Is it wrong to want another purebred?

Just curious after all this discussion, have you an answer to your
question?

On 2005-03-27, Mary penned:

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...

Doesn't matter. Of all of the attempts to philosophize moral arguments,
this is the only one that's actually been useful to me in daily life.

Here is where it falls down--as a basis for moral behavior, forget the
predicate logic. It is not only completely unlikely but utterly impossible
that "everyone" would do whatever thing you are considering doing.
Therefore you are measuring the worth (or potential harm) of an event or
deed by a false measure. It would be more effective were you to ask yourself
something like, "would this be a good thing if 100 out of every 10,000
people did it." But still it would fall down, because I can give you example
after example of beneficial or "good" deeds/events/choices that, were say,
even half the population to do them, would NOT be good. The first that comes
to mind: you are in a large city on a large, busy city highway or beltline
or freeway. You see an accident. You stop to see if you can help. As it
turns out, you are able to pull a child to safety before the care blows up.
Now then, what if half the people on the same busy beltline did the same
thing? Meaning, stopped to help? It would most certainly not be a good
thing, and in fact the resulting gridlock would keep the emergency vehicles
needed to contain the fire in the car and administer medical help to the
child could not reach the child due to all the stopped vehicles on the road.

All interesting points. You're absolutely right; I don't think morality can
ever be decided as simply as a single question. Well, maybe "does this harm
anyone," but it's almost always the case that an action harms *someone*, at
least by inaction, so ... it's never simple.

I don't really care if it can be logically proven. Logic proofs are
fun and neat, but in the end they always start from some assumption
that can be argued, so even if there's no flaw in the logic, the
proof itself won't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

No, they do not always begin with an assumption that can be argued.
But that is neither here nor there in terms of the present
application. The practice of predicate logic can be thought of as no
more than mental masturbation--or it can be much more, as it can
transfer off of paper and into actual life.

Gah, I just had something typed up, and my editor ate it!

Well, anyway. I do think that logic is incredibly useful in day to day life.
It helps me separate good, solid ideas from bull****. But I don't think it
can take us all the way when we're talking about the really interesting stuff:
right and wrong, why we're here, etc. It's a step in the right direction, but
it's not the solution.

If you have a better rule of thumb, let me know.

I do not have a better rule of thumb but I have a better idea: ditch
"rules of thumb." Examine every situation as the unique combination of
causes and effects that itis, and each potential deed, too.

Of course, but a rule of thumb isn't meant to be exact. It's meant to be an
approximation that works in many situations. There are, of course, many ways
to approach a question, and it's a good idea to think about anything important
from several angles.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-03-27, Mary penned:

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...

Doesn't matter. Of all of the attempts to philosophize moral
arguments,
this is the only one that's actually been useful to me in daily life.

Here is where it falls down--as a basis for moral behavior, forget the
predicate logic. It is not only completely unlikely but utterly
impossible
that "everyone" would do whatever thing you are considering doing.
Therefore you are measuring the worth (or potential harm) of an event or
deed by a false measure. It would be more effective were you to ask
yourself
something like, "would this be a good thing if 100 out of every 10,000
people did it." But still it would fall down, because I can give you
example
after example of beneficial or "good" deeds/events/choices that, were
say,
even half the population to do them, would NOT be good. The first that
comes
to mind: you are in a large city on a large, busy city highway or
beltline
or freeway. You see an accident. You stop to see if you can help. As it
turns out, you are able to pull a child to safety before the care blows
up.
Now then, what if half the people on the same busy beltline did the same
thing? Meaning, stopped to help? It would most certainly not be a good
thing, and in fact the resulting gridlock would keep the emergency
vehicles
needed to contain the fire in the car and administer medical help to the
child could not reach the child due to all the stopped vehicles on the
road.

All interesting points. You're absolutely right; I don't think morality
can
ever be decided as simply as a single question. Well, maybe "does this
harm
anyone," but it's almost always the case that an action harms *someone*,
at
least by inaction, so ... it's never simple.

No but you are a natural at it hee hee! As am I. Makes for some entertaining
thoughts and some thorny dilemmas.



I don't really care if it can be logically proven. Logic proofs are
fun and neat, but in the end they always start from some assumption
that can be argued, so even if there's no flaw in the logic, the
proof itself won't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

No, they do not always begin with an assumption that can be argued.
But that is neither here nor there in terms of the present
application. The practice of predicate logic can be thought of as no
more than mental masturbation--or it can be much more, as it can
transfer off of paper and into actual life.

Gah, I just had something typed up, and my editor ate it!

Hate that. You really should feed your editor more. G


Well, anyway. I do think that logic is incredibly useful in day to day
life.
It helps me separate good, solid ideas from bull****. But I don't think
it
can take us all the way when we're talking about the really interesting
stuff:
right and wrong, why we're here, etc. It's a step in the right direction,
but
it's not the solution.


Actually, I meant the formal operaton of applying predicate
logic to texts or verbal arguments. It's all mental masturbation.
However--that said, the whole purpose of the exercise is to
train the mind to think logically. As you know, having had a
good deal of philosophy.


If you have a better rule of thumb, let me know.

I do not have a better rule of thumb but I have a better idea: ditch
"rules of thumb." Examine every situation as the unique combination of
causes and effects that itis, and each potential deed, too.

Of course, but a rule of thumb isn't meant to be exact. It's meant to be
an
approximation that works in many situations.

Yes, but generalization can be death of a good argument!!


There are, of course, many ways
to approach a question, and it's a good idea to think about anything
important
from several angles.


I'm with you there. I love seeing all sides, and often do this to the
point that I lose my original position. It's great fun.

Anyway, you did bring up Kant so you had it coming! Plllllbbbbt!

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:40:58 -0500, "Joe.Canuck(at)gmail.com"
"Joe.Canuck(at)gmail.com" wrote:



Every cat can have physical problems. With purebred, it is easier to
track within the breed therefore we hear about it. With moggies, it
cannot be tracked within lines because there are no records... so we
don't hear about it. That doesn't mean there are no problems.


Actually, the problems are more likely in the purebreds, and while
some are specific to the breed, some are simply because of
irresponsible breeders who don't bother to do testing before breeding.

If you are going to choose a cat whose parents were not tested, then
you will have better odds with a moggie.

In my own experience, I have seen a siamese that was extremely
neurotic. Medications did not help.

We got a kitten that was supposed to be siamese - came from two
purebred siamese. She kept getting fluffier, and i finally learned
that she is a balinese. This is a recessive gene that obviously both
parents carried, but nobody knew.

With dogs, we have had 3 shelties from shelters. The first went blind
at age 9. A very common eye problem with no cure, that could have been
prevented if the breeder had simply tested the dogs before breeding.

The second sheltie arrived with minor vision problems, and that is now
getting worse. More notably, she has an enlarged heart.The vet said
she should never exercise more than 10 minutes at a time. Her heart
pushes on her windpipe, so she can stop breathing. So much for taking
her with me on long walks and rollerblading.

The 3rd sheltie had recurrent bladder infections and eventually died
of bladder cancer.

There are some nice benefitss to choosing a purebred, but health ain't
one of them.



--
Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com

I've wanted a Bengal since I first started reading about the breed -
about ten years ago. Needless to say, the breed was much too new then
and not "fixed" in it's traits. The breed has developed slowly and
quite well over the past decade and this year I finally had the money
to be able to get one.

I am getting a Silver Spotted male in about a month. The /silvers were
only recently accepted for Championship status and they remind me very
much of the last cat I had. He was a rescue at 5 weeks of age and was
one of the most loving, intelligent felines I've ever been blessed with
knowing. Anyway, to make a long story short some one took him last
summer and I've been aching to have that special bond back. Pippin was
sliver with black tabby markings, but instead of solid stripe they were
small spots set close together, he had the whited tummy and spots
similar to the Bengal breed and may well have had Bengal in his
bloodline..

So you see it hasn't been a sudden decision, and it's only been
serendipity that I was able to connect with a breeder not far from me
and that has the Silver Spotted Bengals This breeder has also been
most helpful in helping me get the right connections to be able to
properly care for my little feral colony.

Rebecca.

On Tue 29 Mar 2005 07:40:16p, Hemmaholic wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
oups.com):

I've wanted a Bengal since I first started reading about the
breed - about ten years ago. Needless to say, the breed was
much too new then and not "fixed" in it's traits. The breed has
developed slowly and quite well over the past decade and this
year I finally had the money to be able to get one.

I have a pair that were rescued at the age of about 8 weeks. No,
there are no papers that they are Bengals, but they have all of the
traits, especially the male, and when I had an any idea that they
might be Bengal mixes, I was scared. They're now about 6 months
old.

Pics
This album is just Rhett, the boy baby
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/shambo...r=8768&.src=ph

Here is both of them from the time they were first spotted (early
pics are with their two other littermates)
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/shambo...r=1f98&.src=ph

--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited
breath."
- W.C. Fields

"Hemmaholic" wrote in message
oups.com...


Don't let people put a guilt trip on you!


Guilt is a matter of conscience. The mere fact he has doubts means
something about buying a 'purebred' just doesn't seem right to him.



I have done and will continue to do what I can for the unloved,
unwanted felines I come in contact with and feel zero amount of "guilt"
about getting a purebred.


Yeah, I've met a lot people like you who feel helping strays and ferals or
even volunteering in a shelter somehow justifies buying a 'purebred' -- as
if they're rewarding themselves for the good they do.

It's all been said, but yes, I think it's wrong to buy another
purebred. It just encourages more breeding, perpetuates the myths that
purebreds are safer, more predictable or less risky than shelter cats,
and deprives an abandoned cat of a home, when there are not nearly
enough.

That said, I'm not an advocate of kitten adoption period. Even adopting
shelter kittens does little or nothing to address cat overpopulation.
Those of us who give a crap about these creatures really need to
dedicate ourselves to adopting homeless adult cats.

And yeah, my first cat was a 6 month old shelter kitten. But I'd never
do that again. The second one was a frightened semi-feral and when the
time comes, I'll take on another of the lost ones who needs me. I'd go
as far up the scale as your own temperament, availability and cat
handling skills will take you.

There are limited opportunities to do good in this world, but this is
one of the things we can do. Maybe we'll get to a day when all this
isn't necessary and we can all select the designer kitten of our
choice. But we aren't there yet and we will never be unless we start
taking responsibility for the situation we have....

"Phil said. . . Yeah, I've met a lot people like you who feel helping
strays and ferals or
even volunteering in a shelter somehow justifies buying a 'purebred'
-- as
if they're rewarding themselves for the good they do. "

I resent the implication that because I have chosen to purchase a
purebred I am somehow "rewarding" myself for the "good I do".

I will not, however, justify my decision to you or any other narrow
minded people who think anything other than a "short/long haired
domestic, aka: alley cat" is the only breed anyone should ever share
their lives with.

How many animals do you have, how many feral colonies have you helped
to set up and how many do you, personally, care for? Or do you just
pontificate and try to force your views on others?

Hemma

"Hemmaholic" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Phil said. . . Yeah, I've met a lot people like you who feel helping
strays and ferals or
even volunteering in a shelter somehow justifies buying a 'purebred'
-- as
if they're rewarding themselves for the good they do. "

I resent the implication that because I have chosen to purchase a
purebred I am somehow "rewarding" myself for the "good I do".


Really? Well, I sure as hell didn't mean it as a compliment or praise!



I will not, however, justify my decision to you or any other narrow
minded people who think anything other than a "short/long haired
domestic, aka: alley cat" is the only breed anyone should ever share
their lives with.


That's not what I said. Don't manipulate my statements. I never said a
DS/LH "is the only breed anyone should ever share their lives with." I
said its unconscionable to *buy* a 'purebred' from a *breeder* while
millions of cats are languishing and dying in shelters every year. There's
nothing wrong with adopting a 'purebred' from a shelter... Or are the
'papers' too important to you?



How many animals do you have, how many feral colonies have you helped
to set up and how many do you, personally, care for?


How many does it take to win a prize? See? I was right about you!


Or do you just
pontificate and try to force your views on others?


I talk it like I walk it.