🔥 Declawing cats
-
Oh wait, you've just defended the Holocaust, you human garbage.
Wow, that's some impressive shoulder aliens.
-
If the cat didn't need front claws, natural selection/God/whatever you believe created the cat in its current form wouldn't have provided them.
Ok, say it wasn't God.
Then you have natural selection, which one day there may be an environment in which claws are a disadvantage, and then evolution will do it for me. So if there was a cat that was born without claws, and humans are like, "yeah I like that" and we kept those cats, natural selection means that clawless cats take over.
Then we're left with... whatever you believe, which is subjective, so you'll have people that believe whatever.
So, unless it's a God that has complete control and will burn us for declawing cats, what real argument do you have other than subjective feels. And even if it is a God, as long as he grants you free will, it is just choice and consequence. If you're ok with the consequence, then you make the choice.
Some prohibitive belief that cats have rights?
What grants those rights?
Owning a pet is a partnership, not a dictatorship.
You're for spaying the animal. That undermines your argument.
Plus, without subjective feels, there's nothing that says you're right.
And then sob. Because you're fucking awful.
So you believe...
Absent some authority, I'm an animal that will do what is best for me. Just like every other species.
-
Wow, that's some impressive shoulder aliens.
He confuses objective with correctness.
And "the only tool" with agreeing with every possible constitution.
-
@boomzilla said:
Wow, that's some impressive shoulder aliens.
He confuses objective with correctness.
And "the only tool" with agreeing with every possible constitution.
Certainly the US Constitution would have prohibited the Holocaust. I almost wonder what chain of reasoning lead him there, but I also think it's probably better to be one of those open ended things that no one will ever be able to decisively prove.
-
Constitutions are overrated. We get along perfectly well without.
-
Wow, that's some impressive shoulder aliens.
Meh. I'm sure he's trying to communicate something else, but saying that was funnier.
Most Constitutions don't even get into morality-based laws. For example, I'm pretty sure the US Constitution doesn't have a specific prohibition on murder. (Although it does say citizens have the right to life.)
Generally, Constitutions are more general setting-up of the method of Government, and perhaps some philosophical points. They're not used to cram in all laws the Government enforces.
So I really have no clue what Xaade means here, but that's not so unusual.
Then you have natural selection, which one day there may be an environment in which claws are a disadvantage, and then evolution will do it for me. So if there was a cat that was born without claws, and humans are like, "yeah I like that" and we kept those cats, natural selection means that clawless cats take over.
Perhaps, but in over 6,000 years of cat domestication that hasn't happened yet.
Some prohibitive belief that cats have rights?
Cats have the same rights all animals do.
What grants those rights?
Nobody; they're inherent. I'm an American, remember? The concept of "inherent" or "natural" rights is kind of a big deal over here.
You're for spaying the animal.
True; but I am not for preventing her from reproducing.
-
Certainly the US Constitution would have prohibited the Holocaust.
Its existence didn't, as evidenced by history. So, no.
If you mean "if Germany had been under the US Constitution, it would have prohibited the Holocaust", I'm filing that in as a firm "maybe". The problem is the US Constitution contains provisions to alter itself, even the Bill of Rights bit, and in this hypothetical world Hitler may have built the consensus to make those alterations. (Probably by threat of violence, but.)
-
Generally, Constitutions are more general setting-up of the method of Government, and perhaps some philosophical points. They're not used to cram in all laws the Government enforces.
No.
They setup boundaries.
You're taking that opinion from reading it and assuming.
That's not how it works in the States. It literally prohibits murder. And if the government disagrees, gives us the right to take down the government.
Whether the government follows the constitution is another matter.
Like I said, "tool". One can misuse a hammer.
Perhaps, but in over 6,000 years of cat domestication that hasn't happened yet.
Because either there hasn't been a cat born without claws, or cat owners are stupid.
Cats have the same rights all animals do.
So says your subjective reasoning.
The concept of "inherent" or "natural" rights is kind of a big deal over here.
No, they're are granted by [deity], and are inalienable.
I don't think that language has changed.
Without [deity] the reasoning falls apart because one can no longer make rights inalienable. It was very important or they wouldn't have put it in there like that.
-
this hypothetical world Hitler may have built the consensus to make those alterations
Or he could just say it's for the security of the nation and use an executive order.
-
Or he could just say it's for the security of the nation and use an executive order
That's exactly what he did...
After giving himself the authority to do so, because he wasn't the president.
Oh, that's what our president did too, because executive orders aren't support to be used to circumvent established law.
-
Well true. I mean hell, we live in a world where Congress created a "Make a Declaration of War Free" Monopoly card for the President. And that was a President a significant portion of the country couldn't stand.
-
Most Constitutions don't even get into morality-based laws. For example, I'm pretty sure the US Constitution doesn't have a specific prohibition on murder. (Although it does say citizens have the right to life.)
5th and 14th Amendments state that the government can't kill you without following due process.
Its existence didn't, as evidenced by history. So, no.[additional pendantic dickweedery omitted for brevity]
-
That's ambiguous.
Do you mean last one or this one?
(BTW, last one wasn't a conservative... just FYI)
-
Hey I'm going to type something that you've read from me a million times, and yet it's still not sunk into your little brain:
I am not telepathic.
If what you meant was different than what you typed, well, sorry I guess? But I don't see that as my fault.
-
-
@boomzilla said:
Hey I'm going to type something that you've read from me a million times, and yet it's still not sunk into your little brain:
I am not telepathic.
If what you meant was different than what you typed, well, sorry I guess? But I don't see that as my fault.
STFU you pedantic dickweed. You're the one who said that being in favor of a constitution was arguing for the Holocaust.
-
@boomzilla said:
following due process.
Police, we have you surrounded.
120 shots fired
Yes, self defense is a thing, even for police.
Filed Under: INB4 @Foxing
-
Yes, self defense is a thing, even for police
I know.
But it seems to be the argument, that isn't spoken but assumed, that somehow police become non-person while on the job and therefore forfeit their right to self-defense, because somehow they could have avoided it if they just didn't do their job.
The same comes up in other self-defense and becomes, sadly, a serious question.
"It was self-defense"
"Well, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself if he didn't try to save that woman"
Well, guess what you get from that line of reasoning.
Cops that don't do their job.
-
I'm waiting for people to be all like:
"Stealing is dangerous and can often lead to armed robbery in an attempt to separate a person from their belongings. If we legalize theft, it can be performed safely and without risk to life".
People be like that already. We got gubmint for that!
-
-
Its existence didn't, as evidenced by history.
Now that is some impressive trolling.
-
You're for spaying the animal. That undermines your argument.
Spaying has health benefits for the animal. Removing its claws does not.
-
Spaying has health benefits for the animal. Removing its claws does not.
So
Ownership is a partnership not a dictatorship
Goes out the window as soon as you can make a karma argument for the animal. It has health benefits that I feel compensate for losing the ability to procreate.
You know for a fact that the primary reason for spaying is to remove inconvenience for you. You just dangle the health benefit in front of the cat as some kind of token.
It's cool cat, my brand of dictatorship is good for you, unlike my neighbor's brand.
So, no, his argument is undermined.
You know what the health benefit for declawing is? I don't throw the cat across the room in reaction to getting clawed.
Again, I'm personally against declawing. It's just that people are tying themselves in knots trying to make rational arguments that don't hold because unless you have your own spaghetti monster in the sky, it doesn't actually matter what I do to an animal.
I eat animals, what's the health benefit for them. That they are no longer suffering.
Ok, you assisted suicide advocates.
-
You know for a fact that the primary reason for spaying is to remove inconvenience for you.
No. My dog was 3 when she was spayed because it's when it was discovered she had elbow dysplasia which would get passed on to the puppies - and why would anyone let an animal reproduce knowing for a fact the puppies would have health problems?
Spayed or not, she wasn't going to be reproducing so this way the result is the same with the health benefits that go with it.You know for a fact that the primary reason for spaying is to remove inconvenience for you
Having an unspayed animal isn't a massive inconvenience. Not with a dog anyway.You know what the health benefit for declawing is? I don't throw the cat across the room in reaction to getting clawed.
I'm fairly sure you're not being serious - but the clawing is a behavioural issue. Training fixes that.
When you get a puppy and it bites you - which it will - you don't remove its teeth, you teach it that biting is bad just like its parents would do.
-
and why would anyone let an animal reproduce knowing for a fact the puppies would have health problems?
Argument transferrable to humans.
Having an unspayed animal isn't a massive inconvenience. Not with a dog anyway.
Apparently you haven't had any problems with it.
I've had to deal with damaged fences, and in the past in the countryside, actual pregnancy, even though I fenced up the dog.
you don't remove its teeth
Hmm.... you've given me something to think about....
Google teeth removal
-
but the clawing is a behavioural issue
So are most of the reasons for spay/neutering. There are health benefits but they mostly a result of behavior modification from the spay/neuter. The only one I've seen that is 100% attributed to the procedure is reduction in testicular cancer and ovarian cancer.
-
Argument transferrable to humans.
I'd likely not have children either if I knew for a fact before they were even conceived that they'd have serious health problems for their entire life.
-
STFU you pedantic dickweed. You're the one who said that being in favor of a constitution was arguing for the Holocaust.
- That's not remotely what I said,
- I said it because it was funny, not true
-
So are most of the reasons for spay/neutering. There are health benefits but they mostly a result of behavior modification from the spay/neuter. The only one I've seen that is 100% attributed to health improvement is reduction in testicular cancer and ovarian cancer.
He keeps dodging the most important point.
If you spayed your animal, you did it without their consent.
Health benefits or not, you've turned the relationship to dictatorship (as blakey said).
You are an owner of your pet.
Therefore, this whole mantra of doing what's right for the animal has to be based in something other than dictatorship/partnership arguments.
And as you pointed out, the health benefits can be achieved by other means.
Making spaying a simple matter of convenience for yourself.
-
@boomzilla said:
STFU you pedantic dickweed. You're the one who said that being in favor of a constitution was arguing for the Holocaust.
-
That's not remotely what I said,
-
I said it because it was funny, not true
-
Whether you meant what you wrote, I can't say, but it's pretty much what you wrote.
-
It was neither funny nor true.
-
-
We get along perfectly well without.
Weren't you guys talking about writing one after that while Scottish independence thing?
-
Brits have one (supposedly?) It's just not written-down anywhere.
Which is hilarious, IMO.
-
Better yet the Kiwis did a poll of people having cats adopted for scratching issues, the percentage of people that would have kept their cat if they could have had it declawed was 4%. And that's 4% of the sort of people that would rehouse a cat because they can't be arsed to trim its claws or do a bit of behaviour training.
Oh, sure. Ask people after they're well enough pissed off at the animal that they're ready to send it packing, cut the ties, no longer want it in their house.
-
Yeah, that could be a problem with the data. Unless you had some way of distributing cats in a controlled way and asking there I'm not sure how you would do pre-sampling though. If you sent questions to random households you'll get the problem that only people who care about pets enough will send you back the answers.
-
According to Wikipedia, it's
the sum of laws and principles that make up the body politic of the United Kingdom.
Basically the constitution is whatever Parliament decides it is. So basically the only thing it protects is the Parliament from the Regent.
-
Well, legally speaking, the US Constitution includes the body of case law surrounding it's interpretation. And it'd be kind of nice if the words for the Declaration of Independence carried some legal merit as well. And it's not like the formal written constitution has stopped the Federal Government from wiping their ass with the Constitution for the past 20 or so years.
-
Yes but laws passed in the US can be unconstitutional - whether or not they're actually struck down when they are the concept is at least meaningful. In the UK, any Act of Parliament is by definition constitutional, because it becomes part of the constitution, superseding anything it conflicts with. I think. TBH most of us don't really know what the deal is.
-
There's also a big difference between "also includes" and "consists solely of".
But, as far as I know, "Grundloven" (The Base Law), the Danish constitution, is only the 89 paragraphs that it consists of.
-
You'd be comfortable with a different species owning you?
I dunno. If they saw to my every need, loved to give me snuggles and caresses, and basically let me roam around and do whatever I wanted as long as I didn't destroy anything, it might not be such a bad deal. :P
-
I'd be okay with that as long as they didn't cut off my toes.
-
In the UK, any Act of Parliament is by definition constitutional, because it becomes part of the constitution, superseding anything it conflicts with. I think.
Not quite. There are certain acts which have to be explicitly overruled/repealed, otherwise they take precedence. The Human Rights Act is the one most people know about, as it is the one most often in the papers telling Teresa May that she can't do things (and normally quite rightly). Wiki has a list of them here
-
In The Netherlands we do have a constitution, but the only party that is allowed to check laws against the constitution is the Tweede Kamer (parliament) when they pass the law. I'm not sure if even the Eerste Kamer (senate) is allowed to reject a law on those grounds; the Raad van State (highest court) definitely isn't. Which is kinda silly.
-
the Raad van State (highest court) definitely isn't.
It isn't? Then again ... In Belgium a constitutional court was only created when the constitution was reformed to a federal one. It was explicitly done to create an independent check between the different federal layers.
Here the Raad van State is more a court to object to governmental acts, e.g. you didn't get some permit.
-
Far as I know, the Raad van State doesn't have jurisdiction, and there's no separate constitutional court.
-
I actually just always assumed this is what declawing meant, trimming your kitty's claws with nail-clippers occasionally, so they don't mess up the place so much. When I eventually realised (enlightened by the Internet, as always) what some Americans do to their pets, i.e. removing the actual top joint of each digit, I was shocked. I decided it must be a bonsai-kitten style hoax, it just didn't seem like anyone who loved their pet could mutilate it like that.
It still makes me sick to think about it, having seen photos of deeply unhappy kittens with bandaged paws. Maybe the owners should have the tips of their fingers removed with bolt-cutters, just in case they scratch something with their nails?
Gaaah.
-
It depends. If you really need
agdgdjdkfkfjfjfjfjjjjjjjjjjjjtyped somewhere for some reason, for example, my cat is awesome at that...
-
- What about adopting a cat that is already declawed?
- I so want to get a cat, what is wrong with claws? I have no couch in my apartment, do claws tear apart bed sheets for example?
EDIT: Aaah I just read posts, is it really like a surgery?????
I will never do that
-
We put those on our cat once. Once.
He rolled over on his back and stared at his claws for over an hour with this look:
We removed the covers. I think he made a "connection" — no more furniture marking... Win/Win I guess.
-
It depends. If you really need agdgdjdkfkfjfjfjfjjjjjjjjjjjj typed somewhere for some reason, for example, my cat is awesome at that...
I've invested considerable energy in teaching Poppy that my computer is mine, and not hers.If it's in her way, she'll jump rather than walk over the keyboard.
-
It depends. If you really need agdgdjdkfkfjfjfjfjjjjjjjjjjjj typed somewhere for some reason, for example, my cat is awesome at that...
One of my cats, Joss, has a tail that's heavy enough to push down keys. He also likes sitting on laps with his head buried in your chest (so his ass is pointed towards the keyboard). [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]
