• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PETA dresses in KKK garb outside Westminster Dog Show

Gill said:
Wrong on all accounts.
Click to expand...

I love how you say that with such confidence!

Tails are clipped when the pups are only a few days old. It's not any different than circumcisions in human babies. Ears are cut under general anesthesia and is no different that spaying or neutering as far as pain goes.
Click to expand...

There are some that say that docking is cruel. So there ya go. It appears it's unethical in the UK.

The UK Legal Position
Tail docking has historically been undertaken largely by dog breeders. However, in 1991, the UK government amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act, thereby prohibiting the docking of dog's tails by lay persons from 1 July 1993. Now, only veterinary surgeons are, by law, allowed to dock.

However, following the Government move, the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in November 1992, ruled docking to be unethical, "unless for therapeutic or acceptable prophylactic reasons". Furthermore, the circumstances in which the Royal College considered prophylactic docking to be acceptable were so hedged with conditions as to make the routine docking of puppies by veterinary surgeons extremely difficult.

Vets who continue to dock risk disciplinary action, including being struck off the professional register.

Tail Docking - The Case for Tail Docking



Excess grooming?? Are you kidding?? Dogs love to be groomed once they become accustomed to it. How often do you comb your hair? How often do you get your hair trimmed?? Are you being cruel to yourself??
Click to expand...

It was a guess on my part, but some dogs hate the simple basics of grooming. Add in hair dryers, products, and even freakin' polish for their nails, and it can be overkill. And, no, your analogy does not make sense. I am human, dogs are not.

Also, some dogs are groomed/trimmed in a way that's not functional. Ever wonder how those Sheepdogs see?

People that show dogs are the most responsible breeders out there.
Click to expand...

Some are, some aren't. In fact, there are a number of breeds that are in trouble because of bad breeding. Some have legs that are now too short to support them properly (Daschunds), some have craniums that are too small and suffer from neurogical problems (King Charles spaniels) and deformed back legs (German Shepherds).

How serious is the problem?

That depends on the nature of the abnormality: for some breeds, though, their breeding can have appalling consequences. Perhaps the most startling ailment is that suffered by a third of cavalier King Charles spaniels, syringomyelia, which is the result of their brains being too large for their skulls. "The cavalier's brain is like a size ten foot that has been shoved into a size six shoe," says veterinary neurologist Clare Rusbridge. "It is described in humans as one of the most painful conditions you can have, a piston-type headache... If you took a stick and beat a dog to create that pain, you'd be prosecuted. But there's nothing to stop you breeding a dog with it."

Many other breeds suffer similar problems: golden retrievers are prone to cancer, while boxers often suffer from heart disease and epilepsy. The Kennel Club claims that 90 per cent of the British canine population is healthy, and that these kinds of genetic diseases are actually more common in humans than dogs. But there are concerns that the problem will get worse, as an increasingly concentrated gene pool makes the abnormalities even more likely to be passed on.

The Big Question: Is the breeding of pedigree dogs leading to cruel abnormalities? - This Britain, UK - The Independent

Here's a list of dogs in which bad breeding practices have changed certain breeds for the worse. And yes, to the point where it can be considered cruel.

Pedigree dogs: How breeding has changed them | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Most breed a very few selective litters. If the puppies are not show quality, they are typically sold cheaply as pets with the requirement that they be spayed/neutered.
Click to expand...

Yes, that does happen. I wonder if they all find good homes.
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
I love how you say that with such confidence!
Click to expand...

I say it with confidence because I showed, trained, groomed and bred dogs for many years.

There are some that say that docking is cruel. So there ya go. It appears it's unethical in the UK.

The UK Legal Position
Tail docking has historically been undertaken largely by dog breeders. However, in 1991, the UK government amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act, thereby prohibiting the docking of dog's tails by lay persons from 1 July 1993. Now, only veterinary surgeons are, by law, allowed to dock.

However, following the Government move, the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in November 1992, ruled docking to be unethical, "unless for therapeutic or acceptable prophylactic reasons". Furthermore, the circumstances in which the Royal College considered prophylactic docking to be acceptable were so hedged with conditions as to make the routine docking of puppies by veterinary surgeons extremely difficult.

Vets who continue to dock risk disciplinary action, including being struck off the professional register.

Tail Docking - The Case for Tail Docking
Click to expand...

Great Britain has passed all kinds of silly laws. They are the epitome of PC there.


I was a guess on my part, but some dogs hate the simple basics of grooming. Add in hair dryers, products, and even freakin' polish for their nails, and it can be overkill. And, no, your analogy does not make sense. I am human, dogs are not.
Click to expand...

After being groomed a couple hundred times, they get used to it. Nail polish NEVER goes on show dogs.

Some are, some aren't. In fact, there are a number of breeds that are in trouble becuase of bad breeding. Some have legs that are now to short to support them properly (Daschunds), some have craniums that are too small and suffer from neurogical problems (King Charles spaniels) and deformed back legs (German Shepherds).

How seriousis the problem?

That depends on the nature of the abnormality: for some breeds, though, their breeding can have appalling consequences. Perhaps the most startling ailment is that suffered by a third of cavalier King Charles spaniels, syringomyelia, which is the result of their brains being too large for their skulls. "The cavalier's brain is like a size ten foot that has been shoved into a size six shoe," says veterinary neurologist Clare Rusbridge. "It is described in humans as one of the most painful conditions you can have, a piston-type headache... If you took a stick and beat a dog to create that pain, you'd be prosecuted. But there's nothing to stop you breeding a dog with it."

Many other breeds suffer similar problems: golden retrievers are prone to cancer, while boxers often suffer from heart disease and epilepsy. The Kennel Club claims that 90 per cent of the British canine population is healthy, and that these kinds of genetic diseases are actually more common in humans than dogs. But there are concerns that the problem will get worse, as an increasingly concentrated gene pool makes the abnormalities even more likely to be passed on.

The Big Question: Is the breeding of pedigree dogs leading to cruel abnormalities? - This Britain, UK - The Independent

Here's a list of dos in which bad breeding practices have changed certain breeds for theworse. And yes, to the point where is can be considered cruel.


Yes, that does happen. I wonder if they all find good homes.
Click to expand...

99% of the breeders of show quality dogs are responsible dog breeders and owners. In fact, many are pretty snobbish and don't want their kennel name associated with a puppy mill. That's why most require that the dogs get spayed/neutered. Many times they also sell the puppies with restricted registrations so that any puppies born from the sire/dam can't be registered, greatly lowering their value.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Where do you get the idea that large dogs are more agressive than medium ones?
Click to expand...

It was on this Discovery Program a few years ago about what would happen if people suddenly vanished from the Earth. It was a bit sad, and I don't think that humans will suddenly vanish from the Earth.

I am glad that everyone is taking me seriously in this thread, as the thread is about PETA dressing up as the KKK...
I didn't intend people to take me seriously.

American said:
AE just made it up.
Click to expand...
You're right. I did. Caught me. Good job and God bless you Mrs. Clinton.

Captain Obvious said:
Do you honestly think I would give a crap about dogs if myself along with my fellow species were to "die off"?
Click to expand...


Hm. I'm guessing "no"?
 
Arch Enemy said:
It was on this Discovery Program a few years ago about what would happen if people suddenly vanished from the Earth. It was a bit sad, and I don't think that humans will suddenly vanish from the Earth.

I am glad that everyone is taking me seriously in this thread, as the thread is about PETA dressing up as the KKK...
I didn't intend people to take me seriously.


You're right. I did. Caught me. Good job and God bless you Mrs. Clinton.




Hm. I'm guessing "no"?
Click to expand...

There's nothing ethical about dressing up like the KKK.

Now that's out of the way. National Geographic Channel has a show on every day that says all dogs can be aggressive. I just don't like seeing that myth propogated.
 
I think peta would garner more support if they focused more on the over hunting and habitat destruction of some of the world's endangered animals. Nobody really gives a **** if you kill 1,000 chickens. But if you're talking about the last 1,000 white rhinos? Big difference. Their tactics and targets must change.
 
Last edited:
Gill, you didn't address the issue of inbreeding and how it's affected certain breeds. I have no doubt that there are many decent and good breeders out there, but no, I don't think the number is even close to 99%. I have never bred, but I have friends who are breeders that are dismayed by a lot of what goes on.

As far as docking goes, I'm on the fence about that. Some say it's cruel, others don't. It's not cut-and-dried.
 
American said:
I question the good intent.
Click to expand...


I question their sanity!

Who in their right mind would dress up like the KKK and parade around New York?

It's great way to become a crime statistic!

Sheesh!

:roll:
 
In some cultures they eat dogs. So I don't want to hear any bull**** about our "abuse" of dogs in our culture, because we snip a tail or an ear for our own athestic pleasure. Their ****ing dogs, just like any other animal, and we have dominion over them, whether you believe in evolution or creationism.

But other than that, I don't think I've ever met a hardcore dog breeder that had it all together mentally. They seriously treat these animals like people. I would say that their level of insanity is matched by those moms that parade around their 6 month olds at beauty pageants.
 
Hatuey said:
I think peta would garner more support if they focused more on the over hunting and habitat destruction of some of the world's endangered animals. Nobody really gives a **** if you kill 1,000 chickens. But if you're talking about the last 1,000 white rhinos? Big difference. Their tactics and targets must change.
Click to expand...

Watch it there Hatuey. Next thing ya know they`ll be takeing all the BBs out of my bass luers. PETA didn`t go to college, you`ll have to explain to them that a white Rino and a white elephant sale are two different things. :doh
 
Captain Obvious said:
So how does pureblood dog breeding equate to unethical treatment of animals?

PETA is like the ACLU. Good intent, lousy execution.
Click to expand...

First off, PETA takes things to ridiculous extremes. I completely condemn the whole KKK stunt.

As to why pureblood dog breeding is unethical... I'm mostly going off of conversations my girlfriend and I have had, but here it goes. My girlfriend is an experienced Vet Technician, so I give her words some weight.

Purebreds suffer from a variety of health problems. Almost every breed is prone to at least one specific health problem. Pugs get respiratory problem from having those smashed faces. Spaniels get bad ear problems from those huge ears of theirs. If I remember correctly, rottweilers suffer from bad hips, and other breeds are prone to certain kinds of cancers. By intentionally breeding a purebred dog, you're almost guaranteeing a dog will have some bad health problem.

The other main problem is that there are so many shelter dogs out there. If someone breeds and sells a purebred dog, that's one more mutt in a shelter that'll likely be put to sleep. As a side note, she hates "designer breeds" like labradoodles and cockapoos with a passion. Nowdays, you can breed any two dogs, and get people to pay out the nose for a "designer dog" that they'd pass over in a shelter. It's sad.
 
American said:
I question the good intent.
Click to expand...

That's horrible. I've always been brought up to almost never question people's intent. Just about everyone wants the same thing. They want a world that is better and functions more smoothly. To assume people have ill will is counterproductive and insulting. Question their policies and actions, question their philosophies sure, but don't question their motives. Neither party is trying to hurt people, neither are groups like this.
 
the makeout hobo said:
First off, PETA takes things to ridiculous extremes. I completely condemn the whole KKK stunt.

As to why pureblood dog breeding is unethical... I'm mostly going off of conversations my girlfriend and I have had, but here it goes. My girlfriend is an experienced Vet Technician, so I give her words some weight.

Purebreds suffer from a variety of health problems. Almost every breed is prone to at least one specific health problem. Pugs get respiratory problem from having those smashed faces. Spaniels get bad ear problems from those huge ears of theirs. If I remember correctly, rottweilers suffer from bad hips, and other breeds are prone to certain kinds of cancers. By intentionally breeding a purebred dog, you're almost guaranteeing a dog will have some bad health problem.

The other main problem is that there are so many shelter dogs out there. If someone breeds and sells a purebred dog, that's one more mutt in a shelter that'll likely be put to sleep. As a side note, she hates "designer breeds" like labradoodles and cockapoos with a passion. Nowdays, you can breed any two dogs, and get people to pay out the nose for a "designer dog" that they'd pass over in a shelter. It's sad.
Click to expand...

First - if a pureblood pug has problems because it's face is flattened, I'd say that's an evolutionary issue - same for the others.

Second, if our pounds are full of dogs that can't find homes, I'd suggest that the problem lies with irresponsible owners who don't neuter their dogs and generally let them breed unabated.

If PETA has a problem with these issues, they should go to the source - irresponsible owners and God, not breeders.

Unfortunately, news cameras aren't readily available at trailer parks and the Pearly Gates - which goes back to my point, PETA is simply attention whoring.
 
Captain Obvious said:
First - if a pureblood pug has problems because it's face is flattened, I'd say that's an evolutionary issue - same for the others.

Second, if our pounds are full of dogs that can't find homes, I'd suggest that the problem lies with irresponsible owners who don't neuter their dogs and generally let them breed unabated.

If PETA has a problem with these issues, they should go to the source - irresponsible owners and God, not breeders.

Unfortunately, news cameras aren't readily available at trailer parks and the Pearly Gates - which goes back to my point, PETA is simply attention whoring.
Click to expand...

Hey, I am not defending PETA. And as to the "evolutionary issues", that is exactly what they are. But people made them evolve that way, and people continue to perpetuate the defect by breeding dogs with the same problem together. It's ultimately our fault, not nature's or God's.

And yes the problem with full pounds is also irresponsible people's fault, but I fail to see why letting a mutt breed is irresponsible, but letting a dalmatian breed isn't, especially when the mutt is probably healthier.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Hey, I am not defending PETA. And as to the "evolutionary issues", that is exactly what they are. But people made them evolve that way, and people continue to perpetuate the defect by breeding dogs with the same problem together. It's ultimately our fault, not nature's or God's.
Click to expand...

This suggestion has been tossed around for a while now on this thread, does anyone have any links to sources that would confirm this theory or shed some light on the subject rather than volley hearsay? I'm not sure if this suggestion holds weight, but I don't know.

And yes the problem with full pounds is also irresponsible people's fault, but I fail to see why letting a mutt breed is irresponsible, but letting a dalmatian breed isn't, especially when the mutt is probably healthier.
Click to expand...

Again, proof?

This is the problem that I have with this argument. PETA would like us to believe that breeders are creating warehouses full of mutant, suffering animals when the likelihood is that, in a rare case there is a bad breeding - probably no more than the average bad breeding of any random dog.

Production of good data extinguishes cognitive bias, and I haven't seen any solid data on this issue so far.
 
Captain Obvious said:
This suggestion has been tossed around for a while now on this thread, does anyone have any links to sources that would confirm this theory or shed some light on the subject rather than volley hearsay? I'm not sure if this suggestion holds weight, but I don't know.



Again, proof?

This is the problem that I have with this argument. PETA would like us to believe that breeders are creating warehouses full of mutant, suffering animals when the likelihood is that, in a rare case there is a bad breeding - probably no more than the average bad breeding of any random dog.

Production of good data extinguishes cognitive bias, and I haven't seen any solid data on this issue so far.
Click to expand...

I'm too busy at the moment to do any researching, but if you do I'd love to see what you get back. I might get more info later when I'm not working on course work.
 
Captain Obvious said:
This suggestion has been tossed around for a while now on this thread, does anyone have any links to sources that would confirm this theory or shed some light on the subject rather than volley hearsay? I'm not sure if this suggestion holds weight, but I don't know.



Again, proof?

This is the problem that I have with this argument. PETA would like us to believe that breeders are creating warehouses full of mutant, suffering animals when the likelihood is that, in a rare case there is a bad breeding - probably no more than the average bad breeding of any random dog.

Production of good data extinguishes cognitive bias, and I haven't seen any solid data on this issue so far.
Click to expand...

Heterosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Captain Obvious said:
That's a definition.

Groovy - what's the rate of occurrence, specifically with dog breeders?

There is still way too much unknown to make any logical judgment on this issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. You have good breeders and bad ones. I do know that "hybrid vigor" is a common term in the animal medicine world.

It's a term to use in your search for the studies.
 
Captain Obvious said:
First - if a pureblood pug has problems because it's face is flattened, I'd say that's an evolutionary issue - same for the others.
Click to expand...

Did you skip over the fact that the point of evolution is for a species to weed out problems? There wasn't such a thing as a pug 6,000 years ago. Dog breeds are the result of human tampering with animals. Saying that a pug having trouble breathing is the result of evolutionary issues is like saying that a car having a low crash rating is the result of the steel being used and not crappy design.
 
I think PETA dressing up in KKK garb is completely appropriate, if not ironic.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I think PETA dressing up in KKK garb is completely appropriate, if not ironic.
Click to expand...

Maybe so ... but to do so in New York seems like suicide to me.

Why don't the dress in Nazi uniforms and go parade through Tel Aviv? It might actually be safer!!!

:doh
 
Vader said:
Maybe so ... but to do so in New York seems like suicide to me.

Why don't the dress in Nazi uniforms and go parade through Tel Aviv? It might actually be safer!!!

:doh
Click to expand...

I could support that.

I, as lord and master of the universe, do hereby decree, that all members of PETA must dress in Nazi uniforms and "goose-step" through Tel Aviv. All survivors should be jailed immediately.
 
the makeout hobo said:
That's horrible. I've always been brought up to almost never question people's intent. Just about everyone wants the same thing. They want a world that is better and functions more smoothly. To assume people have ill will is counterproductive and insulting. Question their policies and actions, question their philosophies sure, but don't question their motives. Neither party is trying to hurt people, neither are groups like this.
Click to expand...


You have good intentions sir, but you are in fact wrong. PETA does harm people by making us less safe because they donate to two of the most dangerous domestic terrorist groups in the USA. Those two groups are ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and ELF (Earth Liberation Front). Their former leader Ingrid Newkerk was a supporter of these groups, and PETA's tax records are public information because they are a tax exempt group, you can look up how they donated to a young man who fire bombed Michigan animal research facilities. Saying PETA is not dangerous, is like saying the Anti Abortion movement was never dangerous, it is naive at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom