3 ms·

What are you voting for? Release all the strays into the wild? Mandatory adoption of at least X dogs per household? You haven't taken any position other than "Y

What are you voting for? Release all the strays into the wild? Mandatory adoption of at least X dogs per household? You haven't taken any position other than "Yes they CAN all be accommodated", which is like a three-year-old refusing to take a bath. local pets per household limit You'll have to take that one up with your local government. My town has no such limit.

trhway 12y ago
>What are you voting for? granting them rights according to their mental capacity and sentience - i.e. about the rights of a 2-3 year old toddler (or a person with extremely severe autism - very close approximation of a cat's or dog's mental capacity). For example - how would you handle an overpopulation by a toddlers? Would you set them free into the wild or euthanize? EDIT: to CocaKoala below. >But that's a ridiculous comparison because cats and dogs are not toddlers i didn't say they are toddlers. I said we should treat others at least according to their mental capacity and sentience. And treatment of toddlers or severe autistic people is an example of such treatment. >Granting cats and dogs the rights of toddlers or autistic individuals means you're giving up the right to spay or neuter your pet; nobody would advocate for sterilizing a toddler, exactly. It is definitely time to give up such medieval ways. Why aren't we using pills on cats and dogs? Because we don't want to bother with extra expense and effort. Affording the rights would force us to do it. And it would be for our own good as treating others with consideration and humane compassion would only improve our own civilization. >but many very reasonable people advocate for sterilizing house pets, and for good reasons. if you remember anything about the history of human race, you wouldn't invoke the formula "many very reasonable people advocate for <...>, and for good reasons" TO "dogecoinbase" : Summary of your post's logic - "affording rights [according to mental capacity and sentience] is cruel". Yep, no way to fight that logic. TO: CocaKoala 2nd post. I advocate for granting rights and making decisions on that basis. At the current state of technology i do see that adopting such a basis would lead to the choice of pills over surgical mutilation. To address your Edit - i didn't insist on specific everyday birth control pill taken orally. If we to talk technical details - long term birth control injection would me more close to it.
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  But that's a ridiculous comparison because cats and dogs are not toddlers, and treating them like they are isn't going to solve the problem? For example, when you leave a group of toddlers alone for a few days, you don't end up with an entirely new batch of toddlers two months later. That right there changes the dynamic of the issue pretty seriously, and you're just hand-waving that away. Granting cats and dogs the rights of toddlers or autistic individuals means you're giving up the right to spay or neuter your pet; nobody would advocate for sterilizing a toddler, but many very reasonable people advocate for sterilizing house pets, and for good reasons.
- dogecoinbase 12y ago
  For example - how would you handle an overpopulation by a toddlers? Would you set them free into the wild or euthanize? This is an incoherent analogy brought about by anthropomorphizing non-human creatures, and were it followed through on it would do immeasurable harm to the very creatures you wish to protect. To take the example of pills versus spaying/neutering (so, in your analogy, these hordes of toddlers can reproduce), you assume that their owners would universally be responsible enough to and capable of administering the pill, and that those who were not sufficiently responsible would do something other than abandon the animal when it began menstruating (in the case of a female dog or cat) or behaving in a sexually aggressive manner (in the case of a male). Then you assert that giving them "rights" would induce people to behave well, presumably under the threat of punishment. This might actually result in a similar situation to toddlers -- forbidden to leave the house or go out of sight of their owners, forbidden to play in potentially dangerous situations, and a variety of other consequences that would be terrible for cats or dogs because they are not human and to treat them equivalently is cruel to the animal.
  - trhway 12y ago
    This common misconception below requires specific addressing. >This is an incoherent analogy brought about by anthropomorphizing non-human creatures, No. It is the other way around. The same level of sentience should be treated the same irrespective of the specific set/pile of cells the sentience resides in.

trhway 12y ago

>What are you voting for? granting them rights according to their mental capacity and sentience - i.e. about the rights of a 2-3 year old toddler (or a person with extremely severe autism - very close approximation of a cat's or dog's mental capacity). For example - how would you handle an overpopulation by a toddlers? Would you set them free into the wild or euthanize? EDIT: to CocaKoala below. >But that's a ridiculous comparison because cats and dogs are not toddlers i didn't say they are toddlers. I said we should treat others at least according to their mental capacity and sentience. And treatment of toddlers or severe autistic people is an example of such treatment. >Granting cats and dogs the rights of toddlers or autistic individuals means you're giving up the right to spay or neuter your pet; nobody would advocate for sterilizing a toddler, exactly. It is definitely time to give up such medieval ways. Why aren't we using pills on cats and dogs? Because we don't want to bother with extra expense and effort. Affording the rights would force us to do it. And it would be for our own good as treating others with consideration and humane compassion would only improve our own civilization. >but many very reasonable people advocate for sterilizing house pets, and for good reasons. if you remember anything about the history of human race, you wouldn't invoke the formula "many very reasonable people advocate for <...>, and for good reasons" TO "dogecoinbase" : Summary of your post's logic - "affording rights [according to mental capacity and sentience] is cruel". Yep, no way to fight that logic. TO: CocaKoala 2nd post. I advocate for granting rights and making decisions on that basis. At the current state of technology i do see that adopting such a basis would lead to the choice of pills over surgical mutilation. To address your Edit - i didn't insist on specific everyday birth control pill taken orally. If we to talk technical details - long term birth control injection would me more close to it.

CocaKoala 12y ago
But that's a ridiculous comparison because cats and dogs are not toddlers, and treating them like they are isn't going to solve the problem? For example, when you leave a group of toddlers alone for a few days, you don't end up with an entirely new batch of toddlers two months later. That right there changes the dynamic of the issue pretty seriously, and you're just hand-waving that away. Granting cats and dogs the rights of toddlers or autistic individuals means you're giving up the right to spay or neuter your pet; nobody would advocate for sterilizing a toddler, but many very reasonable people advocate for sterilizing house pets, and for good reasons.
dogecoinbase 12y ago
For example - how would you handle an overpopulation by a toddlers? Would you set them free into the wild or euthanize? This is an incoherent analogy brought about by anthropomorphizing non-human creatures, and were it followed through on it would do immeasurable harm to the very creatures you wish to protect. To take the example of pills versus spaying/neutering (so, in your analogy, these hordes of toddlers can reproduce), you assume that their owners would universally be responsible enough to and capable of administering the pill, and that those who were not sufficiently responsible would do something other than abandon the animal when it began menstruating (in the case of a female dog or cat) or behaving in a sexually aggressive manner (in the case of a male). Then you assert that giving them "rights" would induce people to behave well, presumably under the threat of punishment. This might actually result in a similar situation to toddlers -- forbidden to leave the house or go out of sight of their owners, forbidden to play in potentially dangerous situations, and a variety of other consequences that would be terrible for cats or dogs because they are not human and to treat them equivalently is cruel to the animal.
- trhway 12y ago
  This common misconception below requires specific addressing. >This is an incoherent analogy brought about by anthropomorphizing non-human creatures, No. It is the other way around. The same level of sentience should be treated the same irrespective of the specific set/pile of cells the sentience resides in.