Declawing Cats

[The Grand Nudger]

Cats should be indoors and the feral population controlled. That’s how you deal with the bird problem.

Yeah, absolutely. More than one way to skin a cat. I’d say that when we look at how a feral cat problem plays out a person who rationalizes the decision by reference to birds ( or other wildlife) is going to be frustrated. Declawing is control, if the humane arguments against declawing cats are taken to be sensible. It’s proactive, and easier than trapping ferals, or poisoning them, or shooting them. Each with its own set of humane issues.

Personally, claws and teeth and dead birds and rodents and reptiles is exactly why I have cats. Hell, I think I like them more as pets partly because of the contrast between their fluffy cuteness and stone cold murdery personalities.

Still, not so attached to any animal that I wouldn’t mutilate them for purpose and certainly not convinced that our cats rank very high on the list of ecological disasters were laying down on this rock. Fundamentally, I find it difficult to understand how we managed to make mutilating cats illegal before we did the same with human children.

[Shell B]

Hey, the fact that there are other more pressing issues is a valid point, but not really an argument. I've always disliked the idea that we shouldn't do something we think is probably a good idea because there are other issues. If the issue is on the table, and circumcision really isn't, we deal with the issue on the table. If you find circumcision to be the more pertinent issue, raise hell until it's on the table.

Declawing isn't really easier than trapping ferals. Trapping ferals is pretty simple. You lay traps. Believe me, it has it's down side. I disagree with chopping cats' ears to identify who's been spayed or neutered, but I still prefer the practice to declawing if we're talking the betterment of other wildlife and cats as a species. Besides, a declawed cat in the wild will die.

[Shell B]

There have always, in civilized society, been standards by which animals are treated. We’ve had pets for as long as we know. There have always been morals regarding animals. What I’d like to see is less survival of the cutest and less abuse of convenience.

Which has always been a hypocrisy given how we treat animals that were not considered pets.  It becomes even more of a hypocrisy when we insist others people according some animals particular consideration we mandated merely because we adopted some animals as pets.

Ah, but I think you're looking at it wrong. Correcting the hypocrisy is better than just becoming an asshole to animals. I can't really suss out your argument. Is it that there was a time when we didn't have a moral position on animal cruelty (I think that's incorrect) or that we have and we're hypocrites for it? I feel like a goalpost shifted here.

If that's what you think my position is, you've got me all wrong. I specifically mentioned survival of the cutest and how that needs to be corrected. I also think that if these other people are going to adopt the same animals as pets, they shouldn't be dicks about it. Don't invite an animal into your home if your only reason is to have something to cuddle that is never more than a minor inconvenience.

[The Grand Nudger]

That they’d die in the wild is what I was referring to when I mentioned that an advocate would be frustrated by suggestions that we control the pop, especially if that advocate assumed the humane objection “they’ll die in the wild”.

The objection, to them, is the point. Still, I use rationalization because I wouldn’t expect the ecological reasons to be a huge portion of why people do it, more an afterthought that puts the subject into a position where reasonable and humane people can disagree.

(Circ is just one of the many ways we mutilate each other and ourselves, it’s a sidebar anyway, More for the confused lelz than anything else)

[Anomalocaris]

Which has always been a hypocrisy given how we treat animals that were not considered pets.  It becomes even more of a hypocrisy when we insist others people according some animals particular consideration we mandated merely because we adopted some animals as pets.

Ah, but I think you're looking at it wrong. Correcting the hypocrisy is better than just becoming an asshole to animals. I can't really suss out your argument. Is it that there was a time when we didn't have a moral position on animal cruelty (I think that's incorrect) or that we have and we're hypocrites for it? I feel like a goalpost shifted here.

If that's what you think my position is, you've got me all wrong. I specifically mentioned survival of the cutest and how that needs to be corrected. I also think that if these other people are going to adopt the same animals as pets, they shouldn't be dicks about it. Don't invite an animal into your home if your only reason is to have something to cuddle that is never more than a minor inconvenience.

We had no general fundamental moral position on animal cruelty.  If anything we thought it was morally good to modify animals to better suit our needs.    What many people had were not a moral position but laundry lists of ad hoc "thou shall not"s with respect to particular coddled animals, which they then frequently sought to impose on others.

[Alan V]

Let's see. I've had stitches in my left hand to close a big cut. I've undergone three knee surgeries and had my tonsils and wisdom teeth removed. Thankfully all were under anesthetic, but all involved a certain amount of pain.

The sacrifices we make to live comfortably otherwise....

[WinterHold]

Thinking that your furniture is more important than claws to a cat is indeed barbaric and should be banned.
Neutering cats is also barbaric. I mean if somebody can't handle the scratching and can't handle the nasty pissing smell, then they should not have a cat as a pet.

[Anomalocaris]

Thinking that your furniture is more important than claws to a cat is indeed barbaric and should be banned.
Neutering cats is also barbaric. I mean if somebody can't handle the scratching and can't handle the nasty pissing smell, then they should not have a cat as a pet.

Why?  when they want and can have cats that neither scratch nor make much of a nasty pissing smell, nor pine away annoyingly at all hours, nor bring home unwanted litters?

Individual revulsion is not a basis for general moral principle.    Morality is not a laundry list of private squeamishnesses.

[The Valkyrie]

“People” who declaw cats should have their thumbs cut off.

[Shell B]

Ah, but I think you're looking at it wrong. Correcting the hypocrisy is better than just becoming an asshole to animals. I can't really suss out your argument. Is it that there was a time when we didn't have a moral position on animal cruelty (I think that's incorrect) or that we have and we're hypocrites for it? I feel like a goalpost shifted here.

If that's what you think my position is, you've got me all wrong. I specifically mentioned survival of the cutest and how that needs to be corrected. I also think that if these other people are going to adopt the same animals as pets, they shouldn't be dicks about it. Don't invite an animal into your home if your only reason is to have something to cuddle that is never more than a minor inconvenience.

We had no general fundamental moral position on animal cruelty.  If anything we thought it was morally good to modify animals to better suit our needs.    What many people had were not a moral position but laundry lists of ad hoc "thou shall not"s with respect to particular coddled animals, which they then frequently sought to impose on others.

Isn't that what all of "morality" is? As for the particular coddled animals part, I've already established that my argument is the hypocrisy is what needs to be corrected, not the fact that we're making it a criminal act to harm animals.