lol.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Declawing cats
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
lol.
RukusProvider
Banned
Got scars from my cat's claws but I'm fine with it. He's indoor but I'd never de claw him.
I still feel this is connected to the points I tried making in response to your arguments. Moralistic relativism is always good, but even from a utilitarian perspective, I can't really see anything saying that declawing can be moral. My previous argument may come across as absurd, but I think it is why it serves its purpose. Disarming men will forever prevent women from being hit, but it also shows why "so there are some upsides" doesn't really diversify a topic.
Preventing bird is still a problem I honestly don't know if has been factually dealt with in this thread - as in, is it actually a problem that so many birds die to cats, or is it part of homeostasis in the ecology of these areas. I don't know enough about it. Even if it is a problem, and we can't let cats kill that many birds, declawing is still a cruel option, as it seems to advocate human rights above cat rights, as in that you can't take away people's rights to have cats, so instead you have to take away the cats' claws. In such a way, it's highly immoral and hopefully unethical. Humans can't take the position that we can have and do anything we want. You can have a cat, but you need to sort of ruin it to do so. That's not good.
So I still don't get why this "there are upsides to it" is relevant when we're talking about taking away a part of the identity of a cat. That's why I called it argumentative fluff, because I'm sure you can come up with a good effect from anything.
So, from the already deprived lives indoor cats have (I've had indoor cats my whole life), depriving it even more to suit your own description of it is apt? "They just eat and demand to be petted" so you make their lives about just that? I'm conflicted about having indoor cats, since cats fucking love the outdoors. Allegory of the cave aside, I try to make their lives as good as I can. We have two very adventurous cats now. We got them at about the same time we got a new hardwood floor. They've scratched the living bejesus out of it, but it's completely out of the question to ever declaw them. We have blankets around textured chairs, and we remove the blankets only when we get visitors. I don't know. My take is that I go a certain length to accommodate the animal which care I've taken upon myself. I don't accommodate the cat for my home. Something like that.
Oh, and it's probably the easiest read, when you're cat is about to say "no more" to petting. Why not try learning it, instead of saying "you can't hit me, I'm petting you, you stupid animal. Appreciate it!!"
Wow. I don't think you could come off as being more entitled.
i fail to see them. the only point brought up so far was the US "Bird"-population. and that point was only mentioned by one user - citing no sources or whatsoever. (please correct me if I missed said info)
now again, assuming, that is correct, i'm still not satisfied with the formulation, because it certainly can't be ALL birds that are affected by cats and even if all birds were affected, there'd still be only a few species that are endangered - either way that is very likely a regional and not a general nation-wide problem.
also, IF the bird-problem is real, the main focus should be the feral population, which should exceed the kills of the the hunting domestic population by far and declawing your apartment-cat, which stays indoors for 99% of her live doesn't help anyone.
but I feel like this "bird-control" discussion is really missing the point, since the majority of users will think about pet animals when reading this topic and sincerely - you do not believe that pet owners declaw their cats because they care about birds, do you?
so without coming to an absolut verdict on the procedure, i think it is save to say that declawing your house-cat because you fear for your couch is a dick move - declawing them systematically (in combination with other measures) to help an ailing eco-system is something completely different.
systemfehler
Member
The posted study even says that the deaths caused by cats are mainly from wild ones. However if you leave that part out of the study it reads "ZOMG cats on a bird killing spree" instead of having a normal discussion about the (also mentioned in the study) number 1 bird killer:
walls, windows and high buildings
Pyramid head
Banned
I like how you say 'anti-declawing people' as if they're some fringe nutjob group, as opposed to people who live 'elsewhere', where declawing in uncommon/unheared of. To be honest, I live in the UK and didn't even know declawing cats was a 'thing' until fairly recently. People like you are just a curiosity to me.
All in all, the only argued upside to declawing cats still comes down to humans saying it's a right to have cats. If cats kill too many birds, we need to deal with that, as an example by controlling the numbers of cats we have. Lack of sources of the problem aside (EDIT: even seems the one source is largely irrelevant for this case), cats are cats. If we humans deal with it by arguing that cats need to change for our amusement, we're down to arguing that something is moral to do, because humans are selfish dicks. Claws are an important aspect of any cat's life, indoors or outdoors. I hope if you're a cat owner, you be one, by understanding that cats will run over your couch, will scratch at stuff and understanding that you can condition them to not scratch furniture to sharpen their claws and that you can teach them where it's OK to scratch and not.
Live with your pet, don't demand your pet to live with you.
Live with your pet, don't demand your pet to live with you.
damn, completely missed that link, but well: i rest my case.
declawing is a moral issue now. ok, ramming speed.
we have too many cats. we have too many indecisive owners who want cats but do not want animals that will scratch them or scratch up their stuff. Outlawing declawing won't address either problem. Not even when that indecisive owner elects to either inhumanely kill the cat, abandon the cat, or take it to a shelter where it will eventually die.
Now what opposing declawing does do is it gives us all warm fuzzies about these unhurt little moggies who have never known the pain and trauma of having their little digit-tips surgically removed. It's a distasteful thing to imagine happening to our empathized and anthropomorphized companions. But it ignores the real world problem of too many cats and not enough homes. Millions of declawed cats have been given secure homes where they are cared for and loved, but that's unacceptable, because it isn't good enough for you. It damages the perfect ideal of a beautiful world full of love and fluffy tails and no compromises. But passive aggression and negative peer pressure isn't suddenly going to change the minds of the millions of people who flatly refuse to deal with cats who scratch them, their things, and other people. Some people don't want to rely on their cat's discretion and understanding of past reinforcement of the cat's behavior. And browbeating them about how "easy" the training is will not change the fact that some people will not do that for whatever reason. So, no kitties for them then, fine, yes? Then those cats will have to be dealt with.
I think the practicality justifies declawing. It's either that or death, plain and simple. The negatives are small probabilities for most of those cats, while death is a statistical inevitability for abandoned or feral cats who either get euthanized or live hectic and short lives fending for themselves in a park somewhere with 50 other cats until they get handled by animal control.
If they're willing to provide for and care for these cats, I'm willing to let them do it. And calling them lazy and evil cat haters is so myopically one sided it has amused me greatly, up until this point.
we have too many cats. we have too many indecisive owners who want cats but do not want animals that will scratch them or scratch up their stuff. Outlawing declawing won't address either problem. Not even when that indecisive owner elects to either inhumanely kill the cat, abandon the cat, or take it to a shelter where it will eventually die.
Now what opposing declawing does do is it gives us all warm fuzzies about these unhurt little moggies who have never known the pain and trauma of having their little digit-tips surgically removed. It's a distasteful thing to imagine happening to our empathized and anthropomorphized companions. But it ignores the real world problem of too many cats and not enough homes. Millions of declawed cats have been given secure homes where they are cared for and loved, but that's unacceptable, because it isn't good enough for you. It damages the perfect ideal of a beautiful world full of love and fluffy tails and no compromises. But passive aggression and negative peer pressure isn't suddenly going to change the minds of the millions of people who flatly refuse to deal with cats who scratch them, their things, and other people. Some people don't want to rely on their cat's discretion and understanding of past reinforcement of the cat's behavior. And browbeating them about how "easy" the training is will not change the fact that some people will not do that for whatever reason. So, no kitties for them then, fine, yes? Then those cats will have to be dealt with.
I think the practicality justifies declawing. It's either that or death, plain and simple. The negatives are small probabilities for most of those cats, while death is a statistical inevitability for abandoned or feral cats who either get euthanized or live hectic and short lives fending for themselves in a park somewhere with 50 other cats until they get handled by animal control.
If they're willing to provide for and care for these cats, I'm willing to let them do it. And calling them lazy and evil cat haters is so myopically one sided it has amused me greatly, up until this point.
I'm a (not so active) member of the french LPO (Ligue Protectrice des Oiseaux, Bird Protection Association), so I read a few times about the cat-bird problem, and I never heard alarming opinions on the matter. Cat kill birds, yeah, but I don't think there's solid evidence it's a major threat for the bird population, at least in France (where declawing is illegal).
Thing is, if this concerns you, there are plenty of things you can do to "help" birds outside of declawing : put a collar with a little bell around the neck of your cat, so his preys will be alerted of his presence, feed your cat well, keep him inside at critical time for the birds (morning, evening, after long episodes of rain or cold).
Thing is, if this concerns you, there are plenty of things you can do to "help" birds outside of declawing : put a collar with a little bell around the neck of your cat, so his preys will be alerted of his presence, feed your cat well, keep him inside at critical time for the birds (morning, evening, after long episodes of rain or cold).
oneils
Member
Here is what I know (from a combo of my ass, head, and google):
Problem? - Cats are killing too many birds? Spreading disease? Wrecking furniture? Scratching humans? All of the above?
House Cats
- There are about 90 million house cats in the US.
- It has been estimated that approximately 25% (or 22.5 million house cats) have been declawed.
- Cats that have been declawed can still catch birds.
- I cannot determine how many house cats are outdoor cats.
- 40% of american households have a cat.
- 88% of those cats have been spayed/neutered.
- 12% of 90 million = 10.8 million. 10.8 million house cats are free to reproduce.
Feral Cats
- There may be as many as 50 million feral cats in the US.
- I cannot determine how many feral cats have been spayed/neutered.
Cats that can Reproduce
- There may be as many as 60.8 million cats that are free to reproduce (assuming
that all of the 10.8 unspayed/unneutered house cats are outdoor cats and that all feral cats are unspayed/unneutered).
Unknowns?
- Are current Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) programs effective? Do they achieve the stated aim (i.e., population control of feral cats)? I couldn't really figure that out.
- How many birds do declawed cats kill?
Possible Solutions
A) Continue depopulation efforts. Seems reasonable (even if I don't know that it is effective, yes yes that sounds strange). 50 million feral cats is a problem. They have contributed to the extinction of certain birds, and they contribute to the spread of disease. More work needs to be done to determine best method for pop control, from the looks of it.
B) Ban house cats from going outdoors. If house cats don't go outside, they can't kill birds and cannot get diseased or at least spread disease. Still have the problem of feral cats.
C) Increase cat adoption? Seems unreasonable to me. 40% of american households already own a cat. Of those, the average owner owns more than 2 cats. I don't see how you increase this and I don't see how declawing increases it. It looks to me as though we are at the limit of cat ownership in America.
Seems to me we should try a combo of solutions A and B.
Problem? - Cats are killing too many birds? Spreading disease? Wrecking furniture? Scratching humans? All of the above?
House Cats
- There are about 90 million house cats in the US.
- It has been estimated that approximately 25% (or 22.5 million house cats) have been declawed.
- Cats that have been declawed can still catch birds.
- I cannot determine how many house cats are outdoor cats.
- 40% of american households have a cat.
- 88% of those cats have been spayed/neutered.
- 12% of 90 million = 10.8 million. 10.8 million house cats are free to reproduce.
Feral Cats
- There may be as many as 50 million feral cats in the US.
- I cannot determine how many feral cats have been spayed/neutered.
Cats that can Reproduce
- There may be as many as 60.8 million cats that are free to reproduce (assuming
that all of the 10.8 unspayed/unneutered house cats are outdoor cats and that all feral cats are unspayed/unneutered).
Unknowns?
- Are current Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) programs effective? Do they achieve the stated aim (i.e., population control of feral cats)? I couldn't really figure that out.
- How many birds do declawed cats kill?
Possible Solutions
A) Continue depopulation efforts. Seems reasonable (even if I don't know that it is effective, yes yes that sounds strange). 50 million feral cats is a problem. They have contributed to the extinction of certain birds, and they contribute to the spread of disease. More work needs to be done to determine best method for pop control, from the looks of it.
B) Ban house cats from going outdoors. If house cats don't go outside, they can't kill birds and cannot get diseased or at least spread disease. Still have the problem of feral cats.
C) Increase cat adoption? Seems unreasonable to me. 40% of american households already own a cat. Of those, the average owner owns more than 2 cats. I don't see how you increase this and I don't see how declawing increases it. It looks to me as though we are at the limit of cat ownership in America.
Seems to me we should try a combo of solutions A and B.
The argument isn't declawing or death. You're agreeing to pet-ownership being a moral issue, as we should see to it that as many cats as possible gets a loving home and as few as possible suffer. While I'm inherently against declawing, and would any day argue why with anyone, it's out of something different than "you need to accept your cat or you can't have one", and more of "maybe if we come with our arguments, I can see why it's a problem for you having a clawed cat, and you can see why claws are important for cats, indoors or outdoors" - and we're richer for the argument, anyway.
Doing a reductio ad absurdum on my arguments or any others, or otherwise contorting it into being about "a lovey dovey world for our fuzzy wuzzy companions", I feel we've far passed the point of discussing declawing, and are just down to personal insults. How you can point and laugh at me for saying declawing is a moral issue, then saying we need to allow it to allow for as many cats to live is also a personal attack, but then just going on to argue the exact same thing you were laughing at me for. I think it's inappropriate in a discussion like this.
Moving onto what you did touch upon, though. If it means a cat will get a good home if it is declawed, and won't if it isn't, then yes, declaw it and get it into that home. It is important that we ensure all animals in our care or at the extension of our care, like most cats are, suffer as little as possible, and are treated as best as possible. I think it's detrimental to cats to be declawed, so it's more moral to declaw a cat than to let it die, but it's still not a good thing.
If there are too many cats and not enough homes, you're going that naive 'fluffy wuffy' way yourself that you're so blatantly laughing at others for, in your own post, when you say "so we need to get all of them homes". No, not necessarily. Decreasing the population can be the moral thing to do. If decreasing it will mean that all cats that do live will get a good home, then we need to go for that. We shouldn't throw bags of kittens against a wall to off the ones we don't want. This means a better control of the amount of cats, and most importantly, it doesn't mean that we can allow for declawing, because we're not proactive against preventing unwanted cats. Just because there are cats that aren't getting a home down at the shelter, doesn't mean I can bring one home and do whatever I want to it, because it would die otherwise. And that's where declawing comes in. We can't defend it just because some people don't want clawed cats, and there is a surplus of cats in the world. The two issues are incompatible, and joining them writes of two moral issues to a non-solution.
On a moral level, cats can be declawed to be taken into a good home. On an ethical level, declawing doesn't justify an abundance of cats, with the justification that it opens up more homes, since people don't want clawed cats.
It's easy to argue that if it's ethical to declaw a cat and society is OK with it, more negligent owners may come to have cats, as already demanding a cat to change to be in your home might give signs that you feel the cat is there for you, and not that you're there for each other. If that were the case, you'd increase the amount of cats in shelters and have a bigger population-problem. I'm not really trying to argue this, I'm just saying it's easy to see how something like this can be the case. Social attitudes towards pet-ownership might be the most effective way to help the problems you've earlier described, and as such, disallowing declawing might help the problems you've outlined more than allowing it would.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I'm all for getting a cat fixed. I think there is a large population of cats being neglected and harmed. For these reasons I have nothing against that. I love cats and I have my whole life.
I've seen some declawed cats living better lives than those who live outdoors. I think if a cat goes outside it should have claws. For defense and for food reasons. Vets still perform onychectomy even if this thread continues. I've never seen protesters or anything of that nature. Most of the time I go to the vet an animal is being put down, has to have surgery, or is in there for an infection or what have you. We go after animal abuse because its the major concern with animals. Most people I know who declawed their cats love (loved?) them to death and treated them fantastic. I see where the ethical point of view is coming form though. But I know there are cats out there who are better off than others.
I've seen some declawed cats living better lives than those who live outdoors. I think if a cat goes outside it should have claws. For defense and for food reasons. Vets still perform onychectomy even if this thread continues. I've never seen protesters or anything of that nature. Most of the time I go to the vet an animal is being put down, has to have surgery, or is in there for an infection or what have you. We go after animal abuse because its the major concern with animals. Most people I know who declawed their cats love (loved?) them to death and treated them fantastic. I see where the ethical point of view is coming form though. But I know there are cats out there who are better off than others.
I'm really not...and I didn't see any reduction to absurdity. It absolutely is an emotional issue for too many people and they react accordingly. They are saying if you have your cat declawed, you are a terrible person, you may even be a sadist. Does that sound very rational to you? And why do you take such offense to my amusement? Did you call anyone any bad names or say they should do nasty things because they aren't against declawing? I didn't see it...Why do you feel insulted when the issue is framed as people focused on trying to prevent animal pain at whatever cost? Love, fluffy tails and no compromises seems to sum up a lot of it.
Then why are you arguing that cats shouldn't die? It's a moral issue. And why are you arguing anything, if having a cat has nothing to do with morals. If what you do to your cat can't be right or wrong.
I guess I just wished to actually discuss the topic.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
You know your avatar resembles a feline ancestor. Imagine if it was a cat and you thought it was cool. Cats are amazing creatures.
Morality hasn't got much to do with it. Maybe logic, ethics, and reason. There are cats that don't need to be born, and that needs to be fixed. There are cats that don't have to die, and I don't see morality playing a major role in saying that they don't. The waste is illogical, not a case of good versus evil. It's an unfortunate and inefficient leak in what could be contained and systematic control of the pet population.
It doesn't become a moral issue until you take declawing and frame it as kitty torture out of laziness and spite for a creature that doesn't match with the furniture. Torturing kitties is plenty immoral, sir. I must admit.
"And calling them lazy and evil cat haters is so myopically one sided it has amused me greatly, up until this point." Then this shouldn't bother you one bit.
I'd even come back and say that this,
was the distortion. Unless you are going to say that at the root of it, preventing the "suffering" of animals at the hands of potential owners who would have them de-clawed is not the point of the opposition.
So just curious, how do people feel about cropping ears and docking tails.
Everytime I see dogs like that, my heart drops to my stomach.
T_T
Cropping and docking , just like declawing is outlawd in most parts of Europe (as far as i´m aware), so you don´t see it very often anymore.
Only if they can get them definned.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
This is a very good post.
I think most people simply prefer to apply animal rights (and human rights, or environmental "rights") in a visceral and limbic fashion.
Is there really a difference between declawing cats in order to save money and energy otherwise spent on furniture repairs and training, causing loss of mobility and physical/mental harm to the animal, and killing animals (that are for most part, kept in less than pleasant conditions) for nutrients that you can obtain without killing animals?
Sure, it might be easier/cheaper to get those nutrients if you eat meat, but aren't you then saying that you are saving money and energy at the cost of the welfare of a cow/chicken/pig?
I don't want to rub this into people's faces like some sanctimonious prick, but it can't hurt for people to give this matter a little bit more thought.
I've had clawed and declawed cats, they really don't live differently.
My current cat (declawed) will still act like it has claws (as in, claw after furniture since it helps them evacuate stress).
The fact she is declawed hasn't prevented her from beeing the "alpha" whenever I give her for custody to friends when I travel and she's holding her balance just fine (note that only the front paws are declawed).
Overall I think it was a good décision that had little to no impact on my cat
My current cat (declawed) will still act like it has claws (as in, claw after furniture since it helps them evacuate stress).
The fact she is declawed hasn't prevented her from beeing the "alpha" whenever I give her for custody to friends when I travel and she's holding her balance just fine (note that only the front paws are declawed).
Overall I think it was a good décision that had little to no impact on my cat
You mean except for the part about having his claws unnecessarily removed.
It wasn't unneccessary
It was either that or she was killed
Any other words of wisdom you feel like sharing?
And here I was thinking those scenarios of "gun to your head, would you rather kill or declaw your cat" was just hypotheticals. I think I see where you're coming from, it's just that it's strange to say "else I'd kill it", and then sort of take moral high ground.
Why?
Shelter would kill her. To take her I had to :
- neuter her
- declaw her
It's as simple as that.
Why?
Why why?
I mean, it's painfully obvious. Neutered/declawed cats are easier to relocate for shelters, they can easily find them new homes instead of having to put them down.
When I got my cat (she was 3 months old) I had to agree to have her declawed and neutered before she was 6 months old and had to pay for everything in full before I could take her, which I did.
Otherwise she (and probably the rest of her sisters/brothers) would have been euthanasied once they got too old and the shelter had to make space for new cats/kittens
DJ_Lae
Member
This seems unusual. I mean, the sterilization thing makes sense and is pretty common practice. I've never heard of a shelter that requires declawing, though. I can see why it would be a desirable trait if you're bringing an animal in, but outright requiring it is odd.
And requiring you to declaw an animal upon adoption is even more odd.
The shelter required declaw even though you were going to adopt the cat? That seems very.....stupid.
The explanation I was given was that it ensured an easier relocating in case something happened. If for any reason I have to part with my cat (allergies, anything really) she wouldn't be euthanasied and would find a new home.
Also a lot of landlords will only allow declawed cats in their appartments so in the end it made sense.
I used to be strongly against declawing and neutering, I've since then changed my mind. Not only is she super agile (she gets wherever she wants), she also kicks the shit out of the other cats she meets, even though they have their claws.
Too bad I'll have to find her a new home (gf is allergic
) once I move in with my gf:/shinobi602
Member
Without their claws my cats will never be able to climb the big cat tree I got them, they'll never be able to defend themselves in the unfortunate chance they get lost, and I've read it puts them a little off balance and the half dozen vets I've spoken to said it is painful for them and all their practices refuse to declaw cats. Train them to not mess with your furniture. Mine have never clawed my furniture and it didn't even take long to train them for that.
I'll never declaw my cats. They're my buddies.
I'll never declaw my cats. They're my buddies.
It's a movement. I like movements. But I don't always like where they go or how they end up. I certainly don't like where this one seems headed. It doesn't seem to bring out the good in people. And I'm not even enthusiastic about declawing.
you mark my words. Decades from now, a woman in Canada will be able to make a phone call to put you away for 20 years because she heard you got your cat declawed.
you mark my words. Decades from now, a woman in Canada will be able to make a phone call to put you away for 20 years because she heard you got your cat declawed.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Actually, budgies are very intense pets. That's another harmful pet myth that needs to be dispelled.
Even if you got pairs of budgies, their cage needs regular cleaning (a couple of times a week), daily refill of water and food bowl (some budgies are particularly fussy about the temperature of their drinking water, so you might have to change it out multiple times a day), and they still need hours of daily interaction with you as well as some time outside of their cage (at which point they will poop over your fancy furniture unless you follow them around, which you should to ensure they don't get hurt).
The cage also has to be pretty sizable, and filled with various toys and perches so the budgies don't get bored.
Imho, a cat requires less attention than a budgie.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
I'm going to go ahead and address this part, since I think it is nonsense.
I do not believe a "pet animal" should be granted special rights as a species, and honestly I do not think most people in here believe that. What I DO believe, and what I think is logically consistent with how human beings function, is that I believe my pet animals should be granted special rights.
A significant component of pet ownership is empathy. You identify with a specific animal, and you form a bond with it. And it doesn't have to be a pet, it can be any animal. Specifically, any individual animal, not a species or breed. A crow in your backyard, a famous pig you saw on Youtube. Once this connection has been made, it is trivial to separate this animal from other potential food-animals in your mind. And since empathy is perhaps humanity's most defining trait, it is trivial for us to empathize with the empathy of others, and thus also feel like rights should be ascribed to individual animals that other people have bonded with. "Pet cats" is an obvious group of animals that can used as an example here. Feral cats? Much easier to separate ourselves from, though once we have individual experience with them, all bets are off.
It is impossible to argue that any animal in a fundamental way has any more right to life than any other animal, since no animals have ANY right to life. We are categorically not the arbiters of rights for living things. All we have is subjective belief about the animals we have come into contact with or formed a variety of levels of bonds with, at which point we can begin to ascribe all manner of personal beliefs.
When you argue that this is a distinction that comes down to "logic," it's simply not true. Or at least not accurate, since you seem to propose that "logic" deals in truths beyond the realm of human experience, and not in describing how people actually are. By that definition there is nothing "logical" whatsoever about how humanity can be fine with eating animals and yet form close bonds with many of them at the same time, and yet that is how many of us are. It is based entirely in empathy, which is wildly subjective and open to individual case-by-case interpretation.
I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know if this has been brought up, but I just moved into a new apartment today and was looking over the community guidelines/rules since I've been thinking about getting a cat. According to the rulebook, if you own a cat it must be declawed. Obviously from a management perspective this is to protect them from having to deal with and pay for any damages a cat could cause to a unit.
So where does this fall in the discussion? Do I simply not get a cat because of this rule, or is this a valid situation to declaw a cat? Thought it was an interesting branch of this conversation to touch on.
So where does this fall in the discussion? Do I simply not get a cat because of this rule, or is this a valid situation to declaw a cat? Thought it was an interesting branch of this conversation to touch on.
That is precisely what I meant. By "pet animal," I mean species of animals people traditionally think of as pets. The slaughter of millions of chickens to feed us every month is less significant to most of us because we don't think of them as a "pet" species.
There is fairly robust evidence that this is precisely what people are doing, as people seem far more concerned with cats' claws than they do the lives of chickens, pigs, cows, birds, and rodents, among many other species.
It is the reason why it is considered wrong to eat horse meat in most of the western world. We have classified -- in our mind -- a concept of some species as protected or as "pet" animals, and given them special status above others for no sound reason. Horses are, in fact, quite dumb animals compared to many of the other species we're talking about here (they're dumber than pigs, dumber than cows, dumber than many breeds of dogs, etc.), but because we think of them as majestic animals we can own as pets for riding or taking care of, we often think eating them at all is barbaric.
Yeah, don't get a cat if that is the only way, that's what we would say.
I'm fairly sure it's flat out illegal for landlords to require that in many cities/states though. I'd check your local laws first to make sure they can even demand it.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
Sure, so what's the problem?
I don't understand the question. I just explained the problem. You said people aren't attributing these "pet" concepts to species as a whole -- that they are only imparting these protections to their personal, particular pets --and I just argued this is wrong, and that people are indeed applying the "pet" concept to entire species (e.g. Horses) and not to others (e.g. pigs).
Do you now agree with that? Because that is the problem.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
I don't believe you described a problem, I believe you described "how people think." I do not believe there is anything wrong with that, due to our proclivity for identifying with certain animals more than others, due to our experiences with them.
As noted, I don't think there is any inherent value we find in a species (or group of animals), but rather that we find value in other people finding value in them. The empathy for these animals begins in the individual relationships people have with them, but others empathize with those relationships themselves, and then we have "rights granted to species."
Semantics aside, I'll return to my question: what's the problem? Do you reject the notion that it is logical for humans to ascribe value to relationships created via empathy?
That is not logical. Saying "well that's how people think" does not make it logical or appropriate. People believe many silly or wrong things, and can often do so en masse.
Further, this wasn't what you were originally arguing just two posts ago. You have now abandoned your first position: you specifically stated that people aren't imparting these concepts to entire species, but to their own particular pets. That position has apparently been rapidly abandoned.
This is not reasonable. Generally speaking, biologists believe it best to impart rights based on some combination of an animal's intelligence and its capacity for pain. Again, it is on this precise basis that biologists have recently begun to fight for more advanced rights for species like Dolphins and Chimpanzees. Scientists do not generally agree with your suggestion that all animals have equivalent rights to life.
If you do not consider science and logic relevant, then the entire discussion is completely worthless. If you do not care about reason, then I certainly do not have to provide reason to declaw cats.
- Status