Monday, April 19, 2010

On the one hand...

On the one hand, "they" demand that we alter our dogs to prevent the possibility of reproduction, a surgical mutilation that affects future health and skeletal development adversely and causes significant structural alteration. On the other hand, they denounce bark softening as a horrible mutilation, even though bark softening involves a little bit of cutting on very small pieces of tissue, which has very little effect on the dog as a whole. That's just yanking us back and forth.

On the one hand, "they" claim that owning exotic animals is dangerous. On the other hand they demand that people in developing nations with growing human populations allow tigers and lions to run around as nuisance animals with no protection for the humans.

In reference to the previous paragraph, another "one hand, other hand": They complain that humans destroy habitat then they work to deny habitat that humans freely offer to the animals.

On the one hand, they say that we must "adopt." Then they dictate how many we can keep, which also has the effect of reducing the number of homes for animals.

They tell us that the population of humans should be reduced by any means necessary. Then they warn us of the dangers of keeping animals as pets.

They want to write laws for us to obey but they disobey any laws that are inconvenient to them, such as open meetings laws, laws against arson and vandalism, and laws against cruelty to animals.

They demand that we "register" our animals yet the entire state of Missouri can tell you that they will use the registries as lists for shopping for targets.

They prosecute owners and breeders over the slightest nitpicky excuse and at the same time they pack dogs into crates that are too small for them and let them rot in their own shit in their "humane" shelters. They're real good at taking animals from any situation and making that situation worse.

They pick on people for having animal bodies in freezers. PETA keeps a walk-in freezer for animal bodies and that's a standard for shelters. That one is simply good hygiene.

The hypocrisy of the movement is most evident when they claim that they're about saving the animals and they destroy so many.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Pets Are Luxuries?

You could just as well say that a feeling of well-being is not "necessary", nor are any of the proven benefits of keeping a pet. I could show you where the studies have been mentioned that prove that keeping at least one pet tremendously increases the chance that a human will survive having a heart attack. I could also show you stories about how people have died shortly after losing pets or after having them forcibly removed. When a pet helps us keep ourselves up, that is a necessity, not a luxury. A shortened lifespan and poorer health are the result of the loss of a necessity.

The propaganda also tells us to open our homes but they soft-peddle the fact that they're going to pick those homes to pieces.

I'm not real hip on the idea that poor people shouldn't have luxuries, either.

I am quite willing to risk my own life, however, to opt out of a system where the people who want me to bring them money and take their living liabilities off their hands want to control so much of what I do with what I am allegedly doing them a favor by taking. If it isn't my property when I pay for it or when it is given to me, I don't want it. One way or the other I'm investing time, energy, and money in something that is not mine. I am also inviting scrutiny by people who I do not know, have every reason to distrust, and ridiculous penalties and ridiculous harsh treatment if I am seen as somehow out of line.

So, I am going to make a point of either accepting a free puppy from an individual, or going to a breeder, or even just allow that if I have a heart attack my chances of long-term survival won't be as good. Any of those options are better.

I have learned that pets are a necessity for several reasons, including a longer lifespan. Unfortunately I have also learned that sometimes for the sake of one's own personal integrity it is better to do without some necessities.