"Pets" - Which of these statements do you agree with?

[Roxy]

I think a lot of people (and I know I was one of them) have a near-sighted and idyllic/fairy tale view of what goes on in the background in order to feed the world's pet demand. Obviously there are many "good" breeders out there, but as long as dogs and cats are bought and sold as commodities, there will always be some people out there who will treat animals as shown in this video. ( It's not gory, don't be afraid, but it will make you think. Also, the sound level is low, so turn up your volume.)

I'm not making any judgments here, just passing along some info.

Thanks Mahk for that link. Animal Advocates are a local organisation for me, here in Vancouver. I didn't know about them, until you posted that link. Thanks!

[EcoTribalVegan]

critical reading would've shown that peta was used as 1 of 3 examples.

ummm... actually some people are advocating killing them. Shelters kill animals all the time because there is no space/money/time for all of them.

A couple people from peta were arrested for killing shelter animals awhile back.

and this quote:
If I saw a dog dying on the street I would have it be put to sleep. The problem (the pet owner) has already been done. The dog's presumably terrible life can't be undone. But we can change the future. Actually, just by owning pets you promote pet owning to non-pet owners. Getting fewer people to own pets in the first place is the right way to tackle the situation.
from: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16798
shows evidence of that as well.

Of course we need to spay and neuter. Unfortunately there arent laws for this or to regulate breeding.

This is the quote in question. I highlighted what I believe to be your three points of reference. Red is just a blanket statement, no evidence. PeTA doesn't speak for the members of this group on every issue (blue). And you misinterpretted (from what I can see and from what Mazatael reposted) Mazatael's quote. So critical reading was lost when you made that post...

as I said 'I am under the impression' and PMed a poster who I believe holds this view in order to get his side, therefore not putting words in his mouth.

Was this Mazatael? Or could you please source this third individual as I already asked you to do.... But you ignored claiming it was futile responding to me.

I wish there were no reasons for domestic animals to be made extinct, however there are people who do believe that is the right thing to happen. I was stating my opinion on this idea based on this post.

Because domestic animals were CREATED/BRED to be interesting play-things for humans. How can someone respect animals when that's how they're treated?

[RubyDuby]

Frankly, what u believe my points are is meaningless to me. I know what I said.

u do realize that u r arguing over whether or not an opinion exists, right?? it obviously does. It may or may not have been an accurate assumption that currently there is an active member holding the opinion, but the opinion is based on vegan beliefs nonetheless.

mazatael is the third mystery man I am withholding from you.

[magpie]

As humanity hurtles to the horrors of our self created extinction, the question of whether dogs and cats should be allowed to exist just doesn't seem to carry the same petty weight it used to. Rather it seems like an expression of why human beings have become the self destructive unnatural creature that blights this planet and every species on it.
The idea that it's right for humanity to decide the fate of dogs and cats is as sensible as saying that a genocidal regime is legally permitted to decide the fate if its victims. Humans aren't god, individually or collectively, but here we are playing god.
The delusion that we somehow have the right to legally permit murder or selective removal is the same meddling meglomanic madness that fuels all the evils that people do.
Power over others is a heavy responsibility, something that is an easy mark of someones worth.
If you find a sick dog in the street and you kill it, then that's what you are, a killer, if you find an animal sub species in your care and you selectively erradiacte it, again that's what you are, it's means of destruction, not a god, but a genocidal monster to that helpless creature in your care.
People can talk about killing and species removal in any way they like, in however big a group they like, it will never make it right, it will only ever be what it is, another meddling choice made by a mad monkey.

[Marrers]

I'm curious about what you see as the solution magpie. Carry on with the status quo on all animals we are currently 'responsible for'? Or what?

Of course we need to spay and neuter.

But won't this ultimately lead to the extinction of domestic animals too ruby?

[boatsteem1]

As humanity hurtles to the horrors of our self created extinction, the question of whether dogs and cats should be allowed to exist just doesn't seem to carry the same petty weight it used to. Rather it seems like an expression of why human beings have become the self destructive unnatural creature that blights this planet and every species on it.
The idea that it's right for humanity to decide the fate of dogs and cats is as sensible as saying that a genocidal regime is legally permitted to decide the fate if its victims. Humans aren't god, individually or collectively, but here we are playing god.
The delusion that we somehow have the right to legally permit murder or selective removal is the same meddling meglomanic madness that fuels all the evils that people do.
Power over others is a heavy responsibility, something that is an easy mark of someones worth.
If you find a sick dog in the street and you kill it, then that's what you are, a killer, if you find an animal sub species in your care and you selectively erradiacte it, again that's what you are, it's means of destruction, not a god, but a genocidal monster to that helpless creature in your care.
People can talk about killing and species removal in any way they like, in however big a group they like, it will never make it right, it will only ever be what it is, another meddling choice made by a mad monkey.

What dies?


X 1 000

=



=

X 1

[RubyDuby]

But won't this ultimately lead to the extinction of domestic animals too ruby?

no way. drugs are illegal, but still rampant. law does not have that power. it is just a deterent.

besides, what I really meant was breeding laws. any and everyone should not have the right to breed their pets when they are being killed off by the thousands in shelters bc there are too many.

the more i think about this though, the more guilty I feel about supporting domesticated pets.

[RubyDuby]

Mazatael-- what would u have done with the pets who are still alive and well?

[RubyDuby]

The idea that it's right for humanity to decide the fate of dogs and cats is as sensible as saying that a genocidal regime is legally permitted to decide the fate if its victims. Humans aren't god, individually or collectively, but here we are playing god.
The delusion that we somehow have the right to legally permit murder or selective removal is the same meddling meglomanic madness that fuels all the evils that people do.
Power over others is a heavy responsibility, something that is an easy mark of someones worth.
People can talk about killing and species removal in any way they like, in however big a group they like, it will never make it right, it will only ever be what it is, another meddling choice made by a mad monkey.

the fact is, we created domesticated dogs and cats. Most would not survive without humans. even those in the streets survive off human trash. It seems like it should be human responsibility to right the problem we created. Whether you hold the opinion that there should be strict breeding regulations or if you believe that domesticated pets should be allowed to go extinct, this is still a human responsibility.

[Marrers]

the more i think about this though, the more guilty I feel about supporting domesticated pets.

It is good that we are discussing, debating and thinking about things though, not entrenched in our views. And it is interesting and challenging to see things from other perspectives isn't it, whatever the topic.

[EcoTribalVegan]

Frankly, what u believe my points are is meaningless to me. I know what I said.

It's not what I believe them to be, it's what they are. Many other made the same mistake but you seemed to want to make it personal so I thought I'd return the favour...

u do realize that u r arguing over whether or not an opinion exists, right?? it obviously does. It may or may not have been an accurate assumption that currently there is an active member holding the opinion, but the opinion is based on vegan beliefs nonetheless.

I'm arguing whether this opinion exists to vegans. I know what I'm arguing, you clearly do not.

mazatael is the third mystery man I am withholding from you.

I don't know why you're being sarcastic. In a debate information is key and withholding your part of the information (as erroneous as it may be) is not my folly but yours.

And if this is the case with your original blanket statement that some have this view, you only have TWO points. Neither of which seem to be validated in the vegan sense.

I just thought I would clarify this point for you, but you realise this is a VEGAN forum for discussing VEGAN beliefs correct? Not a forum to use organisations' opinions where not even the majority of it's advocates are vegetarian (at best). For instance your irrelevant PeTA reference...

[RubyDuby]

u need to reread. ur looking to argue.

[EcoTribalVegan]

u need to reread. ur looking to argue.

Clearly you do. I posted your erroneous post in question (IN FULL; one of your other pitiful attempts to dodge the issue at hand) and you just seem to ignore your own mistakes. Once again, makes your argument weaker not mine.

I'm looking for the truth. Something you're trying to hide. I do that via debate.

But we'll see what Mazatael's beliefs truly are. From what he was actually responding to (because you took his quote out of context; the third time I've said that I believe), I would probably do the same thing. Then again, I also believe in euthanasia of humans. If there's no other way to eliminate pain, euthanasia seems a viable option. I would choose the same for myself.

PeTA doesn't speak for vegans. It's actually counter-productive to abolitionist vegans. And vegans who just want better treatment of animals (so that can go back to eating meat) aren't true vegans, so their opinions should NOT represent vegan opinion anyway. I thought I would repost these (for the last time), because I have a feeling you've ignored them continuously with your one-liner dismissal "arguments".

[dreama]

The idea that it's right for humanity to decide the fate of dogs and cats is as sensible as saying that a genocidal regime is legally permitted to decide the fate if its victims. Humans aren't god, individually or collectively, but here we are playing god.
The delusion that we somehow have the right to legally permit murder or selective removal is the same meddling meglomanic madness that fuels all the evils that people do.
Power over others is a heavy responsibility, something that is an easy mark of someones worth.
If you find a sick dog in the street and you kill it, then that's what you are, a killer, if you find an animal sub species in your care and you selectively erradiacte it, again that's what you are, it's means of destruction, not a god, but a genocidal monster to that helpless creature in your care.
People can talk about killing and species removal in any way they like, in however big a group they like, it will never make it right, it will only ever be what it is, another meddling choice made by a mad monkey.

I totally agree.

[EcoTribalVegan]

If you find a sick dog in the street and you kill it, then that's what you are, a killer, if you find an animal sub species in your care and you selectively erradiacte it, again that's what you are, it's means of destruction, not a god, but a genocidal monster to that helpless creature in your care.

So you'd rather prolong it's pain than find, presumably, the only way to END that pain? That sounds rather sadistic. But by your standard of not deciding the fate of the animal, you would leave it in the road to die. As soon as you take it out of the road you have decided it's fate...

I didn't even realise this was posted (probably because I've been preoccupied with RubyDuby's misinformation). But if Dreama agrees I presume you agree with this statement too?

[snivelingchild]

Good thing we argue like politicians, pointing out inaccuracies in the philosophies of others, rather than the superiority of our own. I mean, look at all they get done. I do it too, but god damn, this is getting tiring. I feel like posting porn or something shiny to distract everyone. (No Korn, I won't seriously be posting porn....except in my head) *boobs*

One thing that keeps sticking in my mind is that I keep hearing the word kill. This bothers me because in my mind, a vegan lifestyle is about reducing suffering, not death. Now, in 99.9% of cases, death causes suffering, and we are against killing even the lowest on animals whose ability to 'suffer' is practically unknown. Many people believe that euthanasia is a kinder choice to suffering, but where we differ is what we consider better or worse than death, and where we draw the line on suffering. People who would want the painless death of all animals whom we cannot currently care for, view a painless death as less suffering than an animal with no vet care, raliable food source, or shelter. People who would want a painless death for only animals who are in unavoidable physical pain due to illness or injury, view an animal with no human care as suffering less than a painless loss of life, and a painless death as causing less suffering than continuing pain. Of course there are many points in this spectrum, but the point is that I interpret most of the opinions on this thread as the same, but with different definitions for terms, and different values placed on certain variables.

[EcoTribalVegan]

Good thing we argue like politicians, pointing out inaccuracies in the philosophies of others, rather than the superiority of our own. I mean, look at all they get done. I do it too, but god damn, this is getting tiring. I feel like posting porn or something shiny to distract everyone. (No Korn, I won't seriously be posting porn....except in my head) *boobs*

I assume this is directed at me. I rather resent that; being called akin to a politician.

I'm trying to help someone's debating skills and she (I think RubyDuby is a she anyway) just keeps ignoring me and posting inaccuracies. That doesn't help ANYBODY!

But if you want a superior belief system take into account primitivism. That's the ideal I ultimately hold as superior. So it's on the table now.

One thing that keeps sticking in my mind is that I keep hearing the word kill. This bothers me because in my mind, a vegan lifestyle is about reducing suffering, not death. Now, in 99.9% of cases, death causes suffering

I think you have that backwards. When something is dead it cannot feel. So death actually eliminates pain (doesn't CAUSE it). Pain is a mechanism to avoid death actually.

Many people believe that euthanasia is a kinder choice to suffering, but where we differ is what we consider better or worse than death, and where we draw the line on suffering. People who would want the painless death of all animals whom we cannot currently care for, view a painless death as less suffering than an animal with no vet care, raliable food source, or shelter.

If you're getting these ideas from PeTA (because it almost sounds like PeTA protocol) you might as well stop there. Because it's not that there isn't these things, it's a matter of whether these things will even HELP eliminate the suffering.

People who would want a painless death for only animals who are in unavoidable physical pain due to illness or injury, view an animal with no human care as suffering less than a painless loss of life, and a painless death as causing less suffering than continuing pain. Of course there are many points in this spectrum, but the point is that I interpret most of the opinions on this thread as the same, but with different definitions for terms, and different values placed on certain variables.

The way I see this (as I alluded to before) is that pain is a mechanism to indicate an illness/injury. An animal wants this pain eliminated (obviously). Usually if there's a source, it can be pinpointed and possibly eliminated. If it can't be eliminated, the only way to resolve any creatures desire to end pain is with death. Because it's almost certain that impossible-to-cure pain will result in death anyway.

But let me be clear on this (because there are some here who take things out of context) if there is ANYTHING that can be done to eliminate the pain, then whatever is it that can be done should be done (instead of euthanasia).

[RubyDuby]

One thing that keeps sticking in my mind is that I keep hearing the word kill.

good point. I think I started that. I should've been differentiating between meaning 'make extinct' and 'euthanize'.

I'm trying to help someone's debating skills and she (I think RubyDuby is a she anyway) just keeps ignoring me and posting inaccuracies. That doesn't help ANYBODY!.

Get over yourself. Why would it be your job to help somebody's debating skills? Insulting people is a good way to get ignored. Picking at each point until it has completely lost its original meaning is a good way to not be taken seriously. You've chosen to attack me bc I pointed out your arrogance in another thread. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. We all have our faults, but all you've done here is proven that observation to be true. It has been a test to me to not respond to your incorrect evaluations of what I said. I'm done with you.

[EcoTribalVegan]

good point. I think I started that. I should've been differentiating between meaning 'make extinct' and 'euthanize'.

And I addressed this term earlier and you, presumably, ignored that too.

Making something extinct that WE created (through selective breeding/rape) isn't an inherently bad thing. Removing unnatural things in an attempt to become more natural is a good thing. But once again, just to save potential confusion, this doesn't mean killing living animals. It just means preventing further births.

Get over yourself. Why would it be your job to help somebody's debating skills? Insulting people is a good way to get ignored. Picking at each point until it has completely lost its original meaning is a good way to not be taken seriously. You've chosen to attack me bc I pointed out your arrogance in another thread. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. We all have our faults, but all you've done here is proven that observation to be true. It has been a test to me to not respond to your incorrect evaluations of what I said. I'm done with you.

Because you're spreading misinformation. For the umpteenth time, it wasn't just myself that assumed - since we're in a vegan forum - that you were referring to vegans.

If I was insulting you by stating facts, that's your problem. Maybe the old movie quote, "you can't handle the truth" seems appropriate if this is truly the case?

I never attacked you. I just stopped you from spreading lies about me as you have been continually doing in numerous threads at this point. And while it's been mostly me you're targetting, you're misrepresenting others as well in your crusade for providing misinformation...

[RubyDuby]

i was referring to vegans.

i'm not trying to misrepresent, hence the pm to mazatael, and direct question.

please lets stick to the point.

[boatsteem1]

Good thing we argue like politicians, pointing out inaccuracies in the philosophies of others, rather than the superiority of our own. I mean, look at all they get done. I do it too, but god damn, this is getting tiring. I feel like posting porn or something shiny to distract everyone. (No Korn, I won't seriously be posting porn....except in my head) *boobs*

One thing that keeps sticking in my mind is that I keep hearing the word kill. This bothers me because in my mind, a vegan lifestyle is about reducing suffering, not death. Now, in 99.9% of cases, death causes suffering, and we are against killing even the lowest on animals whose ability to 'suffer' is practically unknown. Many people believe that euthanasia is a kinder choice to suffering, but where we differ is what we consider better or worse than death, and where we draw the line on suffering. People who would want the painless death of all animals whom we cannot currently care for, view a painless death as less suffering than an animal with no vet care, raliable food source, or shelter. People who would want a painless death for only animals who are in unavoidable physical pain due to illness or injury, view an animal with no human care as suffering less than a painless loss of life, and a painless death as causing less suffering than continuing pain. Of course there are many points in this spectrum, but the point is that I interpret most of the opinions on this thread as the same, but with different definitions for terms, and different values placed on certain variables.

I think the fundamental difference is that some people own pets and like it. It's like with a car. If you don't have one you don't care for it; you definitely think they should lower speeds on all roads and you think car drivers are silly and maybe even stupid for driving faster than what is allowed.

Ironically, I imagine most people change opinion once they have gotten their drivers licence and a car. Suddenly they are on the drivers' side. It takes one or two years. Once you have the car you don't want to live without it. A fundamental difference is that living without pets is even harder because they fulfill your feelings whereas a car does other, more practical things. Maybe a human should fulfill your feelings instead of a dog or a cat?

On a different note. I'd like to ask you what you think about animals that are hurt in for example accidents but are able to recover. Life can be quite gruesome when recovering from an injury. It can be very painful. If veganism is about reducing suffering, shouldn't all animals be put to sleep because they suffer?

Put to sleep or not put to sleep? Where is the line and why do you draw it there?


Ps. Your text is hard to read. Please use Enter more often.

[EcoTribalVegan]

i was referring to vegans.

i'm not trying to misrepresent, hence the pm to mazatael, and direct question.

please lets stick to the point.

Precisely. And, as far as mazatael's justifications go he doesn't feel the need to kill the animal unless it's dying. This could change with further justification if he feels any is warranted.

But, sticking with the issue at hand, is there any further evidence that vegan's support this action (killing animals)? I'm just honestly curious, because I would like to discuss this with them (as I have said before). I think we're on the same side, so I don't know why you're resorting to personal attacks. I just want to make sure I have all the facts before jumping to a conclusion.

[boatsteem1]

Mazatael-- what would u have done with the pets who are still alive and well?

If I'm a god, you mean? Someone who could rule all life?

Well I'm not. I try not to act as one. Rather, I try to make people think.

If I were to play with the thought of being a god. The biggest (and only) issue this planet has is Homo sapiens. We are a threat to all life. We have the intelligence of erasing all life on our planet. We are doing it right now. This very second.

Apart from erasing our atmosphere, though, we also have the intelligence of erasing just our own species. Sheer chance tell us that someone in a basement, with the help of Internet, may, right at this very moment, be devising a world-wide poison. The technology is there.

And time?

Even if we don't kill ourselves in 100 or 1 000 years, chances are quite high that we will have done it within 10 000 years. And what is 10 000 years to evolution? This will happen. Sooner or later, it will happen.

This means that we are intelligent enough to erase ourselves. Evolution has created us but didn't count on that we would become so smart that we would diminish ourselves. This takes us one step above all the rest of nature. We are supernatural. Creatures that have complete control of all life on earth.

I'm going to rephrase this: The biggest (and only) issue this planet has, is Homo sapiens.

Now re-read my first two sentences.

Am I Homo sapiens? Are you?

[RubyDuby]

I guess the question should be, what should be done with the healthy domestic animals that currently exist... since this is the What is your opinion about keeping pets? thread, and you've shown that you are against it.

Should they be euthanized (bc of their inevitable consumption of other animals and the supposed encouragment to other ppl to own pets) or casterated and allowed to live out their lives?

Of course this is hypothetical, as I doubt our opinions on this will make a difference in the big picture. I'm just curious.

[snivelingchild]

I assume this is directed at me.

I was indicating no one person in particular, rather the group. It takes (at least) two to lead a poor discussion. If I had something to say to you specifically, I'd have said it to you. Do not underestimate the size of my balls. *I just liked saying that last sentence *

I did not mean this in an attacking way, just the way I was interpreting the dialogue here. I cast no blame of poor discussion on others, as people are not perfect, yet the idea of ideal discussion is. Adding opinions of those outside the discussion is sometimes helpful. If it is not, I am easily ignorable. Believe me, I fade into the background quite easily with effort.

[snivelingchild]

If you're getting these ideas from PeTA (because it almost sounds like PeTA protocol) you might as well stop there. Because it's not that there isn't these things, it's a matter of whether these things will even HELP eliminate the suffering.

I was discussing how I interpret the differences of opinion between people. I didn't put much effort in my words into what I actually think causes suffering, rather I was attempting to make a broad discription of paths of definition, and logic and the conclusions gathered from said logic. This was more a reflection on thought patterns than an opinion on animal suffering. I am not even quite sure what 'peta protocol' might be on the subject, but I understand your point. Certainly deeming an animal's suffering is much deeper than a few select conditions. On the same level, it is also on a simpler, more imstinctive level that we make assumptions of suffering on. Regardless, it is one of those loosely defined concepts that makes it hard to gain a general concensus that is uniform on what does and does not qualify as such suffering.

[snivelingchild]

I think the fundamental difference is that some people own pets and like it. It's like with a car. If you don't have one you don't care for it; you definitely think they should lower speeds on all roads and you think car drivers are silly and maybe even stupid for driving faster than what is allowed.

That's a very good point. Of course, it's pretty much that way with both sides of any arguement. People like the way they've accustomed to living.

Ironically, I imagine most people change opinion once they have gotten their drivers licence and a car. Suddenly they are on the drivers' side. It takes one or two years. Once you have the car you don't want to live without it. A fundamental difference is that living without pets is even harder because they fulfill your feelings whereas a car does other, more practical things. Maybe a human should fulfill your feelings instead of a dog or a cat?

This is different for everyone, I'm sure, but personally, I don't feel that the animals I take care of fulfill feelings like this, save for my youngest dog because she shadows me so much, she is a constant. However, she has caused me much more stress and pissyness than happiness, but she has grown a part of me simply because I spend so much time with her. In other words, any fulfillment I gain from my pets (in my speculation) seems to come mostly from me spending lots of time with them, then (after having spent so much time around them) they feel like home, familiar. I don't get alot of time for play or relaxation with my animals, 99% of my time is cleaning up poo and vomit and feeding and other chores I dislike.

On a different note. I'd like to ask you what you think about animals that are hurt in for example accidents but are able to recover. Life can be quite gruesome when recovering from an injury. It can be very painful. If veganism is about reducing suffering, shouldn't all animals be put to sleep because they suffer?

Put to sleep or not put to sleep? Where is the line and why do you draw it there?

I don't think suffering related to pain directly. I think it relates to the amount of pain in a lifetime versus the amount of joy. An animal who will recover will experience much more joy (hopefully) after recovery. An animal whose health will degrade exponentially, I think will not. I feel uneasy about determining an animals suffering, since, obviously, we can never know. From my point of view, it is a necessary choice we make when we agree to take care of them, and we have to guess as well as we can. I can appreciate from (what I gather is your viewpoint, because I have not read everything, I appologize) is that since we cannot know, we should not be in charge of determining their fate, so we must either not interfere, or let the species die out so we will not have to make the decision???? Explain if I have made a HUGE ass of myself from my assumption, again, I'm sorry. I don't like to assume, but I am trying to participate in this forum with time I do not have!

Ps. Your text is hard to read. Please use Enter more often.

Noted. I appologize. Foruming in between school, work, and rehearsals turned me into a lazy, inconsiderate forumer who has started to use the easy ways out. Hence my initial post in this forum pointing out my assumed mistakes of others rather than adding my own comments in an appropriate way. Sometimes I just get fed up and do the wrong thing!

[angelamc]

99% of my time is cleaning up poo and vomit and feeding and other chores I dislike.

I feel your pain!!

[boatsteem1]

I can appreciate from (what I gather is your viewpoint, because I have not read everything, I appologize) is that since we cannot know, we should not be in charge of determining their fate, so we must either not interfere, or let the species die out so we will not have to make the decision???? Explain if I have made a HUGE ass of myself from my assumption, again, I'm sorry. I don't like to assume, but I am trying to participate in this forum with time I do not have!

Thank you for your reply!

Can you please restate this question?

[EcoTribalVegan]

I was discussing how I interpret the differences of opinion between people. I didn't put much effort in my words into what I actually think causes suffering, rather I was attempting to make a broad discription of paths of definition, and logic and the conclusions gathered from said logic. This was more a reflection on thought patterns than an opinion on animal suffering. I am not even quite sure what 'peta protocol' might be on the subject, but I understand your point. Certainly deeming an animal's suffering is much deeper than a few select conditions. On the same level, it is also on a simpler, more imstinctive level that we make assumptions of suffering on. Regardless, it is one of those loosely defined concepts that makes it hard to gain a general concensus that is uniform on what does and does not qualify as such suffering.

PeTA euthanises animals just because it does not have room to house them. I have a problem with this (and the term "homeless" animals; as if all animals NEED a home in the human sense). The way I phrased was meant to sound slightly sarcastic, I admit. I'm really sick of people using welfarist principles in an attempt to discredit abolitionist theory. It's essentially comparing apples to oranges.

And once again (I'm pretty sure I said it here, but I know I've said it elsewhere if not here), euthanisation should be a LAST resort if there is NOTHING else that can be done to eliminate pain. We know if an animal is in pain because a sentient creature exhibits behaviour of feeling pain. And if you're still uncertain, usually amounts of hormones in the blood stream can indicate if an animal is in pain (because if you're unsure I hope you're at the vet anyway).

[gogs67]

I don't know any vegans who DON'T have animals in their house,be it cats,dogs,ferrets,whatever.

[umbilical]

my sister has a ferret and a hamster, and we all have a dog together....


personally, i don't know if i would buy a pet on my own, though.
most of all the ferret seems like she would be better off in nature.

but i doubt our dog would survive without us, she's completely dependent on human company

[Roxy]

I don't know any vegans who DON'T have animals in their house,be it cats,dogs,ferrets,whatever.

I've been vegan for nearly 4 years and my cat only came into my life this past July.

[gogs67]

I've been vegan for nearly 4 years and my cat only came into my life this past July.

And you look on that as a positive thing for both of you regardless of some of the views on here?

[RubyDuby]

personally, i don't know if i would buy a pet on my own, though.

buy?

what about all the pets being euthanised bc there aren't enough homes?

[gogs67]

buy?

what about all the pets being euthanised bc there aren't enough homes?

In the UK you've still to pay to re home animals,covers admin,vets fees etc so,in effect,you are 'buying' i suppose!

[RubyDuby]

we have to pay too, but I wouldn't consider it "buying".

Do you have to pay a fee to adopt a child? If so, would you consider it purchasing the child?

I hope that's what he meant though. I can't even help myself from saying something, esp after seeing pictures of dumpsters filled with unwanted euthanised dogs and cats. It's so sad.

[gogs67]

we have to pay too, but I wouldn't consider it "buying".

Do you have to pay a fee to adopt a child? If so, would you consider it purchasing the child?

I hope that's what he meant though. I can't even help myself from saying something, esp after seeing pictures of dumpsters filled with unwanted euthanised dogs and cats. It's so sad.

Getting off topic but i suppose however much people want to cover it over with language,if money is involved a transaction has occured and the child is,in effect,'bought'!Not a word i'm sure the adoption agencies would want used however,due to the connotations.

[Roxy]

And you look on that as a positive thing for both of you regardless of some of the views on here?

Sure? Why not? If she hadn't come into my life in July, she would be dead by now. I found her on a vacant lot accross the street, she weighed 4.5 pounds, and was not much more than a bag of skin and bones.

So it's a positive thing for her. And for me - she's had positive and negative effects on my life. She has severe behavioural problems and the scars on my hands and wrists are testimony to that fact. That's a negative, and another negative is that we have to hide her from the landlord, because we're not allowed to have "pets" Oh and she also has cost us a lot of money (so that's a negative too). But on the positive side of things, she gives a lot of love (despite her problems) and knowing that she's a lot happier in here than she was out there, is also a big positive.

[RubyDuby]

Getting off topic but i suppose however much people want to cover it over with language,if money is involved a transaction has occured and the child is,in effect,'bought'!Not a word i'm sure the adoption agencies would want used however,due to the connotations.

however, I'm sure u see my point and why I said something?

[gogs67]

however, I'm sure u see my point and why I said something?

Totally!,but i'm sure Alleen didn't mean he would run off down to the nearest breeders to get a pedigree when he said that!

[RubyDuby]

well no, as he said he didn't think he would buy.

reflex

[missbettie]

And you look on that as a positive thing for both of you regardless of some of the views on here?

What is more positive than the joining of two lives? Especially when both are benefiting. I personally couldn't see Roxy being anything than other a good friend to an animal.

[Roxy]

Thank you Missbettie

[gogs67]

What is more positive than the joining of two lives? Especially when both are benefiting. I personally couldn't see Roxy being anything than other a good friend to an animal.

Well said!I just wish all vegans could see the positives!

[umbilical]

my sister has a ferret and a hamster, and we all have a dog together....

now it's only a ferret and our dog.................

[PaintedXSkyline]

RIP Aleen's sister's hamster.

[snivelingchild]

Thank you for your reply!

Can you please restate this question?

Alright. Would I be correct in assuming that your viewpoint includes the following statement?:
Since accurate knowledge of an animal's complete quality of life and amount of swuffering is unknown, we should not be in a position to determine their fate. Therefore, we should either not interfere and let nature have it's course, or allow the domesticated species to die out with sterilization so that the situation no longer exists?

I think I am remembering my original thoughts correctly. It's been a while.

[snivelingchild]

I don't fully understand the debate of whether or not euthanasia or animal keeping reduces or increases suffering, since I think it is something we can never truely know. Hence, aren't we using speculation only in our debate? On the other hand, if speculation is all we have, we ought to use it to come to a consensus of what is to be done in our situation. Just a random thought.

[Jiffy]

I think on balance that both of my dogs would, if they were capable of such thought processes, prefer the lfe they have with me rather than ending up in a sack weighted down with bricks.