The world is not so straightforward as the simple dichotomy between nothing wrong/something wrong. Noem inhabits a Midwestern US Republican cultural milieu that is alien to me in very many ways. And to my mind, an awful lot of what she does is "wrong". Her constructions of the Other, her US Christian right-wing ideology, the way she approaches the natural world and the animals in it as a general concept -- all these things seem wrong to me. Any one specific act performed within the field of practices, meanings, rituals and narratives that constitute her reality cannot be judged by me in isolation from this wider context. Her shooting her dog in the head seems as alien, bizarre and inappropriate to me as does her endorsement of Donald Trump. But from within my model of reality, I can only repeat what I said earlier -- if people are going to abandon their dogs, I would prefer that they own up to this responsibility and kill those dogs themselves rather than assuage their guilt by dumping them in a shelter. So of all the things that Noem does that I don't understand, this particular act is far from the most egregious.
Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?
- Thread starter MrCurry
- Start date
- Status
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Humanity is wrong. The planet should below to the animal.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
It's brainless nonsense like this that polarises the debate so completely.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
The ‘if’ is doing the heavy lifting there isn’t it?
In any event I’m not sure I agree. Dogs in shelters at least have a chance of being adopted and finding a loving home, the owner who takes a dog to a shelter when they are unable or unwilling to look after them at least shows some minimum level of respect for the dog. Killing them as soon they no longer serve some purpose treats them as if they are literally expendable garbage. It’s callous, cold, cruel and I understand why people are so disgusted by it, through I agree there are plenty of other things about this revolting fascist specimen to be as or more disgusted by.
Are you a dog owner, Jeff?
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Then I’m not surprised you don’t realise the fallacy of what you’re saying. Dogs don’t just transfer from owner to owner without consequences. Dogs form attachment bonds with their owners, akin to the attachment bond between child and parent. They also adapt to the owners’ personality and affective style.
Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog–human dyad
This article reviews recent research concerning dog–human relationships and how attributes that arise from them can be measured. It highlights the influence of human characteristics on dog behavior, and consequently, the dog–human bond. ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Ripping them away from their bonded owner and placing them with another creates a high level of distress and, frequently, disorder, often causing long-term problems. When you say they have a “chance” of adoption and a loving home, I don’t hear, “problem solved”. I hear “problem expands”. Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know this even if you had a dog, because most people don’t know it. They think they can just give up their dog and then it’ll all be fine. It’s a comforting thing to believe, but it’s not true.
And then you have the second-order effects. The very existence of dog shelters makes it easy for people to give their dog up to a shelter. It encourages the belief that pet ownership is reversible. That we don’t have to take ownership of our problems ourselves, we can just outsource them to someone else. Maybe give a little money over too, to help extinguish the responsibility. If the law stated that if you don’t want your dog any more, you have to kill it yourself then I bet a lot fewer people would whimsically buy a puppy in the first place.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
It should be all but impossible to give up a pet. Like children, you should have to prove you're capable and fit to look after them, before having one. Oh, wait...Then I’m not surprised you don’t realise the fallacy of what you’re saying. Dogs don’t just transfer from owner to owner without consequences. Dogs form attachment bonds with their owners, akin to the attachment bond between child and parent. They also adapt to the owners’ personality and affective style.
Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog–human dyad
This article reviews recent research concerning dog–human relationships and how attributes that arise from them can be measured. It highlights the influence of human characteristics on dog behavior, and consequently, the dog–human bond. ...
Ripping them away from their bonded owner and placing them with another creates a high level of distress and, frequently, disorder, often causing long-term problems. When you say they have a “chance” of adoption and a loving home, I don’t hear, “problem solved”. I hear “problem expands”. Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know this even if you had a dog, because most people don’t know it. They think they can just give up their dog and then it’ll all be fine. It’s a comforting thing to believe, but it’s not true.
And then you have the second-order effects. The very existence of dog shelters makes it easy for people to give their dog up to a shelter. It encourages the belief that pet ownership is reversible. That we don’t have to take ownership of our problems ourselves, we can just outsource them to someone else. Maybe give a little money over too, to help extinguish the responsibility. If the law stated that if you don’t want your dog any more, you have to kill it yourself then I bet a lot fewer people would whimsically buy a puppy in the first place.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Then I’m not surprised you don’t realise the fallacy of what you’re saying. Dogs don’t just transfer from owner to owner without consequences. Dogs form attachment bonds with their owners, akin to the attachment bond between child and parent. They also adapt to the owners’ personality and affective style.
Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog–human dyad
This article reviews recent research concerning dog–human relationships and how attributes that arise from them can be measured. It highlights the influence of human characteristics on dog behavior, and consequently, the dog–human bond. ...
Ripping them away from their bonded owner and placing them with another creates a high level of distress and, frequently, disorder, often causing long-term problems. When you say they have a “chance” of adoption and a loving home, I don’t hear, “problem solved”. I hear “problem expands”. Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know this even if you had a dog, because most people don’t know it. They think they can just give up their dog and then it’ll all be fine. It’s a comforting thing to believe, but it’s not true.
And then you have the second-order effects. The very existence of dog shelters makes it easy for people to give their dog up to a shelter. It encourages the belief that pet ownership is reversible. That we don’t have to take ownership of our problems ourselves, we can just outsource them to someone else. Maybe give a little money over too, to help extinguish the responsibility. If the law stated that if you don’t want your dog any more, you have to kill it yourself then I bet a lot fewer people would whimsically buy a puppy in the first place.
I don’t own a dog but I’m not an ignoramus, Mr Patronising. Dogs are highly social animals who’ve co-evolved with humans for thousands of years, of course they form strong bonds with their human carers and suffer various traumas when they’re separated.
I didn’t say it’s good to dump dogs in shelters, it’s obviously not, I said it’s better than shooting them in the head, Of all the things I thought would be common ground on this thread that would’ve been one of them.
For all the challenges of dogs readjusting to new homes, the fact is that some dogs, including dogs from places of terrible abuse and neglect, do readjust and go on to lead much better lives. The internet is replete with such stories. So yes, dogs do have a chance at a better life when they’re sent to shelters.
As to second order effects, well if you’re seriously suggesting that legally mandating (and hence helping to socially normalise) the killing of unwanted dogs wouldn’t have all sorts of pernicious downstream effects on people’s attitudes to and treatment of them, then frankly I think that’s doolally.
The killing and the dumping of unwanted dogs are themselves both a symptom of our view of dogs as commodities to be exchanged on the market. As a vegan I oppose the commodification of animals, including dogs, and that means no more commercial breeding for profit. That’s what lies behind both the so-called ‘euthanising’ of unwanted dogs and the fact that so many are languishing in shelters.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm not so sure about that last bit. About 80% of the world's dogs are free-ranging dogs that are not owned by a human. In most parts of the world where there are high numbers of free-ranging dogs, there is generally little commercial breeding for profit as most people don't keep pet dogs.
If there were no shelters and no facility for having a dog put down by a vet, I would have thought most people wouldn't kill unwanted animals. They'd just turf them out somewhere to fend for themselves. Dog catchers would be in high demand. There is a no-kill version of that world in which dog catchers practise trap-neuter-return on free-ranging dogs. But that assumes a society that is willing to tolerate wild dogs. Many societies around the world do tolerate wild dogs, but would somewhere like the UK change its attitudes? I would think it's doubtful.
If there were no shelters and no facility for having a dog put down by a vet, I would have thought most people wouldn't kill unwanted animals. They'd just turf them out somewhere to fend for themselves. Dog catchers would be in high demand. There is a no-kill version of that world in which dog catchers practise trap-neuter-return on free-ranging dogs. But that assumes a society that is willing to tolerate wild dogs. Many societies around the world do tolerate wild dogs, but would somewhere like the UK change its attitudes? I would think it's doubtful.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
It is sometimes necessary to euthanize a pet. I’ve had the sad experience more than once. But it it is done with kindness and compassion
The same sort of kindness and compassion should be shown to the (usually) healthy animals killed for food
This will drive up the price and reduce the availability of meat and the goal of the OP’s intent in posting this thread will’ve been accomplished
The same sort of kindness and compassion should be shown to the (usually) healthy animals killed for food
This will drive up the price and reduce the availability of meat and the goal of the OP’s intent in posting this thread will’ve been accomplished
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
All kinds of problems with wild dogs too. They are an environmental harm in Australia in that they are endangering the dingo (and possibly other species). I'd be very much in favour of a serious cull of wild dogs (and wild camels) in Australia.
editor
hiraethified
Fucking disgusting. These vile, cruel farms should be closed down.
Shame on the UK:
www.independent.co.uk
Shame on the UK:
Hundreds of factory farms set up in UK in 5 years ‘creating living hell for animals’
Charity calls on government to stop approving systems that are ‘living hell’ for millions more animals as ‘cruelty hits all-time high’
www.independent.co.uk
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
People here often protest that 'no one here supports factory farming', but I'd contend that's not actually true. Even leaving aside the problem of defining factory farming (farming methods exist of a spectrum of greater and lessor degrees of intensification, are standard 'free range' egg farms factory farms or not for example?), the fact is that the overwhelming number of land animals who are killed for human consumption (poultry) are reared in industrialised settings (as are most pigs) and as the above article documents, the numbers are growing (as are 'mega-dairies' and US-style feedlots). If you support the continued consumption of animal bodies and secretions and oppose moves to a plant-based food system, you are, in reality, supporting a system predominated by factory farming.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
But it could be changed. You would have to demonstrate how that particular method of farming is necessary and you haven't.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
This applies to so many aspects of human behavior and has been the reason for so much suffering
butcher
boner at the ready
Jeff Robinson out of interest do you/have you use(d) any medical products that have either been partially animal derived or tested on animals.
Not a gotcha, just wondering where you personally draw the line
Not a gotcha, just wondering where you personally draw the line
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Not even a warning?
You're not very bright, are you.
You're not very bright, are you.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
I used the spoilers blocker that the forum provides. Cool it with the ad hominem attacks, ok?
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
You could have given a warning as to the content. But I guess I shouldn't expect anything so rational on this thread.
Is not an ad hom attack, it’s just a simple statement of fact
editor
hiraethified
Or take a more practical approach and accept that the only way mega factory farms will go away is via a two pronged approach by showing people the utter depravity of such farms while encouraging them to go meat free, if only for a set number of days per week.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Nice spelling there, guy
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
bcuster
Well-Known Member
I don’t know
- Status
