thc wrote:There is an increase in suffering due to buying a pedigree rather than buying a pound, as analogously, there is an increase in suffering by choosing to eat out at a fancy restaurant rather than using that money to feed hungry children,strictly speaking. As I stated, there are other values involved other than your own utility.
To reiterate, the overarching point here is that currency does have definite value. Consuming $1000 on X means you can't spend $1000 on Y. If X were "blue dog" and Y were "red dog" then X and Y would be morally equivalent. This is not the case being discussed.
Of course currency has a definite value, however that "definite value" doesn't just disappear into creating a dog. The $1000 is now in the hands of a (hopefully responsible) dog breeder, who will consume other items with it. If that person uses enough money to feed themselves, raise their dogs well, and donates the rest to charity, then spending $1000 on dog X certainly seems to be at least as permissible as adopting a dog and spending the rest on charity. It's not as black and white as you seem to want to make it.
Frankly, that's a cheap shot. Over the last two pages we've been having an interesting, and largely adult debate on the moral and economic benefits of bought versus rescue dog ownership. Both sides of the debate have a valid opinion and have endeavored to express it. The behavior of either side can not be compared to the activities of a sociopathic murderer without descending to childish name calling.
You're right, that would be a cheap shot, kind of like the underhanded comment implying that I'm immature. Good thing that's not what I said.
The statement I disagreed with was this: because people have different moral values, if person A does X which is aganist person B's moral values, person B should not be upset because X may be okay by person A's moral system.
My argument is this: of COURSE person B should be upset. If person B is not uspet, then he is either dead or jaded.
By definition you DID make that comparison. Just because it brings up a point about how there are times to be offended based on actions against your own moral code does not mean that you didn't also make a comparison between someone's argument and Timothy McVeigh, and, on the internet, at least, you have to understand that a comment like that will instantly come across as ad hominem. It may not be your intention, but it's what people are going to read from it, and if you want to have a serious debate, you need to take into account the fact that people are going to read what you say and take its common meaning if you don't explain your example more and properly note the difference(s).
There's a problem between theory and practice here as well. Theoretically, it would seem right to respect other people's moral systems... it's obvious that there isn't one strictly right moral code, or at least one that everyone agrees on. If you think there is, then there's no room for debate anyway. In practice, we as a group need to make certain judgement calls on how "different" your moral code is allowed to be without being ejected by society (and possibly punished for disrupting it). So yeah, it becomes a gray area where there need to be times that you say "I'm upset that you act against my moral codes" and other times where you say "our moral codes are just different, and I accept that". Your comment here seems to imply that person B should always be upset if you go against their moral code.
DSenette wrote: mosc wrote:
DSenette wrote:what's the purpose of having a purebred dog to begin with? the only thing i can come up with* is that you're wanting a dog for a status symbol or so that you can make money off of the dog in the future (breeding or showing). it's like deciding to participate in rigorous human husbandry to make sure that you get a child that's "genetically pure". just doesn't make sense to me at all.
Listen Mr. "holier-than-thou", I answered this exactly already. You seem to not understand the drastic differences in dog breeds in terms of space requirements, eating requirements, grooming requirements, and exercise requirements. Also, the angst you seem to be expressing about breeding itself as some kind of genetic perversion is an entirely different topic and should probably be separated off. Obviously if you don't acknowledge and understand the obvious differences between dog breeds, it will be hard to discuss the purpose of breeding dogs I would think.
yeah, uh, where you born a dick or have you practiced?
Yeah, uh, this is serious business. Do you really think this is appropriate? I'm not saying the previous quote was either, but I think we can agree that isn't really the best justification. Anyway, you've categorized purebred dog owners into people who need a status symbol or people who want to profit off of dogs' suffering, you had to know that this was going to be directly offensive to the people on the other side of the argument.
DSenette wrote:i understand A LOT of the drastic differences in breeds, i know fair amount about keeping, raising, and training dogs. i completely understand the differences in requirements and temperaments between breeds. HOWEVER, none of that actually changes the fact that you CAN predict behavior in mixed breed dogs based on the breeds that they're mixed with (a lab-cocker will almost always act more like a lab than a cocker while looking like a fun mix of both), you can predict predisposition to common diseases within a breed by knowing the mix.
So you say you understand the drastic differences in breed, but don't understand why people would want a purebred dog outside of as a status symbol or for moneymaking purposes. That doesn't make sense to me... you understand how they are different, and how people can have different preferences, but not why people could prefer those different dog breeds. You say you CAN predict behavior in mixed breed dogs based on the breeds they are mixed with... but that doesn't mean it's the behavior that someone is looking for just because it can be partially predicted.
And in the long run... that's what purebred dogs are - a mix of breeds in an attempt to get a certain behavior and set of requirements. Ok - so what if a lab cocker will usually act more like a lab? What if you can't find a lab-cocker to adopt, and you specifically want a lab, or all they have at any accessible pounds is a dog that looks like it could be a lab-cocker, but they picked it up off the street and that is just a guess? The fact is you really can't predict behavior on mixed breed dogs all the time, and the only reason you're saying you can sometimes is because we have pure bred dogs in the first place. If we no longer have pure bred dogs, we can no longer predict on that mixed factor.
All that aside, I have a pound puppy. We think he's a border collie/lab/german shepherd based on how he looks. All we know is they think the mom was a lab mix. He looks just like a border collie, and acts like a mix, he's definitely got border collie and/or lab energy. I wanted a high-ish energy dog, but didn't have many other requirements.
On the other hand, if someone lives on a farm and needs to herd sheep, they will probably end up with some kind of purebred dog, an aussie, a border collie, a cattle dog, etc. There's a big difference in those dogs in their natural talent and potential to do the job they are bred to do. Of course, I'm probably derailing a little by talking about dogs being bred for work (though hopefully they are generally family dogs as well), but I thought it should at least be brought up. I'm interested to know if people's positions are the same on dogs bred for a particular skillset (whether it's guarding, herding, agility, etc.) vs dogs bred strictly for conformation and personality traits.