General / Off-Topic Do you think people who own dachshunds and dress them up in costumes to make them look like hotdogs should be prosecuted?

[Patrick_68000]

The unfortunate reality--of selecting for harmful deformities, generation after generation, for purely aesthetic reasons--is quite a bit more gruesome.



I don't make any arbitrary distinctions between companion animals and other animals (people balk at harming cats or dogs, but pigs are at least as smart and 1.5 billion of them are slaughtered per year, with millions more destroyed for all sorts of reasons), nor do I see the value in having intermediate classifications between person and object. As far as I am concerned, either it's a person (a distinction not necessarily limited to humans, but most-capacity based criteria effectively rule out non-humans), in which case it should not be owned in any sense, or it's an object fully subject to ownership.

Personally, I tend to anthropomorphize my animals and treat them as people, but I cannot rationally expect others to view them the same way. Fortunately, they don't have to; all they need to know is that my animals are property I value and that I feel entitled to defend my property by any and all means at my disposal.

Laws on the topic are often inconsistent and poorly reasoned, arbitrarily elevating some animals above others, generally being based on prevailing cultural mores rather than any attempt at empiricism. Enforcement is equally arbitrary and frequently absent...often only brought up as a pretext for harassment or investigating/penalizing unrelated crimes.

I understand some of your points.

But destroying a pet, no thanks.

Farm animals for food consumption, are killed according to standards predefined by professionals (in general, peasants, slaughterhouses ...) and regulated by the law.

And although I don't like slaughterhouses, this is the world, unfortunately.

Killing a pet at home is the door open to all abuses and perversions and tortures.

We start with the animals and we continue with the children ?

Now in France, a person who tortures an animal (cat, dog, bird ect ...) is severely punished by the law.

Can even go to jail.

 

[znôrt]

Just to clarify: you're saying that dogs should have no rights and are essentially private property which their owners can dispose of however/whenever they see fit?

non sequitur. non-human animals can hardly have any rights as they would be unable to claim them, or even be aware of them. rights are a human fantasy. the "animal rights" label has always been a stupid and misleading motto that has probably done more harm than good to the cause. that doesn't mean human law can't provide the adequate protection for their wellbeing, as it should, specially considering what a bunch of reckless, insensitive and ignorant animals humans can be.

and yes, all around the world animals are either property or wild and even wild animals, regardless of their specific protection status, are at most part of the environment which is subject to be defined in various forms of ownership, at the very least "world heritage". meaning their existence will always be subjected to human whim. the way to improve that situation is to enhance and improve animal protection laws but, most importantly, educate humans to not be jerks with them.

Farm animals for food consumption, are killed according to standards predefined by professionals (in general, peasants, slaughterhouses ...) and regulated by the law.
And although I don't like slaughterhouses, this is the world, unfortunately.

the world can change, step by step. it has already changed (a lot!) and i expect this trend to continue if nothing breaks.

yet i can't share your view of 'professional regulated slaughterhouses'. that's self-denial, put simply. it isn't true even in the first world, it's just an excuse to keep eating meat. suffering and cruelty to animals for food is by far the most obnoxious, massive, gruesome and disheartening abomination of humanity by every scale (both quantitatively and qualitatively), and happens every single day. this is not "just the world". this is what we do, or let others do for us, period.

that dachshund has been made fun of, and i don't find that particularly appealing, but i suspect at the very least he as gotten good care, veterinary attention and will probably have a good life (if he doesn't jump on top of the grill when it's on, that is). i mean, his 'owners' are just idiots, not necessarily mean idiots. and i don't even support the idea of 'pets', unless you consider them life companions, with total respect for their needs and wellbeing and ...

Personally, I tend to anthropomorphize my animals and treat them as people

... not trying to anthropomorphize them. i consider the cat that lives with me and i are some form of friends, but humanizing would only hurt our relation and his existence. i won't treat him like people because he isn't, nor has any need to be. i accept his company as what he really is: a cat, with the needs of a cat, which are different from those of humans. i love that dude to bits but i don't need him to love me back 'the human way', nor understand me in any way. just a cross-species friendship. the best thing i can do for him is learn about cats, not expect him to adapt to the needs of humans, since all i care is that he is happy and healthy, which is my obligation the moment i accepted this situation which made him completely dependent on me for survival. kind of ... 'my property' for all intents and purposes, except i don't feel that way.

 

[Stigbob]

I understand some of your points.

But destroying a pet, no thanks.

Farm animals for food consumption, are killed according to standards predefined by professionals (in general, peasants, slaughterhouses ...) and regulated by the law.

And although I don't like slaughterhouses, this is the world, unfortunately.

Killing a pet at home is the door open to all abuses and perversions and tortures.

We start with the animals and we continue with the children ?

Now in France, a person who tortures an animal (cat, dog, bird ect ...) is severely punished by the law.

Can even go to jail.

It is down to the individual. Some look after animals well, some not so much some are horrifically cruel for kicks or profit.

I've killed my own pets and wildlife before, out of a desire to end suffering and knowledge there was no hope and a trip to the vets plus waiting around and dying in unfamiliar surrounding is terrifying for animals and would extend their suffering.

However I've worked in the animal welfare field so I'm qualified in humane destruction. Better for them, under certain circumstances but worse for me.

 

[Morbad]

Farm animals for food consumption, are killed according to standards predefined by professionals (in general, peasants, slaughterhouses ...) and regulated by the law.

And although I don't like slaughterhouses, this is the world, unfortunately.

Killing a pet at home is the door open to all abuses and perversions and tortures.

Any one of several tools I have will reliably end the life of anything smaller than myself as quickly, surely, and painlessly as any lethal injection a vetrinarian would use to euthanize an animal...and far more humanely than what's legally allowed in the slaughter of many food animals in many places, let alone what can actually be going on.

We start with the animals and we continue with the children ?

Most children are people, or potential people, while most examples of non-human species commonly kept as pets never will be. Those few humans who cannot meet reasonable capacity-based criteria for personhood (e.g. profound neurological defects, advanced dementia, or being in a persistent vegetative state) may receive special protections, but are almost never treated as legally competent persons because it's impractical to do so. These humans are essentially someone's property; wards of their families, a care facility, or the state.

Regardless, no matter how permissive a society is when it comes to cruelty toward non-people, it need not imply anything about how those it defines as people are treated. How the distinction is made is important, however, and this is why I favor capacity-based criteria...others are either fundamentally speciest (capacity-based criteria may de facto exclude most non-humans currently, but at least leaves room for anything that can be demonstrated to meet the criteria selected as having personhood), or depend on supposed mystical properties (such as the presence of a 'soul' or the equivalent) that are fundamentally unscientific and untestable.

... not trying to anthropomorphize them. i consider the cat that lives with me and i are some form of friends, but humanizing would only hurt our relation and his existence. i won't treat him like people because he isn't, nor has any need to be. i accept his company as what he really is: a cat, with the needs of a cat, which are different from those of humans. i love that dude to bits but i don't need him to love me back 'the human way', nor understand me in any way. just a cross-species friendship. the best thing i can do for him is learn about cats, not expect him to adapt to the needs of humans, since all i care is that he is happy and healthy, which is my obligation the moment i accepted this situation which made him completely dependent on me for survival. kind of ... 'my property' for all intents and purposes, except i don't feel that way.

Friendship, by many definitions, wouldn't be possible between a person and a non-person without the anthropomorphization of the latter; it's more than just companionship or mutualism.

Anyway, I don't disagree with the essence of your position, and have a similar relationship with my animals, but I also don't think this is the only kind valid relationship possible. I don't find anything inherently wrong with using animals for tools or food, even if I think they should be respected as much as practical in such capacities, and even if I did I wouldn't feel comfortable forcing anyone to conform to my subjective views where they didn't have some sort of tangible impact on me.

 

[Iskariot]

Do you think people who own dachshunds and dress them up in costumes to make them look like hotdogs should be prosecuted?
Also people who crouch down behind keyboards holding cats to make it look like they are playing.

Prosecuting is perhaps a bit much.
The only thing I can say is that I do not like that stuff at all.
I treat a dog like a dog and a cat like a cat. I would never dress them up.
You should always treat animals species-appropriate to ensure their well being as best as you can..

 

[askavir]

I hate seeing animals treated like they are dolls for the owner's sole enjoyment... But in this case, although ridiculous, I really don't see any case for prosecution. The dog is not being harmed, it's really just someone being stupid. Treating a dog like some kind of replacement person is not being good for your dog at all (or cat etc). They have different needs and value different things.

I have 3 dogs, would do anything in my power to keep them safe, healthy and happy. But I know making a dog happy is not carrying it in a purse, dressing it like a doll or giving it pathetic haircuts. It's playing with them, giving them attention, take them for a good walk in the woods, and making them feel like they belong. Because mainly what they cherish most of all is really your presence, your attention and doing stuff together.

 

[Stigbob]

I hate seeing animals treated like they are dolls for the owner's sole enjoyment... But in this case, although ridiculous, I really don't see any case for prosecution. The dog is not being harmed, it's really just someone being stupid. Treating a dog like some kind of replacement person is not being good for your dog at all (or cat etc). They have different needs and value different things.

I have 3 dogs, would do anything in my power to keep them safe, healthy and happy. But I know making a dog happy is not carrying it in a purse, dressing it like a doll or giving it pathetic haircuts. It's playing with them, giving them attention, take them for a good walk in the woods, and making them feel like they belong. Because mainly what they cherish most of all is really your presence, your attention and doing stuff together.

Dress up isn't a big deal as long as you don't to wrestle the animal, unless its the glue on dinosaur parts and fight to the death stuff they used to do for movies.

I'm not a fan of the sight of a dog with a docked tail or ears either. Surgical alteration for aesthetics or even behavior modification just makes my skin crawl, in humans as well as animals.

Scar/wound reconstruction is different.

 

[Patrick_68000]

the world can change, step by step. it has already changed (a lot!) and i expect this trend to continue if nothing breaks.

yet i can't share your view of 'professional regulated slaughterhouses'. that's self-denial, put simply. it isn't true even in the first world, it's just an excuse to keep eating meat. suffering and cruelty to animals for food is by far the most obnoxious, massive, gruesome and disheartening abomination of humanity by every scale (both quantitatively and qualitatively), and happens every single day. this is not "just the world". this is what we do, or let others do for us, period.

I agree with you in the idea.

Personally I only eat a small Soya / Beef minced steak once a week.

It's really modest.

 

[Patrick_68000]

It is down to the individual. Some look after animals well, some not so much some are horrifically cruel for kicks or profit.

I've killed my own pets and wildlife before, out of a desire to end suffering and knowledge there was no hope and a trip to the vets plus waiting around and dying in unfamiliar surrounding is terrifying for animals and would extend their suffering.

However I've worked in the animal welfare field so I'm qualified in humane destruction. Better for them, under certain circumstances but worse for me.

If it's for a good cause, it's not scandalous.

You are brave, I will not have this courage.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Most children are people, or potential people, while most examples of non-human species commonly kept as pets never will be. Those few humans who cannot meet reasonable capacity-based criteria for personhood (e.g. profound neurological defects, advanced dementia, or being in a persistent vegetative state) may receive special protections, but are almost never treated as legally competent persons because it's impractical to do so. These humans are essentially someone's property; wards of their families, a care facility, or the state.

Regardless, no matter how permissive a society is when it comes to cruelty toward non-people, it need not imply anything about how those it defines as people are treated. How the distinction is made is important, however, and this is why I favor capacity-based criteria...others are either fundamentally speciest (capacity-based criteria may de facto exclude most non-humans currently, but at least leaves room for anything that can be demonstrated to meet the criteria selected as having personhood), or depend on supposed mystical properties (such as the presence of a 'soul' or the equivalent) that are fundamentally unscientific and untestable.

For me animal or human (who is also an animal) deserves the same respect and the same consideration.

Often animals are more "human" than many humans themselves.

I am much more upset by the death of an animal than by the death of a human which usually leaves me indifferent (if I don't know the person).