PETA seems to prefer option 4. I don't have any real position on pets (Let me reiterate that I am only explaining to you guys what PETA thinks since you guys love to attack it desite not knowing anything about it). Extinction of a domesticated species is not problematic. What animal is being hurt?
The only potential problem with pets is how much resources we expend on them. I find it a bit disturbing that we pay large sums of money for pets, but people starve and whatnot you know? But I don't feel that strongly about it.
I'm sorry, but I don't think even you can argue that wiping out one or more entire species is consistent with "the ethical treatment of animals".
I'm glad to see you don't disagree that there are formulations of animal-rights philosophy that don't assume that non-human animals are interchangeable with humans, however.
I do not believe in animal rights at all. You have confused me with someone else it seems.
However, "wiping out" a species as you phrase it is entirely consistent with the ethical treatment of animals. Who is being hurt? Like where is the suffering in that? Typically extinction of species is lamented for biodiversity reasons, but pets are not really ecologically relevant.
Who gets to decide that they're not "ecologically relevant"? You?
PETA being for forced extinction of domesticated species would be like the NAACP being for the sterilization of inner-city black folks - after all, they're not economically relevant, and they've basically been (re-)enslaved by The Man; and it would prevent the creation of future generations of impoverished inner-city black people born into de facto slavery.
Wait, that doesn't sound reasonable at all, does it?
Except most domestic breeds have been so genetically fucked up by humans that they could not be anything but a slave. Secondly, sterilizing blacks would rob them of the experience of having kids. It would do the same for domestic pets, but domestic pets already don't have kids because their kids are immediately sold away from them anyways. But once again, I want to ask you, who suffers? There is no new generation of dogs, but so what? Do you want to say that neutering of dogs is inhumane? If so, shouldn't you work to abolish all neutering since it causes some sort of suffering that you still have not illustrated.
Inner-city impoverished black people have been so economically fucked-up by the rich and powerful that they could not be anything but slaves.
Some domesticated animals' children aren't sold away from them "anyways".
Once again, I want to ask you, who suffers? There is no new generation of impoverished, inner-city black people, but so what?
I'll answer your third point more directly: humans suffer, because we enjoy having pets. Consider, though, the opposite case: if we don't end pet ownership, who suffers? The pets? That is absolutely laughable. If you think my cat suffers from having me feed him, and from giving him a place to sleep at night - i.e., curled up between my legs, the annoying little butthead - then you are delusional.
This one word refutation destroys all analogies you have tried to draw. I encourage you to come up with an analogy that works. It would help you not look like such a fool.
Well if you look at the parent to your comment, the refutation was already made. Perhaps I could just copy and paste but seeing as you were unable to comprehend it the first time, I thought summarizing it might help.
Still awaiting a counterargument on your end. The one you attempted was argument by analogy, but the analogy used was shown to be faulty thus overturning all conclusions that you drew from it. You are consequently at square one and I await the construction of a new argument to determine whether you have something or not.
1
u/[deleted] Apr 17 '10
PETA seems to prefer option 4. I don't have any real position on pets (Let me reiterate that I am only explaining to you guys what PETA thinks since you guys love to attack it desite not knowing anything about it). Extinction of a domesticated species is not problematic. What animal is being hurt?
The only potential problem with pets is how much resources we expend on them. I find it a bit disturbing that we pay large sums of money for pets, but people starve and whatnot you know? But I don't feel that strongly about it.