Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[warpspeedpetey]

No particular problem, only that materialism is a very limited philosopical approach,

i dont think its a limiting philospophy, i just think there are limited philosophers. but thats just my opinion, as they say your mileage may very

and that many of your posted comments are incompatible with rationalism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

However, I would suggest this doesn’t translate to making us the most important species in the natural order, nor does it mean the earth was made for us, for our use. To assume so is to assign human abstract imagination to an impersonal material universe, and as we have been repeatedly assured by the OP, ascribing human qualities to nonhuman entities is a big no-no, because it skews our perception of reality.

how is any of that assigning a human quality to the universe?

i dont see your rational leap from one set of propisitions to the other.

It is of course natural that humans should feel the importance of fellow humans, because every species displays an affinity for its own kind. Humans differ from most other animals, however, in exhibiting a strong affinity and affection for other creatures. We can perceive their needs and we have the power to meet those needs if we so choose.

yes, its called farming. big deal

Now here’s the moral conundrum - if we suppose, as the OP has suggested, that we are just another force of nature, a mere evolutionary pressure, then this is to say that we are qualitatively the same as any other animal,

thats been your argument, that we are the same as animals. are you now withdrawing that argument?

and it gives the lie to any supposition that we are “better”, and more entitled to moral consideration than the rest of animal life.

thats why you made the “people and animals are equal” argument.

This approach has the advantage of giving us a blank cheque, of justifying, in terms of evolutionary success, our exploitation of the rest of the world for our own material gain. It does, however, remove any possible claim to moral superiority.

you cant have it both ways, either

we are the same as animals, and therefore just another evolutionary agent

or

we are different from animals, and do not need to treat them as equal in any way

On the other hand, if we accept that those powers of abstract imagination I mentioned earlier go beyond those of other animals, then we are no longer a mere evolutionary pressure, an entity completely subject to the laws of the natural world.

as that intelliegence is evolved, it would be completely natural, ergo, still part of evolutionary change.

Instead, we become entities who have a choice in how we act, a choice that isn’t necessarily circumscribed by the challenges of simple survival. We have the choice to work in harmony with the natural world or against it

.

if we are natural, then our activities would be in harmony with evolutionary change. change which is the ‘harmonious’ constant of the universe.

the universe is not some disney, ‘zippity doo da, zippity a, my oh my what a wonderful day’ kind of place, evolution gets ugly, real ugly.

we are either part of nature or not, the possession of an evolved intelligence, doesnt make us unnatural. it is just the next step in the continuous process of evolution.

The difficulty with this approach comes from the resulting moral implications. If we wish to claim that we are morally superior to the animals that are completely subject to nature, as many seem to believe, then we are obliged to use our power over nature for positive ends, for protection of the rights of all other creatures to inhabit the world.

i dont feel obligated to protect the imaginary ‘rights’ of my roomba, why should i feel any more of a need to protect the imaginary ‘rights’ of a meatbot?

you seem to be asking us to change the course of evolution, to fit how you think it should go, you want us to break the natural order for reasons that seem to amount to ‘because we can’

But if we knowingly use our power for selfish and destructive ends, are we not then morally inferior to animals who act largely from natural compulsion, and cannot knowingly choose between good and evil?

you cant be morally inferior to a robot.

robots dont have morals

that said, if we are simply the same as animals, why would you call out ends selfish and deestructive?

are wolves being selfish and destructive when they kill a moose, and only eat the tasty bits?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

They would be hilarious as an exercise in absurdism, were it not for the frightening possibility that he actually thinks that way…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not, if it was fulfilling God’s plan for it?

This is turning into a big game of “Spot the Contradiction”. Keep it up folks - I’m having a great time!

once again, meatbots are chemically programmed, they have no idea what G-ds plan is.

you call that ‘spotting a contradiction’?

is this your evidence of 'outclassing ’ me?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, anthropomorphism and emotional projection are not, strictly speaking, logical fallacies. However, whilst we are on the subject, I could point out a few logical fallacies in your reasoning:

anthro is, projection is just a subset of anthro

Ad hominem - you assume that because the people making statements about animal emotions (in this case, biologists, biochemists and naturalists) are necessarily (to your way of thinking) biased in favour of animals, then their conclusions about animal emotion and affective consciousness must be false, based on the possibility that they are exercising anthropomorphism.

no, i think presenting evidenced from biased sources is a poor source of evidence.

i.e. what reply do you expect to get if you ask a priest, if there is a G-d?

if they conclude that animals have human qualities, that is the definition of anthropomorphism

Argument from fallacy - even though anthropomorphism isn’t technically a logical fallacy, the fact that you claim it to be so is enough to make your argument fallacious; that argument being, of course, that because arguments for animal emotions must, in your view, be influenced by anthropomorphic tendencies in scientists, that their evidence of animal emotions is automatically negated.

you just mad e the same argument as above.

False dichotomy - you propose that the only two alternatives are to help humans exclusively, or to help animals exclusively; in fact there are many alternatives that achieve a balance between the two.

no, i said it is immoral to give resources to animals while humans suffer, i never said anything about a balance between the two.

And of course, your favourite, the negative proof fallacy - you assume that because animal emotions and affective consciousness (awareness of sensation) cannot be conclusively proven, that they must not exist. True, this fallacy exists in reverse - ie: the assumption that because it can’t be conclusively disproven that animals experience emotions, that they must do so. However, in this case, I can appeal for supporting evidence to my own experience, my own senses, and the extensive research of qualified scientists, so that my position becomes not one of logical fallacy, but one where I believe that sufficient evidence exists for my conclusion to be reasonable, if not absolutely certain.

you cannot prove a negative, that idea has nothing to do with your personal beliefs outside of evidence.

Incidentally, you have also fallen into a few informal fallacies, such as the argument from ignorance and the burden of proof fallacies, but I will leave it up to you to decide if you agree or not. I too have given way to the exercise of fallacies on occasion in this thread, but unfortunately I am, like everyone else, an imperfect being, and I do sometimes let my temper get the better of me.

ok, thats nice.

Having now said everything I think it is possible and reasonable for me to say regarding the subjects of this thread, I shall apologise for any offence I have caused, and respectfully withdraw from the argument. :tiphat:

having now tried to take a parting shot, which is bad form, you wish to no longer defend your position because it lacks actual evidence.

you just believe it because it is convenient to do so. not because the argument has merit or evidence.

 

[Sair]

To justify my “parting shot”, as you put it, I’ll throw in a few explanatory points, but as I said last time, there’s not actually any more that I can say on the subject than I have already covered. The reason I thought I should bow out is that I’ve been getting an increasing sense of beating my head against a brick wall, and frankly, I didn’t like the fact that my own responses were starting to descend to a level of rudeness that is best avoided.

anthro is, projection is just a subset of anthro

May I respectfully suggest that you read up on what constitutes logical fallacy - in other words, a flaw in the structure of an argument, irrespective of the content thereof.

no, i think presenting evidenced from biased sources is a poor source of evidence.

i.e. what reply do you expect to get if you ask a priest, if there is a G-d?

if they conclude that animals have human qualities, that is the definition of anthropomorphism

In fact, it’s becoming increasingly obvious to biologists that humans have decidedly animal qualities. What you are assuming is that consciousness and emotion are exclusively human qualities. It’s only anthropomorphism if one invests animals with abilities that only humans can be shown to possess. However, if you accept the premise that expressed characteristics in an organism are biological in origin, and that fundamental biological aspects are shared by all mammals, then it is reasonable to suppose that other mammals can express similar characteristics to those of humans, as far as biology allows. For example, the brains of humans and many other mammals contain all the biological material necessary for affective consciousness (awareness of sensation). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that animals feel pain. Thus, they share the right of humans to be spared unnecessary pain. That is the foundation upon which I build the argument for basic animal rights, although I can’t speak for all the other proponents of same.

no, i said it is immoral to give resources to animals while humans suffer, i never said anything about a balance between the two.

However, in applying this principle practically, all animals would miss out, since there will, in all likelihood, always be humans suffering in some part of the world. That seems to be the way human societies work.

And, for the record, when I spoke of caring for those closest to you, I was speaking of social relationships - this means that in practice, I can most effectively care for those to whom I am related by blood, and also those with whom I have chosen to associate - be they human or otherwise. They make up my monkeysphere, and it is to them that I owe the most in terms of duty of care. To me, my dog comes before a human stranger in the order of consideration.

you cannot prove a negative, that idea has nothing to do with your personal beliefs outside of evidence.

Time and again you resorted to this claim, but it seems to be a misapplication of the logical fallacy of negative proof. In practical terms, it is possible to prove a negative premise, by showing that the opposite is an impossibility, or at least highly unlikely, thereby showing that the negative is a reasonable position to take. You have certainly not done that in this case, which is why your repetitive statements started to look like you were backing down from the debate, and expecting your assertions to stand on their own. That may not have been your intention, but that was the impression conveyed.

you just believe it because it is convenient to do so. not because the argument has merit or evidence.

It makes absolutely no difference to me in terms of convenience whether or not animals have emotions and affective consciousness, or indeed any rights at all. In fact, practically speaking, it would be much more convenient to me to suppose that animals were indeed unfeeling automatons. Then I wouldn’t have to bother spending extra money to buy free-range eggs and chicken, or look around for specialty butchers who stock organic beef, and who charge top dollar for it. It would be extremely convenient if I could, in good conscience, let my dog roam the streets and fend for himself. Then I wouldn’t have to bother feeding him, brushing his fur, treating him for fleas, taking him to the vet for shots…don’t forget, all this also costs money. So, no, it’s not convenient for me to think that animals are to be valued, respected and treated compassionately, but I choose to believe they are so, and I have found ample justification for that belief, through my own observations and through exploring the work of researchers in the field of animal behaviour and cognition. Until I am presented with a reasonable and convincing argument for animals not being entitled to compassion, I will continue to extend my consideration to them.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

It would be extremely convenient if I could, in good conscience, let my dog roam the streets and fend for himself. Then I wouldn’t have to bother feeding him, brushing his fur, treating him for fleas, taking him to the vet for shots…don’t forget, all this also costs money. So, no, it’s not convenient for me to think that animals are to be valued, respected and treated compassionately, but I choose to believe they are so, and I have found ample justification for that belief, through my own observations and through exploring the work of researchers in the field of animal behaviour and cognition. Until I am presented with a reasonable and convincing argument for animals not being entitled to compassion, I will continue to extend my consideration to them.

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

It would be extremely convenient if I could, in good conscience, let my dog roam the streets and fend for himself. Then I wouldn’t have to bother feeding him, brushing his fur, treating him for fleas, taking him to the vet for shots…don’t forget, all this also costs money. So, no, it’s not convenient for me to think that animals are to be valued, respected and treated compassionately, but I choose to believe they are so, and I have found ample justification for that belief, through my own observations and through exploring the work of researchers in the field of animal behaviour and cognition. Until I am presented with a reasonable and convincing argument for animals not being entitled to compassion, I will continue to extend my consideration to them.

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

**Well, at least you are taking your dog to the vet so he won’t give people “rabies.” I guess we should feel fortunate that you do that for him.

It really is a good thing to have the freedom to believe as we wish about our animals and where they will end up. You can think as ***you *****wish and, luckily for me and many more just like me, I have the freedom to believe my pets and I will be together in heaven. I have never been able to trust people who don’t value the life of their pet as more than just a bunch of fur on 4 legs. You are missing out on so much…what a pity.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

**Well, at least you are taking your dog to the vet so he won’t give people “rabies.” I guess we should feel fortunate that you do that for him.

It really is a good thing to have the freedom to believe as we wish about our animals and where they will end up. You can think as ***you *****wish and, luckily for me and many more just like me, I have the freedom to believe my pets and I will be together in heaven. I have never been able to trust people who don’t value the life of their pet as more than just a bunch of fur on 4 legs. You are missing out on so much…what a pity.

I think we can enjoy both our animals & people, but that people must come first in all things.Believe me, sometimes animals are a whole lot more pleasant to be around than many folks I know, but human beings first still holds true. I think that was the original idea behind this thread-people are more important than animals & resources should be directed accordingly.We are children of God, animals are critters.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To justify my “parting shot”, as you put it, I’ll throw in a few explanatory points, but as I said last time, there’s not actually any more that I can say on the subject than I have already covered. The reason I thought I should bow out is that I’ve been getting an increasing sense of beating my head against a brick wall, and frankly, I didn’t like the fact that my own responses were starting to descend to a level of rudeness that is best avoided.

generally said, if you feel that way, and lack evidence, its because you are wrong.

you may have heard of it, its the condition in which a belief you hold is found to be untrue.

May I respectfully suggest that you read up on what constitutes logical fallacy - in other words, a flaw in the structure of an argument, irrespective of the content thereof.

yes and your ‘evidence’ of anthro is --appeal to authority and --appeal to the majority and --affirming the consequent and --verbosity

im sure i could go on, but do you need more specifics?

In fact, it’s becoming increasingly obvious to biologists that humans have decidedly animal qualities. What you are assuming is that consciousness and emotion are exclusively human qualities. It’s only anthropomorphism if one invests animals with abilities that only humans can be shown to possess.

please then, show me proof of the emotions in animals? because all of it i have seen so far amounts to little more than projection and assumption, of those emotions.

However, if you accept the premise that expressed characteristics in an organism are biological in origin,

thats the first huge assumption. emotions as humans experience them dont translate into emotions for animals, regardless of chemical similarities.

and as you seem to want specific logical violations this one is called affirming the consequent.

and that fundamental biological aspects are shared by all mammals, then it is reasonable to suppose that other mammals can express similar characteristics to those of humans, as far as biology allows

.

more assumption, when you say ‘reasonable to suppose’ your commiting the affirmation of the consequent.

For example, the brains of humans and many other mammals contain all the biological material necessary for affective consciousness (awareness of sensation). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that animals feel pain.

huge jump here from the qoute above to the qoute below.

why does the possession of sensors, equal the right to not have those sensors tripped?

a roomba has malfunctions sensors, does it become a moral wrong to step on a roomba, because it has those sensors.

let me point out here the movie wall-e. if you have seen it, it tugs onthe heart strings. yet, in no way can such a sophisticated machine, no matter how human like in behavior be counted as human, or its equivalent.

there is no intrinsic moral wrong to the disassembly of wall-e, no matter how loud its servo-s shriek.

Thus, they share the right of humans to be spared unnecessary pain. That is the foundation upon which I build the argument for basic animal rights, although I can’t speak for all the other proponents of same.

i answered this one above.

However, in applying this principle practically, all animals would miss out, since there will, in all likelihood, always be humans suffering in some part of the world. That seems to be the way human societies work.

i know, but that doesnt change the morailty of the argument.

And, for the record, when I spoke of caring for those closest to you, I was speaking of social relationships

you cant have a social relationship with a machine, meaty or plasticky.

i dont think i really have a social relationsship with the cats, i know it seems like it, but i dont have a social relationship with my roomba either.

it is an illusion called projection.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To me, my dog comes before a human stranger in the order of consideration

.

you can say something so baldly amoral and flat out wrong, but then still imply that im some small minded brute?

im not the one with those issues apparently.

the cats are nowhere near the importance of my fellow human being, this is the core of the immorality i exposed in the OP

if you were the one suffering, or some african mother watching her child starve. what you just said would have the moral equivalent of shoving Jews on the train to treblinka, shouting “i dont know you, get on the train!”

Time and again you resorted to this claim, but it seems to be a misapplication of the logical fallacy of negative proof. In practical terms, it is possible to prove a negative premise, by showing that the opposite is an impossibility, or at least highly unlikely, thereby showing that the negative is a reasonable position to take.

you cant prove a negative, as in you cant prove the non-existence of something, i can only show what you consider evidence to be logically false, assumptions, or projections

called anthropomorphism

if you still wish to assert that one can prove a negative, then please prove that there is no santa clause

i breathelessly await your arguments.

You have certainly not done that in this case, which is why your repetitive statements started to look like you were backing down from the debate, and expecting your assertions to stand on their own. That may not have been your intention, but that was the impression conveyed.

i would chalk it up to more of your insistence that i am an uneducated, small minded, brute. that or when you looked the phrases up you just took the first explanation that fit on google

you dont seem to credit me with understanding logical composition. another assumption that didn’t pan out.

maybe now you understand why ive repeatedly told you that one cannot prove a negative

It makes absolutely no difference to me in terms of convenience whether or not animals have emotions and affective consciousness, or indeed any rights at all. In fact, practically speaking, it would be much more convenient to me to suppose that animals were indeed unfeeling automatons. Then I wouldn’t have to bother spending extra money to buy free-range eggs and chicken, or look around for specialty butchers who stock organic beef, and who charge top dollar for it. It would be extremely convenient if I could, in good conscience, let my dog roam the streets and fend for himself. Then I wouldn’t have to bother feeding him, brushing his fur, treating him for fleas, taking him to the vet for shots…don’t forget, all this also costs money. So, no, it’s not convenient for me to think that animals are to be valued, respected and treated compassionately,

not convenient materially, but convenient for the reason you state here

but I choose to believe they are so

thats just it, it wouldn’t matter what someone else says, what logic says, or what the actual evidence says, you choose to believe.

and I have found ample justification for that belief, through my own observations

thats called projection. you think animals behave emotionally, because you have emotional behaviors

and through exploring the work of researchers in the field of animal behaviour and cognition

.

more projection, asking an animal behaviorist if animals have emotions, is the same as asking a priest if G-d exists.

of course their work will result in the answers they want. nobody becomes an animal cognativist without first believeing that animals cogitate

would one become a priest, without believing in G-d?

Until I am presented with a reasonable and convincing argument for animals not being entitled to compassion, I will continue to extend my consideration to them.

do you extend compassion to a roomba? no, you dont. so its not a matter of evidence and arguments, if it were, you would want to be compassionate to any kind of robot

so its not a matter of evidence, its a matter of what you choose to believe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It would be extremely convenient if I could, in good conscience, let my dog roam the streets and fend for himself. Then I wouldn’t have to bother feeding him, brushing his fur, treating him for fleas, taking him to the vet for shots…don’t forget, all this also costs money. So, no, it’s not convenient for me to think that animals are to be valued, respected and treated compassionately, but I choose to believe they are so, and I have found ample justification for that belief, through my own observations and through exploring the work of researchers in the field of animal behaviour and cognition. Until I am presented with a reasonable and convincing argument for animals not being entitled to compassion, I will continue to extend my consideration to them.

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

 

[limerick]

It would be extremely convenient if I could, in good conscience, let my dog roam the streets and fend for himself. Then I wouldn’t have to bother feeding him, brushing his fur, treating him for fleas, taking him to the vet for shots…don’t forget, all this also costs money. So, no, it’s not convenient for me to think that animals are to be valued, respected and treated compassionately, but I choose to believe they are so, and I have found ample justification for that belief, through my own observations and through exploring the work of researchers in the field of animal behaviour and cognition. Until I am presented with a reasonable and convincing argument for animals not being entitled to compassion, I will continue to extend my consideration to them.

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

So for you it’s one extreme or the other - no vast area in between, characterized by millions of beliefs held dear by millions of people?

Man.

Limerick

 

[Cracker_Mom]

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

So for you it’s one extreme or the other - no vast area in between, characterized by millions of beliefs held dear by millions of people?

Man.

Limerick

---

Millions of folks can choose to believe in some pretty foolish things, and often do.
As a Catholic I choose to believe in what the Church teaches.Animals are part of Creation and are here to serve us, period.We are to be good stewards & not waste or nor abuse God’s Creation.
Sentimentalizing animals is an easy thing to do & understandable but doesn’t hold up to reason or Catholic doctrine.Most folks I know have a reasonable view on animals.They’re fond of their pets but have their priorities straight.Human suffering always takes precedence.Period.
God may choose
at times to use animals in ways we can not understand with our reason.He’s in charge & is not controlled by Natural Law. But we are & so is nature.
People come first.
Making up an alternate-universe type theology where animals greet you in Heaven is bad theology & worse, silly.Imagine all the meals you ever ate lined up there at the Pearly Gates.Do you think God discriminates against livestock? Why would your poodle have a soul & not the roast beef?
It just gets sillier & sillier.
I don’t even want to imagine what my dog would have to say about neutering…

 

[limerick]

It would be extremely convenient if I could, in good conscience, let my dog roam the streets and fend for himself. Then I wouldn’t have to bother feeding him, brushing his fur, treating him for fleas, taking him to the vet for shots…don’t forget, all this also costs money. So, no, it’s not convenient for me to think that animals are to be valued, respected and treated compassionately, but I choose to believe they are so, and I have found ample justification for that belief, through my own observations and through exploring the work of researchers in the field of animal behaviour and cognition. Until I am presented with a reasonable and convincing argument for animals not being entitled to compassion, I will continue to extend my consideration to them.

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…*

So you take your dog to the vet so he won’t spread rabies to people. May I assume that when he goes outdoors he is always on a leash? If you allow him to roam (giving him the only practical exposure to the rabies virus unless you have vermin inside your home), then you are likely in violation of the law, even in the “Deep South”. If he’s a huntin’ dawg and outside on a 20-foot chain bolted into the chassis of the Desoto up on blocks in the yard, then I offer my deep apologies to you and to your dog, because there is nothing that can penetrate that mindset. If, however, he interacts with the family at all then he should be vaccinated against distemper, parvo virus, leptospirosis, and a host of other diseases, as well as be neutered and on preventative medications. Do you want to be exposed to hookworms? Roundworms? Whipworms? Other intestinal parasites? Do you want your kids exposed? Your grandkids?

By the very nature of the adoptive relationship, a domestic animal is entitled to the best possible care we can give him, for all the reasons listed above, but also because it is his best interests as one of God’s living creatures. We come to incorporate a pet into our family structure, and in doing so we owe him good health insofar as we are able to provide it.

It does no harm when people who are grieving over the loss of a pet cling to the idea that there is a possibility that they will be reunited one day in the afterlife. I’m guessing no one ever sat you down and stuffed this notion down your throat. You heard it, you mocked it, now I’d think you’d be done with it. Let others believe what they choose. There is plenty of room for ideas in this world, regardless what some may think.

Limerick

 

[Cracker_Mom]

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we* won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

So you take your dog to the vet so he won’t spread rabies to people. May I assume that when he goes outdoors he is always on a leash? If you allow him to roam (giving him the only practical exposure to the rabies virus unless you have vermin inside your home), then you are likely in violation of the law, even in the “Deep South”. If he’s a huntin’ dawg and outside on a 20-foot chain bolted into the chassis of the Desoto up on blocks in the yard, then I offer my deep apologies to you and to your dog, because there is nothing that can penetrate that mindset. If, however, he interacts with the family at all then he should be vaccinated against distemper, parvo virus, leptospirosis, and a host of other diseases, as well as be neutered and on preventative medications. Do you want to be exposed to hookworms? Roundworms? Whipworms? Other intestinal parasites? Do you want your kids exposed? Your grandkids?

By the very nature of the adoptive relationship, a domestic animal is entitled to the best possible care we can give him, for all the reasons listed above, but also because it is his best interests as one of God’s living creatures. We come to incorporate a pet into our family structure, and in doing so we owe him good health insofar as we are able to provide it.

It does no harm when people who are grieving over the loss of a pet cling to the idea that there is a possibility that they will be reunited one day in the afterlife. I’m guessing no one ever sat you down and stuffed this notion down your throat. You heard it, you mocked it, now I’d think you’d be done with it. Let others believe what they choose. There is plenty of room for ideas in this world, regardless what some may think.

Limerick

---

I see there’s plenty of stereotypes about the South alive in the world as well.
Dog’s live with families but adoption belongs to human beings.

 

[limerick]

Cracker_Mom:
So you take your dog to the vet so he won’t spread rabies to people. May I assume that when he goes outdoors he is always on a leash? If you allow him to roam (giving him the only practical exposure to the rabies virus unless you have vermin inside your home), then you are likely in violation of the law, even in the “Deep South”. If he’s a huntin’ dawg and outside on a 20-foot chain bolted into the chassis of the Desoto up on blocks in the yard, then I offer my deep apologies to you and to your dog, because there is nothing that can penetrate that mindset. If, however, he interacts with the family at all then he should be vaccinated against distemper, parvo virus, leptospirosis, and a host of other diseases, as well as be neutered and on preventative medications. Do you want to be exposed to hookworms? Roundworms? Whipworms? Other intestinal parasites? Do you want your kids exposed? Your grandkids?

By the very nature of the adoptive relationship, a domestic animal is entitled to the best possible care we can give him, for all the reasons listed above, but also because it is his best interests as one of God’s living creatures. We come to incorporate a pet into our family structure, and in doing so we owe him good health insofar as we are able to provide it.

It does no harm when people who are grieving over the loss of a pet cling to the idea that there is a possibility that they will be reunited one day in the afterlife. I’m guessing no one ever sat you down and stuffed this notion down your throat. You heard it, you mocked it, now I’d think you’d be done with it. Let others believe what they choose. There is plenty of room for ideas in this world, regardless what some may think.

Limerick

---

I see there’s plenty of stereotypes about the South alive in the world as well.
Dog’s live with families but adoption belongs to human beings.

The contract between pet and owner is at the very least spiritually and practically binding; indeed, it is often legally binding if papers have been signed and money has changed hands. It is an agreement. The word “adoption” is defined as an act wherein one “chooses and brings into a certain relationship” - it is not uniquely applied to human adoption.

My family is from Montgomery, Alabama. Ain’t no stereotype.

Limerick

 

[Sair]

once again, meatbots are chemically programmed, they have no idea what G-ds plan is.

you call that ‘spotting a contradiction’?

is this your evidence of 'outclassing ’ me?

Well, you did seem to agree with the notion that animals could very well be happy to be eaten by humans, since, as you believe, such is God’s design for them. It also tends to run counter to your feelings regarding animals being nothing more that automatons. If the dog would put up a fight, it clearly has a preference for staying alive. No robot could exhibit that preference, largely because they’re not alive. And the “outclassing” remark was based solely on a comparison of our respective arguments throughout this thread. I have presented extensively reasoned, supported and for the most part, logical arguments. What you have done as repeatedly assert, with limited or no support, that animals don’t have feelings, and that any attempt to suggest it’s even possible for them to so is automatically dismissible as anthropomorphism. So, yes - in the field of argumentative skill, the greater strength is demonstrably mine.

 

[Sair]

and again what does this have to do with the topic?

 

[Sair]

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

Evidently we have different motivations that lead to the same ends. Apart from the rabies thing (I live in Australia, where the disease doesn’t occur), I do all those things out of consideration for my dog’s comfort first. Keeping him healthy is my obligation, since it was I who made the choice to take him in. The benefits to myself and my husband of keeping our dogs healthy are just an added bonus

Oh, and while I don’t go in for excessive sentimentality, I’ve often thought that a heaven that didn’t allow dogs wouldn’t be much of a heaven!