Your desire to control my posting is noted. This is the thread for it after all.
I don’t know. I’m not one of the people who judges people by how much they love animals or people. People hurt the ones they love. It’s not always given that love is a virtue at all.
Using their differences as a way to establish standards of action is perfectly rational though. It also hasn’t been established that declawing a housecat is “cruel” so that question is moot.
Look, to try and stop this new tangent into slavery understand this. I have stated above that I don’t consider myself owner of my pets. It’s not a stretch to think that I believe ownership of another living being is a bad thing for me. Period.
Slavery can be seen as a human issue but I am seeing it as an ownership issue. Both slavfe owners and pet owners share the belief that they own another living thing. My question was about an owner acting morally towards it’s property. It still revolves around treating something ethically that is powerless before you. I’m not calling them equivalent but they are both mindsets that are on the spectrum I’ve been discussing, the desire to control other living things.
If you’re of the mindset that mutilating a thing is not cruel then there’s no point in this discussion. We’re too far apart and neither is going to convince the other.
Wut?
I know a lot of people, and they all own flip flops, even the people that call them zories or some other weird term. You seriously don’t own flip flops? 
Like I said earlier, I had no idea before this thread that declawing was considered controversial. Now, after having read the thread, I get the impression that some people think it’s immoral, but I haven’t heard a convincing reason why. Why is it immoral to declaw a cat?
It seems like a good trade-off to me. In exchange for a day or two of tender feet, the cat gets a lifetime of a loving home. We wouldn’t have a cat if it was going to tear up our house, and if we didn’t take this one in, that’s one more cat that will be euthanised.
Why is this tradeoff an immoral thing?
Seriously, I don’t. I bought a pair a few years ago and they were of terrible quality. I also don’t have a beach near me in Arizona. When I lived in Florida I always had flip flops but here, no need. When I’m home, I’m shoeless and when I’m going out, I’m not going somewhere that casual.
Only speaking for me it’s because it’s not a tradeoff that the other living thing has a choice in. It’s a forced tradeoff. Would you want someone with power over you to unilaterally decide what tradeoffs you would have no choice but to accept including having parts of your body removed? I wouldn’t that’s why I say it’s immoral for me. I haven’t said it’s immoral for anyone else. I wouldn’t really be the one to ask about that, they would and they’ve said it does not bother them.
I would hope and expect you to have the freedom to do the same thing. I’ve stated that I don’t think it should be illegal.
To add. I had no idea it was controversial before this thread either but I always knew that it was not something I’d ever consider.
I don’t own flip flops either. They make the space between my big toe and the next toe hurt. And I don’t like making that, uh, “flip flop” sound when I walk.
I wear sandals in the summer. Please don’t tell me you wear flip flops with jeans :dubious:
I’m of the mindset that declawing a cat isn’t cruel. It causes no significant impairment and the operation heals swiftly. For an indoor house cat, the change in its life is extremely minimal. Things aren’t cruel just because you want to throw emotionally laded terms like “mutilation” at them.
You’d be amazed at how rarely I solicit my cat’s opinion on things.
Feel free to substitute “remove parts of their anatomy nature had no intention of being removed” for mutilated if you like. I’m not stuck on semantics.
I’m fairly sure I’d be far from amazed actually. You’ve made that clear. Not sure what the problem is.
I don’t own flip flops. Due to peripheral vascular disease, I need to wear compression stockings. Try wearing flip flops with them.
Regardless, still not “cruel”.
Again, you have already said that. At this point are you trying to convince me or yourself? Since I’m not judging you nor your treatment of your pets I’m not seeing the big deal about the former.
Was that before or after the comparisons to serial killers and slave owners? 
You said that declawing was cruel. I assumed you had a definition of the word to go along with that assertion. One that would apply to declawing.
I really don’t like declawing cats, but we had no choice. Our cat is very aggressive, and would continue attacking my elderly father and drawing blood. And considering my Dad was on blood thinners, he bled profusely. Other than declawing the cat, the only other solution would have been to send him to the pound, where he would likely have been put to sleep.
A few summers back, I met Amy Rigby backstage after a concert (she is a friend of my gf). I was wearing sandals, which I pointed out to her and gave her some grief over.*
*She does a song called Men in Sandals.
/flip-flop hijack. Everyone but panache try to have flip flops by this weekend at the latest.
Well, I’ve said it was a spectrum so while I compared them I never placed them in any context in regards to each other except to say serial killers was at the extreme end of the scale. Obviosuly slave ownershs would be up there too.
I do consider declawing cruel and I gave you my definition which you disagreed with. I’m fine with leaving it there. I’m here to debate ( which we’ve done ) not to convince you that my way is the only right answer. For one, I don’t believe that it is. It’s just my answer.