Yeah... I was making a joke as the OP seemed to bring up bird deaths in virtually everyone of his posts in this thread. I wouldn't have the first clue if budgies are good pets or not.
I guess it wasn't very clear, or very funny (most likely both)
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Declawing cats
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
Yeah... I was making a joke as the OP seemed to bring up bird deaths in virtually everyone of his posts in this thread. I wouldn't have the first clue if budgies are good pets or not.
I guess it wasn't very clear, or very funny (most likely both)
Let's not equivocate. Declawing of cats is disparate from the slaughter of livestock. Not only that, but it is irrelevant to consider the care of livestock vs pets, because you and I have pets. Farmers and other corporate entities have livestock. There are tons of laws, rules and norms you follow as a livestock breeder. There are control organizations and agencies that control your care. You're producing something, and there's a quality control on that. On livestock there's also a quality of life control. As for pets, you're on your own. There's not an agency coming by to see how your cat's doing.
If a sheep is born to produce wool, I think it's important that that sheep has a high quality of life. I am not in a situation to make a call what that is, so I should only be upset with farmers that don't follow the rules on care of livestock, or on those who make the rules, if I don't feel it's enough. If a sheep is born to produce meat, I think it's important that it should have a high quality of life up until its slaughter, at which it should be done in a humane matter. There's nothing unethical about slaughtering for food, so long as the slaughter is humane and the care has been good.
Some argue that there's something immoral about eating meat for food, but for now, let's just stop at the ethical implication.
Why am I so vocal about declawing of cats and not about the slaughter of innocent chickens? Because those chickens were produced for food. If I didn't like that, I should probably start by becoming a vegan. If I'm OK with eating meat, but want their quality of life to be higher, I can do that. And maybe I am very vocal about that to, but it has nothing to do with this thread. That's why it's disparate. That's why it's equivocating to compare this to livestock.
It's basically the same as saying "stop complaining that you're fat. Kids are starving in Africa".
To further show this irrelevancy, I'd be against declawing of cats, even if they were bred for food. The key here is that animals should be taken care of and should be able to be the animal it is. The moment you start curling a rats tail and forcing it to oink is the day I oppose that, too.
As for why it's important for me when it comes to pets? It's because of the lack of agency. There are many choices you can do as an individual, when it comes to having pets. There needs to be a culture around having pets that teaches you the importance to be there for your pet as much as the pet is there for you, and that a pet isn't something you get because you're lonely, or because it's cute, that you'll throw out the day you're bored with it. A lot of that goes into the declawing of cats, as it is a deprivation of some of the hallmark signs of a cat, and its identity. In short, it shouldn't be your decision to make if your pet is allowed to keep some of the parts of its body or not.
Actually, in Europe, it's not at all considered barbaric. Remember that outrage about finding horse meat in food products? That was way more about not knowing what you're actually eating and lack of quality control than it was about little girls dying to get a pony finding out they've probably eaten one.
Horses also historically serve as tools over food. A self-dead horse tastes like crap. Horse itself is rather stringy meat, too, so it's not that awesome to eat. All in all, you want your horses to grow old, because their value comes from pulling stuff or riding on. You don't eat milking cows, either. And you can buy horse meat sausage very easily here in Norway. So this isn't at all about what's considered a nice animal or not. If you were a little girl on a farm here, and your dad told you to eat the pretty bunny, you'd eat it. Maybe after crying. We eat hares, we have bunnies as pets. You want your pets to live long. That's why we don't eat them, because, again, self-dead animals taste crap. Also, it's at the very core of humans to care for some things. The anthropomorphism and care for pets is one of the biggest achievements of human beings, along side the ability to feel that tools are extensions of our body, whatever that effect is called. Getting up and killing your pet bunny Bunnzy at age 5 to eat it is sort of.. well, no one should have a problem seeing what's wrong with that.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
I am saying they impart them to pets, but not species. That is, I am saying they impart them to housecats, not feral cats. Pet pigs, but not food pigs. Finches, but not sparrows. (Not a species argument, that last one, but two very similar animals nonetheless.)
Well when it comes to defining such hugely abstract concepts as "right to life," I do not believe a scientist honestly has any kind of authority whatsoever. They can absolutely provide the evidence on which we can make our individual decisions on a matter like that, but again, I do not believe we have in us as a species the right to be arbiters of who can and cannot live. Particularly I think it would be ludicrous to suggest some sort of "crime" is taking place when dolphins and chimpanzees are killed and/or eaten by other animals in the wild. Intelligence or sapience does not grant a living thing the right to not be killed and eaten, be it by a cheetah or a man.
But empathy might. Interesting how we are ascribing value and "rights" to the creatures with more intelligence. Namely: creatures that we see more of ourselves in. It's literally the only thing we can do as humans, place value on what we see in ourselves. As an animal's experience approaches our own, it is more worth considering. On an atomic level how is there a logical way to ascribe more value to the life of a chimpanzee than to an otter, if logic is not based on human relativity? You can't say that logic allows for science to say "an animal that experiences the world more like a human deserves more rights," while at the same time saying it's illogical for an individual person to say "an animal I identify with deserves rights." These are macro and microcosms of the exact same concept.
For the record, I absolutely support logic and reason as arguments. I just do not believe you are actually using them.
So when I specifically and explicitly stated that this is not what people are doing and that people are indeed applying special protections to entire species, why did you reply, "Sure, so what's the problem?"
Do you agree or do you not agree that people apply these protective concepts to entire species?
Okay, then who does?
I'm certainly doing my best. If I am not doing so, please show me how. What logical fallacies am I falling prey to, specifically? Or have I made factual errors? I've provided over a dozen articles and research papers over the course of this thread. If some of them are in error or miss significant factual information, I'd be happy to be corrected (And several people have corrected me already in this thread).
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
So when we step on spiders its murder?
Animals have rights because humans gave it to them. Before there were laws justifying murder and so forth. Animals and humans were like predator and prey. We protect animals because we share this world with them. In all honesty, we have more control over their species. We put our own before them and so on.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
My "sure" was to the wider idea that people do ascribe value to groups of animals over other groups of animals. The beginning of my first post was a pedantic argument on the use of the word species that I tried to distance myself from as I went, as it wasn't really my primary point. I agree that people value some animals over others, typically pet animals. I did not agree that it was as simple as "this species or that species."
No one. Or, alternatively, everyone.
I believe that any decisions we make about what animals deserve what kind of treatment can only be based on subjective human experience and value systems. Science and logic can discern all matter of factual information, but it is incapable of ascribing value. When you suggest that biologists believe chimpanzees may deserve more rights than other species, it is only because those biologists are ascribing value to human traits, which is an inherently subjective evaluation. And in doing so, we establish that value judgements are subjective by definition.
Where I disagree with your arguments is that you give credence to those value judgements, but not the value judgements of other human beings. Namely, those who might value cats more than any other animal. I am suggesting that these people see something of value in these animals, and what they value is in no way less valid than what a biologist might value.
A Buddhist would tell you it's murder if it's intentional. I like the Buddhist thought of never ending another life, because I, as they, believe that we are not with the power to decide who lives and who dies. As such, I never deliberately step on spiders. The only deliberate killing I do is of bugs that can turn into a problem, like flour-beetles. If that's what they're called in English. I am aware of the moral dilemma that eating meat is, but let's keep to the topic
Okay, why is that? In both cases, we are hurting animals because it is convenient for humans.
Oh yes, this ensures wonderful quality of life for farm animals. If you want more evidence on the treatment of farm animals and where you McDonalds hamburger or Taco Bell chicken taco comes from, just ask: I've only avoided posting it because it is so cruel and gruesome and I actively do not want to rely on emotional appeal to win arguments whenever possible.
Yes there is. Even if the cow your McDonald's hamburger is made out of were treated humanely -- which it probably was not -- we often actively choose to have it killed rather than eat a salad not because we need the particular nutrients from a McDonalds hamburger, but because we simply prefer the taste. To repeat for emphasis: even if most feed animals were treated humanely, I don't understand why this makes it okay to slaughter them just because you'd prefer a burger patty to beans for your protein. Can you explain why it would be okay to slaughter animals for convenience, but not perform a surgery on them?
This doesn't explain why they are disparate: it's simply insisting that they are. Again, I ask, why are they disparate?
This is not logical. First, the comparison would be, "stop complaining that you're hungry. Kids are starving in Africa," since the situation you described is antonymous, not synonymous. Second, this is only a problem if you don't apply the rule consistently: it is perfectly fine to complain about hungry children in America as long as you are consistent and also complain about hungry children in Africa.
I'm just going to go ahead and guess you have no idea how the animals you eat are treated. It is the only logical way to explain how you seem to have such high esteem for the humane treatment of farm animals. Virtually every pig or cow you've ever eaten was treated like an undignified piece of meat since the day it was born. Again, if you need me to post more videos and articles like the one above I will do so, but I'd really like to avoid it.
That is interesting. I can only say this generally isn't true in the US, where eating horse is vaguely taboo.
Okay, so how can we possibly reach a consensus if logic and evidence are not sovereign?
Okay then, let's say I agree to operate on your premise. In that case, I do not personally, subjectively value cats' claws the way you do. And there is nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything wrong with your personal, subjective values. That is the end of the conversation, I assume? Because frankly there is nothing else to say unless you allow reason, evidence and logic in to the discussion, which you have explicitly disallowed.
cj_iwakura
Member
It's cruel. You're removing part of their physiology that they use from day to day and to relieve stress. It's like removing a human's finger nails, if not much much worse.
Never have, never ever will.
And if it's because of your furniture or something similarly trivial, then consider not owning a cat.
Never have, never ever will.
And if it's because of your furniture or something similarly trivial, then consider not owning a cat.
We've been around this particular discussion several times now, but I'd be interested in more opinions, so:
In the US, there is a significant cat overpopulation problem. If a person wants to declaw a cat because he doesn't want it to ruin his furniture, and you deny him a cat on that basis, are you confident this is a better solution for the cat?
The consequence will be one more shelter/stray cat in the US. I'm not necessarily saying that's worse, but I don't think it's obviously better, either. I can ask the question directly: do you feel it's better for a cat to be declawed but in a home that feeds and takes care of him, or do you think it's better for the cat to be in a shelter but still have all its claws?
Again, honest question. Because those are effectively our options.
Renoir
Member
Im having the same debate with the GF, she want to declaw. i want to train. but everytime the cat messes up and forget its training ways, its like
SEE WE NEED TO DECLAW .
Utility stand point i wouldnt mind the declaw.
Moraly it bother me. ( i can get over those morals but the consequences for doing so are unknown)
Depression
Litter problems
Agression
btw all these dont have any sientific study to back them (from reading this thread i didnt see any link)
All these arent good trades for the couch to not get fucked up.
I suscribed to see if can find definitive pros and cons.
Opiate
Depressingly Realistic
yes you are.
SEE WE NEED TO DECLAW .
Utility stand point i wouldnt mind the declaw.
Moraly it bother me. ( i can get over those morals but the consequences for doing so are unknown)
Depression
Litter problems
Agression
btw all these dont have any sientific study to back them (from reading this thread i didnt see any link)
All these arent good trades for the couch to not get fucked up.
I suscribed to see if can find definitive pros and cons.
Opiate
Depressingly Realistic
yes you are.
NYR
Member
Declawed cat in a loving home > clawed cat living in an alley
Cats need to get with the program. There is nothing "inhumane" about the procedure - 70% of you reading this had parts of your dicks cut off, so it's tough to make the case you were "scarred" and felt the pain years later.
Cats need to get with the program. There is nothing "inhumane" about the procedure - 70% of you reading this had parts of your dicks cut off, so it's tough to make the case you were "scarred" and felt the pain years later.
The difference, to me, and I say to me, because I realize we're moving into more of a debate of right of life than anything, is that declawing a cat deprives it of a part of its identity for the rest of its life. Slaughtering a cow, well, the cow no longer is after that. That's why I say it's moving into the realm of right of life. I'll come back to it. If a cow is born to be meat, then it should have a nice life, until the day its life is over. As such, it is actually never in pain. That's also why I feel it's disparate, because saying it's OK for us to breed livestock for food is very different, to me, from saying it's OK to deprive a life of anything of something important.
My McDonald's meat comes from Norwegian farms. We have a rather high standard of care for our animals. But, sure, I'll still address this. As I said, I can only be mad at farmers if they're not following the rules and laws of care of livestock. If the video you posted is done within the law, then I need to take the fight to the law makers, not the farmers. If this is done outside of the law, then that needs to be taken to the enforcers. And I can be angry with the farmer.
I feel it's derailing the thread if we're down to discussing the right of life. What makes it OK for us end the life of livestock to eat? It's very different to what makes it OK to take away part of the identity of your pet for the rest of its life. The difference comes from being alive. And part the allegory of the cave. And before that bites me in the ass, the allegory of the cave falls outside of declawing, as I'd argue it's very inherent in cats to use their claws, and having always deprived them of claws won't remove their instincts.
I see myself as making my cats happy as much as they make me happy. That's the sort of symbiosis I'm talking about. That's why I argue we have no rights to decide what goes and what stays of body parts on our pets.
Yeah, inconsistency aside, I'm pretty sure you get the point I'm arriving at. Quality of life is very disparate of right to life, in my view. If we cannot arrive at an agreement on that, it's of course hard to see, but I'm sure your mind can at least bend my way, in which case, why I say it's disparate will come right at you. I'll see if I return to this point.
Again, Norway has very high care of its livestock. I disagree with some of it, and the fur industry has been in the news over the last couple of years. I'm vocal, and I discuss this. It's important to me that animals I eat come from a good place, but it's also important to keep the laws away from the enforcers, too. If the quality of life isn't maintained through laws, I would fight with the lawmakers. If the quality of life isn't maintained despite of laws, I would fight to get more support to the enforcers, and I would yell at the farmers, and probably not supported their products.
Yes, it's a produce of the farmers. I really, really don't expect them to treat them differently. That's not how the world works. This is why it's important with laws and enforcement agencies. A farmer won't take care of all its livestock out of the good of his heart. He want to earn a living off of his livestock. Some farmers have more compassion than others, but every single one has a healthy distance to their livestock. Knowing farmers and farms, I get it. So we need to ensure that the farmers have to conform to regulations that ensure the quality of life is as high as someone says it needs to be.
I'm thinking a bit on how to argue the disparity between quality of life and 'quality of death' - or right to life. The personal part would probably be the fact that I don't believe we'll stop eating meat any day soon. As such, the only thing I can fight for is that while they are alive and how they die is ethical. And personally I need to shout if I don't find what's ethical to be moral. That's my personal responsibility. With that at the foundation, being livestock should be better than non-existence. Being bred and fed in an ethical way, living a life that's continuously assessed to be within what gives an animal a life that's considered high quality of life, is an OK existence. If you had the capacity for it, it might be unfair, but if someone today told me, in a sort of Truman show way, that my whole life has been to produce some thoughts and ideas or something, and that I am now past my prime, and will be disposed, then I'd be bummed, but having existed for these 25 past years has been so fantastic I could hardly be mad, and I'd certainly not argue that no one should ever be born into my situation. EDIT: This is because the only option, if I closed down whatever program I was a part of, would be non-existence, that I doom all those who would come after me to.
This touches on some very intrinsic values and ideas. Is it better to exist in a miserable state than not to exist at all? Apparently, humans have differentiating opinions on the matter. This is also why I feel we're moving away from the discussion at hand, and why I feel it's disparate.
Claws and foreskin. They're very different. While the memory of the procedure will fade, which is not what I have a problem with, the effects of the procedure - no claws - will never fade.
I think it's important to rid the excess population, by means of change, hopefully not by means of killing the ones in existence. In the case of "death or declaw" or "no home or no claws", it's clear that declawing is OK. However, it's writing off the morality. The people saying they don't want a cat if it's not declawed is immoral and their wish may come from ignorance of the importance of claws for cats, which is why I discuss this, so people realize it's not just like clipping your fingernail permanently. That's why it's important to fight the ignorance and willingness for people to declaw cats. In that discussion, saying 'but otherwise they'll die' is discussing an effect of no clear answer on the discussion. Saying declawing is morally defendable on this basis is begging the question, if I'm using that right. We're discussing the morality of declawing a cat, not the morality of imposing a ban on declawing cats.
Yup putting a cat down would be better than declawing it in basically any scenario where it is not an endangered species.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
Well that's the thing, this isn't a discussion where logic and evidence can produce a conclusion. They can help inform one, but we are not trying to hash out facts here. The value one places on a specific animal's wellbeing is extremely subjective from the start. We can try to convince with facts, with personal accounts, and with all matter of subjective rhetoric. Because we are not trying to agree upon facts, we are trying to agree upon values.
My goal was not to disallow reason, evidence, or logic. Rather, my goal was to introduce subjectivity. If we return to the quote where I entered this discussion:
My interpretation of this post was you explicitly disallowing an argument that does not evaluate as "logical." The problem is that the very nature of the "why can you eat some animals but not pets" quandary is one with only two logical outcomes:
A) You can eat all animals, you can't have pets
B) You can eat no animals, all animals should be treated like pets
If you disallow that certain groups of animals can be granted unique privileges, those are all you end up with. All animals one way or the other way. And obviously this is not the way the world works. India reveres cows, America burgers them unceremoniously. America values cats and dogs, China and Africa eat them regularly.
The only "universal truth" is that anything will basically kill and eat anything else, unless a system of cultural morality has given it a value system. So we have to start with everything being eatable. The question is just trying to figure out why certain cultures don't eat certain things. And that argument is very different for each culture, subculture, or even individual.
So I suppose in the end, I agree with your original quote. Being a pet animal should not logically impart special rights, because ascribing rights for non-human animals is not the pervue of logic.
Correct.
No it is not. You can, for instance,have pets and also eat those pets. Pets are not granted special privileges, so while you can keep pets they are not special and can still be eaten. Secondly, I am not saying that certain groups of animals cannot be assigned special privileges; I am saying those privileges should be assigned reasonably and not whimsically or emotionally. That is, if you want to assign a species special privileges, do so based on evidence or reason, and based on "well personally I think of them as pets."
Again, If something is not the pervue of logic, then there is literally no possible way to reach conensus. It is simply two different people with two different value systems, neither one of which can be described as better than the other without readmitting logic and reason.
The entire purpose of logic, evidence and reason is to allow a way for us to bridge the gap of subjective experience. The only possible way to resolve disagreement is for one us to provide reason for our choice.
Without that, it's just you saying "I believe X" and me saying "I don't believe X," and that's the end of the discussion. To phrase this differently: I am not saying that personal subjective value does not exist, I am saying that it is completely worthless for the purpose of discussion because there is no argument or evidence or reasoning put forward to discuss, by definition.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
I never suggested that people don't need reasons. I merely countered your initial assertion that no logical reason was even possible, and your followup that any non-logical reason was not even worth hearing.
But don't you see the problem here? First, you say that there is no logical reason why a certain group of animals should be granted unique rights. Now you tell me that there is absolutely no value in a discussion that is not based around logic, and rather around subjective value.
So why are you asking the question?
By your own words, any answer to this would be worthless by definition. You're proposing discussion and shutting it down in the same breath.
Correct. Is that supposed to be incongruous? Because it isn't, as far as I can tell. If it is, you'll have to explain why.
Which question?
No it would not. If you can provide reason and evidence for your argument, I'm extremely happy to hear your explanation for why "pet" species should be granted special privileges. If your explanation is "well I personally/subjectively feel that way," then I am not interested because that statement has no explanatory power.
Again, I'm not seeing the problem here. I'm interested in all reasonable, evidence based explanations because those are the only ones which can be evaluated.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
The quote of yours I placed immediately after that.
My issue is that you said, flat out, there is no logical reason. Then you established that non-logical reasons need not apply. So what explanations are you interested in? You said there are none, from the start.
I am interested if you believe that empathetic attachment and cultural bias are valid arguments. They are the reasons, after all, even if you choose to invalidate them. My post did not say "it's cause I say so, cause I feel like it." I thought I proposed a reasonable explanation based on the process of human empathy.
That I can think of, obviously.
I'm interested in logical explanations I haven't thought of, which happens all the time. For example, people have produced significant evidence that I did not know about at the beginning of this thread which either proved me wrong or significantly altered my viewpoint.
Of course they are not.
They are not reasons in the way you mean them here. To explain what I mean, consider this example, If I lived in a country where people believe eating tiger penis is good for your health, then the reason for that belief might be cultural bias. Please note the distinction here; cultural bias explains why I believe in something so silly, it does not explain why my belief is logical or correct. The latter is what I'm asking for.
In other words, an explanation like "cultural bias" does not provide evidence or logical support for a belief, it explains how someone could believe something even if it is illogical or false.
I'll do my best: please be aware that I'm not trying to ignore people, I'm just the focus of many conversations simultaneously throughout this thread.
To provide another extreme example to clarify the concept outlined above: imagine a person who believes that the government is out to get him because he has special knowledge. He's hospitalized and neurologists determine he is a paranoid schizophrenic.
In that case, saying "he's a paranoid schizophrenic" is the reason he believes crazy things, but it is not reason why those crazy things are true..
Please note again that I am not suggesting that anyone in here is a paranoid schizophrenic, I am only using an extreme example to clarify the concept. In a much less extreme way, "cultural bias" explains why people can believe illogical things, but it does not explain why those beliefs are any more logical or valid.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
Oh. Good to know.
Yeah, I was referring more to the empathy part. Which I think is extremely valid, and explains why people feel certain ways about certain animals they are more accustomed and/or attached to. In a world where no animal has more objective value than another, we are left only to try and figure out why individuals may feel the way they do. It's the kind of thing you could do studies on and publish reports about even. It's pretty interesting to me. But it is clear that you are not interested in that discussion, so I'm not going to bother doing the research. Nice talkin to ya.
Johnny Cage In The Shower
Member
Jesus Christ!! really? ....really?
No matter how much I try to pick and chose topics in the OT to avoid, religion, circumcision, politics, sexism etc....
No matter how much I try to escape these topics, there's no way out, there's always a buffoon that has to stir all conversation towards these subjects....Ugh!!
Only Declawed cats have loving homes, clawed cats live in an alley. Didn't you get the memo?
evil solrac v3.0
Member
why is it always an either or scenario? I thought that as humans we could use our brains to figure out other ways. and we have. everything from just telling the cat in a firm voice "NO!" to a little citrus near an area you don't want them in, to those little plastic nails you can put on their claws (I have tried them, it works)
it's not worth entertaining your question because cats don't end up in shelters because they have claws. and people sure as hell don't consider for adoption because they have them.
again, if your reason for declawing a cat is because you fear some potential damage to your furniture then you need to think whether you actually want a cat. and if you think a cat is the only creature that can cause harm to the furniture then maybe that person needs to reevaluate whether they should own a pet.
again, why does a cat need to be put down because they have claws? this is new. I didn't know people skipped on adopting cats because they have claws.
Devolution
Member
Things and beings you're emotionally invested in get special rights all of the time. How many people treat family different than strangers?
It is equivalent to having someone cut your fingers off
Now use your freshman philosophy class on that
BigEvilTurtle
Banned
My thought is: you get a house pet to love and care for it. Simply put, if you're choosing the pristine integrity of your furniture and the fucking bird/rodent population over a pet you're supposed to love and treat well, you shouldn't have a pet.
I don't agree, unless you also agree "I don't feel that empathy" is valid.
If you want to provide reasons why feeling special empathy for cats is a logically superior approach, then by all means do that, but that is not what you are suggesting.
Again, this is an explanation of why people believe things, it is not an explanation of whether that belief is actually logical or valid.
I'm not saying that this would be a boring conversation, it just wasn't the conversation I was having. I was asking if X is true, you are asking why people believe X (regardless of whether X is true or not). People may believe in God because it brings them comfort and solace; that is an explanation for why they believe, but it is not in itself evidence that God exists (or that he doesn't).
I appreciate the conversation and would be happy to follow this different line of reasoning in another thread/venue. Thanks.
Definitely not always. From the sounds of it, many european nations have less of a cat population problem and it would be less either/or there.
These can work, but not always. I definitely agree that many people aren't aware of these other options, at least in the US.
Of course people do. I personally know someone that wouldn't have a cat with claws. Not really a fan of anecdotal evidence, but since the question is, "do these people exist at all?" a single example shows that yes, they do.
Okay, so let's say I do think about it and consequently do not get a cat. Again, are you sure that is a better situation for everyone?
Yes, people do, and it is a reasonable concern, because cats do indeed tear up furniture sometimes (I don't think anyone is arguing that they don't?) Frequently people choose to get a different type of pet instead (e.g. fish or a bird) if they fear damaging their house.
BigEvilTurtle
Banned
Yes because that cat now has the opportunity to be adopted by someone who doesn't mind claws. Or dewclaws the cat, but you choosing to not adopt improves the chances of that cat being adopted by someone who doesn't mind claws. It's a better scenario either way. Just because you don't adopt the cat doesn't mean they're left for dead.
Okay, so let's say someone else goes to adopt a cat, and chooses "my" cat. Now some other cat -- a cat they would have chosen if mine was not already taken -- is left without a home.
In a country with a significant cat surplus like the US, the logic is unavoidable: one less cat owner is one more shelter cat. It isn't necessarily "my" cat that gets left out, but some cat somewhere is.
This is especially easy to see if you blow up this idea on a large scale. Let's say you deny cats to every single owner who wants to declaw in the US. This might equate to hundreds of thousands of potential cat owners. In that case, it is obvious that thousands of these cats will ultimately end up without homes or some other cats who would have been chosen now won't be.
Again, this is less true in countries without as much cat overpopulation. In fact, if a country has a cat shortage, this could be a very good thing as it not only doesn't leave a cat homeless (the math wouldn't be the same), but it provides the cats who do have homes with even better ones and does not just thrown them at the first guy to walk through the door willing to take in a cat and not torture it.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
Of course I do. That's kind of the whole point, that everyone is empathetic in different ways, depending upon their circumstances.
Certainly not. There is no "superior" way to be empathetic.
Sure. I do not think there is such thing as a "valid" opinion on this topic. Though to be clear, I've only been talking about food vs pet, not cat declawing. I'm against declawing, and I'll leave my reasoning to this guy, a professional cat behaviorist who's got a show on TV I've seen a lot of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_7oTlocGSw
Another time then.
BigEvilTurtle
Banned
Fair points.
I suppose I feel that it comes down entirely to how you treat your own pet cat; not the cat population as a whole. If you want to declaw your cat, it would be best not to have it as a pet at all. I argue in favor of claws on an emotional and personal level; specifically regarding cats I or anyone has as a pet. If you're going to care for a cat, you should do so with its best intentions in mind, which is to keep its claws in the context of living in a home. Other, non-pet cats are irrelevant to the argument in my opinion.
Devolution
Member
Funny too since we're talking about treating animals more ethically, doesn't that take sympathy not cold calculated decisions?
First, that isn't the inevitable conclusion of logic.
Second, the problem with "illogical but still moral" is that it literally cannot be agreed upon. As an example, let's say you believe it's immoral to declaw cats. I believe it is moral.
Okay, now what? Do you want to provide reason, evidence and logic to aruge why you're right and I'm wrong? Or do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "I guess we disagree?"
TunaMarshmallow
Member
...
TunaMarshmallow
Member
...
TunaMarshmallow
Member
...
TunaMarshmallow
Member
...
evil solrac v3.0
Member
but the numbers are not high enough to warrant allowing the option. were we to take a survey of course.
in practical terms I do not want any animal to be hurt, but I can not stop how they are all treated. even if I stopped eating meat tomorrow it doesn't mean a cow is spared. I can not stop every cat from being declawed but I will always advocate not to have your companion animals physically modified. I can only affect my world.
faceless007
Member
I just want to discuss the use of this particular meta-argument, which I hope I'm not misreading:
I'm kind of surprised that you would embrace this line of argument. It isn't an argument about the current subject at hand, but a deflection to another one in order to impeach a person's credibility. It's similar to when people go into a thread about feminism and rape culture and go "Well why aren't you talking about male prison rape?" or when people discussing the Travyon Martin case say "Well why aren't you so upset about the murder of a white kid?" Essentially this line of argument says that the validity of an argument on one subject can be affected by whether or not one has made an argument about another subject. I don't think this is true; the only thing that determines the logical validity of an argument is whether its conclusions logically follow from its premises. The actions (or inaction) of the person making it should have no bearing on this.
So to take your specific statement, I don't see why complaining about hungry children in America would be any less fine if somebody did not also complain about hungry children in Africa. This implies that complaining about hungry children in America is under those circumstances, not OK, even if we all admit it's a problem. Ideally, of course, people should complain about both and take action to fight both, as well as hunger in every other country. And I don't know many people who would explicitly say that hunger in America is a problem while hunger in Africa is not. But the standard you've used is whether one has complained about both, and I don't see how having expressed only one of those views but not the other invalidates that opinion at all.
If it does invalidate the opinion, then there is quite literally no way for a human to hold consistent opinions on anything, because people have limited time and resources and have to be on some level selective on what they choose to focus on or express. It is impossible for one to express or demonstrate their opinion of every world or social issue that might be worth expressing, ranging from the relatively first-world problem of industrial animal farming up to problems as abhorrent as mass genocide. I'd be surprised if you had accomplished that. Essentially, it argues that if a person cannot be perfectly consistent in their activism of two separate issues, they should not even bother working on one of them. This also suggests that donating money to one charity is inconsistent unless one also donates money to every other worthy charity in existence.
This is not to say that every possible ethical question should be decided in a vacuum with regard only to its own particular facts; ideally, of course, we should strive to maintain some sort of internally consistent worldview based on certain axioms, from which our judgments on specific questions can be derived. But it is not physically possible for an individual to have such a worldview and exercise it perfectly, and to devote the exact amount of time and energy to every moral cause that they each objectively deserve. Arguments that a person must do that lest their opinions be labeled invalid are a form of the Nirvana fallacy, otherwise known as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and serve only to discourage the person from working on a cause that might be on some level worth fighting.
(It occurs to me that my argument here can itself be seen as an example of the Nirvana fallacy; essentially saying that it's impossible to live up the standard of perfect consistency, therefore there's no point in trying. However, I am not saying "It is impossible to be perfectly consistent; therefore we should not even try." I am saying "It is impossible to be perfectly consistent; therefore a person's opinion should not automatically be written off as invalid because they do not live up that standard.")
I'm kind of surprised that you would embrace this line of argument. It isn't an argument about the current subject at hand, but a deflection to another one in order to impeach a person's credibility. It's similar to when people go into a thread about feminism and rape culture and go "Well why aren't you talking about male prison rape?" or when people discussing the Travyon Martin case say "Well why aren't you so upset about the murder of a white kid?" Essentially this line of argument says that the validity of an argument on one subject can be affected by whether or not one has made an argument about another subject. I don't think this is true; the only thing that determines the logical validity of an argument is whether its conclusions logically follow from its premises. The actions (or inaction) of the person making it should have no bearing on this.
So to take your specific statement, I don't see why complaining about hungry children in America would be any less fine if somebody did not also complain about hungry children in Africa. This implies that complaining about hungry children in America is under those circumstances, not OK, even if we all admit it's a problem. Ideally, of course, people should complain about both and take action to fight both, as well as hunger in every other country. And I don't know many people who would explicitly say that hunger in America is a problem while hunger in Africa is not. But the standard you've used is whether one has complained about both, and I don't see how having expressed only one of those views but not the other invalidates that opinion at all.
If it does invalidate the opinion, then there is quite literally no way for a human to hold consistent opinions on anything, because people have limited time and resources and have to be on some level selective on what they choose to focus on or express. It is impossible for one to express or demonstrate their opinion of every world or social issue that might be worth expressing, ranging from the relatively first-world problem of industrial animal farming up to problems as abhorrent as mass genocide. I'd be surprised if you had accomplished that. Essentially, it argues that if a person cannot be perfectly consistent in their activism of two separate issues, they should not even bother working on one of them. This also suggests that donating money to one charity is inconsistent unless one also donates money to every other worthy charity in existence.
This is not to say that every possible ethical question should be decided in a vacuum with regard only to its own particular facts; ideally, of course, we should strive to maintain some sort of internally consistent worldview based on certain axioms, from which our judgments on specific questions can be derived. But it is not physically possible for an individual to have such a worldview and exercise it perfectly, and to devote the exact amount of time and energy to every moral cause that they each objectively deserve. Arguments that a person must do that lest their opinions be labeled invalid are a form of the Nirvana fallacy, otherwise known as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and serve only to discourage the person from working on a cause that might be on some level worth fighting.
(It occurs to me that my argument here can itself be seen as an example of the Nirvana fallacy; essentially saying that it's impossible to live up the standard of perfect consistency, therefore there's no point in trying. However, I am not saying "It is impossible to be perfectly consistent; therefore we should not even try." I am saying "It is impossible to be perfectly consistent; therefore a person's opinion should not automatically be written off as invalid because they do not live up that standard.")
I see the confusion here, and it is my fault, so I apologize. I do not mean that people literally must complain about both; I mean that people must object to both.
The distinction being that "complaining" requires active effort, while objection simply means you think both are wrong whether you happen to do anything about them or not.
In my defense, that wasn't my example to begin with.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
...
TunaMarshmallow
Member
...
- Status