Declawing is not minimally invasive. Why do people keep speaking on it who don’t understand it?

(July 29, 2019 at 2:35 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 12:46 am)Shell B Wrote: You really don’t know anything about declawing, do you? It’s not cosmetic, at all.

I am not saying declawing cats are cosmetic.  I am saying forcing other people to not be, to your eyes, cruel to animals as a way to compel others to embark upon what you think are steps towards “being better” as people suggest the “better” is mainly a personal, morally cosmetic, concept.  Causing pain and suffering to animals in order to make the animal better fit our needs and desires has not traditionally been widely considered to be fundamentally morally questionable.   In fact it has long been considered a mark of diligence and enterprise.   Not being cruel to animals have traditionally only been considered laudable when it does not stand in the way of making animals better fit out needs and desires.

Who cares, though? Traditionally, I wouldn’t be allowed to work or vote.

(July 29, 2019 at 6:12 am)Alan V Wrote:

(July 28, 2019 at 11:05 pm)Shell B Wrote: Boofuckinghoo. No one cares about furniture vs. cutting the tips of cats fingers off. That's not an important trade off.

Yes, I already understood your position and that you feel self-righteous about it.

Sigh. People are hopeless.

(July 29, 2019 at 9:07 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 8:05 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: People who harm cats should be boiled in oil (twice!)

What about cats that harm humans (including toddlers), other house cats, dogs, and any living thing that looks like a toy to them.

Haha, it’s a cat.

(July 29, 2019 at 1:42 am)EgoDeath Wrote: And where do insults like "princess" get us? Jesus christ it's like talking to a child. Once again, you're clearly not interested in having a conversation here. You can't twist around what I've said, it's right there in black and white.

Not sure how fucking dense or childish you can be, but you're giving me a good demo.

You started with the insults, not me. Grow the hell up. You're living up to your keyboard-warrior moniker.

And if you scrolled back, you’d see you started the name calling ... princess. Toughen up. People aren’t going to always like your lax opinion on declawing.

(July 29, 2019 at 10:09 am)Shell B Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 2:35 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I am not saying declawing cats are cosmetic.  I am saying forcing other people to not be, to your eyes, cruel to animals as a way to compel others to embark upon what you think are steps towards “being better” as people suggest the “better” is mainly a personal, morally cosmetic, concept.  Causing pain and suffering to animals in order to make the animal better fit our needs and desires has not traditionally been widely considered to be fundamentally morally questionable.   In fact it has long been considered a mark of diligence and enterprise.   Not being cruel to animals have traditionally only been considered laudable when it does not stand in the way of making animals better fit out needs and desires.

Who cares, though? Traditionally, I wouldn’t be allowed to work or vote.

An obvious difference is allowing women to work or vote, while resisted because it is threatening to established male social privilege, materially enriches the society by enlisting more of those capable to actually contribute the capability, and, as demonstrated during the two world wars, makes the society more robust and capable of dealing with extreme stress.   So even the selfish who would protect male privilege knowns it is not all a net loss to them if women were to work and vote.

Not so with the ability to ignore animal suffering to adopt animals to our needs.

(July 29, 2019 at 10:08 am)Shell B Wrote: Declawing is not minimally invasive. Why do people keep speaking on it who don’t understand it?

I'm sure you want to think so.

(July 29, 2019 at 10:20 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 10:08 am)Shell B Wrote: Declawing is not minimally invasive. Why do people keep speaking on it who don’t understand it?

I'm sure you want to think so.

I’m not picking up the torch when you want to flame anymore. I do sometimes wonder if you get a kick out of it enough to justify the use of your limited time. If you do, all the more power to you. Life’s too short to deny yourself the simple pleasures. 😜

(July 29, 2019 at 10:19 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 10:09 am)Shell B Wrote: Who cares, though? Traditionally, I wouldn’t be allowed to work or vote.

An obvious difference is allowing women to work or vote, while resisted because it is threatening to established male social privilege, materially enriches the society by enlisting more of those capable to actually contribute the capability, and, as demonstrated during the two world wars, makes the society more robust and capable of dealing with extreme stress.   So even the selfish who would protect male privilege knowns it is not all a net loss to them if women were to work and vote.

Not so with the ability to ignore animal suffering to adopt animals to our needs.

You have a very strange moral philosophy and an even stranger commitment to it. Right and wrong isn’t determined by its benefit to humanity.

(July 29, 2019 at 10:23 am)Shell B Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 10:20 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I'm sure you want to think so.

I’m not picking up the torch when you want to flame anymore. I do sometimes wonder if you get a kick out of it enough to justify the use of your limited time. If you do, all the more power to you. Life’s too short to deny yourself the simple pleasures. 😜

You always bitch about people who don't agree with you. Your problem, not ours.