The above claim in bold appears to be much further reaching than the latter, do you have statistics to back this up? My understanding is that most pets in shelters are those abandoned or taken off owners that started off their life being bred by individual impoverished owners for money like staffies, people just want them when they're infants, so after a few years they end up in the system. As well as mutts from the general pet owning population not spading/keeping an eye on their pets, so having surplus mutt infants they aren't able to pass off on friends or find a good home for long-term.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:06 pmIf there is a limited supply, then people who want cats will get one from a breeder if none are available in a shelter. If you took one of the kittens, somebody is just breeding to replace it.
. . .
Adopting will likely increase the number of cats in any case.
It also runs counter to advocating against buying from breeders, not encouraging people to save an old pets life through adoption, so I'd want you to be sure to near 100% of the time before spreading this information. Maybe I just misinterpreted also.
?BrimstoneSalad wrote:Did you collect unbiased statistical evidence of this, or are you reading into it based on your own psychology and projecting that onto others?NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:35 amWhen I was protesting road planning applications through ancient woodlands there was this line that advocates used that less roads meant less cars, less CO2 etc. But my experience of it being used was negative because it was totally see through that it meant more congestion basically an unhappy driving experience that would push people onto public transit. But most people own a car and the line was so see through as to produce the opposite effect of feeling underhanded, that they just wanted less dangerous, more efficient routes etc, that I never used it.
You seem sometimes to look for insult or dishonesty (when you accuse people of taking you out of context, I think that's an example of this), and if you look hard enough you'll find it whether it's there or not. This is not something most people do.
Most people would either accept the argument or reject it on its own merits rather than searching for hidden motives.
People may have regarded it as a stupid argument, but that's another issue.
It was a personal anecdote about people using a good argument consisting of good facts and statistics against climate damaging lifestyles in the wrong context. Activists saying that it would be good to have less environment damaging roads, climate damaging cars in general is a great argument. And I would encourage people to accept it.
But when talking to people locally I found it counter productive because there were often superseding concerns that needed tackling on their own merit first before putting the onus on car owners who had legitimate concerns. For example where there was only one dangerous route to a destination where there had been many car crashes and there is a road building scheme that would replace almost all the traffic on that route to a safer one, it will increase climate damaging car journeys very sightly but probably be a good pay off for less car accidents.
On the other hand where there was a new 3 lane motorway building schemes cutting through nature reserves that were advertised to locals as providing new jobs to business parks that would open up on it's edges. The best argument was lowering house prices in your town through driving business out and tourists, outdoor sports to the local nature reserve, and only then bring up climate change.
I don't know if you're just reacting to my use of underhanded or not, but I said anecdotally I was told by people it was used on it was felt as underhanded because it put a division between activists parachuting in not asking locals about their concerns first and just coming with marketing gimmicks. I don't know what the best word would be.
I would respect UV more if they titled their video: 'Why we need to kill more cats today' because that is the consequentialist philosophy she is advocating for.