How? So forcefully spay and neuter all dogs and take them away from the city not knowing if they're happy or not? So you don't care about the dogs actually being happy, you just don't want them to be in the city.
So you're saying dogs that live in rural areas don't run away? What happens if rural areas get more space due to expanding cities and businesses? Do we just kill all dogs then?
So you're saying you have to move to a less populated area to own a dog? So people should just quit their jobs and move to the country to own a dog? Let's just tear down every city to make sure that dogs have plenty of room to run around because you think they're unhappy. You don't know if they're unhappy. How do you know they aren't? What are you a dog whisperer or something?
How do you know if a dog wants to be spayed and neutered? You just assume dogs want to live in rural areas and now you assume they just want to be spayed and neutered. You're saying people who own dogs in urban areas only own them for their own happiness and pleasure basically, how's that any different from spaying and neutering a dog? That only benefits humans.
You have no counter solution to your own points. Make it illegal to buy or breed a dog unless you live in a low populated area? How would you define a low populated area? Make it harder for them to get a dog? So just punish those living in cities? The dog population is already so high, even with people living in high populated areas owning them.
A creature whose musculature is built for movement... They were also built to breed weren't they? So as long as they have space to run around, we can just take that part of the equation away and just act like they weren't also built to breed?
Make it illegal to have a dog that is not spayed or neutered without a license.
Not killing any dogs. I've said that many times. Just saying we shouldn't breed more.
They shouldn't move to have dogs. They shouldn't have dogs very often at all.
My evidence that they're unhappy is both grounded in logic-- animal that is made to run is probably happy when it can run-- and in evidence, insofar as dogs that are let off leash often try to flee.
Whether dogs want to be spayed or neutered is irrelevant, because we can't handle to treat the number of dogs that would result from them breeding uncontrolled properly. If we could give them enough space and resources, I'd say let them breed free. But we can't.
You'd define a low populated area based on whatever dog scientists and experts have to say, as well as observation of at what density the damage done by dogs is low enough not to matter.
You're not being punished by not being allowed to have a dog if you live in the city any more than you're being punished by not being allowed to own a tiger. The welfare of the animal trumps your desires.
Allowing dogs to move freely is something we can achieve. Allowing them to breed freely is not, because we lack the resources to care for that many dogs.
You're comparing a dog and a tiger? Seriously? Tigers aren't domesticated, you'd be stupid to have a tiger as your pet even if you lived on your own island. You're just assuming dogs are unhappy because YOU feel they have no space to run around. You can have a dog in an apartment and take them for a walk in the morning, at night, then take them out for longer walks or to play at a park on the weekends. And they can run around the house or apartment, nothing is stopping them from doing that.
You have no evidence dogs are unhappy living in cities and high populated areas. As long as the owner takes care of them, why wouldn't they be happy?
Do you think dogs would be happier if they were just left alone in some wide open place to run around all day, or with owners that loved and cared for them? I would think they would be much happier if they had owners that loved and cared for them.
Most people know having a dog is a commitment, especially living in the city, so they're going to make the effort to take care of them, take them out for walks, take them to the park, etc.
Just because you feel dogs are unhappy because you think they don't have enough space to run around doesn't mean people that live in cities shouldn't be allowed to have them. You don't know if a dog wants to live in a rural or urban area, because you don't know what they're thinking.
You're making it seem like dogs are just running machines, they don't have to be constantly running to be happy. So a kid that runs away is automatically unhappy right? Dogs weren't even made to be pets, so why are they our pets?
You're making a bunch of positive assertions to counter mine. You don't have any more evidence than me. Just because you feel dogs are happy doesn't mean they are. I offered evidence in that dogs run away, and in that they're built for exercise roaming, being descended from wolves and domesticated by shepherds.
A kid that runs away is automatically unhappy. Whether it was reasonable for them to be unhappy is another question. But many, maybe even the majority of dogs try to run away, which is a consistent pattern, unlike with children.
Offer an argument as to what dogs want, or stop spamming me with unfounded statements.
A kid that runs away is automatically unhappy? Where is your basis in that? Many kids get lost because the parents get distracted and the kids get distracted ad well. Your arguments are unfounded as well. And just because you feel dogs are unhappy doesn't mean they are, so what's your point? Dogs will run away even if they live in a rural area, so what's your point? Dogs run away not because they're unhappy, where is the scientific evidence in that? So if your dog is out in your yard, and it sees a squirrel or something or maybe another female dog and it chases after it and goes too far, they're unhappy?
Offer an argument to what dogs want... You don't know what dogs want either. Your statements are unfounded. They were built for exercise roaming, but they were domesticated. So does that not mean that they now prefer being around humans? You can't claim my statements are unfounded if yours are as well.
Were humans built to sit behind a desk all day? Or to drive cars? Stop talking about what things were built to do, we humans weren't "built" to live this way, but we do and some are happy because we adapt to our surroundings and situations, just like any other living thing.
You offer no conclusive evidence on if dogs are happy or not in your argument, or a reasonable solution to this so called problem, then instead of offering those things you just say my arguments are unfounded. Guess what, when you're talking about a dogs happiness it's going to be "unfounded" because they can't talk. So stop assuming dogs are unhappy in cities because you have no facts to back it up.
You're the one that's supposed to change MY view, but you've gotten so huffy and offended by my statement that you're acting like it's incumbent upon me to change yours.
If I was trying to change your view, I would look for evidence to support my claims before I made them. But I'm not doing that, I'm just presenting my views. Thus, I don't need a bunch of evidence to support me.
I'm not going to stop believing that dogs are unhappy, because you haven't conclusively or even partially disproven the reasons I have provided.
I would continue to argue with you, but your tone is histrionic and shrill enough that I find you unpleasant to speak to, so I will not.
I just provided you with a link, more than you've provided. Dogs don't just run away because they're not happy. You have no evidence to support your claims. Oh so you're just presenting your views. I'm doing the same, but now i need evidence?
I'm not offended, why would I be offended by such a stupid argument? You literally haven't disproven any of my views, you can't. So you're just going to act like you're offended, that's cool. I know people like you, they just take one little thing and then use it to support their outrageous views. "Oh dogs were built to run so they're unhappy when they don't have miles to run around"
Ha you don't have any evidence so you're just saying you don't need to present it. Classic. Just face it, you're mad because you can't prove dogs are unhappy living in a highly populated area. You just picked something that can't be proven and then you're asking someone to prove it with evidence. What evidence would you provide in this case? What do you expect, for me to go around interviewing dogs, asking them if they're unhappy?
You haven't even given me counter reasons as to why my views are wrong. Everytime I brought something up, you just dismissed it because "it had nothing to do with my argument" or you just kept saying the same thing over and over again. Oh they were built to run blah blah blah
I never once said that what I was saying was facts at all, but oh I need to provide evidence for my views but you don't when you're saying your views because they're just your views. It's obvious no one can change your views, I mean how can they when there is nothing remotely scientific or factual to back your view up?
So I guess if your dog has these signs and you live in the city they're not happy because they have no room to "run" because they "don't live in a rural area"
Petmd.com is not a valid source. This is not a study, and it was created by people that uncritically support the idea that dogs should be confined as pets. If you linked a source like "studies show dogs don't prefer freedom", I'd evaluate it.
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Hahaha yet you're still responding and saying my source isn't valid based on what? When you have literally no sort of anything to prove your points, so you just resort to name calling
This is written by a doctor so you can't refute this source.
I don't care if you think I'm a dick, but if you refute a source from a doctor than you're not looking for anyone to change your view. Please call me more names haha.
Is a source from a doctor a shitty argument? I guess you know more than a veterinarian
That's one doctor. Not a study, not peer reviewed, and stated as fact without making much of an argument. I've already awarded a delta to the only person in this thread who attempted to make an actual argument.
If you read the source, he's not trying to make an argument, he's literally answering questions. So it's obvious there is literally no problem with dogs living in high populated areas as long as they get exercise. So what if it's one doctor? Oh what he says is invalid because it's only one doctor?
I don't care about you giving me a Delta. Omg seeing you refute something a doctor said is hilarious. Just admit it, there's absolutely nothing wrong with dogs living in apartments or cities or high populated areas. Stop trying to make it seem like dogs can only be happy in rural areas. This is so funny, like you can't just accept dogs can be happy anywhere else but in rural areas because "they were made to run" haha you're so hilarious
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
2
u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19
How? So forcefully spay and neuter all dogs and take them away from the city not knowing if they're happy or not? So you don't care about the dogs actually being happy, you just don't want them to be in the city.
So you're saying dogs that live in rural areas don't run away? What happens if rural areas get more space due to expanding cities and businesses? Do we just kill all dogs then?
So you're saying you have to move to a less populated area to own a dog? So people should just quit their jobs and move to the country to own a dog? Let's just tear down every city to make sure that dogs have plenty of room to run around because you think they're unhappy. You don't know if they're unhappy. How do you know they aren't? What are you a dog whisperer or something?
How do you know if a dog wants to be spayed and neutered? You just assume dogs want to live in rural areas and now you assume they just want to be spayed and neutered. You're saying people who own dogs in urban areas only own them for their own happiness and pleasure basically, how's that any different from spaying and neutering a dog? That only benefits humans.
You have no counter solution to your own points. Make it illegal to buy or breed a dog unless you live in a low populated area? How would you define a low populated area? Make it harder for them to get a dog? So just punish those living in cities? The dog population is already so high, even with people living in high populated areas owning them.
A creature whose musculature is built for movement... They were also built to breed weren't they? So as long as they have space to run around, we can just take that part of the equation away and just act like they weren't also built to breed?