Friday, July 6, 2018

Slaves of Our Affection. The Myth of the Happy Pet by Charles Danten: The Killer Dog Problem: How the Globalists in Powe...

Slaves of Our Affection. The Myth of the Happy Pet by Charles Danten: The Killer Dog Problem: How the Globalists in Powe...: Charles Danten, former veterinarian Going to the root of things is always a good idea  if you really intend to change things. ...


Anonymous said...

This guy's a joke, and so is the whole "animal liberation" movement.

First hurdle he fails at is to equate pancreatic cancer with over consumption of sugar. Science is out on that, and if he'd been any good an veterinary science, he'd know that.

Of course he wasn't, and that's why he's feeding the egos of folks who have this fantasy that domesticated animals would all be better off without domestication.

Point 1 - Domestication can be cruel, not doubt about it, but 'the wild' ain't no paradise. From parasites to predation, disease to starvation, natural disaster to human created habitat destruction, wild animals live under life or death pressure from conception to death. For the most part domestication has relieved the domesticate animal from these daily stresses.

Point 2 - the author pukes up the age old question of "what is love?" without even realizing it or cleaning the mess off the carpet. He pointedly denies that love and affection are linked and/or that love is ALWAYS based on need or desire - examples: I need a companion, or I need a sex partner, or I "need" my offspring to thrive in this environment. What about altruism?, you may ask. and I'd answer it's a social animals need to feel good about itself.

Anonymous said...

Point 3 - if you're going to equate how we treat animals with how we treat humans, you're sliding into a rat hole with only one escape. I remember when I was 5 being paralyzed on the front porch because an older sibling told me that if I walked off of it, I was bound to step on SOMETHING and kill it. Oh, you're going to say insects don't matter? Or are you going to let that mosquito feed on you? It's only the things with vertebra, then? Rats are okay? On your bed? In your cupboard? No? You're going to eradicate it, right? Catch and release fails? Then what? How about the squirrels in the attic, or the racoon that keeps waking you up dumping your trash, or that cougar that just sauntered across your yard just after you brought you toddler in from playing? We'd wind up with a prison sentence for killing a person who annoyed us, or casually trespassed, but animals are fair game. It's instinct. Survival of our species relies on it. If you don't agree with that, you should go feed your body to a clan of starving polar bears. Ask me why they're starving.

Point 4 - Each social animal "sets up" rules for its society and enforces them. Going against "the rules" usually results in death or expulsion. Wolves packs only allow one breeding pair. Violations of that usually results the death of the 'unwanted' cubs and the expulsion of the violators. Lions are 'ruled' by the males. Lionesses going against the rules of the males, even if it's to save their own cubs, can be killed. Hyenas are ruled by a strict female hierarchy. Violations result in maulings including death. Human societal rules usually include - you're not allowed to kill your neighbor, steal or destroy his property, have sex in public, or take a dump in the conference room. We raise our offspring to know and obey those rules. Those that violate those rules are punished, killed or expelled from society. Seriously, it's all cruelty and slavery to make each other behave under a set of rules, if you follow the author's logic. You really don't think teenagers wouldn't be copulating in public if society hadn't taught them otherwise?

Point 5 - None of this is new, none of it is original. There are cruel owners of animals and there are abusive husbands and sadistic parents. If we say we shouldn't own animals, does that mean we shouldn't marry or have children? The Buddhists say 'all life is suffering', but the point of that isn't we should eradicate all life to end suffering(we'd have a hard time even if we wanted to), the point is to try to do better. The point is NOT to throw up your hands, deny the reality that existence on a planet with humans extracts a huge price on both wild and domesticated animals and just decide to drive them all to extinction. That's the easy way out.

Point 6 - "All forms of exploitation are wrong" sez the white man (quoting a woman) living in a first world country. You and your kin didn't get to where they are without building on the exploitation of animals, humans and the environment. You're not living the lifestyle you live without building on the current exploitation of humans, animals and the environment (even if your a strict vegetarian, SOMETHING died for you to live where you are). Doesn't mean you shouldn't be thoughtful about and try to minimize it, but get off your high horse. You're exploiting it, and trying to exploit the emotions of rest of us just to feel better about yourself.

Anonymous said...

Point 7.
gawddammit dj, the article behind the link keeps changing so you can freaking delete my last two rambling comments.

Anonymous said...

Commenting on THIS article - The Killer Dog Problem -

The author is either a very poor writer or a racist:

"Breeds in dogs, just like races in humans (2)(3), are an inescapable reality, and this reality is not limited to appearances, but also concerns behavior."

To refute this false equivalency, I give you none other than Britannica:
At no point, from the first rudimentary attempts at classifying human populations in the 17th and 18th centuries to the present day, have scientists agreed on the number of races of humankind, the features to be used in the identification of races, or the meaning of race itself. Experts have suggested a range of different races varying from 3 to more than 60, based on what they have considered distinctive differences in physical characteristics alone (these include hair type, head shape, skin colour, height, and so on). The lack of concurrence on the meaning and identification of races continued into the 21st century, and contemporary scientists are no closer to agreement than their forebears. Thus, race has never in the history of its use had a precise meaning. etc.

On the other hand BREEDS have a purpose or a list of characteristics breeders select and cull for. Unnatural Selection, if you will, producing a subspecies of an animal that is distinctly different from it's fore bearers.

Anonymous said...

And then the author goes off on some "Jewish Conspiracyt" rant in a later article:

Short story, "damned Jews forcing us to eat junk food and become materialists, enslaving us all"

Anonymous said...

And here we have "Damned Commie Jews (and Liberals) having sex with animals).

Dayna said...

In this day and age when gender is "fluid" and anyone can be anything, dogs are given human traits and it's believed by many who don't seem to know any better. When you have people in the media backing up that falsehood it becomes very hard to get the truth across. Reality is harsh when it literally comes and bites you in the form of your "fur baby" that you raised from a puppy.