Escaping the Echo Chamber

[Frelga]

Okay, maybe I was wrong then.

I don't think so. Attractive people, by definition, are distracting - they attract attention. The difference is, those of us who are attracted to men are expected to be able to deal with distractions appropriately, and we do so without much trouble. But women are expected to take responsibility for men being distracted by them, and that's just illogical.

[elengil]

But women are expected to take responsibility for men being distracted by them, and that's just illogical.

[RoseMorninStar]

Okay, maybe I was wrong then.

No, I wouldn't say wrong. I'm saying he's a very attractive male. That doesn't mean I would base hiring him (or not) on his looks or dress or that I couldn't control myself in his presence. Or that it is his fault that he has man parts and is dressed in a way that shows him to his best advantage. I agree with Frelga.

[elengil]

Even *when* a man dresses specifically to accentuate his ... assets... he is still not seen as incompetent or incapable.

Even *when* a woman dresses totally covered without a hint of a body existing underneath her clothing, women are. They are seen as irrational, emotional, incompetent, incapable, ignorant, they are disregarded and their contributions diminished.

Stop blaming it on the clothing.

[Sunsilver]

As for 'designer dogs'...don't get me started!! Will give you the full story later when I have time!

Okay, here's the scoop on designer dogs, the biggest scam to ever hit the dog-breeding world.

The whole thing started when Wally Conron, the puppy breeding manager for Royal Guide Dogs of Australia was asked by his manager to produce a hypo-allergenic guide dog for a woman whose husband was allergic to dogs.

He thought that by crossing a Labrador with a standard poodle he'd get a dog that was hypo-allergenic and had the traits to be a good guide dog.

Now when you cross a shedding breed (Lab - they shed COPIOUSLY!) with a non-shedding breed, not all puppies are going to have a non-shedding coat, because genetics doesn't work that way. Some of the offspring shed, some of them didn't and some were part-way in between, which is what anyone familiar with genetics would expect.

He also found out the non-shedding poodle type coats were not necessarily hypo-allergenic. This is totally contrary to what breeders of designer dogs tell you, but it's quite true:

When the pups were 5-months-old, we sent clippings and saliva over to Hawaii to be tested with this woman's husband. Of the three pups, he was not allergic to one of them. In the next litter I had, there were 10 pups, but only three had non-allergenic coats. Now, people are breeding these dogs and selling them as non-allergenic, and they're not even testing them!"

Also, of course, not all of the dogs were temperamentally suited to be guide dogs:

Conron immediately discovered that since the Labradoodle is a hybrid and not a pure breed, the resulting puppies did not have consistently predictable characteristics. Although all Labradoodles have some common traits, their appearance, working-ability, and behavioral characteristics remain somewhat unpredictable.

However, many unscrupulous breeders jumped on the doodle bandwagon, and began out crossing their dogs to poodles, claiming (falsely) that the dogs were non-shedding and hypo-allergenic. Soon these dogs, which are essentially mutts, were selling for more than purebreds.

This has resulted in a great deal of harm being done to purebred dogs, most of which are carefully bred by people who have been into breeding and showing for years, and carefully study the pedigrees to make sure they are not breeding dogs that will develop health problems. They also do health testing (hip x-rays, and other genetic test, depending on the breed) before breeding, while your average doodle breeder does none of these things.

In my time running the boarding kennel, I met a large number of these outcrosses. A lot of the were poorly trained and flat-out crazy. Some of them had intermediate type coats that matted like crazy and were very difficult to groom.

I met one labradoodle owner who was told by the breeder that her dog didn't need clipping until it was at least 9 months old. This resulted in the dog becoming severely matted, and its coat had to be shaved right to the skin. Knowledgeable, ethical poodle breeders accustom their dogs to being clipped by the age of 8 to 10 weeks. You can imagine what it was like trying to clip a large, strong 9 month old dog that had NEVER seen a pair of clippers before!!

I've also heard of doodle breeders dropping pups that had the shedding type coat at the humane society shortly after birth, as there was no market for them. This would result in the pups being euthanized, as bottle raising puppies is extremely time-consuming. Also, exposing very young pups to a kennel environment when their immune systems are immature, and they aren't getting the antibodies from their mother's milk often results in the pups succumbing to communicable diseases.

So, to make a long story short, if you want a non-shedding breed, buy a poodle or a terrier or another breed that is bred to have that sort of coat! And DO NOT assume the dog won't trigger allergies in someone who is truly allergic to dogs!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog ... s-creation

[Inanna]

But cross breeding is over all good for the species. Inbreeding has intensive problems, you can’t deny that.

[Sunsilver]

There are a lot of purebred dog breeders that really don't understand genetics, Innana, and breed too closely. Good breeders never breed closer than 4 generations back for common ancestors.

Cross breeds are JUST as likely to get genetic problems as purebreds, and the breeders DO NOT bother with health testing, they just throw two dogs together, and hope for the best!

Mutts (cross breeds) are healthier is a lie. And mutts do not breed true, so you have no idea what you are going to get in terms of temperament, health or coat type.

Here's the pedigree for the dog in my sig picture: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_ ... -vorbergen

This is breeding done the RIGHT way! Pups were handled daily from birth by both adults and children. They were also exposed to cats.

By 8 weeks, they were exposed to loud vehicles and other outdoor sounds. The breeder began testing their drive and temperament by playing with them with balls and a flirt pole.

And when one of the pups gets sick, this is the sort of care it gets: Pup was also given IV fluids, as the breeder is a retired paramedic.

[Inanna]

I had NO idea that cross breeds are healthy is a mis-informed position. Given how well you know this domain (and I *don't*), I'll take your word of it.

And that's the cutest photo ever.

[Sunsilver]

Inanna, well, given what I posted earlier about the short-faced breeds, it's not a blanket statement. Certain breeds would certainly be healthier if the breeders abandoned the extremes they are breeding for. But mixed breeds certainly CAN suffer from things like hip and elbow dysplasia, bloat, cancer and other ailments that are common in purebreds. Just because you out-cross doesn't mean the genes responsible for these problems have disappeared!

And like I said, designer dog breeders that are just in it for the money are much less likely to test for inheritable genetic problems before breeding.

If you think that photo is cute, here's Eska at 9 weeks, playing with the flirt pole. The last few seconds tells you everything you need to know about her wonderful temperament! <3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3LzXY3 ... gjFaYa8VSA

[Alatar]

Just to be clear.

WRT Pets. I have no problem with keeping animals as companions, or breeding animals to be good at specific duties.

[Sunsilver]

Yes, Alatar, I saw that. And where dogs are concerned, breeding animals for a purpose DOES produce pets, as not all the pups in a litter will be suitable for the job they're meant to do. So, there's no need for a breeder to breed specifically for the pet market. As an example, the ultimate working breed is probably the border collie. One of my aunts was fascinated by their herding skills, and often attended the sheep dog trials to watch them. She eventually acquired a collie of her own. It was one that was too shy and skittish to compete in trials. The minute it saw a stranger, it would bolt and hide under the porch, but before it was a year old, they had to spell the word 'cow' or it would be off to round them up, whether it was milking time or not!

What gets my goat are the people who insist you are killing a shelter dog if you buy from a reputable breeder. That's mainly what I was ranting against, not your post.

As you have seen, I have some pretty strong opinions when it comes to dog breeding, and had to vent!

[yovargas]

(I kinda feel like the whole dog breeding discussion belongs in another thread....)

[Sunsilver]

I think it's pretty much run its course, Yov.

[Inanna]

I agree, Al. But - in some sense, I get PETA’s position. These very acts - pets & breeding - also give rise to unethical treatments of animals.

Which is why I said - I am pretty sure that the quotes of PETA’s CEO are taken out of context. (And then of course put in with a pic in which she looks mildly demonic).

[Sunsilver]

Inanna, NO they are NOT taken out of context!! This lady is CUCKOO!! When she dies, she wants her friends to have a BBQ in her honour, where the main course is her own flesh. She also wants them to take some of her skin, tan it and make some useful item out of it!

Seriously. Google it.

And PETA has pulled some of the most outrageous stunts for publicity. They will do ANYTHING to get a headline!

Many of their claims are totally false. This is supposedly what happens when you shear a sheep:

I am covering the picture with a spoiler tag, as it's pretty disturbing.

Edit: okay, that didn't work. How do I do that?

Here's a link to the photo instead: https://www.peta.org.uk/blog/jona-weinh ... wool-coat/

To put this in context, PETA admits the so-called sheep is a foam model. Sheep are sheared with a larger version of the sort of clippers used to shear dogs with poodle type coats. In 6 years of running the kennel, I saw ONE injury to a dog as a result of being clipped. And the groomer called this dog 'the million dollar dog' because he was so very difficult to groom! He had a coat that always matted right to the skin. He also had extremely thin skin, AND would protest the grooming with every ounce of strength he had!

I'm sure injuries DO happen when sheep are being sheared, but any serious injury is going to cut into the farmer's profits, and if it happens too often, due to the shearer's carelessness, they will likely be out of a job!

[Maria]

Wool shears have teeth much further apart than dog or horse clippers. As a result, skin can get sucked into the teeth and a cut can happen. Shetland sheep have extremely stretchy, thin skin and are more prone to this than other sheep, which is half the reason I switched to scissor shearing (which isn't commercially viable).

The wound, however, is a simple straight cut, usually less than an inch long. Certainly not half skinned like that pic shows.

I've never had my sheep professionally sheared so I don't know how often a good shearer would cut a sheep. The whole procedure of holding the sheep for shearing, though, is designed to stretch the skin taut so it won't get cut. I learned how to do that, but my back just wasn't up for it. Works better for me to let the sheep stand on its own two feet and I just work around them.

[Sunsilver]

The truth about PETA from Dr. Stanley Coren: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... CzUmwXbRwM

I believe that any rational person is left with the obvious question, “How can an organization that is supposedly dedicated to the ethical treatment of animals justify killing all but 5 percent of the animals entrusted to their shelter, with the vast majority of these executed within 24 hours of their admission—well before they can be assessed, or any attempts made to find adoptive homes for them?”

Perhaps the best answer comes from Ingrid Newkirk herself. In an interview with Newsday in February 1988 she said, “In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”

Apparently Newkirk believes that one way to help achieve this “lovely” outcome is to destroy virtually all of the animals placed in PETA’s care before they can be adopted

Many of the celebrities who support their cause, and speak out in public supporting them would be gobsmacked if they knew about this agenda!

[River]

Makes me want to hug my cats and admire my husband's fish some more.

Domestic animals are, in effect, species we created. We have a responsibility to them. Their natural habitats are with us. We made them. We honor them by properly caring for them and putting them to the work they were meant for, whether it's labor, food, or companionship. Letting these animals got feral is not an ethical option. It's not fair to them and it's introducing an invasive species into the environment. Driving them to extinction (the PETA position) isn't an ethical option either.

[RoseMorninStar]

I feel the thoughts/concerns I originally brought up are more nuanced than some of the extreme positions being discussed. Whether the woman who founded PETA is wacko or no, there has been more awareness to the humane treatment of animals, which is a good thing. I was not advocating the banning of pets or livestock and discussion shouldn't be limited to an 'all or nothing' extreme point of view. I have had pets all of my life and I love them. I eat meat and have worn leather and wool.

Perhaps I can make my thoughts/concerns a bit clearer: raising massive quantities of livestock for consumption creates environmental issues. It doesn't seem unreasonable (for me) to cut back on my consumption of meat (for multiple reasons). That's not everyone's choice and that's OK. Some choose to go Vegan, and that's OK. I imagine fewer cows, pigs, etc.. would exist if we didn't eat so many of them (although I realize bison and other large ruminants roam(ed) the earth in great numbers, or did so at one time, so maybe not-what do I know!) I tend to be uncomfortable with extremes so I currently don't feel the need to become a full-blown veg*n to make a difference. OK.. so I'm all good with that. What the article made me question (and what messed with my head a bit) was how do the keeping of pets fit into that narrative? Humans & dogs/cats formed a partnership mainly based on food. The human population has increased and so has the keeping of pets. In the last decade there has been a 29% increase in pet ownership in the US. Pet ownership has also increased in the UK and I would imagine elsewhere too. It is only recently (maybe the last 50-70 years?) that we have fed pets commercially prepared food, which requires commercially raised livestock. Yes, dogs & cats, etc.. ate meat prior to that, but it was often scraps, vermin, birds. Again, I am not advocating the abolition of pets!! I am not saying pets should be released to fend for themselves. What the article made me question is if people are being encouraged to reduce their environmental impact how does the proliferation of pets fit into the overall environmental picture? It challenged my comfort level and I'm attempting to sort out.

The releasing pets 'into the wild' (as with snakes) has led to different types of ecological concerns and I'm certainly not advocating that!

[Frelga]

In brief - cruelty to animals is bad and we need to be better about raising food animals, if not for their sake then our own.

Ironically, vegan lifestyle as practiced by most vegans I know is a privileged choice, with supplements and fancy ingredients, often from distant places. Agave syrup is a lot worse for the environment than bees, for an example.

I've seen woke kids say there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. Neither I nor they are exactly sure what that means, but I feel it applies to veganism somehow.

As far as companion animals - I am aware that there are multiple problems in the world, and we all survive because enough different people care about enough different things with a passion. But we still have children in cages. We have children taken from living parents and sometimes adopted out to strangers. So, I really can't find it in my heart to worry about the plight of house cats at the moment.