Adventures Gone Awry

I don't know what I was or was not thinking, but I decided to instigate a foolish experiment and use a Facebook™ conversation as ostensible material for a blog post. The intended effect of this was to underscore/highlight the collaborative aspects of all this networked whatnot and what not, now that everything is so bleedin’ public.



(This fact reminds me of an old friend of mine, who ALWAYS picked his damn nose. Indiscriminately. All the stupid damn time. I was completely grossed out by this at first, of course, but came eventually to see it as a [pardon the pun] thumbed-nose at interpersonal decorum. This did naught to reduce or ameliorate the extraordinary nastiness of the compulsion, but such a rationale did make its frequency less disturbing to my young mind.)



So, back to the thing with the things and that sort of thing. I decided to begin my Facebook thread with a broad statement in tangential (but apparent) relation to current events. I got all sorts of surprises. I chose the Westminster Dog Show, because I don’t understand how anyone could be without an opinion about that. While I stand by the things that I said (only more moderately), I am fortunate to have a) been humored, and b) realized that the distinctions between our naïve and nascent platforms for socializing, while seemingly subtle, are indeed concrete and NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH.

Here goes (please pardon the occasional underlined names. I'm simply a lower primate by this hour):

Benb Gallaher

dog breeders should be imprisoned. there. i've said it. what they do is full-on disgusting: "could you please, under questionable circumstances, copulate with your lookalike, so that i can sell the babies for profit?"

it's NARCISSISM. and that's not accounting for the fact that the cutesy-poo products are full of mutations; it's as acceptable as intentionally breeding humans with chromosomal abnormalities.

RA

I agree with breeding dogs for show...but there are working dogs that are breed for real work and not show. Real working Sheepdogs for one example.

Benb Gallaher

that goes into deeper issues of animals for work and all of that hierarchical malarkey that i don't dare address; i'm talking more about the fact that pugs can't run, or that wrinkly dogs need their excess-skin folds to be swabbed free of grime on a regular basis.

AW

Don't even research how they do it over here.

Benb Gallaher

‎(that last commenter lives in china, lest anyone think that he's referring to Pennsylvania or what have you.)

JM

I used to breed pugs. There is a lot more that goes into it beyond just making two dogs screw.

GH
I hear the whole courting ritual is very drawn out and complex. Lots of fine dinners and genital sniffing.

Benb Gallaher (to JM)

maybe, but that doesn't legitimize the aspects of it to which I am referring. making dogs on purpose that can't run is a wacky career choice! but my issue is that the only creatures being served by the alleged (AKC-documented) purity of the rutlings are HUMANS, and that's pitiful wankery.

LR

That's a bit strong. Lots of people do disgusting things for money (cosmetic surgeons for example), but in this country we don't imprison people for having different values or beliefs, we imprison people for breaking laws. So I’d rather say "there ought to be a law..."

Benb Gallaher (to LR)

Oh, I know, but there are all sorts of laws (texting and driving, for example) that don't get enforced. Besides, "imprisoned" is more colloquial than anything, it's like "push the trap-door button."

I know that my statements have not sat well with people in this case, but it's impossible not to encounter online evidence of the Westminster Dog Show, and the shit is crazy. Reproductive manipulation is terrifying, and to benefit materially off of the unwitting products thereof is even terrifyinger. Cosmetic surgery is different; it's elective (boogie woogie woogie).

JM
I think it's an ignorant statement.

Benb Gallaher (to JM)

Please educate me.

LR

I also think dog breeding is gross and I choose not to participate in it. Like those that think gay marriage is gross can choose not to participate in it.

Benb Gallaher (to LR)

Gay marriage is elective, and consensual. This is about manipulating other creatures into procreating so that you can sell the progeny, which seems entirely different.

Benb Gallaher (to JM)

I would love to know of any way in which it's different than how it seems, because it's got mainstream acceptance that I don't understand.

JL

Disgusting inbreeding though it may be, It is the sole reason there exists the creature(s) we call dogs.

JM

How then is it acceptable to eat meat or drink milk from animals that were bred that purpose?

Benb Gallaher (to JM)

Eating animal products is perceived as being essential for survival. I don’t endorse breeding for that purpose, but don't know enough about it. Provision of sustenance and/or nourishment, even if it's only perceived by the consumer, is a function that's different from vanity; the whole dynamic is different in its essence. I don't understand how they could be the same.

I'm not averse to be being seen as myopic or wrong, and I'm open to having my mind changed, but I have never found a compelling contrary argument. I have to go get a haircut. ‎(That last sentence was unrelated to those that had preceded it.)

JM

It's perceived that way, but it's not necessary. I was a vegetarian for nearly 13 years and was never healthier. I attribute my youthfulness, outside of near-perfect Swiss pedigree, to my diet.

Now about fashion vs. function: If we could ask them, do you think dogs would prefer we eat them or become members of our families?

LR 

My point was just that those who are terrified and disgusted by gay marriage are just convinced of their rightness as you are about this.

Benb Gallaher (to JM)
the whole vegetarianism thing is one sticky wicket: i, for one, began to eat meat after a vegetarian spell based upon medical orders. everyone is (or at least seems) different.

re what dogs would find preferable: the latter, of course.

but on what basis would they become members of our families? in spite of, or because of, engineered traits? because of visible adherence to a certain set of genetic guidelines germane to documented breeding? as a human, i know that i would be given the creeps by a family like that.

(to LR) right, but nobody has choices made FOR them in the gay-marriage analogy. my issue is of people profiteering from calculated breeding. and now my hair is even longer, so i must get it cut.

(to LR) and i'm not convinced of my rightness, because i'd really like to be wrong.

JM

Mutualism.

This isn't some recent trait that was bred into dogs. http://news.discovery.com/animals/ancient-dog-burial-siberia-110228.html

Prehistoric Dog Lived, Died Among Humans: Discovery News

news.discovery.com
Remains of the Husky-like dog, buried 7,000 years ago in Siberia, suggest people saw it as a thinking, social being.

Benb Gallaher (to JM)

and inbreeding is all well and good--it's got to be in my lineage, probably uncomfortably close--but it's about calculating breeding for money and the absence of choice.

Benb Gallaher (to JM)

i'm gonna read that, as soon as i get my haircut (it's an involuntary skullet).

JM
This is where I bring up breeding animals for meat & milking. They are also bred for profit and don't have a choice.

GJ

Benb, i think any argument separating the morality of breeding animals vs. eating them is flawed... At its essence the moral question is: is it right for humans to determine the fate of animals in ways that are beneficial primarily to humans and not decided only by the best interest of the animal? If you eat meat I would say that you are indicating a yes answer to this question as I imagine it is not in the best interest of the animal to ne eaten. If it is morally acceptable to decide when and how an animal dies, then why is it not right to decide how it mates, or what the disposition of the offspring is?

Benb Gallaher (to GJ)

(of course it's flawed... shhh!)

i think that that's the best way of putting it that i've heard so far, but the difference is that other animals (even humans‎) can decide if/when we die, but the presumption of control over how we begin is the question.

this is exactly the kind of exchange that i am seeking, by the by.

what if a bunch of dogs made us do it to our relatives, for instance, in order to fulfill an objective according to a value system that's anathema to us? (granted, i've no idea of how they'd swing that, but still—it wouldn't be the same as dingoes stealing a baby).

GJ

Well that's the thing, animals don't decide, we decide for them. The argument is either animals DO have a right to self-determination or they DON'T. Philosophically valid arguments can be made on both sides, but I think we can agree most folks accept the DON'T side of that argument.

However, your original post also cites another issue which is the intentional development of traits that are detrimental to the animal, but advantageous to the human.

Benb Gallaher (to GJ)

exactly!

GJ

This then, in my opinion, leads to a slightly different moral argument in that these traits can create suffering on the part of the animal. Self-determination is one thing (the CHOICE issue you mentioned), but carelessly creating suffering in an animal is a separate moral argument. If you breed an animal so it is more pleasing to animals, this, in and of itself is simply a matter concerning self-determination, which I think we agree or almost agree, is not a right animals are endowed with.

Benb Gallaher (to GJ)

but they are contiguous, and my arguments throughout this (not the original statement) have been presented in response to other points raised.

GJ

However, at the point these traits that please us also create suffering in animals it moves to the immoral side of the issue.

Benb Gallaher (to GJ)

that is much closer to what i was saying. entitlement, manipulation, narcissism. the original post was meant to be maximally inflammatory toward what i feel to be (and most humans don't consider as being) a nasty-ass pastime.

GJ

So i would say that breeding animals for our own benefit is not immoral (or Gross), doing so to the degree that results in animals who suffer is wrong (and very very gross).

Now we could push this moral argument even further by asking if this suffering issue is mitigated by people being willing to take measurements to eliminate the suffering?

Benb Gallaher (to GJ)

yeah, i never intended to bring the function piece into it. i'm talking about the vanity thing. i'll be back; i need a hair cut baaaaaaaad.

GJ

So is it OK to breed dogs that cannot run as long as we ensure that we provide a lifestyle that does not require them to run? Is it OK to breed dogs that have those deep face wrinkles so long as we are willing to regularly clean them so they never get infections etc. and therefore never suffer?

I'd say this develops a more difficult argument because then you also get into the element of responsibility on the part of the breeder to ensure that all dogs with those potentially detrimental traits a cared for in a manner that prevents suffering....

Benb Gallaher (to GJ)

and there is no way to ensure that.

GJ 

Sorry for the diatribe, but we could follow this rabbit very far down the hole indeed...

Benb Gallaher (to GJ)

it's great. i really like hearing from people about this.

GJ
Suffice it to say that I disagree that breeding dogs is inherently immoral, but agree that there are aspects of the dog breeding industry that are immoral and gross!

GJ (to Benb Gallaher)

Oh absolutely there is no way to ensure that so i think a very solid moral argument could be made against intentionally breeding traits that could even potentially cause undue suffering.

As far as the vanity thing, i think it is irrelevant whether it us vanity, or what the purpose is. It could be vanity, or emotion (breeding animals that emotionally bond) or taste (breeding tastier chickens)... It all boils down to pleasure. We breed animals that please us. We've determined that animals have no right to self determination, and decided to breed them in ways that please us.

Well, benb, we'll have to continue this tomorrow if we so choose, I'm off to bed.

LR

I think many breeders are truly in it because they love the dogs. They know there is a demand and if they can fill that demand in the safety of their home, where the mom and puppies will get proper love and healthcare and dignity than good for them. One less puppymill. Pet-owner breeders are the best weapon against the disgusting puppymill creeps. Also, most of these folks aren't seeking to genetically modify anything, but rather to preserve the traits of an existing breed.

SBH

Allowing this to exist is almost certainly wrong. In any case, if the breeding of certain wrinkled dogs isn't objectionable for any reasons previously noted, I would argue that the creation of something so hideous is clearly morally reprehensible and should be punished with a minimum jail sentence of 5 years, give or take.

chinese crested dog - Google Search

LR

Don't hate the player, hate the game.