My dad used to tell me about when he did yard work for an older neighbor when he was a kid. One of his odd jobs was pushing her peke’s eyes back in when it sneezed.
Actually, they very likely had the degenerative myelopathy, a nerve disease that is also very common among German Shepards, not hip dysplasia. Basically, the motor nerves die away, causing weakness and ascending paralysis. It’s a little easier to give breeders a pass on that one as it only shows up when the dogs are several years old, so it’s much harder to control.
… aaand a quick wiki search shows that no-hair cats cause owners less allergic reactions.
Admitedly, neither Wiki site is worth anything, since they are both effectively uncited.
Point being?
Personally, I think “fucking idiot” is a label that ought to be worn by someone publicly making an absolutist scientific prononcement based on a Wiki cite. 
Your position, though, even absent that hilarious error, is no better. The question of interest to cat owners is surely whether they will suffer allergic issues from normal ownership of the cat. If it is in fact true that the ownership of beed “X” will cause less allergic issues than ownership of other breeds because of “Z” characteristic, then that provides a reasonable basis for creating a breed with “Z” characteristic.
You may regard such a creation as cruel, and you may be right, but that is surely a cruelty that at least has a rational point - unlike cruely creating a breed because of its wierd appearance.
Oh my fucking god, I even **told **you it was a straw man, and you’re **still **arguing it as though it’s my argument instead of one you pulled out of your ass?
Clearly, you’re not interested in actually discussing this or admitting that “rationalizations” based on “facts” that are demonstrably wrong aren’t remotely valid. So, I’ll leave you to wallow in your own filth.
Your “point” now being:
Which has exactly nothing to do with the issue - which is whether, or not, a hairless cat could reasonably be considered ‘less allergenic’ for human owners than the normal variety (and thus be a reasonable thing to breed).
You are moving the goalposts from your original, and hilariously over-the-top-dogmatic response to the Sphynx, to focus on the one item not in dispute: that it is the protiens and not the hair that causes the majority of reactions.
From your own previous post:
The point you are overlooking, of course, is that the mechanism of action of the no-hair breed is not alleged to be the effect of allergy to the hair (although there is some), but to the effect of allergy facilitated by the hair. This hair-splitting (;)) is of course completely irrelevant to the owners, who only care that the breed (apparently) causes them to suffer less reactions. A person who was interested in the issue and did “two seconds of research on Wiki” could quite reasonably come to the conclusion that owning a Sphynx was a good idea for (relatively mild) allergy sufferers.
So no reason to be so - catty - on the subject. 
Except that it’s entirely possible that a Sphynx is hyperallergenic as far as touch goes (and this makes absolute sense, given what has been proven about the actual origin of cat allergies), and the no-shedding result could be just as easily attained by, as I’ve already pointed out, keeping the cat locked in a tiny cage the size of its body for all of its life. If you’re going to say that the former is a “valid” reason to create the breed, surely the latter must be just as legitimate.
Good grief, I thought we were talking about dogs?
Sorry, **Malthus **made a comment that because some retards claim that Sphynx cats are hypoallergenic, with nothing to back it up, that it’s a more valid reason to create a breed with a bunch of physical defects than “I like the way it looks.” It’s, um, *vaguely *on topic.
Sure it’s “possible” that it is hyperallergenic. In fact, it is entirely possible that the breed has no advantages whatsoever - as was conceded from the beginning. It is not, however, obvious from the available information.
The only actual evidence for this alleged “hyperallergenic” possibility is a mere assertion posted on Wikipedia, using a citation what must be the lamest, least-scientific source I’ve ever seen seriously cited on these boards.
I dunno what the relevance of the “keeping it in a box” point is. I assume the point is that creation of the breed is cruelty, and cruelty is bad whatever the motive. That’s besides the point - which is whether the “motive” for the creation of the breed alleged is obviously untrue. Again, conceded that creation of a hairless breed may well be cruel (but then, so is creation of one with a pushed-in face).
The *relevance *is that you’re handwaving away equally stupid breeding motivations by giving them a veneer of legitimacy that, upon closer inspection, is really just shiny because somebody licked it. With a tongue covered in herpes sores.
Creating a hypoallergenic cat that actually eliminates the primary causes of cat allergies, i.e., proteins in the sebum and saliva? Fine, we can talk about that as a hypothetical. But saying that a Sphynx, specifically, is a more “justifiable” breed than one that was made just because somebody thinks smoosh faces are cute, when there is *zero evidence *that the cat will cause fewer or milder allergic reactions and valid reasons to think that it will cause *worse *ones, is fucking retarded.
Quick question, since I didn’t see it… do Sphynx kitties suffer as a direct result of hairlessness, in a manner we can observe?
(Apart from the cruel mockery of their kitty pals, I mean.)
It’s my understanding that their lack of fur means that they get cold very easily, must be bathed, and must have their ears cleaned. So, the real problem would be an unattentive owner.
It seems very likely that your comprehension challenges are more likely related to your failure to actually take in all the information that is made available to you. I recommend that you slow down and pay attention - it will eliminate some, if not all of your difficulties, which I can only imagine must be frustrating.
There is exactly as much evidence either way - unless you are standing by that person’s anecdotal blog as “valid reasons”. For some odd reason I don’t understand, you are harping on the alleged difference in evidence for the two positions - describing one as “zero evidence” and the other as “valid reasons” - when there is no difference in the sources you have quoted. Both are anecdotal.
If I remember correctly from watching the documentary (it is a few years old, assuming it is the documentary I think it is), it makes the point that breeders in many other countries have made efforts to diversify the gene pool and change the way dog breeding and showing works.
The documentary argues that British breeders should wake up and do the same thing.
Oh my god, you really *are *retarded, aren’t you? I’m so sorry. It’s very impressive how you post on this message board with your disability. Here, I’ll back up and explain things for you again, slower this time.
The evidence for Sphynx cats being hyperallergenic is not anecdotal (a result of stories people tell us)–it’s a logical conclusion based on the known triggers for cat allergies (it makes sense because of what science tells us).
The most common triggers for cat allergies (reasons why people get sneezy or itchy around cats) are proteins in their sebum and saliva (things in their skin oils and spit). Because they don’t have hair, Sphynx cats have more sebum on their skin than other cats, to the extent that they need to be bathed regularly (they get greasy, like teenagers, so their owners need to wash them a lot). Because they have more of the substance (thing) that people are allergic to, it’s a sensible conclusion (it makes sense) that people will have stronger allergic reactions (sneezing or itching) to contact with them (touching them) than to contact with other cats.
Did you get it that time? If not, I could probably whip up a diagram.
Malthus is very smart, very articulate, and most importantly, well balanced.
Try dialing it back a couple of notches, SFG.
No. He’s completely misrepresenting my argument. Repeatedly. If he wants to call me a tard because he can’t understand the point I’ve clarified more than once, I’ll happily return the favor.
Many wild animals have some sort of incest ‘taboo’, or else they have evolved ways of dispersing offspring that minimize the chances of inbreeding, but it’s been bred out of domestic animals because inbreeding (and it’s more moderate relative, linebreeding) is the best technique for humans to achieve the traits we want in our animals, and we’ve used it heavily in every species and breed.