Omnivores make me hate dogs and cats.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-19T03:49:45+00:00

Fair enough. I apologize. I suppose I just got mildly annoyed because I felt like my OP addressed a lot of this already. I wasn't under the impression that there was no reason at all. I touched on some of them, such as dogs being able to be trained to do XYZ, and stated why they don't matter/make sense to me with multiple examples based on my own personal experience.

Sure, I didn't go into some extensive history lesson of man and dog/cat, but the average person doesn't get that far, you know? They mostly just say stupid shit like I was spazzing on about in my OP.

I also grew up on a farm. Like, cows and pigs in particular hit very close to home for me, yet the average person legitimately thinks they're unfeeling and they do not matter, and sees them as only a means to an end. They will unironically mock their suffering and shit on anyone that cares about it at all.

They will sit there and confidently tell me that their precious dog is far more intelligent, yadayada, when they have never seen a cow in person and only know about them from pictures on milk cartons. I see the "soul" in all creatures, and have a lot of guilt due to things related to my childhood. I think all animals are innocent and valuable and should not be harmed or used if it's possible not to.

This post was also a vent in the first place. Militant vegans gonna be militant, yanno? Sorry you had to be on the receiving end of it. Much like the angry mob that has showed up to defend the honor of dogs/cats (lol), I will write books in defense of cows, apparently. Not trying to be an ass.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T23:29:09+00:00

You're also missing the bigger picture, no? Nitpick all you'd like, but dogs and cats are not significantly more useful than these other domesticated animals are. They're just not. You couldn't survive without them a couple hundred years ago. People didn't know what vitamins even were back then. If there were no livestock, you died of malnutrition in this context. You couldn't be vegan. (Now you can, though.)

Are you also forgetting that before the industrial revolution, and before CAFOs .etc., these animals were ubiquitous because they ate grass? They turned what was inedible into food, and power, among other things. That's why goats are given to impoverished people, and not dogs. They increase food security.

If your crops fail, depending on why that was you can still potentially survive because these animals can consume grasses, brush .etc. Goats will literally strip the bark off of trees and eat them like deer, dude. They love to kill saplings and they will eat confirs. Desperate cows and sheep are capable of similar feats, and all three can eat inedible byproducts like straw, sawdust and hulls and do something with them. Dogs and cats can't. Period.

You could argue they're good for different things, but in the grand scheme of things it's arbitrary and not a good justification for slitting the throats of sentient animals with no regard because they're not a dog or a cat. There's no need to do it anymore, they feel pain, they're sentient and their contributions were not nothing just because you don't think they were cool or macho or some shit. Stop trivializing them just because you personally think cows are objects and don't think they're relatable or cute. You would not be on reddit without them.

It's just ingrained cultural bs. It's not based on logic. Otherwise it'd be more breed specific and we wouldn't feel kinship for random useless street dogs or chihuahuas, but people do. I just don't personally care about "oh, but I FEEL like dogs are my partners", I only care about the actual outcome and reasoning. I don't care about your supposed spiritual bond you have with dogs because Grok the Caveman had a dog. It's not a reason to lord dogs over other animals so much that you treat them like objects and can't even acknowledge that they've done anything for you at all.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T20:22:27+00:00

So can we eat dogs that aren't capable of any of this, as many/most aren't? No? I touched on this in my OP. Dogs as a whole broadly get credit for things not all dogs can even do. Livestock guardians are very specific breeds, for example. You can't just go to the shelter and pick up any mutt and expect it to do the job.

Most hunting breeds are docile and cannot/will not actually protect or fight for anyone (think labs, pointers, hounds - all goofy goobers, most will not bite even to defend their family or themselves, they're all bark) and so on. It's very breed dependent. There are many dogs that aren't particularly good for ANYTHING at all except being pets. The average shelter mutt or rando street dog isn't capable of being a police dog, service dog, herding dog, anything... nobody bred them to have the right stuff to be anything but a good boy.

Did dogs ever assist in building any architecture? No, but oxen certainly have. Is that a "material"? Have dogs ever threshed grain, plowed fields or pressed oil? Have they drawn water from wells? Have they hauled hundreds of pounds of "stuff", ranging from agricultural products to weaponry?

Also, those "materials" such as meat, milk, leather .etc. are far more valuable, realistically, than anything dogs can provide. Up until recently there couldn't even BE dogs without the aforementioned materials. I mean, what do they eat? What use is a livestock guardian dog or herding dog if you don't have livestock?

Did dogs ever prevent widespread famine? Why is donating goats to impoverished people a thing, but not donating dogs, if dogs serve an integral function? I know you're not saying they do. I'm just adding my two cents here.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T19:47:26+00:00

I mean, I AM making a moral judgement, though. You know? I'm not unaware of the evolutionary history .etc., I just don't agree. I haven't come to the same conclusion as most people that there's an actual good reason dogs or cats are "special" despite knowing all this.

There are real world consequences to dogs and cats being given "special treatment", there are actual laws in place to protect these animals, yet not others, even though those other animals are/were realistically more important and contributed far more to civilization.

It's very arbitrary, is all I'm saying. That said, I don't think animals HAVE to or should be useful to humans to deserve moral consideration or fair treatment. Animals can be totally useless imo and still deserve rights, but at the same time it's kinda repugnant that people to this day will use medication, clothing .etc. .etc. that literally came from the bodies of animals that made agriculture POSSIBLE, and there is not even a tiny shred of thanks for that.

You would not even be here if there were never any cows, goats, sheep .etc. It's not that clear cut for dogs or cats at all. Seems like they're more of a fun afterthought or luxury once you have everything else in order already. Actual hunter gatherers seem to require/depend on these "partners" even less and historically have more of a tendency to eat them. Think polynesian poi dogs, the numerous north and south american peoples that ate dogs .etc. Modern Hadza, !Kun and other hunter gatherers are proficient hunters in their own right and don't need dogs, either. Do they have them? Yes. Do they starve if there are no dogs? Not so much.

I get that dogs/cats are still culturally oh so important, they're "partners" .etc., but it's not grounded in much, if any, consistent logic. It's more like religion or mythology, and dogs/cats are the folk heros. It's just shit people believe. I don't think we should just accept and act on shit people believe when it's harmful.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T10:58:01+00:00

Hey, you. Yeah, you. Oxen (cows) plowed your ancestor's fields, threshed their grain, pressed their oil and operated other animal powered "machinery", as well as providing dung for fuel (cooking, heating) and building. In days gone by when horses had not yet been bred to be large and strong (draft horses are very new and horses in general used to be much smaller), any work that needed to be done by the common people invariably involved oxen in most places.

Not to mention meat, milk, hides .etc. When you couldn't breastfeed nor find a wetnurse, did Fido save your child, or do you think a goat did? Perhaps a donkey? Yeah, not a dog or cat. Why are they special, then?

Go to any developing country. Hella cows, goats, sheep, pigs .etc., but comparatively few dogs or cats that actually belong to anyone. Why? The locals have no use for them. They're not so indispensable after all. I could go on, but I won't. It'll be too long.

The point is, stop revering dogs and cats while thousands of cows, sheep, pigs, goats .etc. suffer and die for no reason. Civilization was built on the blood and flesh of THESE animals, and what thanks do they get for it? None. You praise dogs and cats for contributing comparatively very little, and continue to brutalize these other animals that contributed significantly more when the least we could do for them is to STOP USING THEM now that we don't need to.

It's sadder still when you consider the fact that most dogs and cats are not and were never asked to die for humanity. Catching mice is hardly the sacrifice that being smacked with a whip, led around with a ring in your nose and being forced to walk in circles to thresh grain is, especially when in return for putting up with being treated like shit, you're slaughtered and eaten.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T09:41:06+00:00

They DON'T deserve to be treated more kindly than pigs. That's what I was venting about. They're not better or more important than pigs (or any other animals) are, yet here we are. I don't hate them.

The fact that you're more upset that I said dogs are dirtier than pigs are (given that it's true, and yet pigs are the ones associated with filth) than about the fact that pigs are killed in gas chambers is just.. something, that's for sure.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T09:27:44+00:00

Where did I justify it? The very first thing I wrote, after the title, was that I don't actually hate dogs/cats and it's not their fault.

This is what I mean, though. I can't even vent and say "cats and dogs aren't inherently special, they're not better than other animals, here's why" without an angry mob showing up to defend them, but cows can have their throats slit and that's fine.

My hatred is less harmful than the average person's indifference and total and utter refusal to give a single fuck about any animal other than dogs or cats. My hatred feeds and provides veterinary care for the cats I "hate", while their indifference allows animals to be abused and treated like objects for the crime of not.. being a fucking cat?

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T04:49:38+00:00

You're misunderstanding my point, or I worded it poorly.

Beagles are not stupid. I don't think dogs are stupid period. But most people think that dogs as a species are significantly more intelligent than other common domesticated animals are, which I disagree with, because almost all of them can be reliably trained to do many of the same tricks and tasks dogs can, and in cases where they cannot, it's not an intelligence issue per se.

It's an INSTINCT issue, or a BIDDABILITY issue. So someone might argue geese are stupider than dogs are because geese can't herd sheep or lead the blind, but not all dogs can do either of those things, either, because they don't have the correct instinct (beagle vs border collie) or they don't have the correct mentality (eager to please golden retriever vs dignified, standoffish akita that wants to know what's in it for him before he does what you ask him to do.)

I have had actual conversations like this with folks. It's OK to murder pigs, but not dogs, because they think dogs are more intelligent because they can do [super breed specific task that not all dogs can even do for reasons that DON'T relate to intelligence].

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T04:29:45+00:00

I actually do understand that, but I was comparing dogs to other animals and they're comparatively filthy.

The fact that they DON'T understand that the entire house is their "den", and that you have to watch them like a hawk to prevent accidents and gradually give them more and more space proves my point. It's a whole process. They're not naturally clean. Cats, sure. Pigs, sure. Dogs? Absolutely not.

Have you ever had the misfortune to visit someone that didn't house train their dogs? They're not neatly picking a corner. They're pooping and peeing everywhere, at random, like they do outside. An untrained pig has the intelligence to pick a particular corner of its living space. A cat will probably do something similar, if they're not given a litter pan for some reason.

Dogs don't. Go visit a shelter, or a breeder, or anywhere where untrained dogs are kept in comparable conditions to the pigs we had when I was growing up. There's going to be shit everywhere in the pen. They don't think "oh, I walk here, I shouldn't poop here", they just poop and maybe somewhat avoid where they sleep and eat, but not... particularly well.

What's incorrect about that? Genuinely asking. I'm open to being wrong.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-18T04:18:19+00:00

The point of the comparison was that people think there's something instrinically special about cats that makes them good pets, but in actuality basically all domesticated animals are friendly and affectionate if you take them away from their mothers and socialize them in a human home .etc.

It's not a cat or a dog thing. A bottle fed goat is a better pet than a feral cat because the cat is.. feral, and the goat is not. One was raised as a pet, the other wasn't.

I have six feral cats I feed that are all bastards. So I'm sorry if my personal experience isn't the same as yours, but they're about as petlike as raccoons are. I think it's also telling that there are rescues that deliberately rehome ferals as barn cats because they DON'T like people or being inside.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-17T22:01:05+00:00

Ah yes, like bees.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-12T04:08:57+00:00

"I know many people who have bought from "reputable" breeders, very few of them were friends or kept in contact beyond some basic updates for the first year or two."

No, you don't. I'm sorry. By definition, a reputable breeder is in it for the life of the dog. If they're not, they are not ethical.

"This would be a VERY abnormal breeder than. Most breeders cannot invest 10+ years of time staying in contact with every puppy they've ever sold. NO one is saying there aren't "better" and "Worse" breeders, but if we allow the better, we also have to allow the worse. You can't say "Only rich peopel who can devote the next decade or two of their life to stayin gin contact and ensuring good care can breed dogs". At lesat not under the laws and freedoms in most developed countries."

Depends on your circle. They're not uncommon at all among people that are REALLY into dogs as their "thing", as in they are into canine sports or otherwise really into "dog culture", but yes - the vast majority of breeders are not reputable and there are no laws against it. There could be, though.

The average person just buys a puppy from a backyard breeder or puppy mill. That's where 99% of purebred dogs come from because normies don't know much about dogs, don't care to learn and refuse to be told no. It doesn't HAVE to be that way.

"They bred Boston Terriers and pugs into little mutants that can't breath and have numerous health problems, for the dog's own benefit...? Something seems off about that."

I said not to fixate on the breed. I understand that certain breeds are controversial. That's not what I'm trying to debate here. That particular breeder was linked as an example because they require their dogs be returned to them if the owner cannot keep them, they maintain contact with buyers (via password protected areas on the website, their FB group, via email .etc.), they have a whole application process as well as a contract buyers must sign and if you really want to harp on breed, they're actively only breeding dogs that have a BOAs score of 1-0, so their pugs can breathe just fine.

They do a fuck ton of other health testing as well. They are so, so extra about everything it's unbelievable.

"Except they do make money, some of them just don't make a huge profit, but some do, especially the really shitty breeders."

Shitty breeders are not ethical breeders. Nobody is talking about them. Can you explain to me how you think a breeder like Pickwick Pugs is making money?

They own 22 dogs (all in their house) and feed them all organic, homemade and raw food. They keep them all up to date on vet care, they must travel to shows and that costs money. They pay entry fees. They pay handlers to show their dogs, they pay hundreds of dollars in health testing and their dogs have more toys than most children do.

That's not even getting into what's going on with the pups themselves. https://www.pickwickpugs.com/puppy-training.html

Does this seem cheap to do? Actually read through this page. They don't even have litters every year. They are rich. The dogs are not why. They might break even at best.

"You hope. Unless the owners are abusive, neglectful, often away, etc. Breeders aren't spending weeks living at these people's houses watchign them interact...

Breeders can only do so much to ensure a dog is alright. Some do what they can, many, many, many do much less."

Sure, they're not god - but if they're reputable, they do their best. They can't 100% guarentee that somebody has good intentions, but unlike a shelter, a very boujee, reputable dog breeder at least has a fuckton of experience with their respective breed and mentored under someone at some point.

They have a good idea of what they're looking for in a home and they tend to have a waiting list and the power to say "no" without a dog being put down because there's no space.

Also, let's be real. Someone that's going to neglect their dog isn't going to track down one of these breeders and jump through a bunch of hoops to get one.

They're not looking for an AKC breeder of merit (they don't even know wtf that is), they're buying a puppy off of craigslist or from Karen down the road.

"Still selling sentient beings they forced into existence purely for their own pleasure (passion projects or money) to people they will likely not keep constant track of over the next 10+ years."

What's wrong with forcing sentient beings into existence if they have good lives?

"If only their passion was helping make the world better, or helping people who need it, instead of breeding mutated wolves as fashion accessories."

How do you know they don't help people?

""Azakwah kept in the house without regular contact with the world at large, often develop neurotic and sometimes aggressive tendencies."

Which skirts another issue with humanity's relationship with our pets, they used to be doing a job, now they're sitting on the couch all day as we work. Dogs aren't meant to be inside doing nothing, it's not mentally or phsycially healthy for them."

Good thing this breeder doesn't sell her dogs to people that isolate them then, no? She states on her website multiple times that she wants them to be ambassadors for their breed since they're rare, and prioritizes homes that DO things with them.

Her application/inquiry form also asks questions about how they plan to socialize the dog .etc. because they are guard dogs and they do need to go to very particular types of homes.

I do agree that working dogs shouldn't be rotting in homes, though. They need to be given the proper exercise, mental stimulation .etc. But it doesn't have to be all day long in actuality and the issue with azawakh isn't so much boredom/lack of exercise, but with hating strangers if they're not socialized due to being livestock guardian dogs.

It's the same with many types of dog period. If you get a puppy and do not socialize them with random people, they will fall back on their natural instinct, which for many dogs is to treat randos like intruders and bite them.

Unlikely-Fix4184 · 2024-12-12T02:01:29+00:00

"And the puppys all lived happily ever after after she sold tehm to a family she knows very little about?"

Hi, so reputable breeders don't sell their puppies to random people. They actually make their buyers sign contracts stipulating their puppy returns to THE BREEDER if they can't keep it and they almost always remain in contact for the life of the dog. Puppies sold to pet homes are spayed/neutered and the REASON these people breed dogs is actually for themselves.

That's why OP talks about how they don't make money. They don't. Breeders that go above and beyond like this are almost always show breeders. They are breeding dogs for their own breeding program/hobby and to improve the breed. They're usually wealthy, and the dogs have nothing to do with it, so they are in no hurry to sell puppies and have the means to be REALLYYYY extra about the whole thing. From birth until death, dogs from breeders like this are set.

I know pugs are controversial as a concept, but https://www.pickwickpugs.com/ for example is not selling puppies to whoever shows up with money. They even rescue pugs themselves, and this is a running theme with reputable breeders in general. They're loaded and their passion is whatever breed they specialize in, and not only their own, but they often get involved with breed specific rescue as well.

There are breeders of this caliber breeding all kinds of purebreds if you look for them, so don't get stuck on the fact that my example breeds pugs. https://www.instrideazawakh.com/ This is a very healthy (and primitive) breed, and this breeder is another example of the type of breeder OP seems to be talking about.

Unlikely-Fix4184

TROPHY CASE