cannot change the past, and domesticated animals exist? I don't think breeding dogs is ethical. I also don't think lettings dogs out into nature is ethical, at all.
moralestapia 5y ago
100% agree with you. Keeping a "pet" locked on your home for the purpose of vanity and keeping you entertained for a few mins/day is outrageous. Praising animal rights but choosing to ignore this is the ultimate hypocrisy.
- borski 5y ago
  Your assumptions are showing. There are a thousand reasons people keep pets that have nothing to do with either vanity or entertainment. Pets offer an extremely potent form of emotional therapy, and that is a very personal connection that has nothing at all to do with vanity or entertainment. Both of the latter are typically secondary effects, not primary.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    >Your assumptions are showing. Well, of course, I didn't type my comment by accident! Regarding your point: Number of service dogs in the US: ~500,000 [1] Number of dogs kept as pets in the US: ~76 million [2] It's not even 1%. I understand the argument you bring but in practice is literally a rounding error. The overwhelming majority of pets serve a function of vanity and/or entertainment. 1: https://share.america.gov/service-dogs-save-lives/ https://share.america.gov/service-dogs-save-lives/ 2: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-pet-ownership-statistics https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-p...
    - borski 5y ago
      Again, you are making assumptions here that are invalid. You are talking about service dogs; I am not. Service dogs do save lives, and are immensely important, but that is explicitly not my point. I am talking about the fact that many pet-owners do gain emotional value and support from animals. Emotional animal support can be extremely effective therapy for humans, but would not count as a service animal. However, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would argue that situation is a function of vanity and/or entertainment. And before you go try and find data: no, there aren't a lot of registered 'therapy animals,' because that is a hot-topic political issue, and people don't differentiate them well from service animals. Not to mention that society continues to think 'mental health problems' are mostly either made-up or to be looked down upon. There not being a lot of registered ones does not mean that the emotional support and stability gained by having a pet does not do absolute wonders from a therapeutic perspective. It has been formalized a bit[1], but has been going on informally for centuries, since animals and humans do form close emotional bonds. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-therapy https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-therapy
silicon2401 5y ago
People believe what is convenient for them. It's not easy to accept that pets can't consent to being pets if you really want to have pets.
ElijahLynn 5y ago
Exactly! And I can't believe people are downvoting you. If we replace "dog" with "human" it would get upvoted. This is called "speciesism".
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  >If we replace "dog" with "human" it would get upvoted. This is called "speciesism". To put it lightly, I don't think this idea holds water in the general case.
  - ElijahLynn 5y ago
    You are demonstrating speciesism right now. One species is better than the other. Sexism = one sex is better than the other. Racism = one race is better than the other. The way we treat animals is wrong. COVID is largely suspected to have come from humans fucking with bats. source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h...

OzyM 5y ago

Is this sarcasm? I fail to understand how taking a dog from a loving household into scrounging on the streets is at all an ethical solution.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moralestapia 5y ago
Would you agree to be locked at some place even if "they treat you real good"?
- OzyM 5y ago
  I agree it's not an ideal situation, but I honestly think it's better than the alternative. In your example of me personally, this is kind of the tradeoff most small humans (including myself) made for the first ten years of life. Supervision, lack of freedom, etc. in exchange for food, shelter, and hopefully companionship. As it's not ideal, I could agree with you on reducing breeding so we don't have to make this choice in the future. But currently, for domesticated animals who can't be released into the wild without high chance of extreme pain to themselves (dogs) or major ecological damage (cats), it seems like our kindest option is to put as many of them in loving & protective situations as possible.
  - summm 5y ago
    I feel this is a false dichotomy. If we really stop breeding pets, and do this consequently and with an honest effort, this will become a non-issue in, like, 10 years.
- borski 5y ago
  You are making unstated assumptions: we have no idea if dogs, by this point, have been bred to seek human companionship, which we believe generally to be the case. If left alone, lacking companionship (since most pet owners don't tend to be abusive, though it can happen), I would argue the animal would potentially be much less happy on the street. That has nothing to do with me wanting to own a pet, and everything to do with there being plenty of pets available who I would rather get loved by someone than, well, die on the street.
- verall 5y ago
  Are you a dog? This kind of personifying glib is what gives vegan/vegetarian ethics a bad name. It completely ignores domestication and how dogs evolved as human-following scavenger animals. Most dog breeds are not adapted to living without humans. Dogs in the wild live much shorter lives and get parasites.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    >Are you a dog? Yes, I am a sentient dog with an internet connection. >Dogs in the wild live much shorter lives and get parasites. This is true of humans as well. Honestly, I think a dog would outlast many of us in the wild. Your point is moot.
    - verall 5y ago
      It's not, my points are clear and well argued ;) You aren't a dog, so your preference for not living under the care of a human owner is not relevant. Dogs do not outlast us in the wild, because "the wild" is the real world we live in today. Stray dogs are invasive in most ecosystems, and are usually not well adapted to their environments. Dogs are intelligent enough to show preferences, and thanks to tens of thousands of years of selective breeding, they generally prefer people. Strays are a tragedy.
      - moralestapia 5y ago
        Ok, so I cannot comment on dogs since I am not a dog, But somehow you, who are not a dog as well (I presume), just happen to know that dogs prefer domestic life. Nice dissonance there, pal.
        verall 5y ago
        There is no dissonance, the reasoning you gave was that you (or the reader) would certainly not prefer to live with benevolent captors as an emotional support object, so a dog likely would not either. This is not invalid reasoning, but Man's relationship with The Dog is more complicated than that. Domesticated dogs were created by selective breeding by humans over thousands of years, and this is well established. I posit that dogs on average prefer domestic life because they were selectively bred to prefer it for thousands of years. I am honestly surprised this is controversial. We know for a fact that many dog breeds are not compatible with living in nature without human help, and would not survive. What is the ethical thing to do now, that we cannot change the past, and domesticated animals exist? I don't think breeding dogs is ethical. I also don't think lettings dogs out into nature is ethical, at all.

moralestapia 5y ago

100% agree with you. Keeping a "pet" locked on your home for the purpose of vanity and keeping you entertained for a few mins/day is outrageous. Praising animal rights but choosing to ignore this is the ultimate hypocrisy.

borski 5y ago
Your assumptions are showing. There are a thousand reasons people keep pets that have nothing to do with either vanity or entertainment. Pets offer an extremely potent form of emotional therapy, and that is a very personal connection that has nothing at all to do with vanity or entertainment. Both of the latter are typically secondary effects, not primary.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  >Your assumptions are showing. Well, of course, I didn't type my comment by accident! Regarding your point: Number of service dogs in the US: ~500,000 [1] Number of dogs kept as pets in the US: ~76 million [2] It's not even 1%. I understand the argument you bring but in practice is literally a rounding error. The overwhelming majority of pets serve a function of vanity and/or entertainment. 1: https://share.america.gov/service-dogs-save-lives/ https://share.america.gov/service-dogs-save-lives/ 2: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-pet-ownership-statistics https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-p...
  - borski 5y ago
    Again, you are making assumptions here that are invalid. You are talking about service dogs; I am not. Service dogs do save lives, and are immensely important, but that is explicitly not my point. I am talking about the fact that many pet-owners do gain emotional value and support from animals. Emotional animal support can be extremely effective therapy for humans, but would not count as a service animal. However, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would argue that situation is a function of vanity and/or entertainment. And before you go try and find data: no, there aren't a lot of registered 'therapy animals,' because that is a hot-topic political issue, and people don't differentiate them well from service animals. Not to mention that society continues to think 'mental health problems' are mostly either made-up or to be looked down upon. There not being a lot of registered ones does not mean that the emotional support and stability gained by having a pet does not do absolute wonders from a therapeutic perspective. It has been formalized a bit[1], but has been going on informally for centuries, since animals and humans do form close emotional bonds. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-therapy https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-therapy

silicon2401 5y ago

People believe what is convenient for them. It's not easy to accept that pets can't consent to being pets if you really want to have pets.

ElijahLynn 5y ago

Exactly! And I can't believe people are downvoting you. If we replace "dog" with "human" it would get upvoted. This is called "speciesism".

happytoexplain 5y ago
>If we replace "dog" with "human" it would get upvoted. This is called "speciesism". To put it lightly, I don't think this idea holds water in the general case.
- ElijahLynn 5y ago
  You are demonstrating speciesism right now. One species is better than the other. Sexism = one sex is better than the other. Racism = one race is better than the other. The way we treat animals is wrong. COVID is largely suspected to have come from humans fucking with bats. source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h...