|
08-29-2003, 08:06 AM
|
#76 | |
|
Not aging gracefully.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 530
|
Quote:
If I was living in a fantasy world you could be damn sure you wouldn't be in it. Your assessment is 100% false on the above pharagraph. The point of removing the testicles of a dog is not so they don't have offspring. It is so they lose all desire to do so. Your assessment is 100% false in the above sentences. The whole fucking point of removing a dog's (or cat's) testicles is so that they don't have offspring, which leads to pet overpopulation which is where the real abuse comes in to play (of which I have yet to expound on due to the unfortunate shift in this conversation). In fact, you yourself are getting caught up in your web of falsehoods, ignorance, and illogical rantings. I quote now from another of your previous posts (including typos which I have noted in italics). Quzah said: "The reason the chop the nuts off of dogs is so they don't go out and have sex. They can't. They're basicly broken from that point on. They can't procreate. They no longer have the desire to, because they don't have any more testosterone. They don't really care about marking their territory, or being king of the block." I do believe that "having sex and procreating" is the exact same thing as "having offspring". You, my friend, have just contradicted the shit out of yourself. If it were just making sure they didn't procreate, they'd just do a vasectomy. (And yes, they can do them for pets, they just chose not to.) Yes, for once you're correct. They can perform vasectomies on domestic pets, and some people opt for this procedure for their pets, but it is more evasive and costly so most pet owners go with the standard procedure which has been performed for decades. The reason they have eunuchs is so that there's enough of a man around to be a servent to do this or that task, but not enough of a man left to do the task. I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate". Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect. Please go take a high health / school sex education class again, so you can actually find out what the testicles do. Removal of the testicles is just a tad bit more than "slightly diminishing" your sex drive. I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class. Your statement that animals would volunteer for either operation is absurd. The entire basis of animal life is to procreate. Why in the hell would they opt not to do so? Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well. They're not like humans, in that they (en-masse) take care of their young indefinately. They simply raise them for a year or so, and they're done with them. The point of a dogs life is to produce as many offspring as they can. That's all they do. I don't know of many humans who take care of their young "indefinitely", but I do know of many who raise them for a short time and then they're done with them. Another reason a few more humans should consider castration. BTY, watch the spelling, 'indefinately' is incorrect. Take wolves or cats, or whatever. All they do is get enough food to live, find some place to sleep, and procreate. Their very nature is to simply produce offspring. True enough, but in the example I was discussing I said "what if" we could ask animals to "volunteer" for sterilization. I said they would, you said they wouldn't. Don't you think that in this case some animals might say, "Gee, I am kind of tired of spending all my time procreating and raising offspring, I'd much rather spend my day running around, exploring, doing whatever I want to do"? Survival of the fittest is how it plays. That's why they have more than one offspring at a time. Have a bunch, raise the ones that survive. I'm quite familiar with the "survival of the fittest" idea and animals that have several offspring at a time is only one method used by animals to ensure that some of their offspring will survive to reproduce. You are absolutely incorrect in your previous statement. Animals that use this form of reproduction don't "have a bunch" and "raise the ones that survive". They, in fact, spend their energy in producing several offspring at one time and offer little to no parenting afterward. It is by chance alone that at least a few survive to maturity and are able to reproduce. Another method of survival involves producing very few, or even just one, offspring then spending your energy "raising" those offspring for a long period of time, teaching them how to survive and hopefully this knowledge will allow them to live long enough to reproduce. Survival of the fittest affects offspring of both methods of reproduction. It, as I've stated, would be a basic lobotomy. It alters their very existance. It isn't natural for said operation to happen. It would never occur in nature, and therefore, they wouldn't even grasp the concept. Let alone ask for it. No one said it was "natural", but domestic pets are in a sense not "natural" in that they are not "wild" creatures. Once humans domesticate an animal they take on the responsibility of caring for that animal and providing the safest most humane environment possible. This includes not allowing them to run all over producing offspring that are unwanted and abandoned or put to death at an animal shelter. Millions of stray pets suffer incredibly as a result of being abandoned. There are simply too many pets and not enough homes for them. They wander the streets sick and starving spreading disease. Many get injured in fights or hit by cars. Many are targets of abuse and torture at the hands of idiots who find it amusing to watch an innocent animal suffer. I think if an animal had the ability to realize the fate of many of its offspring that it would choose not to constantly procreate just because it can. But, since they don't have this ability, it is our responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring. Therefore, any responsible and caring pet owner SPAYS OR NEUTERS their pets!!! BTY, learn how to fucking spell before you attempt to make a bigger asshole out of yourself than you already have, 'existance' is incorrect.
__________________
You can't catch me...don't even try...go do something else...see ya next year. Mama Loves You Baby Girl ~ May You Rest In Peace |
|
|
|
|
08-29-2003, 09:39 AM
|
#77 | |
|
Knight of the Oval-Shaped Conference Table
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 375
|
Quote:
I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate". And yet, you just did address the comment. Please make up your mind. Do or do not. Don't half ass it. Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect. Here, let me help you, in your limited ability to tell the difference between castration and a vasectomy: By removing the testicles, there is little if any desire to have sex at all. It alters the way the brain functions because there is now a lack of testosterone. But since you're supposedly a biologist, you should know the obvious basic shit like this, so why in the fuck is it so hard for you to understand? No nuts = no desire to have sex. Let me illustrate another point for you, since you have no grasp of the obvious: In animals, the common understanding of sexual behavior tells us that the only reason they have sex is to procreate. In humans this is not true in the slightest. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just castrate men instead of doing vasectomies? Gee, I guess with my feeble mind I have a much better grasp of this concept than your highly skilled Biologist brain. I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class. I guess even fucking morons can get degrees now days. Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well. That's a mighty big "if". As I've already explained, animals are not considered to be "like humans" in that they do not follow the same thought patterns. Hell, people even debate if fish can actually feel pain. So now I'm to understand that dogs actually think about if they should procreate or not? Get fucking real! Put any male dog with a female in heat and he'll be all over her. Cut his nuts of, and he won't. Give him a vasectomy, and he will. What part of this is hard to understand? Are you a complete idiot, or do you just play one on TV? True enough, but in the example I was discussing I said "what if" we could ask animals to "volunteer" for sterilization. I said they would, you said they wouldn't. Don't you think that in this case some animals might say, "Gee, I am kind of tired of spending all my time procreating and raising offspring, I'd much rather spend my day running around, exploring, doing whatever I want to do"? Sterilization is not the same as castration. Please get this through your incredibly thick skull. THAT is why they would not opt for the operation. Because if they actually understood the difference between castration and a vasectomy, there is no fucking way in hell they would opt for castration. Period. No one in their right mind would opt for castration unless it was to do something like spare their life because they had cancer or something else. No male on earth would volunteer for castration unless it was life a threatening situation, or they were wacked out of their gourd. One last time, because you're so god damn dense: Castration is nothing at all like a vasectomy. That is my entire point. Castration is not "humane" as you put it. There is nothing humane about it. Here, go look it up. There is nothing humane about castration, because by the very definition of the word there is nothing at all positive about, or humanistic about it at all. Humans do not castrate eachother unless it is a form of punishment. Why do you hear people say "I'd like to castrate the bastard!"? Because they think it's a fucking reward? Get a clue. BTY, learn how to fucking spell before you attempt to make a bigger asshole out of yourself than you already have, 'existance' is incorrect. Why bother? I have the spelling Nazi correcting my work for me. Quzah. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-29-2003, 10:12 AM
|
#78 |
|
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Quz, I don't agree with your argument because I think you're anthropomorphizing the dog.
To the dog, the choice between castration and vasectomy is like the choice between a coffee mug and a bicycle. It's simply not something he ever ponders. Nor is the loss of his sexuality a burden. He simply doesn't sit there and ponder all the poon he could have gotten. Did you ever see a dog with three legs? He doesn't care, not one bit. It causes him no angst at all. He doesn't become morose because he's not like all the other dogs. He just looks around, says "oh ok, now i've got three" and from that point is normal. The reactions we think he might have are human emotional reactions -- based on our experience of the world, not the dog's. We often restrict the free will of dogs both to make them more compatible with our lifestyles, but the reason this all works is because dogs are instinctively pack animals and are roughly oriented to follow orders from top dogs. We are the top dogs. Most dog training classes are actually human training, to train the humans in how to act in ways the dog instinctively understands. We also restrict the free will of dogs to improve their lives. Given a "choice", a dog will eat week-old roadkill because he does not have the advanced thought processes to understand that his human master is able to guarantee a regular daily meal. (In fact I often stop mine from eating wires and hardware that's fallen on the floor, because domesticated dogs eat things just to see if they can digest it, even if it could possibly kill them.) |
|
|
|
|
08-29-2003, 10:49 AM
|
#79 | ||
|
Knight of the Oval-Shaped Conference Table
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 375
|
Quote:
Quote:
They're the one that started anthropomorphizing, when they stated that given the choice, dogs would opt to be castrated. My entire point is, if you could explain the difference to them, there is no way in hell they would choose to be castrated. See my post two back. Again, for some reason unbeknownst to me, they still insist that dogs would opt to be castrated. I find this to be an absurd thought process. But you are correct, we were both applying some human characteristics to the animal, in order to further our arguments. They give dogs the comprehension to understand what the argument does, so I give them the understanding to realize just how absurd the operation is. Quzah. |
||
|
|
|
|
08-29-2003, 11:19 AM
|
#80 |
|
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Oh, OK.
There's another way of looking at it, which is the evolutionary big picture. In this picture, it's the job of all species to try to reproduce their DNA. The ones that succeed at doing this "win" -- which means they get to continue on as a species. Throughout time, species have done this by adapting to their environment. But when man came along, all the rules changed, and species now win by being adaptable to man. The dog is remarkably good at being adaptable to man. Dogs struck a deal with man to interoperate as a species. They do whatever needs to be done, treat us as one of their pack, and in return we have helped them to reproduce their DNA, better than any other species EVER. We reproduce it in bizarre hairless 1-pound forms and massive Maximuses of 280 pounds, and everything in between. Normally, all species guard their reproduction carefully so their DNA can carry on. So no species with enough brains to understand the concept would choose to have their gonaddy bits removed; it's instinctively offensive to nature. But it's precisely because dogs let humans do that, that they reproduce in enormous numbers. Their species made the choice for them, and it was definitely the right choice. |
|
|
|
|
08-29-2003, 06:04 PM
|
#81 |
|
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
UT, I think you're making the mistake of Anthromorphizing quzah.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
|
|
|
08-30-2003, 06:45 PM
|
#82 |
|
Expectorant Inspector
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 3rd rock from the sun...lol..South Carolina
Posts: 31
|
It is amazing that the start of this thread was over a sacrificed pig with no nuts to a heavy debate over eunichs and dog nuts...
 lol
__________________
I know nothing, I am only the messenger..... |
|
|
|
|
08-30-2003, 06:53 PM
|
#83 | |
|
Not aging gracefully.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 530
|
Quote:
__________________
You can't catch me...don't even try...go do something else...see ya next year. Mama Loves You Baby Girl ~ May You Rest In Peace |
|
|
|
|
|
08-30-2003, 09:29 PM
|
#84 |
|
Not aging gracefully.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 530
|
[quote]Originally posted by quzah
And slavery was practiced for decades also. Does that make it right? It seems that you in your mind equate a vasectomy and castration. They are not even remotely the same. Now you find it necessary to bring slavery into the conversation. Can’t you focus on resolving one issue at a time? Or, is your IQ at rock bottom and you’re incapable of doing so? I know what castration is, I know what a vasectomy is. You were the fucking idiot that brought up vasectomies so I agreed w/ you and stated that “Yes, it is possible to give a pet a vasectomy rather than castrating them” and added that castration is the more common method of sterilizing pets. I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate". And yet, you just did address the comment. Please make up your mind. Do or do not. Don't half ass it. You got me there, I did comment. So, sue me asshole!! Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect. Here, let me help you, in your limited ability to tell the difference between castration and a vasectomy: By removing the testicles, there is little if any desire to have sex at all. It alters the way the brain functions because there is now a lack of testosterone. But since you're supposedly a biologist, you should know the obvious basic shit like this, so why in the fuck is it so hard for you to understand? No nuts = no desire to have sex. As I mentioned above, I am fully aware of the difference between castration and a vasectomy. Did you find that article all by yourself, I’m impressed. I’m also aware that castrating an animal affects their physiopsycological functions by REDUCING their libido, but not ELIMINATING it. Try rereading the article you posted. Nowhere in it does it state that castration causes a total loss of libido. It only states that “copulatory ability decreases dramatically following castration”. Let me illustrate another point for you, since you have no grasp of the obvious: In animals, the common understanding of sexual behavior tells us that the only reason they have sex is to procreate. In humans this is not true in the slightest. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just castrate men instead of doing vasectomies? This statement is incorrect. Humans are animals too and the reason they have sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans sex is also a method self-gratification (pleasure), but if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure. Gee, I guess with my feeble mind I have a much better grasp of this concept than your highly skilled Biologist brain. I beg to differ w/ this comment. I think your feeble little mind doesn’t have a grasp of much other than its location, which is deeply embedded up your ass. I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class. I guess even fucking morons can get degrees now days. True enough, I know of several, and now I know of one more “if” you have a degree. Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well. That's a mighty big "if". As I've already explained, animals are not considered to be "like humans" in that they do not follow the same thought patterns. Hell, people even debate if fish can actually feel pain. So now I'm to understand that dogs actually think about if they should procreate or not? Your stupidity is mind-boggling. The whole premise of this discussion is based on “what if” animals had the ability to understand the ramifications of being neutered and whether or not they would then opt to have it done or not. You even pointed this fact out to UT in a subsequent post: Quote originally posted by quzah to UT: “Perhaps you should read the start of this topic: Quote originally posted by LUVBUGZ: Well, in this specific case, I would have to agree w/ you. I'm sure the piggy didn't enjoy the procedure, which most likely involved constricting blood flow to the family jewels until they fell off or simply cutting them off w/out anesthesia. I would have to consider this a form of abuse due to the pain involved. But, if we start talking about the castration of domestic pets, that's a whole new ballgame. Before I go off on that, I'm curious...do you think that's abuse too? Quote originally posted by quzah to UT: The original comment was me saying that cutting the nuts of a pig was abuse. To which this whole big tangent started, because LUVBUGZ doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between castration and a vasectomy. They're the one that started anthropomorphizing, when they stated that given the choice, dogs would opt to be castrated. My entire point is, if you could explain the difference to them, there is no way in hell they would choose to be castrated. See my post two back.” Get fucking real! Put any male dog with a female in heat and he'll be all over her. Cut his nuts of, and he won't. Give him a vasectomy, and he will. Sterilization is not the same as castration. Please get this through your incredibly thick skull. THAT is why they would not opt for the operation. Because if they actually understood the difference between castration and a vasectomy, there is no fucking way in hell they would opt for castration. Period. No one in their right mind would opt for castration unless it was to do something like spare their life because they had cancer or something else. One last time, because you're so god damn dense: Castration is nothing at all like a vasectomy. That is my entire point. Just as I understand the difference between castration and a vasectomy, I am also aware of the definition of sterilization. I never said that sterilization is the same as castration. For your information castration AND a vasectomy are FORMS of sterilization. You’re so quick to point out the definitions of these terms, why don’t you fucking read them yourself before you get so high and might, ass wipe!! I don’t think you’d recognize “your point” if hit you upside the fucking head with a crowbar. Castration is not "humane" as you put it. There is nothing humane about it. Here, go look it up. There is nothing humane about castration, because by the very definition of the word there is nothing at all positive about, or humanistic about it at all. Humans do not castrate eachother unless it is a form of punishment. The actual castration procedure in not inhumane in that it is done under anesthetic, the animal is given a painkiller, and antibiotics are provided to prevent secondary infection. The small amount of “pain”, if any, felt by the ”individual” after the procedure is minute compared to the probable amount of inhumanity that would be felt by the unwanted offspring that this individual animal could produce if not sterilized. As I stated before, if our pets are not spayed or neutered the results lead to horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and inhumanity. Since it is obvious that you have a problem with reading and comprehension I will repost my comment here so that you can maybe get a clue the second time around… No one said it was "natural", but domestic pets are in a sense not "natural" in that they are not "wild" creatures. Once humans domesticate an animal they take on the responsibility of caring for that animal and providing the safest most humane environment possible. This includes not allowing them to run all over producing offspring that are unwanted and abandoned or put to death at an animal shelter. Millions of stray pets suffer incredibly as a result of being abandoned. There are simply too many pets and not enough homes for them. They wander the streets sick and starving spreading disease. Many get injured in fights or hit by cars. Many are targets of abuse and torture at the hands of idiots who find it amusing to watch an innocent animal suffer. I think if an animal had the ability to realize the fate of many of its offspring that it would choose not to constantly procreate just because it can. But, since they don't have this ability, it is our responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring. Therefore, any responsible and caring pet owner SPAYS OR NEUTERS their pets!!! Post too long, continued in next post.
__________________
You can't catch me...don't even try...go do something else...see ya next year. Mama Loves You Baby Girl ~ May You Rest In Peace |
|
|
|
|
08-30-2003, 09:33 PM
|
#85 |
|
Not aging gracefully.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 530
|
Post Continued.....
Quote originally posted by quzah
Why do you hear people say "I'd like to castrate the bastard!"? Because they think it's a fucking reward? Get a clue. I really wish someone would castrate you so I could be sure that you will no longer be able to breed. The last thing this world needs is a bunch of little quzah’s running around with diarrhea of the mouth like mommy/daddy.
__________________
You can't catch me...don't even try...go do something else...see ya next year. Mama Loves You Baby Girl ~ May You Rest In Peace |
|
|
|
|
08-30-2003, 09:57 PM
|
#86 |
|
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,486
|
This is almost like Radar vs. Cairo.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2003, 12:50 AM
|
#87 |
|
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
I think it's time to agree to disagree before someone says something hateful and hurts someones feelings.:p
If you want to talk abuse, how about circumcision ?
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
|
|
|
08-31-2003, 12:16 PM
|
#88 | ||||
|
Knight of the Oval-Shaped Conference Table
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 375
|
Re: Post Continued.....
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But it's cruel to castrate a pig, because you're not being nice enough to it. I mean, it's just a god damn sandwich anyway, let's all worry about how nice we are to it before we kill it and eat it. Quote:
You are trying to imply more truth than there is. The main reason people have sex, as a whole, is not to procreate. Procreation is a side effect. Yes, people set out to have children, but that is hardly means that "the reason" is simply to procreate. That's just absurd. Seriously, if this were true, and apparently you think it is, why would birth control exist? Why would sterilization exist? The only reason dogs have sex is to procreate. Oh, and I like how you just ignore the points you can't argue with. Ignore the fact that no one would choose castration over a vasectomy, and try and make yourself feel better by belittling my "potty mouth". Here's, let's get a little closer to home for you. Removal of the breast is a good way to prevent breast cancer. So all women should have their breasts removed, since with bottled milk, there is no real actual need for them any more. Surgery will be done in a humane way. They'll use lots of pain killers, so you can stay out of it until all pain is gone. You don't need them. They don't do anything useful for you. Cut them off to avoid the risk of cancer. I mean, it's safe! It's humane! Why don't you see women jumping at the chance to have this operation? Oh, that's right, because a mastectomy is nothing at all like a breast exam. And here is where I stop wasting board space replying to you, since it's obvious that to you, castration as far as males are concerned has the same exact end result. When, to the rest of the world, it is obviously different. You still ignore the obvious points, intentionally. No male would choose castration. Period. It's inhumane to force it on a dog simply because we can. Why is it inhumane? Well because by definition of the word, go back and find if if you've ignored it, no human would opt for it, so it cannot, by definition, be humane. We'll leave it at this: You think that males should be castrated, and by comparison, as a preventitive measure, you should have a mastectomy. It's better to be humane, and prevent a possible cancer in your case, than to make you risk the potential suffering it could theoreticly cause. Since the only thing that makes it inhumane would be the lack of pain killers, we'll make sure you have plenty. Go for it. You have the Cellar backing your wise, humane decision. Quzah. Last edited by quzah; 08-31-2003 at 12:41 PM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
08-31-2003, 02:47 PM
|
#89 | ||
|
Not aging gracefully.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 530
|
I said that the only inhumane thing about castrating that pig is that it most likely was done w/out anestesia. Unlike you who thinks it's the end of the world if the pig doesn't feel like fucking all the time, I'm not overly concered with that and don't feel that the pig is now abused because he doesn't feel inclined to do so. The pig doesn't know what he's missing so goes on living none the wiser.
Yes, it is good to castrate domestic pets to prevent pet overpopulation which leads to the suffering, abuse, and death of millions of unwanted animals. From a human stand point, well your's anyway, vasectomies would be a "kinder" method of sterilization so that they still have the desire to procreate, but castration is the preferred method because as I pointed out it is cheaper and easier to perform. As UT pointed out, dogs, since they don't have the human capacity to realize that there is a more "humane" sterilization procedure, simply go with the flow. One day they have balls, the next day they don't. They simply go on with life. Let me reword my statement about humans and sex: Humans are animals too and "Nature's" purpose for having sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans, sex has also taken on a "Human" purpose to provide self-gratification (pleasure). So, if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure. Birth control is used to prevent unwanted pregnancies because humans have the ability to realize the ramifications of producing unwanted offspring. Dogs do not. If they did then we could just give them a condom and say have at it Fido. But, since they don't we have to provide them with a form of birth control. Currently, in our society, the accepted form is castration. As far as removing women's breasts as a form of preventing breast cancer, I was the one who brought up this point and am aware of women who have done this. If women having big tits wasn't so important to men, maybe more women would do it. I'm not suggesting all women go out and cut off their breasts, but given the choice, some women have. Just like "if"our pets had the ability to choose to be sterilized, I think some would. [Not going into the castration vs. vasectomy thing, just would they choose sterilization.] Quote:
Quote:
__________________
You can't catch me...don't even try...go do something else...see ya next year. Mama Loves You Baby Girl ~ May You Rest In Peace |
||
|
|
|
|
08-31-2003, 11:55 PM
|
#90 |
|
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Hey, I got a question. I've always been told that dogs (or any animal except us) pursues sex to pass his genes and insure the survival of his kind. OK, how do he know?
I'm having trouble believing that the dog ponders these concepts. More likely it's raging hormones and after the first time, pleasant memory. THAT'S, better living through chemistry. 
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Linear Mode
