I’m past the edit window but I’ve highlighted my clarification above as the wording was ambiguous.
Sounds like an organization of dog breeders is looking at what the standards should be to insure that breeds are healthy. That means the dog show, which grades dogs based on the standards, will have a positive influence as those standards are changed. Doesn’t that cut your entire argument out from under you?
What do think my argument is? have you read the other posts?
Let me help, from my very first post
Note the last sentence. And all the discussion since.
It does indeed seem like some of the organisations are moving in exactly the right direction. Putting health above aesthetics and recognising what a force they can be (for better and, by extension, for worse).
I applaud that.
The problem I have had with some on this subject is that they refuse to accept that breeding for certain exaggerated traits causes suffering in some breeds of dog. They will not accept it, won’t admit it. That to me seems wilfully ignorant and dishonest, especially when their own governing bodies, associations and veterinary organisations all concede the point.
So you are saying that dog owners are ignoring standards and breeding dogs to standards. Doesn’t make any sense. The dog show, in particular, is enforcing good breeding standards. You should be applauding it and the dog owners that go there.
Curlcoat, who believes that controlled breeding of animals in a manner that promotes various health problems is a good thing, but hates human children in public places.
Seriously, as trolling goes, way too fucking obvious.
I have no idea what you mean by this. It doesn’t follow at all from what I’ve previously written and certainly not from the quote you used.
You made such implications very clear in your very first post to this thread:
You labeled “the whole pedigree dog industry” as objectionable and the whole topic of dog shows as “distasteful”. That, as I said, seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Certainly, pedigree dog breeding standards should prioritize the health and well-being of the animals, and prohibit breeding practices that are bad for them. However, ISTM that the most constructive and effective way to bring this about is by working through the pedigree dog breeding and showing culture, not against it.
And threadshitting in MPSIMS threads designed for lighthearted celebration of a particular dog show by scolding (or, as you prefer to call it, “lobbing bricks”) about suboptimal breeding standards doesn’t seem like a very constructive approach to reform. However, the mod in that thread told you to cut it out, so I hope you’ve learned your lesson.
Just because a dog is not a purebred, does not make it healthier than a purebred, nor does being a purebred mean a dog is plagued with genetic issues, even if there is inbreeding in the lines - speaking as the owner of a healthy purebred and a seriously unhealthy mutt. It’s all about what you breed. Two healthy dogs = good chance of healthy pups. Two dogs with unknown issues = crapshoot on the puppies.
In other words, I didn’t say that. Glad you agree.
Now if you think what I wrote implies a certain opinion then fine. If you need clarification I’m happy to oblige.
But don’t quote what I didn’t write.
Well, depends on what you mean. I’m not the one asserting that breeding show dogs is equivalent to genocide…but I am saying that other people in the thread said that “breeding show dogs is an abuse of animals,” and telling them to shut up about (what they view as) an abusive practice is, beyond argument, the same KIND of thing as telling people to shut up about Nazis, child slavers, racist goons, and child abusers, if not the same DEGREE of offense. See what I’m getting at?
As the old joke about the hooker goes, “we’ve established what you are, now we’re just haggling over the price.” Saying one cannot complain about an abusive practice when it’s relevant to the discussion at hand seems silly, especially when abuse is apparently subjective (plenty of people seem to feel that being boiled alive is torture if it happens to them, unfortunate if it happens to foreigners, and yummy if it happens to an animal they want to eat.)
If the counter-argument is, “but I personally don’t think it IS an abusive practice and furthermore believe that my personal opinion should trump, and silence, everyone else,” then we have a different problem, I guess.
NB, your argument is for shit. You know why? Because this fucking thread isn’t about dog breeding. The thread is about what a fucking douche someone is by going into a thread and changing the fucking subject.
I believe this includes you.
Depends what you mean by “for shit”
If you mean it is misplaced, perhaps.
If you mean it is wrong, I disagree.
And my point, which you completely missed, was that your use of “suffering” is hyperbole. How about if you tell us exactly what “suffering” a well bred purebred dog is going thru, and why?
You are, however, quoting them.
These days, the police tend to use Malinois and Dutch Shepherds. However, I have seen GSDs that appear to be showbred in the cars of the Long Beach PD.
Huh, I could have sworn what was going on here was controversy… Anyway, you still cannot prove that exaggerated angulation in show bred GSDs causes them to suffer.
The KC folding to bad press doesn’t mean that any well bred purebreds are suffering simply because they conform to their breed standards.
No they don’t, at least not in the US - have no idea what powers the UK KC may have. In the US, each individual national breed club owns their standard, and the AKC may not change it. And, the AKC is merely a registration body - anyone who sends in a registration application for a dog with AKC registered parents will get a registration for that dog, no matter how closely related the parents are. Which is immaterial since sibling breedings by responsible breeders are so rare as to be almost non-existent, so your whole argument is moot.
Your responses to what I post here keep proving that you have no idea what you are talking about. I ask again - would you rather that people eliminate those breeds that have ridges in their standards and just hope that the gene doesn’t show up in other dogs, or would you rather than responsible ridged breed breeders continue to breed dogs without the neural tube defects?
Again, read what I have posted. Most if not all breed clubs consider health to be at the top of their priorities. Kennel clubs OTOH, only exist as registration bodies (the AKC) or event giving bodies (all other, local, kennel clubs) and have no power over breeders.
If I say no, will you go away?
No group is “all” anything - of course we have some folks who get all wrapped up in winning at all costs. But if nothing else, doing that is extremely expense so it’s self limiting. A vast majority of those doing dog events have 2-3 dogs that live in the house with them.
Since your statement includes two things that have nothing to do with each other, you are a twit. Since it includes falsehoods, you are a liar. Since it has nothing to do with the thread, you are a troll
Next!
This. Nobody is checking the health of the parents of mixed breed pups. Those purebred breeds that are highly popular have a large percentage of pups being ground out by puppy mills and BYBs, how also are not checking the health of the parents. If people would spend half the time researching before buying a puppy as they do before buying a car, the general public would know these things.
You missed the point by a country mile. Even after I’ve restated it again and again.
The Rest of your post is a mishmash of misread nonsense, responses to points not made and evasion.
If you haven’t grasped it by now I hold out no hope for any future progress.
What is it they say about wrestling with a pig?
Either answer honestly or not at all. Why would my potential response have any bearing on the answer you give?
So there we have the level of your debate in a nutshell.
(I refer you to the post I made some moments ago…I’m out)
Kick it in the balls.
So, in other words, you are unable to point to any suffering that purebred dogs go thru because they conform to their breed standards? As I thought.
The fact that you couldn’t understand the rest of the post just shows once again that you have no idea regarding responsible breeding, genetics and/or how kennel clubs work (at least, in the USA). Please go forth and read real facts on these subjects, not glurg propaganda put out by various animal rights groups before shitting on another thread.
Hooray, it worked! 
Except that what you posted is
You were the one that brought the comparisons to Nazis and sexual perverts. You may not have said it directly, but you certainly made the insinuation.
Except you are arguing for an opinion that is held by extremely few people and is considered by the vast majority to be an unreasonable opinion. Since we are speaking in poorly phrased analogies, this is the online equivalent of a rabid snakehandling fundamentalist appearing at a lecture on Evolution and ranting on how this violates God’s Law or something to that effect.
I have next to no interest in Dog shows, and find people paying thousands of dollars for highly bred dogs with pedigrees to be irrational, but I fail to see anything particularly morally objectionable about it.