The issue is should some people’s opinion of what is right or wrong binding on other people when what other people do could have no possible impact on those who think their own opinion ought to bind others.



I think cruelty to animals may be repulsive, but regulating it is in principle wrong.

I work in the veterinary field. There are arguments by some veterinarians against this legislation because people will probably dump cats at a higher rate if they are not allowed to declaw them.
I would never in a zillion years declaw a cat, I think it's a horrendous thing to do to a sentient animal and it deprives them of a body part they need to live a normal life. I am also strongly against ear cropping of dogs and tail docking of dogs, cattle and horses, and other such forms of mutilation.

---

(July 28, 2019 at 8:01 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I think cruelty to animals may be repulsive, but regulating it is in principle wrong.

Why?

(July 28, 2019 at 8:01 pm)Mermaid Wrote: I work in the veterinary field. There are arguments by some veterinarians against this legislation because people will probably dump cats at a higher rate if they are not allowed to declaw them.
I would never in a zillion years declaw a cat, I think it's a horrendous thing to do to a sentient animal and it deprives them of a body part they need to live a normal life. I am also strongly against ear cropping of dogs and tail docking of dogs, cattle and horses, and other such forms of mutilation.

---

(July 28, 2019 at 8:01 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I think cruelty to animals may be repulsive, but regulating it is in principle wrong.

Why?

Because it is purely the imposition of aesthetic opinion.  Human society has in principle rejected treating non-human sentience as if what we artificially ascribe to them to be concern equal to the well being and prosperity of humans.

(July 28, 2019 at 8:03 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 28, 2019 at 8:01 pm)Mermaid Wrote: I work in the veterinary field. There are arguments by some veterinarians against this legislation because people will probably dump cats at a higher rate if they are not allowed to declaw them.
I would never in a zillion years declaw a cat, I think it's a horrendous thing to do to a sentient animal and it deprives them of a body part they need to live a normal life. I am also strongly against ear cropping of dogs and tail docking of dogs, cattle and horses, and other such forms of mutilation.

---

Why?

Because it is purely the imposition of aesthetic opinion.

How is removing a portion of the toes of an animal a matter of aesthetics.

Ear cropping and tail docking are for aesthetics but declawing is not.

[quote defaultattr='']
arewethereyet pid='1922056' dateline='1564358819']

(July 28, 2019 at 8:03 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Because it is purely the imposition of aesthetic opinion.

How is removing a portion of the toes of an animal a matter of aesthetics.

Ear and tail docking are aesthetics but declawing is not.
[/quote]



It is a moral aesthetic.  There is no fundamental moral principle that says modifying animals to suit humans is wrong.  We breed animals into all sorts of exotic forms which are not conducive to the animal’s comfort or well being. Yet we say our particular squeamishness should trump the equanimity of others where de-clawing cats or bobbing tails of dogs is concerned because we feel strongly about it.

Laws should be based on general principles that can be widely agreed upon, and whose implementation can be persuasively represented as being necessary for greater social good.  Law should not become a tool to legislate squeamishness.

(July 28, 2019 at 8:01 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The issue is should some people’s opinion of what is right or wrong binding on other people when what other people do could have no possible impact on those who think their own opinion ought to bind others.



I think cruelty to animals may be repulsive, but regulating it is in principle wrong.

Regulating cruelty to animals is wrong? What the fuck?

(July 28, 2019 at 8:03 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 28, 2019 at 8:01 pm)Mermaid Wrote: I work in the veterinary field. There are arguments by some veterinarians against this legislation because people will probably dump cats at a higher rate if they are not allowed to declaw them.
I would never in a zillion years declaw a cat, I think it's a horrendous thing to do to a sentient animal and it deprives them of a body part they need to live a normal life. I am also strongly against ear cropping of dogs and tail docking of dogs, cattle and horses, and other such forms of mutilation.

---

Why?

Because it is purely the imposition of aesthetic opinion.  Human society has in principle rejected treating non-human sentience as if what we artificially ascribe to them to be concern equal to the well being and prosperity of humans.

It causes pain, suffering and behavioral problems. It's not a matter of opinion. It's fact. Moreover, if you think your species is more important than another, I think you've lost the moral high ground. It's only our inflated sense of self importance that makes us feel this way. I doubt you or I are any more important than a speck of fucking dust, let alone an animal.

Really, really, really watch this.

http://www.pawprojectmovie.com/

Declawing cats is fucking disgusting.

(July 28, 2019 at 8:20 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(July 28, 2019 at 8:01 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The issue is should some people’s opinion of what is right or wrong binding on other people when what other people do could have no possible impact on those who think their own opinion ought to bind others.



I think cruelty to animals may be repulsive, but regulating it is in principle wrong.

Regulating cruelty to animals is wrong? What the fuck?

Yeah, it exceeds the boundaries of what good legal structure should do, in my opinion.

Laws don’t exist to make the world more perfect in your eyes at the expense of desires of others, no matter how strongly you feel what the other desires is sick.    It exist, at a level even more basic than to protect right, to set out a basic standard acceptable to the majority to make society function with more effectiveness and less friction.

---

(July 28, 2019 at 8:22 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(July 28, 2019 at 8:03 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Because it is purely the imposition of aesthetic opinion.  Human society has in principle rejected treating non-human sentience as if what we artificially ascribe to them to be concern equal to the well being and prosperity of humans.

It causes pain, suffering and behavioral problems. It's not a matter of opinion. It's fact. Moreover, if you think your species is more important than another, I think you've lost the moral high ground. It's only our inflated sense of self importance that makes us feel this way. I doubt you or I are any more important than a speck of fucking dust, let alone an animal.

Causing pain and suffering to animals has never in principle been a issue as far as human legal principles are concerned.    Nor does this law attempt to make it a new thoroughgoing principle.   It simply impose some people’s squeamishness about particular way these pain are inflicted, upon others who don’t share this squeamishness.

(July 28, 2019 at 7:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 28, 2019 at 7:23 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Last cat I declawed was very aggressive toward other cats, and any human in the house, other than me. He survived and learned some manners in the process.

Shame on you.

Just curious.  If you had a dog with the habit of biting people, would you have his teeth removed?  If you had a horse who kicked people, would you have his legs amputated?

Boru

Yep.