Some police in america get 750. Others are merely elected to sheriff as a political appointment.

edit: This very silly and also somehow serious video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt5I3V5hWkU

fucking. why. if new reddit is soooooo fucking good just stick with it.

useless red circles

???

who are you responding to

also, those wages are not regular

also, yes they are intolerable

multiple things can be bad at the same time

a careful investigation of available evidence will reveal that things like ceo overcompensations directly correlate with things like regulatory failure and capture

dumb

We need a revival of the Four Horsemen of the Atheist Counter-Apocolypse. RIP Hitch

Zing! (downvote me I’m not contributing)

…not nice?

It’s been a few days and I haven’t heard back. I feel an obligation to myself and to anyone who might be reading this in the future to reply as MrDebatePants:

Your reply consists of non-sequitur and has the effect of begging the question. I cannot possibly agree that sexual assault or what constitutes sexual assault is a merely semantic question- as if describing my argument in terms of “what constitutes truth, what is logical, what is the meaning of ideas” (i.e., semantics) in that way was somehow damagingly epithetical to that argument instead of your pathos, ethos and logos simultaneously. Neutering animals and not neutering animals is a false dichotomy: that these are the only options society is prepared to seriously consider do not make them the only options, or even good options.

Stay slept.

Hivemind doesn’t get the reference.

Yaaaaaaay!

Okay, I’m reading frustration- pointed at me- between the lines of what you’ve written. I’m going to drop the MrDebatePants persona I’ve adopted thus far and speak to you human-to-human. Regardless, I will still be making every effort to be respectful despite the difference in opinion we are having here. I hope and trust you will let me know when you feel disrespected and afford me the opportunity to correct it. /persona

Yes, I have. I was a kennel technician in a veterinary office for about 8 months. I was homeless at the time. Let’s see, this was… late 2020? early 2021? Somewhere around there. It was a nice deal. The shelter and the vet had some sort of arrangement with the government that they could basically lease out their tenants, pay them less than minimum wage. It’s a win win win, because the vet gets cheap labor and a tax break, the shelter gets some sort of kickback from the government, and I get shafted on pay and come “home” smelling like dogshit every night, much to the dismay of the other men with whom I was sharing a bunk/room, considering the extreme dysfunction of our showers and laundry.

I didn’t care. I was working with animals. Would you believe I have always been much better with animals than people? At first it was nice enough- take the dogs out three times a day in the remarkably well appointed attached private park specific to the vet’s office. Clean up their feces, feed them, later I was entrusted with medication and grooming tasks. The owner of the place, a retired vet, took great care to make sure there were facilities for the care of homeless dogs and cats. Humane, empathetic, I thought. And I guess, yes, actually it was, in comparison to the nothing he could have otherwise done. But it was also depressing. Not just for me. For them.

Prudence. A beautful, sweet 6-7 year old malamute/pyrenees who was in our care after being discovered in a crate not even big enough for her to stand up in. She had been sitting in her own filth, unrelieved, for an unknown but extended period of time. She was only discovered when the elderly demented man who was supposed to be her caretaker finally passed. He had been feeding her, and nothing else. Prior history unknown. She was going to be written off as a lost cause and euthanized. I begged to be allowed the opportunity to attempt to rehabilitate her. The vet kind of rolled her eyes and I guess decided it would be a teachable moment for me. So she went ahead. And I did. I took her on walks with an improvised sling, bearing most the weight from her hips on my shoulders. She would kind of kick the air with her back as we walked. Before long her front legs were strong enough that I could start easing her weight down a bit, lengthening the strap little by little. She would always be panting like mad when we got back in, but also happy in that dog way. About two months of this treatment and she was standing and walking short distances on her own. And she loved walking, so so much. I’ve never met a dog more happy to just be walked. I know, I know. All dogs like walks. This dog loved walking. Just the act thereof. I don’t do it or her justice in this description. She didn’t care one iota about being fixed. She was taken to a farm upstate (literally, I checked) and enjoyed another year of life before developing hip dysplasia severe enough that even she didn’t want to walk anymore. She was humanely euthanized, and I have every reason to believe she consented to that procedure. If I had not been there, simple and naive enough to actually try where the “professional” had given up before even starting, she would have been simply murdered by the same procedure. And nobody would have seen any problem with it.

Ricky. 2-4 year old boxer mix who had spent too long on the streets and was badly socialized to both humans and animals. I was warned about ricky when he came in for all of those reasons- aggressive, snappish, foul mannered, defensive, food guarding, all the hits. People mistrusted him without ever meeting or interacting him because of his history. I’m ashamed to say, so did I. One day we were feeding and I had accidentally forgotten to start the dishwasher for their bowls, so we used paper bowls instead. I put out the food and came back about twenty minutes later (far too long with paper, I should have known) to find Ricky chewing his bowl to shreds. I said, exasperated “Ricky…” and he looked kind of ashamed, in that way that some dogs will. I opened the cage and reached out my hand and- he recoiled. He absolutely drew back in the expectation that I was about to hit him. I tell you, my heart broke for him in that moment. I sat down next to him instead of cleaning up the pieces and just loved on him for a while. And he needed that, so so badly. I guess so did I. He pressed himself into me and I whispered that it’s okay and he’s a good boy and please don’t chew up your bowl. From then on he and I were best friends, and he seemed to come around to the rest of the staff quickly thereafter, too. If things had turned out differently, he’d be in my care right now here at home. But they didn’t. I liked ricky, you see, and he liked me. And he was extremely jealous of my attention. I was trying to work closely with him to socialize and was going to begin muzzled contact with other dogs soon, but… One day I had him out in the park. It has a few fenced off areas for holding troubled dogs away from the main area. I was in on one of my off days, playing in one such area, tug toy, fetch, that sort of thing. And he was being such a good boy… until another dog who was playing in the main area wandered over and saw that I was playing with toys and he wanted to play toys too and ricky didnt like that so he bit the other dog through the fence. Hard. And refused to let go. And tore his lip open. we stuck the needle in his arm and he died, knowing what was happening to him. I held him, and I tell you I wept like I never did before or since.

Have I seen the before and after? Yes, I have. I have seen dogs come in for humping the pillows go home not wanting to hump things anymore. I have seen the dog who got out because of owner negligence come home and have a litter of puppies they couldnt afford so they just give them away to god knows who without worrying too much about neutering, they’re just puppies, someone else will take care of it, no longer able to have puppies anymore. hooray, another victory. Dogs come in sexually aggressive and leave confused and worried while the staff laughs about the cone of shame preventing them from investigating the stump where there sex once was. Never is any sort of therapeutic intervention even considered. “Dog psychologist? Dont be naive.” Never is it suggested that it might just be the fault of the person nominally responsible. When people get bored or their charge becomes inconvenient, they dump their responsibility onto the street. Never had I seen that illustrated so literally as the day we were outside smoking at the shelter and someone just did a fucking drive by dump off. I guess they saw “shelter” and got the wrong idea. Fortunately I happened to work at the actual shelter they needed and was able to get that poor animal- abused, obviously, and sick- where it needed to be to get some help.

My mother is disgustingly similar to your FIL, except she had just the one dog at the time that I was still talking to her. Walking around whimpering all day long in heat with no way to satisfy her sexual needs. She let that poor girl just bleed on the floor and whine and lay around and yelled at her relentlessly for relentlessly trying to get out. “she knows better than that.” I begged her to please neuter that dog. Repeatedly. Literally on my knees at one point. She thought it was funny. That dog- let’s see, Daisy was her name- did manage to get out one day. And was hit by a car. And died of her wounds. My mom did not go to see her while she lay dying. For many reasons, this high among them, I do not speak to my mother anymore.

I didn’t develop these radical views even from all of those experiences combined. I wanted to adopt a rescue dog. I wanted to know what kind of rights that dog would have. I was shocked, angry and I don’t know the word to adequately express the magnitude of my disappointment because that word just doesn’t quite cut it- but somehow not actually surprised- to find that they have no rights. Animal rights do not exist, at least in america, atleast as far as I was able to find in a quite extensive (though necessarily not exhaustive) search of my state and local district and several other districts in my state and several other states and at a federal level. All “animal rights” legislation is actually a list of how hard you can “work” your animals, what treatments they may not be forced to endure (almost universally, they may not be subject to any treatment that will lead to death or inability to perform their “work”). They are slave codes. Animals are slaves. Legally defined, literally, as chattel. Moveable property. This is my real point. The question about sexual assault, while valid and I think important, is a framing device to get us to here and the larger more important question, “What are we supposed to do about this?”

I had to delete about a paragraph and a half here where I started to get back into MrDebatePants mode, because I told you I wouldn’t do that. There is just one thing I must say as a point of clarity, however: I am not arguing from nature. I understand how you could infer that from what I’ve said, but I’ve never implied it and it forms no part of my argument.

I hope this wasn’t too much. It was a lot, for me at least. Scrolling back up, it’s a lot to look at, too. I haven’t dressed my ideas up or tried to hide anything or tried to make myself sound as smart as I can. It is the plain, ugly, unvarnished truth as I recall it.

Actually, I’m at the character limit, so I bette

I’m replying to let you know I’ve seen that you replied. I just got back from my night’s activities and am winding down. I look forward to reading your response.

I hope you don’t mind, I’m gonna focus my reply mostly to this previous response, since I was zonked out last night, and feel out of my depth in the focus on persons with intellectual disabilities without extensive research.

Violence implies that harm is happening. In mind, the most harmful thing about neutering a human without their consent is the subsequent trauma that the person needs to live the rest of their life knowing that they will not be able to reproduce. Non-human animals don’t carry that burden and therefore won’t experience that trauma. They can go about the rest of their lives in perfectly happy ignorance.

I would say the most harmful thing done to an unconsenting person who suffered a neutering procedure would be the lack of ability to reproduce thereafter. This disability, its consequences is what humans would consider traumatic, not necessarily the knowledge thereof. Being ignorant (I do not concede this ignorance but for the sake of argument) of the harm doesn’t mean the harm doesn’t occur, though I would grant it could prevent trauma. Further, I think you might accidentally be smuggling in an unsupported assumption. On the one hand you say animals can’t communicate (ie, we can’t ascertain their consent) but on the other that they aren’t traumatized. If they can’t communicate well enough to ascertain their consent, how can we ascertain their emotional status? Given that, on what basis can you say they definitively aren’t traumatized by this procedure, categorically?

The physical aspect of the operation is a negligible concern. They recover from that just fine. Animals of all kinds need to undergo surgical operations for many reasons, and it’s not considered violence.

Tentatively granted. Medically necessary surgeries are not violent, though they very often do entail trauma.

but I’m still of the mind that I should choose to adopt instead of giving birth even though there is a part of me that wants to have a biological child very badly.

I am incredibly empathetic on this line. I feel a huge urge to reproduce despite, y’know, gestures broadly. I hope I have the moral courage to do the objectively right thing here.

So the difference is, a human can be reasoned with and make their own decision. Whether or not people ordinarily do make reasoned decisions about important matters is another concern; the salient point is that they can.

My reading of this works out to “A human can make a rational decision, but sometimes doesn’t. By implication, animals are incapable of thinking rationally. By extension, animals will never control their population on their own. Therefore, animal populations should be controlled by mass sterilization.” [heavily paraphrasing, please let me know if I have taken any inappropriate liberties with your arguments here or elsewhere. I am not looking to argue with a straw man.]

I hope that you will agree once I point it out- this doesn’t answer the question. I’m not asking whether/how the practice is justified, I’m asking why it doesn’t it constitute sexual assault. (Obviously, since animals are (strictly legally speaking) considered chattel and therefore don’t have rights (their owners have rights over them), they aren’t protected by e.g. sexual assault statutes. I’m asking the moral question, rather than the legal one.) “If we don’t practice what you are arguing constitutes sexual assault, then there could be disastrous consequences for society,” [heavily paraphrasing] doesn’t answer the question “does this action constitute sexual assault?”

I can foresee an objection in your mind- I’m being too dismissive of your arguments and saying only the answer that I want will fit the question. I disagree. For one, I am not looking for any specific answer. For another, I’m not dismissing your arguments, I am defeating them (in my opinion😊).

but I’ve also known people with Down’s syndrome who can’t get their own pants on without assistance (I mean this literally and objectively as a reference point for cognitive function, not as a joke).

I’m feeling comfortable enough around you not to worry about that. It’s hard to tell with internet strangers sometimes, but you seem earnest enough. You get the Dark Night of the Soul 🦭 of approval.

I don’t believe in forced sterilization or forced prevention… so what I’m suggesting is not eugenics.

I did want to come back to this point, though. With the greatest possible respect, you have been advocating for animal eugenics all along (in my opinion), and I don’t see how you’re going to successfully argue that you weren’t, except perhaps in that nominal legal sense I referred to in parenthesis above.

I give you full marks for honesty and conviction. I’ve already taken my sleepy pills so I’ll be increasingly stupid until I pass out. That said, I want to take this point up: I ought to take you to task on this point of eugenics in the “feebleminded” (another word that fell off the euphemism treadmill in the 40s or so) but I would have to frankly learn a lot about that specifically, and while I think a good comparison is there to be made (which is I guess why I made it), I’m not convinced that it’s a perfect or generally useful comparison to the point that I’m trying to make, and was only offered in response to my perception of similarity to authors of eugenics papers, including Down himself. I will say that I think you’re painting with a very broad brush, especially in that last paragraph. I gave the specific example of down syndrome. Based on what I’ve read of you, I don’t think you’ll laugh when I point out that a woman with down syndrome was recently appointed to the spanish parliament. I don’t know whether that woman has a carer or if the genetic syndrome is even compatible with reproduction, but

oh no im rambling i’ve lost the thread help no please i want my brain for a little while longerrr

Look i dont know if you even want (or wanted for that matter) to have me write all the things I was going to say. If you do, I’ll write them tomorrow. If you don’t. thanks for this brief debate, it was genuinely stimulating, and I figuroed out my library has access to most of the NIH library and several important scholarly journals which I have always thought to be locked behind paywalls forever. I thank you for that boon, even if You did not grant it to me.

stupid bipolar disorder stupid insomnia

That would be a masochist, but yes, cats are notorious sadists.

I doubt very much they would agree with their characterization as sadists, but I also doubt they would be willing to pay for perpetual-upkeep progesterone, (or whatever the animal equivalent might be) for their animal children. It’s a wonderful intersection of convenient and cheap, and because animals are defined as being unable to consent (without the restrictions that would normally impose on a human subject), you don’t have to worry about pesky things like morality or ethical restrictions. By grabthar’s hammer, what a savings.

To those downvoting: Are you lost for words? Struggling to figure out how to successfully reply?

Perhaps that says more than you are willing to admit.

Edit: I think I got it right. You use the disagree button in place of an argument. I think that’s pretty fucking cowardly of you.

The non-human animals aren’t in a position where consent (or lack thereof) can be accounted for. They aren’t neurologically able to comprehend the consequences of their activities or the detriment it brings about when they follow their instincts. They also don’t comprehend that the operation will make parenthood impossible, so they’re not left to suffer from any mental trauma or sense of loss afterwards.

With respect, this sounds remarkably like the arguments made by eugenicists for the forced sterilization of the “mentally retarded” (their words, not yours or mine). In fact, I could use the train of your statements here, replacing “The non-human animals” with “The people with down syndrome” to remarkably unflattering effect. I shall refrain.

Not for nothing, most humans do not walk around just comprehending the consequences of their activities or the detriment it brings when they follow their instincts (See: anthropogenic global warming), despite the common fallacy that we do.

Disregarding their consent, whether justified or not, whether it is possible to ascertain their consent or not, does not disqualify it from being sexually violent. Actually, rather the reverse: typically we understand those who are unable to give consent to be broadly unconsenting. We understand that those who are unable to consent are more susceptible to sexual violence than otherwise, and they are afforded legal protection to compensate.

And if all that isn’t enough, there just isn’t a viable alternative for controlling the domestic animal population: We can’t educate the animals to let them make informed decisions. We can’t get them to use contraceptives. We can’t convince or trick them to stop having sex. We also don’t have the means to keep them all contained, and in any case that would be far more detrimental to their mental and emotional health than being neutered.

That we have not found an alternative to this practice of mass forced sterilization which suits society’s apparent needs does not disqualify this practice from being sexually violent. This amounts to an argument from ignorance which begs the question.

Your reply did not answer the question: since “spay/neuter your ex” is implying sexual violence against a presumably unconsenting human, why isn’t it actual sexual violence against a definitely unconsenting animal? ‘Animals can’t consent’ can’t really be your answer to whether they are subjects of sexual violence, can it?

Okay bit of a hot take but bear with me here: if it’s implying sexual violence against a human, why isn’t it actual sexual violence against the animal?

Ah fair enough.