Comments | spiffystuff: Things that aren't true

spiffystuff

Things that aren't true

Jun 15, 2007 16:31

Uhhh, I don't remember where I was told this -- my panel at SPACE? my trip to the Ukraine, where social issues were talked of muchly? -- but someone stated that the gender ratio in the united states was 60% women to 40% men. I questioned this, saying that I heard this was the current gender ratio of college, but as I recall she (it was definitely ( Read more... )

gender, statistics, peta

Comments 19

sithjawa June 15 2007, 23:09:10 UTC

You're going to get me started, and if you get me started on that subject, I have a hard time getting myself stopped.

There's apparently a trend where shelters won't allow people known to mistreat animals to adopt (there are blacklists of known animal abusers). Great... except apparently "mistreat" includes "allow to go outdoors, even attended" for cats. So, um, a cat should be euthanized rather than allowed outdoors.

Hahahah! *where's the start button?!* spiffystuff June 15 2007, 23:29:42 UTC

Uhg, *I know*. I hate the dilution of terms that's so prevalent with today's misdirection and spin campaigns ( ... )

Re: Hahahah! *where's the start button?!* sithjawa June 15 2007, 23:42:51 UTC

When I think about this kind of thing it makes me wonder if I should just become part of the "humans aren't suited to have pets and shouldn't be given control over nonhuman things" camp. I respect (as much as I disagree with) people's choice to value safety over quality-of-life for themselves and their pets, but I don't think they have a right to force that choice upon others. I have also heard people say that pets of all kinds should not be allowed near other pets of the same kind because it might excite them and that would cause stress which could be injurious to their health. YES, BECAUSE ENDLESS MONOTONY IS SO HEALTHY. LET US AVOID ALL STIMULUS WHATSOEVER.

Re: Hahahah! *where's the start button?!* spiffystuff June 15 2007, 23:54:33 UTC

Here here! Hell, letting animals that, in the wild, might be predator/prey sniff each other a bit is fine in my book too, as long as it's closely supervised and none get hurt of course. Probably a hell of a lot more interesting than doing nothing.
But animals of the same kind? Even social animals?! RAH!

chyroptera June 16 2007, 00:13:53 UTC

Dude. PETA accused my company of killing and torturing cats. They called the customer service people and blew fog horns in their ears. (this was way before I started working there, but it has effected things to this day) Plz make effigy and BURN IT!

spiffystuff June 16 2007, 00:32:32 UTC

Hurm, I was planning on humanely putting it to sleep...
That's the ethical way to do it!

spiffystuff June 16 2007, 00:33:47 UTC

.... and I forgot to respond to the interbreasting parts!
Dude! What the crap? Why on earth did they think your company was killing and torturing cats? (and, uh, what is your company?!) Story time please! :D

chyroptera June 17 2007, 03:18:27 UTC

*puts on story-telling hat*

My company makes products for science classrooms, one of which is preparing cats for dissection. I don't think my company actually puts the cats down- they come in that way from shelters where they would otherwise be burned/gotten rid of simply because they exist. (this happened in the early 90's, when I was in like 1st grade; I relate this story as my memory serves from an Ethical Treatment of Animals meeting I went to last year)

Someone from PETA applied to my company and sneaked a camera in. I guess there's a part of the injecting process (you inject the *dead* cats with stuff so that their veins and arteries show up when they're dissected by students) where the cats are shaken. The PETA person secretly filmed this and told local news stations that the cats were still *alive* and being tortured. FTW.

Pt. 1 canis_ridens June 16 2007, 02:41:39 UTC

PETA is no good, but the bill is not some EBIL HORRIBLE OMG PET EXTINCTION piece of legislation. Read the text that you linked. This bill has numerous exemptions, and if the pet meets any of them, rather than all of them, then the owner is entitled to an intact permit. For example, there is an exemption for animals being trained for show or working competitions. They have three entire years to earn that title, and, having known a few responsible breeders, I can say that training does, in fact, start before four months. The breeder license is only required if the animal is not a recognized purebred in training for competition obedience, carting, rally, agility, protection, search and rescue, service animal work, police work, showing, or any of the other numerous activities responsible breeders do with their pets. Quite frankly, the irresponsible backyard breeders producing "purebred" pets, despite the numerous expensive health problems that they typically have, still aren't normally any less expensive than those from responsible ( ... )

working legislation spiffystuff June 16 2007, 04:02:06 UTC

I know I just asked for proof that it worked; I saw that you sited the Santa Cruz legislation. The opposition says that the data for that is crap?

Re: working legislation canis_ridens June 16 2007, 04:17:56 UTC

See here. They like to point out an increase in intakes after 2004. In late 2004, a new shelter opened in a city of 50,000 people, likely accounting for the increase. Also, the assertion that euth rates have declined statewide is based on data that does not control increased rescue activity over the past few decades. I.e., there may be fewer pets euthanized, but many more are going into foster care, some in different states, than they were previously.

Pt. 2 canis_ridens June 16 2007, 02:42:06 UTC

Basically, dog and cat shows will still come to California, because SHOW PETS ARE EXEMPT (I don't think the opposition website bothered to read the bill). Purebred cats and dogs will not go extinct, because animals belonging to someone with a business permit *OR*- not "and," but "or"- those enrolled in any of the numerous competitions that responsible breeders use to trial their stock are also exempt. Service and police dogs will not go extinct, because those are exempt. The only reduction we'll likely see is in purebreds and mutts that specifically wind up at the shelter, and even those aren't going to go extinct. The overdramatization of this bill by the opposition is driving me nuts! PETA, for all of their problems, at least isn't that shrill, and, just because they support the bill doesn't automatically make it TEH EBIL BAD PETKILLER LAW. Perhaps the bill sponsers should go through the text and use giant red fonts and blinking text to highlight the important parts, since people don't seem to be reading it. As for me, I won't be ( ... )

Re: Pt. 2 spiffystuff June 16 2007, 04:00:13 UTC

Hahaha, thanks for responding! I kind of figured you'd like that it would force all the zoophiletards to fix their animals. XD ( ... )

Re: Pt. 2 canis_ridens June 16 2007, 04:53:13 UTC

In LA, which recently enacted its own legislation, the cost of an intact license has not increased. In LA and the Inland Empire, there's already a $20 difference in cost between the license for an intact animal and that for a fixed pet. While free spay-neuter would help, we already have that in some areas (some of the pit rescues in the San Jose area will do it for free), it would only help prevent accidental litters, rather than deliberate ones. Granted that the state should push for that and feral cat TNR programs, but part of the problem is that people would have to be willing to take advantage of them. Remember that little brown pit that I kept dropping off at the shelter at my last house? (She was the one that menstruated all over the back seat of my car, indicating that she wasn't spayed. This is another reason to spay your female dog if you're not going to title and breed her... ) The shelter fined the owners, but she was returned, intact, each time. If any dog was at risk of unplanned (by the humans) pregnancy, that would be ( ... )

Some counterpoints to consider lucasmembrane June 16 2007, 02:51:59 UTC

First: I'm right there with you on hating PETA. For a great many reasons, but mainly because any organization that protests testing of investigational drugs on animals (a rant for another time) by *setting fire to the animal facility* deserves every ounce of that hellfire and damnation they threaten us with. They also deserve to be denied access to every drug we ever have produced or will produce, which thought I find quite amusing in a grim, schadenfreude sort of way. However, as I was reading, a few thoughts occurred to me:

Sure, it doesn't sound that bad, but force spay/neuter programs haven't worked. Why let government take away your choices? Public education campaigns do work, and they aren't cooercive!Sure, public education programs work fine. On people like you and me, that is. However, might I be so indelicate as to point out that we are, generally speaking, smarter than the average bear? And perhaps a bit more conscientious than average? Sad as it is, I've known many people who don't view pets as living, thinking ( ... )