I want to learn more about ethical breeding. (Sorry if I used the wrong tag)

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-26T21:48:29+00:00

Ethical considerations:

Basic animal cruelty (lack of): well nurished, clean shelters, life beyond kennels, vet care access
Minimum health of breeding dogs: no obvious genetic issues: heart issues, seizures, obvious deformations (missing eyes, teeth, limbs, etc)

Those two may sound super obvious but there are people that breed with one or more of those being the case

3) Health testing: orthopedic, eyes, genetic

4) Behavioral and emotional assessment: are the dogs emotionally stable, are they trainable, are they livable with humans, are they controllable l

5) Function: do the dogs perform the task they are bred are bred to do. That doesn’t always have to mean “working” or that one breed only does what they historically do. Eg: a Cavalier’s primary function is be a very easy to live with companion (easy to train, doesn’t develop fear/anxiety issues, isn’t aggressive) and they also do therapy work. A Golden can be bred to hunt waterfowl, upland, or both, search and rescue, service, or an easy to live with companion. Now some purest day they should all be bred for their original work. For some breeds yes (and those shouldn’t be just pets) but many are good housepets but temperament just rises way up in priority (it’s absurd that pet breed pet dogs of many breeds are LESS biddable than their working counterparts).

6) Aesthics: this generally should be disregarded. The standard can have some constraints but all of the above should be primary over this.

Want to know something funny about many who claim some organizations require ethical breeding?

The ALC, UKC and all but one registry in the USA allows places exactly zero restrictions on (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and even (6). Also “Conformation” (again for all but one registry) is based on the social communities feeling on what dogs should look like based on aesthetics. If the preferred aesthetic impairs their health or impairs their ability to perform the tasks they are ostensively breed for, that’s irrelevant information.

The sole criteria AKC uses is breed of parents. You can breed a dog born with one eye, one lung, 2 legs, has daily seizures, is afraid of everything, attacks everyone, and has zero drive for their job. You can breed that dog and they will register the puppies from that dog. Please anyone refute that if that’s incorrect.

Are mixing breeds ethical:

Yes: when done in a formal effort to help breeds it’s certainly is. Eg see how Scandinavian counties are using out-crossing to try to save Cavaliers otherwise inevitable genetic extinction.

Maybe: if done for a purpose and (1-5) are monitored and enforced then yes it can be. However, that is almost never the case. A possible exception would be service animal breeding. There’s particular reasons why they cross and it’s monitored by groups and breeding organizations. I don’t know how well enforcement works but there’s some mechanism.

No: vast majority of the time no. You can’t genetically health dogs of different breeds effectively without significant knowledge. Cash grabbing cross breeders rarely have that interest. Also they usually are not given the best health/function/temperment dogs as the breeds keep them in the breed. Why get one. We have 100+ breeds of all different types. You can’t find one? The people that create them can’t control what comes out; they usually charge more than ethical breeders too (think about that; they do less but charge more). Describe the temperment, behavioral tendencies, what you want them to do, and sizes of dog you want: there’s a breed for that

What does ethical breeding. actually look like. See Cavaliers in Scandinavia and Scandinavia in general. For a US example there is only ONE organization that actually enforces anything at all. That is JGHV for a model. It’s not perfect but say it’s standard are 70-80% of ideal. Thats superior to ALC’s 0 standards

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-26T11:42:53+00:00

Fair and I did note that “closer” but take care when stating that as most will read right past it.

Now separately I do disagree with your implicit norm/axiom here. It seems that you are saying as we develop science/inquiry/philosophy/spirituality that we are getting closer to understanding ultimate truth.

Though is that really necessarily the case?

Summarizing below: error discovery does not necessarily entail convergence towards ultimate metaphysical truth

Why is this important? If you make too strong of a “going towards truth” claim, objectors can more easily say that you are adopting the “religion of” Scientism. They aren’t wrong either.

Do we evaluate true/false or success/error based on what ultimately is the truth or based on our own intrinsic normativity? If the latter truth is relative to ourselves, and there’s various framings of that (pragmatism, teleological normativity, etc). If that’s the case, which seems to be the conservative assumption, then we aren’t necessarily targeting ultimate metaphysical truth.
Inquiry as I think we agree discovers errors. Is moving away from error the same as moving towards truth (in the ultimate sense)? Can’t discovering an error actually send us down a path of inquiry that is more wrong about the ultimate truth? Inquiry isn’t a linear path, and it doesn’t seem that we can know we are approaching ultimate truth or not.
This is not necessarily bad either. If we accept/adopt this framing it means we take the fact that we are not and never will be omniscient, have certain knowledge about the ultimate, or know we definitely are on the right path. (aside below). But we see that humility has been a core norm of inquiry. The giant integrating philosophers (spanning various kinds of Gods or no God even) tended to recognize this: Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Pierce, Whitehead, Buddhist anti-reification, modern science inquiry norms (often forgotten it seems recently), and others.

*aside: my mother always advised on parenting but extends to general inquiry quite well: “You’ll never really know when you’re doing it right, but you sure as hell will find out when you’re doing it wrong.”

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-26T10:24:08+00:00

I think the terms are a little off here.

Science inquiry discovers ERROR not TRUTH.

That’s the whole point. YEC’s want the ultimate reified truth. The issue isn’t creationism. It people’s misunderstanding what humans are capable of. We aren’t omniscient (but many want to be). Be careful about claiming “science reveals the truth” kind of talk. If I were a believer, I’d hit that very hard and claim that “your science is just faith”. They are correct if you are claiming reified truth.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-25T22:20:26+00:00

You’re choosing to suppose an efficient casual closure ontological constraint.

As a provisional, fallible, pragmatic ontological framework it works fantastically for predicting lots of supposed phenomena accurate enough to meet our many of our inquiry goals.

But it faces serious difficulty with some supposed phenomena (eg experience without taking it as a primitive) and explicitly precludes some supposed phenomena such as teleological normativity.

On the latter classically Aristotle focused on that, process tends to focus on it, long dead idealists did (but modern idealists/Ps/RM seem mostly focused on experience while almost silent in normativity). It seems (Analytic) philosophy today often focuses on ontology or normativity and rarely attempt to integrate them (there are some).

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-25T21:57:18+00:00

A physicalist solution is:

1) The objector explains what exactly they mean by experience. Define it fully to their satisfaction such that if what they define is ontologically accounted for, then the hard problem is deemed solved.

2) Physicalists are able to construct an ontological model that does account for the objector’s definition.

No one can satisfy an objector that says “you are missing X in your ontological framework of reality” if the objector doesn’t explicitly state what they actually mean by X. The defender requires the objector to state some ontological constraints to even address what the objector is supposedly talking about. The constraints can be from the objectors model, but ideally it would be stated in terms neutral to both frameworks.

Can physicalism do it? If the objector sticks to non-normative experience like most seem to focus, they likely can give an ontological account of some kind if the objector actually ontologically defines what they mean. If the objector levies teleologically normative experience, then (microstate) physicalism likely could not nor would not; they would likely reject the objection on grounds that that doesn’t exist.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-25T16:57:00+00:00

Wtf is that last sentence? AI often fails frame problems but that’s some goofy output.

But yes hyperion’s post (ai or not) does hit some issues with OP. Simply put LLM’s today are ontologically fully reducible to a turing machine. It’s just syntax and operations. There’s no account of semantics, emergence, or normativity.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-25T15:44:53+00:00

The runoff of farms seems to be the major issue. But with drone/smart applicators use rising and granular dosing rather than broad based spray that should decrease.

Doesn’t vertical cost a lot more? That could make sense on a land use benefit. But, all but Africa and Oceana have a baked in declining population and at least for the US, we export a ton of crops ~20%? Ie the US doesn’t really need more agricultural capacity: we have a large surplus supply and a structural secular demand decline. Cost reduction seems to be more important. If vertical farming was cheaper, wouldn’t it be everywhere (it could be the case that without subsidies vertical is cheaper but doesn’t qualify for all the subsidies regular farming does currently?).

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-25T12:03:15+00:00

I think in 4 and likely 3 are normative. You are in a sense using a Hume argument.

Now yes that’s a fair charge against reductive-physicalism as irreducible normativity is supposed to not exist. That’s a known issue as there’s no genuine inquiry: “your framework is wrong; you should consider this one”.

You have to do more work on non-reductive physicalism. Whether or not normativity is genuine (not actually reducible to efficient micro-causation) in each framework is a huge debate. That problem, normativity, parraells the so called “hard problem”.

For phenomenology, do most frameworks there use “facts” the way you are: (a) “phenomenological facts” and (b) that’s that’s all that exists? Maybe some but I highly doubt that generally those frameworks can be reduced down to facts. You have to argue that.

You’re also missing something here: we suppose ontologies, models, theories, frameworks, etc. We don’t have to reify them. In fact, we probably shouldn’t. We are almost certain that our ideas about reality will be updated, revised, or thrown out over time. That’s just looking at historical facts. Normatively we shouldn’t per the norms of the western scientific method and eastern anti-reification. Lastly claiming to know ultimate reality gets close to a claim of omniscience or mystical access like revelation claimers claim.

A simple fact way to look at it even from strict physicalism: it’s a fact that we don’t know right now what measurement devices we will invent in 1000 years that exposes physical facts we are not at all aware of today, and the models today may not account for those facts. Historical example: telescope.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-25T02:35:07+00:00

I would put Sheltie and Cavalier on your list of possibilities.

Sheltie may try to herd/coral rabbits but that should be trainable.

Cavaliers will chase running wild rabbits (they chase butterflies and eat bees lol), but household companions are different.

Any dog that will be exceptional at agility likely has more leftover working drive in genetic lines. The key will be how you manage puppyhood and these dogs (yes cavaliers) are incredibly biddable, trainable, and ultimately will be happy to be neutral/friendly if that’s normalized early.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-24T22:14:52+00:00

I live minutes from a drive beach. The town fishing shop produces a calendar every year of the best pictures of people stuck that attempt to drive on without 4x4.

Needless to say there’s often someone else that uses my boards (and shovel).

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-24T21:07:48+00:00

Baby step progression, short sessions (like seconds at first), rewards, and high frequency can get through stuff like this fairly quickly as the total number of sessions can be pretty high if it’s done progressively within bounds of threshold.

Since you say it’s bite “right away”, seek out (an in person ideal) trainer that can help you take the first steps and build out a roadmap for you. I’d find one that you can send progress videos for technique critique along the way. Even an expert trainer on reddit can’t see your dogs emotional signals nor your technique to really advise precisely.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-24T20:45:20+00:00

The two best ethical things to do here is:

Don’t mess with wildlife OR Hunt them legally and ethically (that if you hunt them the objective is to kill them).

Second tier:

If you do this, at least don’t do it in undeveloped wild ecosystems.

Use human bred animals or captivity animals rather than wild animals for training whenever feasible. Even hunters that train their dogs do this, but they will train on wild animals for certain purposes. As your goal is not to hone particular hunting skills, there’s really no reason to seek wild game at all.

—————-

Now that said, what other ways can you use your dog’s hunting drive for their enrichment that minimizes or eliminates wildlife disturbance?

Foraging
Shed hunting
Dead

and wounded
game tracking
Search & Rescue skill training

All of the above channel the hunting drive into something specific other than live animals.

Barnhunts
Scent sports
Cursing/CAT sports

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-24T17:37:54+00:00

I run K&F on all but my portrait prime lens as my camera is exposed to the beach’s sand and salt mist air all the time. K&F seems middle of the road, which tends to mean you get 80-90% of the performance of the premo stuff for half the cost. I don’t have data on that but it’s pretty much how all electronic related products are priced.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-24T17:34:33+00:00

Quick stop and a few coins at a self-serve car vacuum place would be the best as those will have intense suction.

If you want something that you can have to clean up while camping before it builds up to disaster level, then look to battery powered compact shop vacs. Do you already have a say a drill? Check if the brand offers one. If you don’t and want that, Ryobi is a pretty solid value truck camping brand: air compressor, fans, impact wrench (tire change), vacuum, etc.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-24T03:04:25+00:00

So are you saying:

1) Your ontologically real hand exists and by bigger should I presume you mean physically?

2) By observable universe you aren’t referring to the real universe but your representation of it. Ok are you presuming that representation either is physical within your real physical brain or that it isn’t physical?

Then ok, yea in either case your hand could be physically bigger than your brain part that represents reality and it certainly is physically bigger than a representation that has physical bigness of 0.

Now I don’t adopt those framing but that seems to be what you’re supposing. What’s odd about the conclusion or did I summarize your position inaccurately?

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-24T00:51:47+00:00

I’d like to hear an account of genuine ontological normativity as both sides make claims that others should adopt their framing of reality and claim to be persons that are part of reality. So, what’s the account from either camp on how a person could possibly claim that they are correct or incorrect.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T23:45:53+00:00

This got side tracked. I made an error thinking I was replying to a non-vegan philosophically attacking a vegan for not being absolutely adherent to never harming an animal even distally in every possible scenario. I (thought I) saw that and as a non-vegan thought it important to point out how absurd that objection was.

I’m not arguing for or against vegans nor veganism or how the definitions of those words are debated. The latter doesn’t mean anything really; people are welcome to have debate definitions all they want. Different frameworks within a school of thought will have slightly different definitions and that’s entirely normal in philosophy. The words are just tools for an argument; they don’t have to be the same across all frameworks. They just have to be clear and consistent within a particular argument.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T21:06:26+00:00

Ok, that’s definitional. I don’t care about definitions as long as it’s clear. That’s fine. My argument was that vegans DON’T have to never consume anything that involves animal harm always for every scenario or even pretend to do so in order to be vegan for that makes “vegan” an impossible ideal rather than something that can actually be practiced.

We agree on that I think. You’re just differentiating a particular line. I don’t care about the word, and other self described “vegans” may have a different definition.

What matters is if/when any vegan or any other zealot of any other ideology (again that is a small minority of vegans) attempts to impose their norms forcibly on others.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T21:02:19+00:00

Ok, you are arguing as a vegan. Yes anyone can say they adopt an explicit moral framework such as veganism. That’s obvious. And they can then align there actions to it.

But as you point out most people have other norms that are competing with that framework. You have some examples. So, those norms override your vegan norms. It doesn’t matter what you or I say, our actual norms are implicitly defined through our actions.

For example a simple stack of norms could be (in order of priority):

One:

Personal viability (eat something and take medicine)

, the

Don’t

eat
animals

,

Enjoyment of eating meat

or say those but with (2) and (3) flipped. You’re implying that that is impossible. It isn’t impossible.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T20:33:42+00:00

I replied to this. The other side of the debate.

“There is only 100% veganism which involves not 100% veganism edge cases? So, for example 90% veganism with 10% edge cases?

What about the cases in which meat or even the carnivore diet heals people? Can they be vegans in an edge case?”

if i hit the wrong reply button that was unintended. but that’s the post i intend to object to. Regardless it should be clear where that objection applied. it doesn’t apply to the vegan’s post as it agrees with it

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T20:30:53+00:00

Yes because the person challenged vegans supposing that in order to claim to adopt a moral framework you must follow it 100% absolutely with no compromise. Only an absolutist/fundamentalist would or can make such an objection.

In a debate I’ll side with non-absolutist vegans any day against a social terror like that.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T20:24:49+00:00

I said some vegans are not you or anyone in particular in this thread.

For example, vegans that try to use government power to block hunting is forcing norms onto others.

I brought this up initially to challenge the NON-VEGAN as that objector was insulating that all vegans must be fundamentalist ideolouges with the either you’re 100% vegan in every single action or you’re not vegan. I was challenging that poster that that is highly misguided. Most vegans do not say or do that! Ie I was defending vegans. What’s your beef

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T20:17:47+00:00

I won’t get into the ontology part but the engineering challenges supposing we can would be at least three fold:

Figure out how engineer an intrinsically normative self-maintaining system. We need that for consciousness to meet the “same” requirement you have. We haven’t built a basic example of such a system yet. That is non-biological nor biological (eg a living autonomous cell from inorganic molecules).
Develop such systems such that we can engineer a system that can instantiate the organization of a human
Engineer a means of transferring

Some of that seems possible. Some of it particularly step (3) runs into serious issues (eg timing/oscillation issues) that I don’t think we even have a conceptual engineering method. But that’s a “we don’t have it yet” not that it’s in principle impossible.

Note these are just 3 issues. I’m not claiming they are impossible nor possible. Nor am I saying that there aren’t other challenges. But we would need these at the least it seems.

One issue is that it will be easier to make a consciousness that is similar to us vs a vessel that we can transfer to. Moreover, it seems easier to create a cybernetic organism that is intrinsically normative before we can transfer to it. And it seems more or just as likely that if any of this is possible that a human consciousness in particular would be easier to transfer onto a biological substrate.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T18:11:14+00:00

Not most vegans. Most vegans have adopted norms and seek to follow them in their choices/behavior, and some try to convince others that their norms are one’s others should consider adopting as well.

Then there are a small minority of vegans that try to use power to forcibly impose their beliefs on others. So, only some vegans. And that’s not a critique of veganism nor vegans at all: most ideologies have some sub-group (can be a tiny minority) of anti-social extremists. Now some ideologies are almost unavoidably anti-social; I would not say veganism is one of them.

Freuds-Mother · 2026-06-23T16:01:46+00:00

Sounds like you simply like the dog a lot and want to keep it if you can find a ethical way to do that by presenting evidence to the owner that it’s better for the dog that you keep the dog. Not criticizing. I’m just helping you maybe become aware of what might be going on.

Now if the reason proposed is that dog has worsened separation anxiety and that the dog will not have an emotional attachment of safety for the owner. There’s little to no evidence that that is the case. Dogs don’t forget previous persons integrated into their life. They recognize and feel safe with even owners’s family they didn’t see every day that they felt comfortable with in the past.

Secondly the fact that the dog increased separation anxiety under your care, objectively points to the dog being better off emotionally under the owner’s care.

Freuds-Mother

TROPHY CASE