221–230 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that to be your argument. I'm saying, you haven't made a coherent case for it.
I'm not sure I should have to, you're advocating unnecessary suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the reduced quality of life for existing dogs isn't enough justification for euthanization (except maybe in extreme cases). I'd say it's probably unethical to breed more brachycephalic dogs, and by extension unethical to purchase those dogs from breeders (unless maybe the breeders have ceased to breed these dogs).
Ok. Can I assume we agree that nobody is obligated to own or care for a dog of any sort? I apologize in advance if you don't agree. With that stipulated: If the benefit a dog obtains from living outweighs --- in all but the most extreme cases --- the suffering that dog will have due to its genetic defects, AND people are entitled to make a rational decision not own a dog, are they not ethically entitled to select any…
a) Given existence: significant suffering, but not enough to justify ending the existence
b) Given no existence: creating an existence knowing you'll create the same amount of suffering as in (a)
Something meaningful is created by the very fact of existence. Or, should I say, already existing matters a lot.
Not just Pugs. I had a German Shepherd. Beautiful dog, but everyone who I met who had had a German Shepherd in the past told me their dog had to be put down around 10 years of age due to their back legs failing. Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According to the vet this is another common problem with the breed. I well never get a pure breed again.
We got two spaniels (years apart) from the same breeder. Both died suffering of a number of abnormalities that became pronounced when they got older. Later we found that the breeder was forced to stop altogether because the dogs were so consistently damned. I can still hear what I can only describe as "screaming" by our first spaniel the night she came home after an emergency operation. She had to be let go that nigh…
One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea of breed have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why mutts are the best. Genetic diversity is good. Anecdotal, but growing up my two mutts lived to the ages of 16 and 18...well past the life expectancies you see in the purebred world.
That's one of the reasons I like Australian Cattle dogs. They are still mutty enough that there aren't a whole lot of genetic issues in the breed. Of course, they are also very smart, tough, low-maintenance, and tend to live for a very long time. Some are a little over-active, but mine will happily lay in her bed all day and sleep, as long as she gets a good walk in the morning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
German Shepherds were the dog of choice on both sides in WWII, and capture the public's emotion. Disney made a historical drama "Chips, the War Dog" in the 90s. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099262/ (Though FYI, Chips was actually a Sherperd-Collie-Husky mix.)
Germans extensively used Giant Schnauzers as well. In WWI as medic dogs, WWII as guard dogs. The breed was annihilated by the Russians as they extinguished almost every kennel and took home prime specimens to breed for size. This is why Giants have two types: German soft coats and Russian hard coats which are also physically larger. I have it on good authority from a couple Giant breeders in the USA that the Russians…
Some of the founding Shepherd's were white! The foundation stud, Grief, was white. The creator of the breed is on record saying that white dogs have no less working capacity than any other color... So what happened?
Turns out, this was due largely to nazi influence, too. The WWII era really transformed the German Shepherd. From a pastoral sheep-herding companion came a military machine. White dogs, while good at blending in with the flock and being spotted by a Shepherd in the field, were not so good on the battlefield, unfortunately for the same reasons. You can see them coming at night, they are easy targets on a black mountainside.
In other words, the ideas of the time have an ENORMOUS impact on the dogs we create. I don't doubt the Giant Schnauzer story for a second. Breeds evolve to suit the government, the people, and the culture that they are born into...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say the desire for the dog to live should be considered. That is, even if (b) has zero weight, (a) can outweigh (c)
Can you help me understand how an extant dog could have a desire to live so ethically powerful that it overrides suffering, while it being simultaneously the case that it is unethical to bring such a dog into existence? It seems to me that your (a) implies that a living dog suffering from these defects is generating some benefit from living. Isn't it: maximum benefit > some benefit > no benefit?
I think the pug will suffer so much that its life is not worth living. But if the pug feels differently then to some degree I should respect that.
I guess my view is shaped by my empathy for the dog. How would I feel in his situation? Similarly, if I end up in a hospital bed racked with pain, do I want the doctor to make a cost-benefit analysis without regard for my own feelings?
Vast majority of purebreds have some serious generic issues. I'm hoping that we as a society will solve this whole situation soon. There is a BBC documentary on this https://vimeo.com/17558275
Suppose there was a breed of, say, monkey, that was popular as a household pet. They were considered to be quite clever and could be trained, over some years, to use a toilet, fetch things from the fridge, even manage primitive forms of communication. The only problem is that they're a genetic trainwreck. They've got a pronounced, gourd-like head with a snout so compact that it's common to have to surgically remove s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the solution here?
Eliminate purebreds. Can you imagine we did the same with humans? Selecting for only one characteristic is a recipe for genetic disaster.