8/21/2003: Huge pig sacrificed

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by quzah

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world. Welcome to reality.

If I was living in a fantasy world you could be damn sure you wouldn't be in it.

Your assessment is 100% false on the above pharagraph. The point of removing the testicles of a dog is not so they don't have offspring. It is so they lose all desire to do so.

Your assessment is 100% false in the above sentences. The whole fucking point of removing a dog's (or cat's) testicles is so that they don't have offspring, which leads to pet overpopulation which is where the real abuse comes in to play (of which I have yet to expound on due to the unfortunate shift in this conversation). In fact, you yourself are getting caught up in your web of falsehoods, ignorance, and illogical rantings. I quote now from another of your previous posts (including typos which I have noted in italics). Quzah said: "The reason the chop the nuts off of dogs is so they don't go out and have sex. They can't. They're basicly broken from that point on. They can't procreate. They no longer have the desire to, because they don't have any more testosterone. They don't really care about marking their territory, or being king of the block." I do believe that "having sex and procreating" is the exact same thing as "having offspring". You, my friend, have just contradicted the shit out of yourself.

If it were just making sure they didn't procreate, they'd just do a vasectomy. (And yes, they can do them for pets, they just chose not to.)

Yes, for once you're correct. They can perform vasectomies on domestic pets, and some people opt for this procedure for their pets, but it is more evasive and costly so most pet owners go with the standard procedure which has been performed for decades.

The reason they have eunuchs is so that there's enough of a man around to be a servent to do this or that task, but not enough of a man left to do the task.

I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate". Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect.

Please go take a high health / school sex education class again, so you can actually find out what the testicles do. Removal of the testicles is just a tad bit more than "slightly diminishing" your sex drive.

I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class.

Your statement that animals would volunteer for either operation is absurd. The entire basis of animal life is to procreate. Why in the hell would they opt not to do so?

Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well.

They're not like humans, in that they (en-masse) take care of their young indefinately. They simply raise them for a year or so, and they're done with them. The point of a dogs life is to produce as many offspring as they can. That's all they do.

I don't know of many humans who take care of their young "indefinitely", but I do know of many who raise them for a short time and then they're done with them. Another reason a few more humans should consider castration. BTY, watch the spelling, 'indefinately' is incorrect.

Take wolves or cats, or whatever. All they do is get enough food to live, find some place to sleep, and procreate. Their very nature is to simply produce offspring.

True enough, but in the example I was discussing I said "what if" we could ask animals to "volunteer" for sterilization. I said they would, you said they wouldn't. Don't you think that in this case some animals might say, "Gee, I am kind of tired of spending all my time procreating and raising offspring, I'd much rather spend my day running around, exploring, doing whatever I want to do"?

Survival of the fittest is how it plays. That's why they have more than one offspring at a time. Have a bunch, raise the ones that survive.

I'm quite familiar with the "survival of the fittest" idea and animals that have several offspring at a time is only one method used by animals to ensure that some of their offspring will survive to reproduce. You are absolutely incorrect in your previous statement. Animals that use this form of reproduction don't "have a bunch" and "raise the ones that survive". They, in fact, spend their energy in producing several offspring at one time and offer little to no parenting afterward. It is by chance alone that at least a few survive to maturity and are able to reproduce. Another method of survival involves producing very few, or even just one, offspring then spending your energy "raising" those offspring for a long period of time, teaching them how to survive and hopefully this knowledge will allow them to live long enough to reproduce. Survival of the fittest affects offspring of both methods of reproduction.

It, as I've stated, would be a basic lobotomy. It alters their very existance. It isn't natural for said operation to happen. It would never occur in nature, and therefore, they wouldn't even grasp the concept. Let alone ask for it.

No one said it was "natural", but domestic pets are in a sense not "natural" in that they are not "wild" creatures. Once humans domesticate an animal they take on the responsibility of caring for that animal and providing the safest most humane environment possible. This includes not allowing them to run all over producing offspring that are unwanted and abandoned or put to death at an animal shelter. Millions of stray pets suffer incredibly as a result of being abandoned. There are simply too many pets and not enough homes for them. They wander the streets sick and starving spreading disease. Many get injured in fights or hit by cars. Many are targets of abuse and torture at the hands of idiots who find it amusing to watch an innocent animal suffer. I think if an animal had the ability to realize the fate of many of its offspring that it would choose not to constantly procreate just because it can. But, since they don't have this ability, it is our responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring. Therefore, any responsible and caring pet owner SPAYS OR NEUTERS their pets!!! BTY, learn how to fucking spell before you attempt to make a bigger asshole out of yourself than you already have, 'existance' is incorrect.