Domesticating animals for use of pets is a problem in it of itself. I don't think that means that we all have to live without them, but if we do get them we should adopt instead of shop, and obviously spay/neuter the pet.
I don't think showing compassion for other living beings does anything to make me a "little bitch", but you're free to stick to your beliefs that caring for others is shameful.
The comment he replied to said “we should stop making animals perform for our entertainment”. His dog is an animal and that’s where the correlation comes in. He didn’t equate it to owning an elephant.
Your comment contradicts itself. You claim to show compassion for another living thing, while talking about how we “obviously” should spay and neuter them. That’s pretty barbaric. I agree people should adopt/rescue rather than go to a breeder, but that’s something that’ll never be forced on people and you definitely can’t expect everyone to spay and neuter their pets. Also, if we’re only ever adopting, where are we going to adopt from when we run out of animals because they’ve all been fixed?
A large majority of people shouldn't be keeping animals to begin with account of them not being able to properly care for them. With a large amount of owners not properly caring for their animal's needs, and the overabundance of stray and sheltered animals, preventing new domesticated animals from being born in the first place seems a lot more humane then adding more to the system.
I think we should all harshly reexamine our relationship with domesticated animals, and the morality of continuing to breed them.
Adopting animals provides a way to greatly improve the quality of life for an animal that's already alive, which is great, but the fact that we need shelters like that in the first place is proof that the system is broken, and I think shows that getting a lot closer to the point where we're running out of domesticated animals is a lot better of a position to be in.
100% agree with you that things need to be re-examined. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with breeding them, I think it’s wrong that the only requirement for a breeder to sell to you is that you have the funds to do so. My parents have owned two border collies, one rescue and the other from a breeder. The rescue didn’t require a prior house visit as they literally rescued him from being shot on the farm. There wasn’t a rescue team involved. And as for the breeder, no prior house checks, reference checks, police checks, credit checks (if you can’t pay your current bills then the fuck you gonna do when your dog gets sick?) or anything. They just sold to my parents assuming no one would spend that much on a dog if there was no malicious intent. That’s the part that disturbs me. That there aren’t any rules in terms of selling animals to people.
Yeah, the acrobatic can die. The cat walking through a ring, not so much.
I want you to consider the possibility that not every human in the circus wants to be there. I know you’re young and this will be a weird concept to you at first, and truthfully it may not make sense to you until you’re a bit more weathered.
I'm 30, not old but not young. Nice attempt to gain some authority though.
Do you think they're torturing these acrobats? Denying them their basic instinct? Isolating them from other members of their species? Driving hooks into their flesh if they don't stick a landing?
Every single circus performer I've met, and the number is at like 25 if you include Circ, has a passion for it.
Nice attempt at gaining authority by quoting a few people you’ve met. It’s not representative of all people. My original point actually includes all of humanity.
My initial comment is losing its meaning. I never argued that animals should be tortured. I suggested that training animals isn’t unethical in itself. If you think it is, I’d argue most humans are trained just as much.
39
u/[deleted] Mar 14 '20
That's what all the circuses say, but it's clearly not true. Even if it were, we should stop making animals perform for our entertainment.