Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

The Rationale Quest - Politics, Economics and Philosophy

 
Explore the latent response of philosophy and philosophy to the global economic arena. Early posts include the study of heresies in the early church and the problems of Liberalism and Raw Capitalism in our times

The case against puppies

January 22nd 2007 17:40
The Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 came up in a story I read awhile back, but I forgot to read up on it and weigh in. Here goes.

From the government:

"On November 9, 2000, the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 was signed, prohibiting '....imports, exports, sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution in the United States of dog and cat fur products.' The Act is designed to deter any operations that may cause brutality, suffering, or torture to cats and dogs and that may expose them to unjustifiable, inhumane living conditions.

"The Act is a result of an 18-month undercover investigation by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) that exposed the widespread brutal slaughter of more than two million domestic dogs and cats each year by Chinese and other Asian manufacturers. The fur of these dogs and cats is commonly used in the manufacture of products such as fur coats, fur-trimmed gloves, hats, and figurines, which are then sold in the United States and around the world."

First of all, the rationale is disingenuous. If all dog and cat fur is linked to conditions of "brutality, suffering, or torture" that are "unjustifiable, inhumane," why would the protection be limited to dogs and cats? Ban all fur.

What's really behind this is that American culture holds cute puppies and kitties above other animals.

I've long objected to this norm. Enjoy Fido and Frisky as pets, but let your neighbor use Lassie and Puffy how he wants to. Wear dog fur, just not my dog's fur.

Animal shelters put plenty of dogs and cats down when they can't take care of the critters -- 3 to 4 million per year in the U.S. by the Humane Society's own estimate. Wouldn't it be less wasteful to give the meat to the homeless and sell the fur to someone who could profit from it?

That said, the legislation is, in an odd hippie way, a defense of U.S. values in the face of foreigner behavior. Asians don't share our dog-and-cat worship, and this is a way of saying "if you're here or selling your products here, you'll abide by our traditions."

61
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
subscribe to this blog 


   

   


Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
4 Posts
3 Posts
503 Posts dating from December 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

Tapsearch Com Editor's Blogs

11091 Vote(s)
75 Comment(s)
166 Post(s)
15777 Vote(s)
145 Comment(s)
249 Post(s)
11277 Vote(s)
158 Comment(s)
183 Post(s)
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]