Is it really ethical to castrate a pet?

Is it really ethical to castrate a pet?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    unless it's a female cat, not.

    female cats are downright incontrollable due to a variety of factors

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    should be mandatory

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what should be mandatory is sterilization of autistic humans. their noise sensitivity is antisocial.
      >listening to music in my car at a stoplight
      >sperglord subhuman in a miata visibly getting angry, starts hitting their head and growling
      >playing in my yard with my dog during daylight hours
      >dog barking because excited
      >sperglord pauses WoW to open his window and start screaming
      >have company over, grilling ribs in the backyard
      >sperglord neighbor screams at us to shut up, says the grill smells like shit
      i feel sorry for them and their lack of meds but we don't need them breeding

      i really feel sorry for you. you will never know what it's like for everything to be meaningless background noise. i suppose every bark feels like something piercing your ear, pounding on your head, and it makes you angry like a cornered animal, but for the rest of us it... doesn't sound like anything. as long as dogs are kept inside at night it's all fine.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and we should castrate some humans as well

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    I only wonder why we don't do the same to humans.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For some animals, yes.
    Cats are a good example since they are extremely invasive and can fuck up ecosystems along with reducing their lifespans by a large margin.
    Dogs? It's a preference thing though it can extend their life expectancy as well.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It seems more unethical to just let your pet be constantly horny unable to satisfy their instincts

    Or you let them do it and then create a problem of a bunch of unwanted puppies that will surely be neglected or abused

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Retaining sexual energy is good for you.

      For some animals, yes.
      Cats are a good example since they are extremely invasive and can fuck up ecosystems along with reducing their lifespans by a large margin.
      Dogs? It's a preference thing though it can extend their life expectancy as well.

      It does not really extend their life expectancy. The studies are skewed because intact dogs in the US tend to be neglected as well.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, if you're gionna be an irresponsible piece of shit letting your cat run artound getting other cats pregnant and contributing to the stray cat problem, then I'd rather you lop his balls off. But if you're gonna be responsible, why would you do it? It'll hurt his development and make him fatter.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone who doesn't spay or neuter their pets are either too retarded to understand the point or some freak that wants to fuck their animals.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      whats this image then

      https://i.imgur.com/V6xtrZ3.png

      humans can not show that the benefits of neutering outweigh the risks. most studies are low quality. for example dogs do not live shorter lives in countries where neutering is illegal, implying confounding cultural variables in american studies saying neutered dogs lived longer. in an american study on unaltered females, dogs were not segregated by breed, and not spaying was associated with mammary cancer. a european study found that there was no correlation except for certain breeds, such as german shepherds, labrador retrievers, and golden retrievers, and those dogs. some breeds actually had lower mammary cancer rates when left intact. furthermore, multiple studies have correlated neutering at an early age with multiple musculoskeletal disorders and torn ligmanets, and neutering at any age with osteosarcoma, lymphoma, hemangiosarcoma, mast cell tumors, hypothyroidism, numerous autoimmune idsorders, urinary incontinence, and epilepsy. the only severe, life ending disorder associated with intact dogs is pyometra in intact females, the risk of which can be eliminated by an ovary sparing spay, a sterilization procedure that does not alter anything but the dog's fertility.

      you should really just leave dogs reproductive organs alone unless they're an immediate problem. it's not like you'd treat us any differently since everyone has to follow the same leash laws if their dog is spayed or not. when a health issue is not so clear cut as removing a tumor would be, we doubt that even adult humans can fully consent to something as radical as arbitrary removal of the gonads without intensive education and therapy. desiring gonadectomy without a pressing disorder it would immediately cure has been declared a mental disorder in the past, and to sane people, still is.

      are we gonna have to dig up the studies showing that mammary cancer risk is breed specific as well?

      maybe instead of fucking with animals bodies because you consider their natural adult behaviors inconvenient you just shouldn't take care of animals
      >unwanted litters!
      if you are incapable of keeping your dog separated from the world and vice versa when you can't be there to ensure adherence to the law, you just shouldn't own a dog.

      dogs should not be neutered unless the pertinent organs are diseased. dogs are people. if you would not do it to a person, do not do it to a dog, and if you would do it to a person, do it to a dog.
      >would you lightly smack a kid for stealing your food
      yes
      >would you yell at a kid for being a little gay
      yes
      >would you punish a kid with temporary isolation or removing good things to teach them the significance of following a rule
      yes
      >would you castrate a kid because you find horny teenagers offensive and think you'll have to take care of their accidental offspring
      maybe you shouldn't reproduce, and then this won't be an issue. Oh wait, american liberals are already starting to do this lul.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't ask you Karen

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I hate it when people say no to this but then forbid their animal to hump anything. Imagine being a horny teenager and never being allowed or even able to bust a nut. Literally just give them a designated thing to hump and put it away if people are over. If you can't stand the thought of your pooch being sexual so much that you'd opt to cut off their nuts instead of just letting them hump a pillow of their own you shouldn't get a dog in the first place.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Absolute coomer

      I haven't nutted in months and it's peachy. Normal T levels and everything, just stopped being a coomer after I converted.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let's be honest, it's not really ethical to keep a pet at all

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if they did not consent to being your pet they would just jump the fence once they had the opportunity and run away. if they do love you and want to stay with you, they choose to do that. any healthy dog can get over 6-8 feet of fencing if they want to.

      it gets unethical when you breed them into total retards, lumbering cripples, and pathetic midgets like borzoi, bulldogs, and chihuahuas, then they really don't get a choice and might not even be aware of their situation. or worse, keep them tied up at all times so they can't even escape your tyranny.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oh man, here come the dog fuckers.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dog piss is toxic to plants and dog shit does not decompose. dogs are not natural animals and are a net negative to the environment. they can be eradicated without an impact on the ecosystem, it would actually improve nature

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is no genetic difference between dogs and wolves. They are the same species. Their shit and piss is the same. The ecosystem is far better adapted to canines than it is to anything else.

      Once abandoned dogs rapidly re-evolve into wolves within a dozen generations. They are natural animals currently filling an unnatural role in human society. The only unnatural thing here. And in human society they have nothing to piss on but grass that never belonged there either.

      If you are worried about what is unnatural and what is not, place a shotgun in your mouth so it is aimed at your brainstem and pull the trigger. After you decompose a bit your dog will accept that your body is an empty husk and never waking up. They will eat you like any sane creature would, and then go on and their species will return to its natural state.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this map is almost identical to the natural range of homo sapiens sapiens, only we don't naturally live in north america and should have some presence in north africa.

        so is it really that unnatural if wolves live with us? it seems like an inevitable arrangement because we share the same niche but wolves are better hunters and humans are better caretakers.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >is it ethical to breed a legion of mutants?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      good point. off with your nuts!

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    of course

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fake, gay, and your dad loves you

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If your dog is not castrated, and you're not an official licensed breeder, then you're having sex with it.

    I will just assume you're a sick fuck who likes taking dog dicks or fucking your dog, depending on its gender if its not neutered or spayed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here comes the shrieking again

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't ask + don't care

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is that what you think about when you hide around the corner and start whacking it?

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If I ever get another dog (most likely not, the heartbreak of the inevitable is too much) I probably won't.
    It's also weird calling it "fixing" a dog

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No if Dog

    Yes if Cat

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >thread about castrating small animals
    >gets derailed by emotional shrieking women
    Every time. They need everyone else to agree with them so they don’t feel so bad about mutilating their poor dogs.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I really, really did not need you to post a selfie, homie.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >its another vegans destroy everyone in an argument episode
    speciesism is irrational

    lifeforms are lifeforms. life is sacred because it is, or nothing is sacred, all actions are arbitrary, and right and wrong are determined by who is alive and thriving and who is headed towards extinction.

    this is a true dichotomy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You have the hindu option, and the german option, but
      You forgot the roman option
      >All actions are arbitrary but actually it's not arbitrary because my god coincidentally agreed and whenever he didn't agree he changed his mind by coming to his son's friend in a dream according to this letter written 300 years after his son's friend died.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >NOOO DOGS ARENT FELLOW SOULED BEINGS BECAUSE... SOMETIMES SOME OF THEM DO STUFF I THINK IS ICKY!
    Lol

    They can figure out that a mirror shows themselves and everything behind them

    I'm pretty sure a dog is the equivalent of an adult that stopped getting smarter at about 7 years of age. At lesat the smarter breeds like goldens, huskies, shepherds, and collies are. Pitbulls and shit seem to be incapable of thought.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not an argument.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >DOGS DONT HAVE RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY BARK AT MIRRORS!
        >Proof that once they're used to mirrors they are actually self aware and were initially just acting like tribal humans who saw one for the first time and decided it was a gateway into the spirit world instead of a reflection
        >NOT AN ARGUMENT BECAUSE...IT ISNT OK!
        you sound like a bitch. daddy issues?

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no not until its full grown at least, it can literally cause problems the skeletal structure of your dog making it more prone to injury or arthritis.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I kept my dog's balls until his prostate started getting too big and he had 2 cases of his dick getting stuck hard to the point it could fall off.

    He has gotten way calmer and hungrier ever since but also it seems his age caught up to him thanks to it (he is 14)

    I would say if you can keep it but i dont think its that bad if you do it either.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    necessary evil. like abortion.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you think robbing an animal of its freedom to make it your pet is ok, then castrating it should pale in comparison. the only reason you even ask this question is because you think castration is abhorrent. animals however don't give a fuck apart from the pain after the operation, they aren't sentimental about their balls/ovaries. removing them isn't like removing a leg, because removing a leg doesn't improve the animal's quality of life.
    i mean fine if you want your pet intact, but you better not let it fuck around

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >cascading evil, AKA running down the slippery slope on purpose
      two wrongs does not make a right. one necessary wrong for their benefit and one absolute wrong that has no clear benefits to anyone but your lazy ass definitely does not make a right. also if you could guarantee me that no car would run again and every goat fucker, sheep fucker, and cat worshipper dropped dead i would let my dog run free. running free kills dogs, coincidentally so does gonadectomy.

      lol
      scared of the big word?

      you use "animals are like people" negatively when it's truth. i'd sooner neuter 20 africans than one dog.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >i'd sooner neuter 20 africans than one dog.
        So true

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >noo it's unethical, muh reproductive rights, you wouldn't do that to a person!
    Would you force a person to celibacy then? The double standard is strong ITT, intact female dogs that go into estrus again and again without mating their whole lives die of pyometra.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      do you actually suffer from celibacy? no. you meme yourself into it, but if you weren't aware of people mocking you for being a virgin you would have totally forgotten celibacy was even a thing. it would be the same as wanting a pizza but only having $1 in your wallet, you'd be over it in a minute. a dog definitely doesn't care.

      >The double standard is strong ITT, intact female dogs that go into estrus again and again without mating their whole lives die of pyometra.
      That's why everyone shills the ovary sparing spay over the american spay. Or, if your dog isn't a pitbull, breed them twice over their life. Every single dog of a good breed born and adopted to a family is one more shitbull creature rotting in a shelter.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then it is to the owner to have sex with their dogs to prevent that from happening.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's up with Americans and genital mutilation?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Talmud says slaves of the garden gnomes have to be circumcised, so once we got our foreskins chopped off we didn't think there was anything weird about cutting the genitals off everything else.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not if you are a feminist, that's for sure.
    > "NO ONE CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY"
    > "But here's Massacre, my neutered shitbull with broken jaw and its vocal chord removed. Oh look how he still gry to bite mommy even tho he cant he's such a lovely little boy!"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >with broken jaw and its vocal chord removed
      Please tell me that's not an actual thing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. The operation consists of breaking their jaws at 2 spots so they can never apply more than ~5 pounds of pressure with it afterward without extreme pain.
        Vocal chord removal is more common.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that is fucking horrific

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >with broken jaw and its vocal chord removed
      Please tell me that's not an actual thing.

      Yes. The operation consists of breaking their jaws at 2 spots so they can never apply more than ~5 pounds of pressure with it afterward without extreme pain.
      Vocal chord removal is more common.

      Supremely fucked, killing pitbulls en masse would be a more merciful alternative

      >noo it's unethical, muh reproductive rights, you wouldn't do that to a person!
      Would you force a person to celibacy then? The double standard is strong ITT, intact female dogs that go into estrus again and again without mating their whole lives die of pyometra.

      >intact female dogs that go into estrus again and again without mating their whole lives die of pyometra.
      I didn’t know this, also fucked, is there anything that’s exists in intact males?
      Also, dogs/cat siblings that live with each other will frequently attempt to have sex, barring keeping them separate entirely I don’t see any other solution.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >i don't see any other solution
        don't get mixed sex pairs of animals if you don't want them to breed.

        if no one had more than one or two dogs my neighborhood would be a much quieter, cleaner, and safer place. no one is actually capable of taking care of 3 or more animals. all of these miniature packs are a mix of males and females (whatever shelters and craigslist crackheads had available). taking care of an intact dog is harder than taking care of a mutilated dog as well so if no one spayed or neutered it would be 0 to 1 dogs per household. less dogs also means less puppies.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's wrong. Pyometra rates are <10% for most breeds. But, others, like collies, are way over 25%, skewing the overall statistic. Spayed dogs with cervical remnants can also get it because it's not estrus that causes it but a gradual thickening of uterine and cervical tissue that occurs regardless unless they have puppies.

        You can juts remove the uterus and cervix without the ovaries and pyometra is then only as possible in a spayed dog. Wolf sanctuaries do it all the time because it lets wolves "breed" and form a proper pack structure with an alpha pair without making more wolves. Also, apparently, if an infertile male mates with an intact female, the semen goes rancid and causes pyometra because they retain semen for 10+days to fertilize as many eggs as possible.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. It's feminine

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    humans can not show that the benefits of neutering outweigh the risks. most studies are low quality. for example dogs do not live shorter lives in countries where neutering is illegal, implying confounding cultural variables in american studies saying neutered dogs lived longer. in an american study on unaltered females, dogs were not segregated by breed, and not spaying was associated with mammary cancer. a european study found that there was no correlation except for certain breeds, such as german shepherds, labrador retrievers, and golden retrievers, and those dogs. some breeds actually had lower mammary cancer rates when left intact. furthermore, multiple studies have correlated neutering at an early age with multiple musculoskeletal disorders and torn ligmanets, and neutering at any age with osteosarcoma, lymphoma, hemangiosarcoma, mast cell tumors, hypothyroidism, numerous autoimmune idsorders, urinary incontinence, and epilepsy. the only severe, life ending disorder associated with intact dogs is pyometra in intact females, the risk of which can be eliminated by an ovary sparing spay, a sterilization procedure that does not alter anything but the dog's fertility.

    you should really just leave dogs reproductive organs alone unless they're an immediate problem. it's not like you'd treat us any differently since everyone has to follow the same leash laws if their dog is spayed or not. when a health issue is not so clear cut as removing a tumor would be, we doubt that even adult humans can fully consent to something as radical as arbitrary removal of the gonads without intensive education and therapy. desiring gonadectomy without a pressing disorder it would immediately cure has been declared a mental disorder in the past, and to sane people, still is.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    Most arguments against amount of anthropomorphizing animals.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >i have only heard "BRO I WOULDNT CUT OFF MY BALLS" as an argument and deny all others exist
      and it's not even a bad argument. basic empathy is a great argument.
      >why shouldn't i torture your dog to death?
      >would you want to be tortured to death? there's your answer.
      >stop anthropomorphizing animals!
      a dog can not consent to having its balls removed, permanently altering his hormone levels, predisposing him to numerous disorders that are too expensive for his owner to treat and likely to severely reduce his quality of life, all because his owner is too fucking lazy to invest in a leash, a fence, and a bag of steak bits and possibly, possibly, not leave their dog outside unattended 8-10 hours a day. it's just basic morality. which is why it's illegal in civilized countries (ie: norway) but encouraged in notoriously barbaric ones (ie: los estados unidos).

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a dog can not consent to having its balls removed
        A dog can't consent to anything the owner subjects it to. If that's your argument, humans should not have animals.
        >permanently altering his hormone levels
        That's the point
        >predisposing him to numerous disorders that are too expensive for his owner to treat and likely to severely reduce his quality of life
        The opposite. It greatly reduces the risk of various disorders.
        >all because his owner is too fucking lazy to invest in a leash, a fence, and a bag of steak bits and possibly, possibly, not leave their dog outside unattended 8-10 hours a day.
        False dichotomy
        >which is why it's illegal in civilized countries (ie: norway) but encouraged in notoriously barbaric ones (ie: los estados unidos).
        It's common in developed countries. Neutering is not done in Africa, South America, Asia etc. Norwegians, who are Fjord yokels who struck it rich because they have oil, are an exception.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you understand informed consent? A dog can not consent to what it can not understand. Simple things like petting, leashing, and feeding are plainly apparent to any animal. Life altering surgeries and other weird shit done with their organs posing any health risks, are totally beyond their comprehension. They can't consent, so unless it is to save their life it is unethical.

          The only thing worse than not respecting consent for a clear cut case of their own good (your dog wants over the fence, but will be taken/killed for it) is doing something nefarious that someone can't consent to at all.

          >That's the point
          The point is you're doing harm because you, simply put, should not own a dog. If neutering matters to you you're the kind of person who never follows leash laws, neglects their dogs, never trains their dogs, and never takes them to a vet.

          >False dichotomy
          You MUST follow leash laws. This is not an argument to have. Your dog understand what the leash does when they're hooked on to it. You SHALL NOT have your dog at large. That is illegal. Your dog is likely to be killed or taken from you and locked in a cage that will make your yard look gigantic.

          >The opposite. It greatly reduces the risk of various disorders.
          Which are often rare, breed specific, and often best cured by neutering much later in life when the hormone drop doesn't affect them as much. While increasing the risk of various other disorders which are severe and often life ending. The opinion of actual experts, not yokel vets and americans, is that if you do not intend to breed at all, the best options are a vasectomy or an ovary sparing spay.

          >Scandi hate
          Opinion disregarded.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not getting the point retard.
            You can have a yard, use a leash and neuter. That's your false dichotomy.
            >scandi hate
            I dont hate them. Norwegians were the hicks of Germanic Europe until they struck oil and that is a fact.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're not getting the point retard.

              Some of the most lauded "benefits" of neutering are entirely provided by a leash and a fence. They stop your dog from roaming, fighting, and fucking. A neutered dog can still attack and fight/attack shit so if you can't guarantee their containment just don't get a dog. You're not entitled to one anyways.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Dogs get loose.
                You know what happens to an intact bitch in estrus when an intact dog gets loose? They essentially get raped. I had to repeatedly punch somebody's (leashed) dog at a park when he was trying to fuck my intact bitch. I later changed my mind on the neutering argument.
                Your whole argument is "Just World" bullshit. "if everybody followed my rules, there would be no problems. You're like a person who says "Why go to a doctor? I eat healthy and exercise." or "Why lock doors? People shouldn't steal"

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I've had an intact female for years and wouldn't mutilate her because some moron can't control his dog. No rape attempts either, even from intact males, but dog owners are a bit better around these parts.

                >Comparing eating healthy to ripping out functional endocrine glands and causing all this shit

                https://i.imgur.com/V6xtrZ3.png

                humans can not show that the benefits of neutering outweigh the risks. most studies are low quality. for example dogs do not live shorter lives in countries where neutering is illegal, implying confounding cultural variables in american studies saying neutered dogs lived longer. in an american study on unaltered females, dogs were not segregated by breed, and not spaying was associated with mammary cancer. a european study found that there was no correlation except for certain breeds, such as german shepherds, labrador retrievers, and golden retrievers, and those dogs. some breeds actually had lower mammary cancer rates when left intact. furthermore, multiple studies have correlated neutering at an early age with multiple musculoskeletal disorders and torn ligmanets, and neutering at any age with osteosarcoma, lymphoma, hemangiosarcoma, mast cell tumors, hypothyroidism, numerous autoimmune idsorders, urinary incontinence, and epilepsy. the only severe, life ending disorder associated with intact dogs is pyometra in intact females, the risk of which can be eliminated by an ovary sparing spay, a sterilization procedure that does not alter anything but the dog's fertility.

                you should really just leave dogs reproductive organs alone unless they're an immediate problem. it's not like you'd treat us any differently since everyone has to follow the same leash laws if their dog is spayed or not. when a health issue is not so clear cut as removing a tumor would be, we doubt that even adult humans can fully consent to something as radical as arbitrary removal of the gonads without intensive education and therapy. desiring gonadectomy without a pressing disorder it would immediately cure has been declared a mental disorder in the past, and to sane people, still is.

                So how about we just put dogs down so they can't attack each other while we're at it? Oh yeah sure you wouldn't want yourself put down buddy, sure, but think of how much suffering you're preventing, for sure! Some people might say "just be a good dog owner lol" but in the end they are better dead lol.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So how about we just put dogs down so they can't attack each other while we're at it
                i agree.

                and why don't we spay and neuter humans? crime would go down. so would overpopulation, which would help the environment.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds good.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are such an autistic sperg who probably fucks their dog.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >oh no i got btfo i better call everyone a dogfucker

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I had to repeatedly punch somebody's (leashed) dog at a park when he was trying to fuck my intact bitch.
                >punch
                Why not just pull him off? He was leashed as you said. Why resort to animal cruelty?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He made it up.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >reduces the risk
          factually wrong, the risks outweigh the benefits
          >america
          >developed country
          spay and neuter policies exist specifically because people dont act like its a developed country. hence why it’s mandatory in LA.

          if you need to neuter a dog you should not have a dog. just put it down so we don’t have to hear the barking.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Holy based. Excellent response on all levels.

          I'm sure you'll summarily be gaslit and coped by these emotional dweebs though.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >why shouldn't i torture your dog to death?
        >would you want to be tortured to death? there's your answer.
        >stop anthropomorphizing animals
        Fucking retarded. I wouldn't want to be kept naked in a yard, leashed, and fed steak bits. I guess it means your very own guidelines for taking care of a dog are unethical.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and it's not even a bad argument. basic empathy is a great argument.
        Are you retarded? A dog is way too stupid to realize it's castrated.
        Empathy is such a trash argument and has led us to so many rabbit holes in animal rights movements.
        But empathy doesn't even apply here, a dog is not going to fucking know jack.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A dog is way too stupid to realize it's castrated
          It understands the physical suffering and health decline that come with it just fine.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most arguments for castrating dogs really just boil down to americans coping for their circumcision.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >anthropomorphize guy is back
      you're the barneyfag of Wauf

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what's wrong with that word? is it too big for you to understand or something?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >anthropomorphizing
      Easy to make even treating animals with respect sound bad when you give it a word like that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lol
        scared of the big word?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why are you here if you don't respect animals

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is a dumb strawman, so repetitively regurgitated on this board that I believe it was probably posted by a bot.

      lol
      scared of the big word?

      >lol
      >scared of the big word?
      The connotation of saying that someone is "anthropomorphizing" their pet is that they can't tell the difference between human and dog, or maybe even have some sort of sick furry fetish. You are trying to stigmatize the other argument so people are afraid to take it, which is a dirty rhetorical trick--sophistry at best--but not a real argument. I assume you learned it by imitating failed politicians.

      if you think robbing an animal of its freedom to make it your pet is ok, then castrating it should pale in comparison. the only reason you even ask this question is because you think castration is abhorrent. animals however don't give a fuck apart from the pain after the operation, they aren't sentimental about their balls/ovaries. removing them isn't like removing a leg, because removing a leg doesn't improve the animal's quality of life.
      i mean fine if you want your pet intact, but you better not let it fuck around

      >if you think robbing an animal of its freedom to make it your pet is ok, then castrating it should pale in comparison.
      Dogs are a subspecies of gray wolf that evolved alongside pre-modern humans in northern Europe as a companion animal over tens of thousands of years. They are not a wild animal any more than a human is. They are the only animal (at least the only non-primate) that can instinctively both understand and express human-compatible facial emotion, as well as one of the only animals that can learn to look where a human is pointing or looking. If you think a dog being kept by a human has been "robbed of its freedom," then you do not understand the first thing about them.

      >i have only heard "BRO I WOULDNT CUT OFF MY BALLS" as an argument and deny all others exist
      and it's not even a bad argument. basic empathy is a great argument.
      >why shouldn't i torture your dog to death?
      >would you want to be tortured to death? there's your answer.
      >stop anthropomorphizing animals!
      a dog can not consent to having its balls removed, permanently altering his hormone levels, predisposing him to numerous disorders that are too expensive for his owner to treat and likely to severely reduce his quality of life, all because his owner is too fucking lazy to invest in a leash, a fence, and a bag of steak bits and possibly, possibly, not leave their dog outside unattended 8-10 hours a day. it's just basic morality. which is why it's illegal in civilized countries (ie: norway) but encouraged in notoriously barbaric ones (ie: los estados unidos).

      Do you understand informed consent? A dog can not consent to what it can not understand. Simple things like petting, leashing, and feeding are plainly apparent to any animal. Life altering surgeries and other weird shit done with their organs posing any health risks, are totally beyond their comprehension. They can't consent, so unless it is to save their life it is unethical.

      The only thing worse than not respecting consent for a clear cut case of their own good (your dog wants over the fence, but will be taken/killed for it) is doing something nefarious that someone can't consent to at all.

      >That's the point
      The point is you're doing harm because you, simply put, should not own a dog. If neutering matters to you you're the kind of person who never follows leash laws, neglects their dogs, never trains their dogs, and never takes them to a vet.

      >False dichotomy
      You MUST follow leash laws. This is not an argument to have. Your dog understand what the leash does when they're hooked on to it. You SHALL NOT have your dog at large. That is illegal. Your dog is likely to be killed or taken from you and locked in a cage that will make your yard look gigantic.

      >The opposite. It greatly reduces the risk of various disorders.
      Which are often rare, breed specific, and often best cured by neutering much later in life when the hormone drop doesn't affect them as much. While increasing the risk of various other disorders which are severe and often life ending. The opinion of actual experts, not yokel vets and americans, is that if you do not intend to breed at all, the best options are a vasectomy or an ovary sparing spay.

      >Scandi hate
      Opinion disregarded.

      >a dog can not consent
      This is a stupid argument. Dogs can't consent to ANYTHING, since they are not capable of speaking human language or understanding literally anything at the same level as we do.

      The argument against castration is that with responsible pet ownership, it causes many unnecessary risks of health complications. The only cost is that you need to actually be a responsible pet owner, keep your dog in a fence and train it well. The only risk is that rednecks and morons will hear us responsible pet owners speaking among one another, and, not understanding the costs, decide not to castrate their dogs, resulting in unwanted litters of puppies or unexpected aggression.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Dogs can't consent to anything
        l2informed consent.
        They can consent to anything they can understand the consequences of, so any ongoing activity without future consequences or any activity without consequences at all.

        Otherwise it would be ethically rape to pet a dog, but it's an ongoing activity where the consequences are present and basically nonexistenct, and they can consent or refuse to walk on a leash just fine. What they can't consent to is anything that can cause future illness or injury, because they can't think far enough ahead to get that, and honestly humans don't even understand illness until taught and didn't for most of their history. So using a head halter that has the potential to hurt your dogs spine is abuse. If your dog is too stupid to know that your set too high shock collar is what's making them scream in pain, putting it on them is going against their capacity for consent. If something you goaded them into doing increased their risk of infection or injury they also would not be able to consent to that, because you would never be able to explain the added complexities. So a dog can't consent to an AI procedure and sign a disclosure that irritation from the catheters insertion may lead to prolonged pain and itching or a UTI or vaginosis. You have to let them just breed with other dogs naturally.

        People just don't like to think about this because they realize they ignore and proudly go against their dogs consent quite a bit and are animal abusers in some way.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A 17-year-old human being can't legally consent--to anything, be it signing a purchase contract for a home, taking out a loan from a credit card company, having sex or being treated as an adult in our justice system. A six-month-old puppy, or even a 17-year-old dog that can't read, can't write, can't speak, can't understand language, and which is so stupid it barks at its own reflection in a mirror, can not consent to anything either. You don't get to attribute greater agency to a literal retard animal that eats shit from wild animals it found in the forest than to a human who can read, write and drive cars.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Legal consent is cultural and irrelevant to ethics. There are other things going on here. For the rest your dismissiveness says you’re too ignorant or stupid to have this conversation.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >dismisses laws as "relative to culture"
              >"stop being so dismissive!!"
              Maybe take a minute and think about the stupid statement you just made. Our culture does not allow dogs to have the ability to legally consent to anything. We castrate them because they are legally considered something very close to property. They aren't purely property--we do have laws (and the culture to support them), which prevent cruel abuse--but in regard to castration, they are not ever expected to consent, if that were even possible, which it is not.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have never considered the laws an authority on morals. They are irrelevant to me. So yes, I dismiss them, because they were not written by the greatest of gods or the least of gods. Laws were written by horrid little monkeys and a tiny piece of lead makes every single one just words on paper. If the laws are wrong you will burn in hell for following them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is a non-sequitur. Consent is a legal concept, not a spiritual one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Consent is a spiritual and moral concept. It only exists in law so law can parallel the spiritual.

                All morals are purely spiritual or purely selfish. Accept the spiritual or accept that you are an object with no more value than how worth the trouble you are to the law’s hired guns and anything done to you without your consent is right as long as no one gets arrested.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >All morals are purely spiritual or purely selfish.
                I just illustrated how you're wrong.

                >Consent is a spiritual
                Explain yourself.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you violate the sanctity of an individual spirit by overriding or disrespecting their consent you tarnish your own and become lesser.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To illustrate and elaborate:

                Spiritually, murder is wrong because God said it's wrong, and since God created humans and the universe, the possibility of God being wrong would undermine existence--an impossibility, since existence, and therefore God, and vice-versa, is absolute. Therefore murder is wrong.

                Legally, murder is wrong because it's defined as the malicious, unprovoked killing by one person of another person, and a system of government has written the law to be interpreted and enforced as such.

                Morally, murder is wrong because it violates self-ownership, it violates the non-aggression principle, is breaks the social contract, it is not universally preferable behavior, and any number of other non-secular arguments which can be made.

                Consent is only relevant for "meetings of the minds" (a legal term)--in other words, agreements between multiple parties, or contracts. A (relative to humans) literal retard animal that eats squirrel shit it found on the ground and rolls in rotting fish carcasses is not up to the task of having a meeting of the minds with a human being.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A violation of consent is a violation of the dog’s self ownership and an aggressive act. The dog has a mind and feelings no matter what you think of their habits. Your entire argument hinges on not liking dogs but its as strong as saying whatever ethnicity you belong to is composed of disgusting automatons that arent people because they do something weird and disgusting despite clear evidence to the contrary - that you are people despite that. When you meet a dog you meet a mind. They have a right to consent.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A violation of consent is a violation of the dog’s self ownership and an aggressive act.
                This is word salad because you aren't defining your terms--nor are you using them in a way that makes sense. No, consent and self-ownership are not the same thing. No, dogs do not have self-ownership. No, deceit is not literal violence.

                >The dog has a mind and feelings no matter what you think of their habits.
                Non-sequitur.

                >Your entire argument hinges on not liking dogs but its as strong as saying whatever ethnicity you belong to is composed of disgusting automatons that arent people because they do something weird and disgusting despite clear evidence to the contrary - that you are people despite that.
                You couldn't be more wrong.

                >When you meet a dog you meet a mind.
                Not all minds are equal.

                >They have a right to consent.
                Prove it.

                If you violate the sanctity of an individual spirit by overriding or disrespecting their consent you tarnish your own and become lesser.

                >If you violate the sanctity of an individual spirit by overriding or disrespecting their consent you tarnish your own and become lesser.
                Word salad.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Word salad
                Purely dismissive insult. Yes, it makes sense. Consent is important because it is the respect of self ownership and determination. Yes, dogs do have self ownership. They are sapient beings with thoughts, feelings, and opinions. And yes, deceit is a form of violence.
                >Non sequitur
                "Does not follow"? This directly follows what you are saying.
                >You couldn't be more wrong.
                I am exactly right. You are the intellectual and moral equivalent to a caveman that hates another tribe of cavemen because they think they stink and eat gross food.
                >Not all minds are equal
                The dog is as equal to you as any other human for purposes of moral action. Their inequalities are irrelevant, they boil down to what jobs they can do and which ones they can't, but they are already at the level where they are a mind like you.
                >Prove it
                It is self evident.
                >"Word salad"
                This is a spiritual fact. You can not escape it. The sanctity of an individual spirit forms the basis of all morality. Violating the sanctity of a spirit harms both spirits. Doubt it if you want, but after your death in this world you will suffer for many lifetimes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Purely dismissive insult. Yes, it makes sense. Consent is important because it is the respect of self ownership and determination. Yes, dogs do have self ownership. They are sapient beings with thoughts, feelings, and opinions. And yes, deceit is a form of violence.
                It's an accurate description of what you're vomiting into your keyboard. If you're insulted, then you probably know one some level that what you're doing, and continuing to do, is wrong. I already said that the solution to moving forward with a reasonable conversation is for you to define your terms, which you have chosen not to do here.

                Not that I'm going to start taking you seriously when the rest of your post equates to: I'm right because I said I'm right. What, you don't get it? You must be some sort of caveman!!

                Fuck off.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All of your posts equate to "dogs do some stuff i think is gross therefore they have no rights".

                I am trying to explain to you that they are souled beings with minds and the capability of their mind does not make them less morally significant. They still have the same feelings as you.

                Why? Because you did not present one basis for your position other than "a horrid monkey said in the law book that dogs didn't have rights". Unfortunately, the law is entirely human in scope. The law is the moral equivalent of some random person on the road saying "don't eat chicken on tuesday or I will find you and kick your ass". There is no reason to follow the law if the law is all there is, only a good reason to avoid being caught by people that want to enforce it.

                Spirituality reigns supreme over law. You can not escape the mechanisms of the universe, the reality of the soul, or the reality of how evil damages it.

                If you doubt spirituality then you can go seek it out and find answers. If you want to deny all spirituality then, well, ok, there is no material basis for you having any rights but your physical ability to enforce them and people hopefully enforcing them on your behalf. Therefore if I kill you and no one finds out, or cares... because you were incapable of enforcing your right to life you did not have more of a right to live than I had a right to kill you. It sure would be nice if you had a SOUL are were an objectively, inarguable valuable life that shall not be armed except at the perpetrators peril huh? You know, like a dog.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >All of your posts equate to "dogs do some stuff i think is gross therefore they have no rights".
                No. That's a strawman you invented.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You almost established a system of morality. Almost. But you quickly broke down into being a crypto-stirnerite, aka someone without morals.
                >Non aggression principle
                This is a fancy way of saying "might makes right". The non aggression principle is an implicit threat of aggression in response to being bothered.
                >Social contract
                Also known as the union of egoists, this is a secular form of morality where morality is relative to individuals preferences. AKA it doesn't exist.
                >AND DOGS ARE GROSS SO I DONT CARE, THEY ARENT UP TO THE "MEETING OF THE MINDS"
                Your preference is against dogs. The dog does not have the same potential for violence as you, and you just don't like them, so you don't consider them in your system of non existent "morals". But you don't have morals. You have preferences enforced with threats of immediate violence.

                Pic related is you, and the real founding father of american "values", but more honest with himself.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                didn't stirner let other men fuck his wife?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not what the non-aggression principle is, but there are so many errors through your post and you are too emotionally unstable, I can't even be bothered to try to engage with you. Just go back to your office job, Stacey.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >t. screams his head off about squirrel turds
                not an argument

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                hes right

                the NAP without supernatural/inborn rights states that infringing on something that is someone elses is wrong because they have just cause to respond in turn. its also been categorically rejected in favor of social contracts rather than accepted. under a consistently followed NAP making noise without consent is grounds to get your ass kicked. both are might makes right morality anyways and can not form the basis for a stable and civil society.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >my digestive tract is too weak to handle squirrel shit so actually it is the dog thats inferior
                cry more frugivore.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A 17-year-old human being can't legally consent--to anything
            The fuck where do you live? Legal autonomy usually starts at around 14-16 depending on the legislature.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nein

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      is that aluzky's dog

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      is there a bread of dog that was made to have tight cuchys?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/EtmEUZ2.jpg

      no

      >Leto is at it again. . .

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no

    >responsible ownership prevents unwanted litters. do not hoard dogs. do not allow dogs to roam. if they can fuck they can fight.
    >removing organs prevents them from becoming diseased, shocker. hides bad (in)breeding practices increasing the rates of reproductive cancers. removing healthy endocrine glands also increases the risk of autoimmune disorders, joint failure, and fucking bone cancer.
    >a dog that can roam is a dog you should not own. everything else is a training issue.
    >intact dogs are the norm the world over, including clean modern countries such as norway and sweden, and they have no problems. spay and neuter is an aspect of anglo culture, not something supported by hard science and ethics, created as a response to the anglophones tendency to let their animals run around free like the savages they are and always have been.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >i have only heard "BRO I WOULDNT CUT OFF MY BALLS" as an argument and deny all others exist
      and it's not even a bad argument. basic empathy is a great argument.
      >why shouldn't i torture your dog to death?
      >would you want to be tortured to death? there's your answer.
      >stop anthropomorphizing animals!
      a dog can not consent to having its balls removed, permanently altering his hormone levels, predisposing him to numerous disorders that are too expensive for his owner to treat and likely to severely reduce his quality of life, all because his owner is too fucking lazy to invest in a leash, a fence, and a bag of steak bits and possibly, possibly, not leave their dog outside unattended 8-10 hours a day. it's just basic morality. which is why it's illegal in civilized countries (ie: norway) but encouraged in notoriously barbaric ones (ie: los estados unidos).

      https://i.imgur.com/V6xtrZ3.png

      humans can not show that the benefits of neutering outweigh the risks. most studies are low quality. for example dogs do not live shorter lives in countries where neutering is illegal, implying confounding cultural variables in american studies saying neutered dogs lived longer. in an american study on unaltered females, dogs were not segregated by breed, and not spaying was associated with mammary cancer. a european study found that there was no correlation except for certain breeds, such as german shepherds, labrador retrievers, and golden retrievers, and those dogs. some breeds actually had lower mammary cancer rates when left intact. furthermore, multiple studies have correlated neutering at an early age with multiple musculoskeletal disorders and torn ligmanets, and neutering at any age with osteosarcoma, lymphoma, hemangiosarcoma, mast cell tumors, hypothyroidism, numerous autoimmune idsorders, urinary incontinence, and epilepsy. the only severe, life ending disorder associated with intact dogs is pyometra in intact females, the risk of which can be eliminated by an ovary sparing spay, a sterilization procedure that does not alter anything but the dog's fertility.

      you should really just leave dogs reproductive organs alone unless they're an immediate problem. it's not like you'd treat us any differently since everyone has to follow the same leash laws if their dog is spayed or not. when a health issue is not so clear cut as removing a tumor would be, we doubt that even adult humans can fully consent to something as radical as arbitrary removal of the gonads without intensive education and therapy. desiring gonadectomy without a pressing disorder it would immediately cure has been declared a mental disorder in the past, and to sane people, still is.

      All of these arguments apply only to dogs

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        cats are exempt from ethics

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      based and redpilled. the eternal anglo must be stopped

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have male and female dogs, they will breed

      It's not ethical because we exist to ensure that our genes are passed idgaf about human laws.
      Sadly castration is the best we can do, maybe in the future we will store genetic information from the spayed creatures because that's what they want

Your email address will not be published.