Hacker News Reader

Comment by divbit | Hacker News Reader

What I am trying to point out is that it should be impossible to enjoy prolonged daily aerobic exercise under the constant respiratory distress the article is claiming for 'all such brachycephalic dogs.' Let me quote directly from the article: "The only time these dogs are not in some degree of respiratory distress is when you have them intubated under anaesthetic." What I am claiming, as a proof by contradiction of sorts, is that with proper exercise, it is possible that such a dog will not suffer from respiratory distress all the time, like the article is clearly claiming.

View on HN

Firstly, are you qualified to know if your dog was not in "some" degree of respiratory distress?

And again, your dog might have been ok. Hell, you might have got a classical pug with a longer snout and few issues.

The problem is that there are vast numbers being bred and sold that do suffer from these problems, and no amount of exercise is going to help them.

This is a solvable problem, if people stop selecting for dogs with collapsed faces.

Responsible owners of pure bred dogs discuss these issues with their veterinarians. We own a rescue mutt and a brachycephalic purebred, and had this discussion with our vet. You're a commenter on a message board projecting authority from a few sentences from an advocacy piece in The Guardian.

I concede that the ethics of purebred ownership remain a live debate after this comment, but hopefully we can eliminate right now the notion you have that you can club down other commenters with the question "are you a vet?".

And responsible vets and veterinary associations are now starting to publicly say that there are problems with these breeds.

It's not even the ethics of purebred ownership in general - it's the ethics of selecting for known harmful traits, and people buying them in droves due to little more than fashion.

You see how your argument has now forced you to second guess our veterinarians? You're now making a special pleading: the veterinarian in the advocacy piece you just read in The Guardian is honest, and all other veterinarians aren't. And, yes: that is also a rhetorical weakness of the Guardian piece itself: it attempts to generate authority in part by invoking a narratively compelling worldwide conspiracy of cruel veterinarians.

I'm sorry, in what way did I second guess vets?

I'm not making any special pleading here, the guardian piece is backed up by publications from the British Veterinary Association. I'm not impugning any vets, it looks like the entire profession is moving this way in the UK.

You're reading things into my argument which just aren't there, and what's more it feels like you haven't fully read the article.

Once again: we discussed the issues of our breed in detail with our vet. Our vet, I think you can infer, does not agree with this advocacy piece. Your argument depends on the notion that only the veterinarians who agree with you are qualified to voice opinions. That's special pleading. It's not a complicated point.

Also: please stop suggesting that commenters haven't read the article.

I can't infer anything, what did your vet say?

What do you think the article is advocating? Because AFAICT it's not euthanasia, it's to stop supporting breeders in their quest for ever 'cuter' brachycephaly.

I know the article isn't advocating euthanasia. I think that, too, is a flaw in the logic of the article.

I think it's totally fine to exhort people who don't have strong dog preferences to select non-compromised dogs. It also makes sense to me to advocate rescues. We own a rescue, too. Where you lose me is when you suggest that it's unethical to purchase a purebred dog.

Acquiring a rescue when you have a preference for a purebred puppy is an ethically positive action. I think few people here would disagree with that. The fallacy in your argument is that the positive outcome of acquiring a rescue does not automatically imply that a acquiring a purebred is ethically negative; it can be --- and I think usually is --- ethically neutral.

No, I'm suggesting to you that it is unethical to breed dogs that will suffer predictable, known, severe health problems.

Further that purchasing from such breeders is also unethical.

I understand that to be your argument. I'm saying, you haven't made a coherent case for it.

I'm not sure I should have to, you're advocating unnecessary suffering.

You haven't established that the suffering is unnecessary. Unless I'm obligated to own a (second) dog, a compromised dog is better (for the dog!) than no dog at all.

>Firstly, are you qualified to know if your dog was not in "some" degree of respiratory distress?

I had a little red dog when I was a kid. A mutt,a little larger than a pug, with short legs.

She would run alongside me while I rode my bike, say at 15km/h.

One time she ran till she collapsed. I felt really bad for not noticing that she was running too hard.

She had so much heart I think she would have run herself nearly to death if I let her.

After that I never rode fast when she was with me.

15 km/h is quite fast

Reply on news.ycombinator.com