4770133

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 09:13 AM

I don't think it is right (or natural for that matter) but I wouldn't call it mutilation. That implies that they just hacked off the tip of the cat's toes, when really it's more precise than that. They sedate the cats when they operate on them so it's not really mutilation on the operating half of the spectrum.

4770134

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 09:18 AM

Lol, wot? Sorry Ms, you've got backache I'm afraid we're going to have to execute you

4770198

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 10:26 AM

You could certainly argue that declawing is an act that degrades the function of the cat's body (they can no longer scratch, and are missing a piece of each of their fingers). Amputation is listed as a form of mutilation, and we do that under anesthetic too for very good reasons. It doesn't mean the patient isn't mutilated, it just means they weren't mutilated with vile intent. Although frankly the convenience of keeping your furniture intact doesn't seem nearly a strong enough case for severing a cat's fingertip through the bone.

I do agree he went a little far with that one.

4770251

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 11:15 AM

I believe my sentence was longer than that. Either way declawing is an illegal form of animal cruelty and as such not something to joke about.

4770459

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 01:29 PM

The rest of your sentence did not concern me, Admiral.

• It's not illegal in America where NiteStryker happens to live.
• It's also animal cruelty to eat meat and cut animals junk off. But I don't hear you crying about those things.
• I found it funny.

4770470

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 01:33 PM

Eating meat is painful for the... eatee... but it's not really cruel. It's the natural order of things. Deballing dogs is not an ideal situation, but it's a necessity to avoid having little baby dogs running around everywhere (domesticated dogs being forced to survive in the wild seems more cruel than cutting their junk off while under anesthesia). Declawing, though, is completely unnecessary. I don't believe in putting animals through clearly unnecessary procedures.

And yes, you do hear people crying about eating meat. I think there's a vegetarian thread around here somewhere.

4770575

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 02:30 PM

True, but it is here, where I happen to live.

I actually prefer my meat dead and cooked and as Inyri already told you there is a purpose with neutering pets.

Mkay. Cookies?

4770598

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 02:40 PM

You don't think raising animals in prisons, artificially altering their social structure and diets, and then killing them is cruel? If I went around doing that to humans I'd be locked away.

There's a purpose to declawing too. It's more convinient to the human. Just as with neutering.

Plz.

Everything is the natural order of things. We're natural creatures living in natural enviroments. In any case we don't generally look to nature for examples of what's right and wrong.

Or you could, you know, just stop them fucking.

Unnecessary for what? Necessary and unnecessary are terms that only makes sense when put in relationship to something.

I thought that was just an elaborate piss take.

4770602

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 02:42 PM

Yes, because that works for humans, too.

4770607

Re: Dangerous dogs.

January 15th, 2009 02:45 PM

I imagine there is a purpose to declawing as well.

But why exactly is it illegal in some countries? Isn't it possible to perform this operation while the cat is sedated?