Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

At no point have I or would I advocate putting your dog down unless or until its life became unberable due to pain.

What the article covers and what I agree with is that people should think very carefully before buying such a dog from a breeder, as breeders are engaged in breeding dogs for extreme looks that are very likely to experience considerable health problems. By buying such a dog you are incentivising the breeder to create more, with scant regard to the health of the animals.

So I'll repeat - nobody is saying you're evil for adopting a rescue pug, quite the opposite, you did a great thing! The advocacy is to stop buying them from breeders until the health issues have been addressed - probably by introducing greater genetic diversity and ceasing to select for extreme brachcephaly.

Can I ask why you feel the need to reduce everything to extremes? Why do you feel the only ethical options are "Put all the pugs to sleep" and "Yay pugs!" ?

Is it impossible for you to see a middle road - the individual dogs are to be cherished, but for ethical reasons we should change breeding practices and maybe discontinue some breeds?

My purebred brachy dog isn't a rescue. It's very difficult to acquire the breed of dog we own through rescues. The middle ground you say we should be on doesn't apply to me: you've made a continuous thread of arguments that what my family did was unethical, and I'm challenging you about that.

Clearly, you don't believe my family was obligated to acquire a second dog.

Clearly, you don't believe my brachycephalic dog should be put down. You concede here that whatever suffering my dog endures due to its genetic defects, they don't make its life unbearable.

Thus, you implicitly concede that my dog obtains benefits from being alive.

I agree, my dog does not obtain all the benefits that a well-cared-for mixed breed dog of good health would obtain.

But since the alternative to the dog we have is not "a healthier dog", but in fact "no dog at all", I am still having trouble reaching the ethical problem you claim exists with these dogs. Some benefit is better than no benefit at all.

In which case yes, I believe what you did was unethical, in suporrting the continued production of dogs known to suffer severe health problems.

You chose, deliberately, a.dog breed that would suffer, when there are others that would have suited the situation just as well.

No, there were not. I've explained that to you already, and you've simply chosen to ignore the basis of our preference. I'll repeat it for you: we needed a dog that would be amiable with people and other dogs, that would be comfortable in a not-especially stimulating household, and that would not have excessive requirements for exercise, since our house is empty most of the time. We chose our second dog based on temperament and requirements, not based on appearance.

You can believe my choice to own pugs is unethical and cruel, but I am not persuaded by your reasoning. I do not believe I have done anything wrong, and my dogs Bailey and Maya are not suffering. I will now end any further engagement with you.

If you want to engage in spirited debate with people and learn to persuade people to your point of view, have a look at this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0dCTvX0wzs&feature=youtu.be...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com