Breeding: Conflicting Beleifs

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Many people on this thread have stated that it would be good to stop breeding and/or something else to let animals and/or pets die off. THIS IS KILLING WHEN DONE THIS WAY.

Also, not all children are abused by their parents and not all pets are abused by their owners. The vast majority of animals that are abused are strays. A good percentage of children that are abused comes from someone close to the parents they thought they could trust.

"Not breeding" simply does not equal "killing" in my book. If you want to convince me that not breeding does equal killing, I'd suggest adding logical argument rather than caps and color ink.

Where on earth are you getting the idea that "the vast majority of animals that are abused are strays" and what does who abuses whom or what have to do with anything anyhow?

[tehdoc809]

[quote=blackarrow;416138]"Not breeding" simply does not equal "killing" in my book. If you want to convince me that not breeding does equal killing, I'd suggest adding logical argument rather than caps and color ink.[\quote]

Then you are not reading my posts.

If you stop breeding in order to let a species die off, you are killing them. You are stopping them from contiuning their species. I do not understand how you don't see this as killing them. To cause the loss of life is to kill. Which is what I have been saying in my posts.

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Where on earth are you getting the idea that "the vast majority of animals that are abused are strays" and what does who abuses whom or what have to do with anything anyhow?

That is following your line of logic.

It was stated previously that if the only way to stop animal abuse is to let them die off it would be ok. I said that was the same thing as saying that we should kill off children to stop them from being abused. Your answer was the people that would abuse their children shouldn't be allowed to have them. Which would imply that all abuse is inflicted by the parents thereby implying that all animal abuse is caused by the owners. Therefore I pointed out that a lot of abuse that occurs is not the parents/owners fault.

Secondly it has to do with how abuse should be handled. Stopping an animal from existing is not an acceptable answer for stopping animal abuse because its not the animals fault its being abused.

[Amsley246]

I think things are starting to get lost in translation? In the end, things should be left up to nature. It created us, and it can take us away. Simple as that.

[blackarrow]

[quote=tehdoc809;416140]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

"Not breeding" simply does not equal "killing" in my book. If you want to convince me that not breeding does equal killing, I'd suggest adding logical argument rather than caps and color ink.[\quote]

Then you are not reading my posts.

If you stop breeding in order to let a species die off, you are killing them. You are stopping them from contiuning their species. I do not understand how you don't see this as killing them. To cause the loss of life is to kill. Which is what I have been saying in my posts.

That is following your line of logic.

It was stated previously that if the only way to stop animal abuse is to let them die off it would be ok. I said that was the same thing as saying that we should kill off children to stop them from being abused. Your answer was the people that would abuse their children shouldn't be allowed to have them. Which would imply that all abuse is inflicted by the parents thereby implying that all animal abuse is caused by the owners. Therefore I pointed out that a lot of abuse that occurs is not the parents/owners fault.

Secondly it has to do with how abuse should be handled. Stopping an animal from existing is not an acceptable answer for stopping animal abuse because its not the animals fault its being abused.

1. I'm reading your posts, I'm just not agreeing with them. No matter how often you repeat that failure to breed = killing, I don't agree. You are conflating failure to create additional lives with the taking of a life, and I don't do that.

2. As I didn't say anything at all about parents abusing their children, I couldn't possibly have implied anything about owners abusing their pets by having made such a comment.

3. No one has suggested stopping an animal from existing, other than you.

[MomtoO&O]

Originally Posted by AnimalHouse36

I have recently stumbled upon a thought.

I beleive all breeding should be stopped as do many others on this site. I beleive that animals should be bred no longer so they eventually become extinct.

I am really new to the GP world, and I did a double take when I saw what you wrote. Are you saying that in a perfect world, Guinea Pigs would be extinct? Not looking for a fight, just clarification.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

1. I'm reading your posts, I'm just not agreeing with them. No matter how often you repeat that failure to breed = killing, I don't agree. You are conflating failure to create additional lives with the taking of a life, and I don't do that.

Dictionary.com:: Definition of Kill
To Kill –verb (used with object)
1.to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
2.to destroy; do away with; extinguish: His response killed our hopes. 3.to destroy or neutralize the active qualities of: to kill an odor.

If you stop animals from breeding with the purpose of making them go extinct, which was the original topic of this thread, you are killing them. You are depriving them of life and destorying them, making them go extinct what ever, because they can't continue their species. which is the definition of killing.

Originally Posted by blackarrow

2. As I didn't say anything at all about parents abusing their children, I couldn't possibly have implied anything about owners abusing their pets by having made such a comment.

This is what Im saying about this.
I commented, that if the answer to animal abuse was the kill the animal, which was suggested. Then we should kill children that are being abused. Suggesting that if killing abused animals is an acceptable answer to animal abuse, then killing children is an acceptable answer to child abused.

Then you said this.

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Um, no. It's parallel to saying if you can't take care of children, you shouldn't have them. No one is suggesting killing anything.

Which is wrong, because in cases of abuse, not all of the children are abused by their parents. Which is what is implied by that comment. I made the connection there becaue what I was talking about was abuse.

Originally Posted by blackarrow

3. No one has suggested stopping an animal from existing, other than you.

Those sound like suggestions to me.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Dictionary.com:: Definition of Kill

Nope. People aren't deprived of life if they don't have children, and I'm not killing guinea pigs by not breeding them.

No, it wasn't suggested.

.
See previous response.

No it wasn't. I wasn't even talking about abuse.

OK, but I wasn't.

OK, but they're not suggestions that anyone kill anything.

[tehdoc809]

Are you purposefully not putting all of this in context? Because you just simply keep disagreeing with me, which is not a problem, disagree all you want, out of context. You are just twisting the semantics and ignoring the context of this thread.

AH36 posted that it would be good to stop animals from breeding so they go extinct, which we would have to help them with because they sure aren't going to stop breeding on their own. Its possible that they could, but whatever.

Therefore, if the intent to make them go extinct and they way we do that is not let them breed, then yes. They are being deprived of life bceause they can't have offspring. I'm saying we are killing them becuase we would be purposfully, intentionally, wiping animals off of the face off the planet. Making them go extinct. If we make them go extinct then that is genocide, because we are causing it by not letting them breed. We are not letting them breed with the intent to get rid of them.

Secondly

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

This is what Im saying about this.
I commented, that if the answer to animal abuse was the kill the animal, which was suggested.

Those comments by Animalhouse36 and Voodoojoint regarding animal extinction is what I have been talking about. Therefore, it is suggested.

[organicsab]

Wow, this is getting a bit intense! Why argue over it tho? In the end there's always gonna be people breeding animals for money, or to protect the species. I agree that to save an animal you have to save their environment too, it would suck to live in a zoo. However I've heard of animals that have almost become extinct and they've bred them in zoo's and eventually had enough to release to a certain place in the wild that gets monitored, and are now doing pretty well.
I think we should all just chill out, be happy and do our best to save the planet and everything in it.

[tehdoc809]

Valid point organicsab, it probably won't change for a very long time. Atleast not in my or my childrens time.

But why argue about it? Because its fun, I enjoy argument and debate. Conflict is fun when the other person doesn't start off with "Thats stupid" and insult your point of view. I have all kinds of respect for Blackarrows stance against my point of view mainly because petty insults haven't been exchanged because we don't see eye to eye. Which is how good "discussion" should be. So I'll gladly argue with blackarrow until I'm blue in the face because I like to arguel. I find that on the internet its hard to have a good arguement because at some point some nutjob butts in and everyone's point of view is stupid and has no respect for anyone that doesn't agree with him.

Secondly, because this is the kitchen and we can pseudo get away with it in here

[meandmypigs]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

There is no difference.



Letting animals die out from extinction IS killing them. It's exactly the same as premeditated murder.


Nothing, middle ground should be the goal, not extinction.

This I do not agree with. If just letting them die, it would not be "Premeditated Murder" .This would be willful negect. Im not arguing that I dont want a happy medium, but to say it is "Premeditated Murder" is wrong.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Are you purposefully not putting all of this in context? Because you just simply keep disagreeing with me, which is not a problem, disagree all you want, out of context. You are just twisting the semantics and ignoring the context of this thread.

AH36 posted that it would be good to stop animals from breeding so they go extinct, which we would have to help them with because they sure aren't going to stop breeding on their own. Its possible that they could, but whatever.

Therefore, if the intent to make them go extinct and they way we do that is not let them breed, then yes. They are being deprived of life bceause they can't have offspring. I'm saying we are killing them becuase we would be purposfully, intentionally, wiping animals off of the face off the planet. Making them go extinct. If we make them go extinct then that is genocide, because we are causing it by not letting them breed. We are not letting them breed with the intent to get rid of them.

Secondly


Those comments by Animalhouse36 and Voodoojoint regarding animal extinction is what I have been talking about. Therefore, it is suggested.

Oh, I understand the context. I know animal extinction has been suggested - more than suggested, and I don't agree with that and have said so. Nevertheless I don't agree that it would be "depriving" anyone or anything "of life" not to breed them.

[Dobelady]

Most "pets" that are abused, are abused by the cretins that "own" them. There is a huge difference between abuse and neglect. In my experience pets are neglected because people are not educated or care. Abuse is deliberate IMO. Both are horrible and I'm in no way stating that one is more acceptable than the other. It's just been my experience that when you get terrible abuse, it's a lot different than the neglect.

[hydrohoki]

thedoc809,

You posts are confusing the heck out of me. I'm so confused. How can you kill something when when the life doesn't exist yet (future breeding)?

I've read all your posts and I just don't understand,.

[purple_kiwi]

Originally Posted by hydrohoki

thedoc809,

You posts are confusing the heck out of me. I'm so confused. How can you kill something when when the life doesn't exist yet (future breeding)?

I've read all your posts and I just don't understand,.

I think they mean you should not stop a species from breeding to the point of extinction where it no longer exists. If they species is capable to breed and achieve a healthy number of its kind it should be left alone. And any species that is going extinct should be breed and tried to be restored, we are the ones who cause these types of problems we should try to fix it. There are wild live conserves that are very stable to help restore populations of animals which is what they are meant for, there are more options then zoos.

I also believe that just stopping a species from breeding is a form of genocide and murder. I am not talking about just GPs as the thread starter did not specify a breed to stop breeding. It the same as saying that a certain culture of humans is no longer allowed to breed in a sense and that we do what happened in WW2 where genocide was attempted. If that were to happen again many people would be furious what makes it different when doing it to a species of animals? It is still murder.

[VoodooJoint]

In regard to my hypothetical statement about allowing domesticated animals to die off to keep animals from abuse/neglect.

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

And what does that say about us if that is the only way to stop it.

If it came down to it and humans proved themselves, as a whole, incapable of evolving above our violent and narcissistic ways then it would say (to me at least) that we are not capable of acting as protectors of the domesticated animals WE created. Therefore the animal must be allowed to die out for their own protection.

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

The animals are for the most part defenseless against us abusing and neglecting them, so the answer would be to take the innocent lives?

To take away life something has to HAVE life. You cannot take away something that one never had. I am not suggesting anything be killed. I am suggesting allowing something unnatural (domesticated animals)to die out

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

We did not start life on this planet, who are we to decide to take it away.

We created domesticated animals through selective breeding. WE created those types of lives. Therefore we hold responsibility towards them. If we cannot treat them with the respect that sentient beings are entitled to then perhaps they would be better off not existing.

If we protect their environments and stop polluting, savaging and destroying this world like a virus then the true wild animals could live on.

If humans would evolve into the compassionate and intelligent creatures we are capable of (but that many fight against becoming) then we could treat our domesticated animal companions with respect and I would not have to worry about the future suffering that awaits the animals to come.

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Dictionary.com:: Definition of Kill
To Kill –verb (used with object)
1.to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
2.to destroy; do away with; extinguish: His response killed our hopes. 3.to destroy or neutralize the active qualities of: to kill an odor.

Please reread the definition. All of those definitions speak to REMOVING something that already exists. I cannot kill a child I have not conceived yet. Therefore, the fact that I am purposely NOT becoming pregnant does not mean I have killed a child. I've had all of my animals sexually altered--I have not killed their future litters.

If you disagree with me then you had better start calling the police on every single person that uses birth control or purposely avoids becoming pregnant because there is apparently MASS child murdering taking place under nearly every roof in the world!

DEAR GOD THE HORRRROOOOORRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Those comments by Animalhouse36 and Voodoojoint regarding animal extinction is what I have been talking about. Therefore, it is suggested.

Of course the idea is suggested, it's even being hypothetically talked about every day. It's a very real concept. There have been thousands of species of animals that died off naturally before humans were prevalant enough to cause their extinction. There are loads of people that don't believe in global warming, They believe that the ice caps are naturally melting. Therefore, the polar bears are dying of natural causes and who are we to mess with nature. Maybe it's their time and their death needs to happen.

Personally I don't believe that but I still have to ponder the effects of continuing the population of an animal when it has no natural place left to live.

I also have to ponder the future of domestic animals. Of course I don't WANT them extinct, but am I being selfish by wanting them to live on? What natural purpose does a pet serve? Technically none at all other then to serve humans. We are quite capable of taking care of ourselves yet we continue to breed and subjugate genetically skewed animals for our own whims and pleasures.

Please tell me Tehdoc--why do you have pets? What is their purpose?

[Amsley246]

Well, I better go throw out my birth control!

[AnimalHouse36]

Originally Posted by MomtoO&O

I am really new to the GP world, and I did a double take when I saw what you wrote. Are you saying that in a perfect world, Guinea Pigs would be extinct? Not looking for a fight, just clarification.

I think that the animals we breed for pleasure (AKA pets) should no longer be bred ever again. Of course, I don't believe this to happen any time soon but it's a goal to shoot for.

I know it seems far fetched and I don't want to live without my animals either but it's only fair.

In a perfect world there would be no animal abuse...but as long as there are pets there will be abuse.

I think since we've destroyed so many wild animals, it's only right to try to restore them...so in my opinion, we should be breeding and releasing all the animals we've worked to destroy.

I didn't mean to spark such a debate...I seem to be doing that alot.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by AnimalHouse36

I think that the animals we breed for pleasure (AKA pets) should no longer be bred ever again. Of course, I don't believe this to happen any time soon but it's a goal to shoot for.

. . . .

I think since we've destroyed so many wild animals, it's only right to try to restore them...so in my opinion, we should be breeding and releasing all the animals we've worked to destroy.

So basically, people should encourage the breeding only of animals that don't have anything to do with, or are in conflict with, mankind?

As long as there is LIFE there will be abuse. Maybe accordingly we should just go whole hog and shoot for the end of times?

[AnimalHouse36]

blackarrow: In short we should work to protect the animals we've destroyed and work to help end the abuse of animals who were wrongfully created.

I love all animals and my guiena pigs mean the world to me. So much so I don't want any other guinea pigs to suffer. And if not being selfish means that I don't get to have a little critter to love, so be it.

And if not having pets anymore means that abuse of pets is done, so be it.