U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets > Cats
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-25-2008, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Iowa
331 posts, read 1,207,101 times
Reputation: 237

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
Random thought: imagine your pet gets lost and you can't find it, whereas if it was chipped you probably would have. The next day it wonders onto a highway and causes some grandma to instinctively swerve out of her lane to avoid hitting it, triggering a 50-car pile-up. Do you share any responsibility?
That's a gruesome, but all too true thought. Microchipping will not hurt a pet, no matter their size, or weight. The chip is only the size of a grain of rice, which is tiny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:45 AM
 
706 posts, read 1,312,956 times
Reputation: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by mental_complex View Post
Microchipping your pet is morally wrong! Do you want someone mircochipping you?
Your basis for morality is irrational. I wouldn't want anyone making me their pet, period, but that doesn't mean keeping pets should be outlawed.

I don't know if your pet would microchip you if it could, but it clearly can't. (Though I'm sure it would eat you if you were dead and it was hungry enough, and if you were small enough it would certainly hunt and kill you for food or even sport.) The only entities capable of "microchipping" are humans, and within the context of human relations different rules will apply because humans have natural rights that animals don't have.

Those rights have a rational foundation in economic necessity, not subjective pity nor anything else. Human beings are entities that can be reasoned with, understand the consequences of their actions, own property, recognize the property rights of others, trade, and make rational decisions. If you treat a human being like a farm animal then one is worth less than a small pig (and someone else could make you their pig next time), but as a self-interested economic actor he can produce a great deal more value and trade with you for mutual benefit. A human society that fails to recognize the basic rights of other human beings will never evolve out of violent barbarism: low population density, high death rates, definitely no agriculture, etc. The stronger a society protects the rights of its human members, the more competitive it becomes, and as the result of this evolutionary advantage recognition of those natural human rights became integral to our species. Foolishly assigning rights to animals that cannot be rational economic actors, on the other hand, is a competitive disadvantage, and humanity would not have done as well as it did over the past several million years if it couldn't hunt, domesticate, use animal power, and so on.

Therefore, if someone tries to harm you, including inserting something in your body against your will, then you have a right to defend yourself, and most people would help you because they wouldn't want to be violated this way either.

Your animals, on the other hand, are your property - you can do with them as you see fit.

Unfortunately the government demagogues do interfere sometimes: they subsidize animal torture when it is popular (i.e. Roman Colosseum) or throw people in jail over it when it isn't (i.e. Michael Vick). That's bad, but there's a limit to how far this stupidity can go, because even a modern industrialized society would have a lot of problems if it tried treating animals as sovereign individuals - and I'm not just talking about lack of pets, sacred cows roaming the streets, and the health disadvantages of pure veganism, etc. See, pretty much all of modern medical research is based on animal testing: without it the human life expectancy growth would drop down quite a bit. So if you have any desire to live to be 200, you better start by peeling off that "animal rights" bumper sticker!

You can be as compassionate with your animals as you wish, but other people will choose not to be compassionate, and using government force against them is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Last edited by Alex Libman; 12-26-2008 at 12:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 01:58 AM
 
Location: Back in New York
1,104 posts, read 3,322,085 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
Your basis for morality is irrational. I wouldn't want anyone making me their pet, period, but that doesn't mean keeping pets should be outlawed.

I don't know if your pet would microchip you if it could, but it clearly can't. (Though I'm sure it would eat you if you were dead and it was hungry enough, and if you were small enough it would certainly hunt and kill you for food or even sport.) The only entities capable of "microchipping" are humans, and within the context of human relations different rules will apply because humans have natural rights that animals don't have.

Those rights have a rational foundation in economic necessity, not subjective pity nor anything else. Human beings are entities that can be reasoned with, understand the consequences of their actions, own property, recognize the property rights of others, trade, and make rational decisions. If you treat a human being like a farm animal then one is worth less than a small pig (and someone else could make you their pig next time), but as a self-interested economic actor he can produce a great deal more value and trade with you for mutual benefit. A human society that fails to recognize the basic rights of other human beings will never evolve out of violent barbarism: low population density, high death rates, definitely no agriculture, etc. The stronger a society protects the rights of its human members, the more competitive it becomes, and as the result of this evolutionary advantage recognition of those natural human rights became integral to our species. Foolishly assigning rights to animals that cannot be rational economic actors, on the other hand, is a competitive disadvantage, and humanity would not have done as well as it did over the past several million years if it couldn't hunt, domesticate, use animal power, and so on.

Therefore, if someone tries to harm you, including inserting something in your body against your will, then you have a right to defend yourself, and most people would help you because they wouldn't want to be violated this way either.

Your animals, on the other hand, are your property - you can do with them as you see fit.

Unfortunately the government demagogues do interfere sometimes: they subsidize animal torture when it is popular (i.e. Roman Colosseum) or throw people in jail over it when it isn't (i.e. Michael Vick). That's bad, but there's a limit to how far this stupidity can go, because even a modern industrialized society would have a lot of problems if it tried treating animals as sovereign individuals - and I'm not just talking about lack of pets, sacred cows roaming the streets, and the health disadvantages of pure veganism, etc. See, pretty much all of modern medical research is based on animal testing: without it the human life expectancy growth would drop down quite a bit. So if you have any desire to live to be 200, you better start by peeling off that "animal rights" bumper sticker!

You can be as compassionate with your animals as you wish, but other people will choose not to be compassionate, and using government force against them is wrong, wrong, wrong!

where Moderator cut: edit did this Moderator cut: edit come from....take your jibberish over to the debates area if you wanna discuss this out. I will gladly meet you there.

This is a forum for ppl who actually care about animals and unlike you actually realize WE are animals too...Moderator cut: edit You come to a pet forum to say that Micheal Vick being imprisoned is wrong.....lmao. Moderator cut: edit

Last edited by leorah; 12-28-2008 at 09:05 PM.. Reason: rude and inappropriate language
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 02:46 AM
 
706 posts, read 1,312,956 times
Reputation: 308
Alright, copied.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 07:53 AM
 
Location: California
10,091 posts, read 35,802,367 times
Reputation: 22073
Quote:
Originally Posted by mental_complex View Post
Microchipping your pet is morally wrong! Do you want someone mircochipping you?
This is not a GPS or tracking device...merely to identify if lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 11:12 AM
 
Location: SC Foothills
8,830 posts, read 9,747,770 times
Reputation: 58197
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAK802 View Post
Has anyone microchipped their cat? We're going next week to do our dog and are thinking of bringing the cat along. Both cat and dog are 4 months old. I'm afraid that it will hurt the kitty. I only know people that had their dogs done and am curious how a cat responds to it and if it's even worth it. She never goes outside, but things happen (maintenace guy leaving the door open, etc.). Any thoughts?
I had both my dog and cat done a few months ago, and they both did real well with it. My cat is a wanderer and my dog a run-awayer so it is well worth it if you have animals that have a tendency to bolt everytime the door opens.

It did not seem to bother either one of them, except to remain still while the vet put them in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 02:41 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
2,806 posts, read 6,310,408 times
Reputation: 3250
"Your animals, on the other hand, are your property - you can do with them as you see fit."

Property doesn't generally walk, talk, interact, or have feelings at all.

"See, pretty much all of modern medical research is based on animal testing: without it the human life expectancy growth would drop down quite a bit. So if you have any desire to live to be 200, you better start by peeling off that "animal rights" bumper sticker!"

I have no desire to be 200 years old, wear depends, or have people spoon-feed me banana pudding. I'll keep the sticker, thank you very much!

"Foolishly assigning rights to animals that cannot be rational economic actors, on the other hand, is a competitive disadvantage, and humanity would not have done as well as it did over the past several million years if it couldn't hunt, domesticate, use animal power, and so on."

Some of us believe ALL living creatures should have rights. Is humainty really doing so well? Seems to me many like you have missed the boat and placed things like technology and materialism before what really matters. I hope you don't have pets, I shudder to think of the antiseptic existence they would suffer in your company each and every day!

Last edited by luvmycat; 12-26-2008 at 02:42 PM.. Reason: put in quotation marks to show what was quoted by another poster
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 02:56 PM
 
706 posts, read 1,312,956 times
Reputation: 308
(I'll reply in my animal rights thread so as to keep both threads on topic.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
1,384 posts, read 3,734,120 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mental_complex View Post
Microchipping your pet is morally wrong! Do you want someone mircochipping you?

Hey, if you think about it... microchipping for a pet is pretty much the same thing as fingerprints for a human. If you fingerprint is somewhere they can trace it to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 09:50 AM
 
2 posts, read 6,834 times
Reputation: 13
having worked in a vet clinic, i have seen and placed many microchips. it is essentially like getting a vaccine, only the needle is bigger. it is placed in an area that has very little nerves and major vessels and is placed subcutaneously, not in the muscle. this is not to say that the pet does not feel the poke, but it is over quickly and usually not a big deal. however, if you have the option of having it placed when the animal is there to get spayed and neutered, do that. that way, the chip can be placed while they are under anesthesia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets > Cats
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top