Raising Children and Politics

[Adloud]

The latter is true if you really assume the alternative parents are going to be abusive. I'm astonished that you believe this though.

I don't. I believe the alternative might be living at an orphanage, which almost certainly is worse than having loving parents.

What I'm talking about is anti-speculative. Speculation involves too much bias. It's fine when you're detached from something, but if e.g. you want a particular breed of dog and you start speculating, your speculations are very likely to play out in your favor.

You ARE speculating. You're assigning generalizations and assumptions to hypothetical situations. Moral value is a very elusive thing, and we cannot have a meaningful discussion about it without admitting our own bias.

You just can't assume your child is going to be the world's next great philanthropist.

You don't have to make an exaggerated assumption like that to assume they'll be on the better side of change. If the parents are progressive, the child probably will be too. We actually do have data on politics.
Interestingly, the same is true for conservatives once the kids grow up (they may rebel and be more liberal when they're young, but when they get older and start collecting money and property those selfish genes will likely kick in and turn them into their parents). Kind of sucks. A lot of the kids campaigning for Bernie today will be voting for the equivalent of Trump in 20 years.

One thing to consider is that most people don't really care either way (vote, hold strong political views, engage in social change).
Additionally, even if IQ is indeed inherited, that doesn't mean it's genetic. It's quite a dangerous opinion to have, considering that because of it eugenics was able to become mainstream. Education can do wonders when it comes to intelligence - a good example would be how much the IQ gap has tightened in the decades after emancipation, to the point where it's difficult to measure in developed countries.

I think it's split down the middle, in terms of the better and worse halves of humanity. Those who are on the side of progress relative to the norm and those who are laggards and conservatives holding it back.

I don't believe conservatives are the worse half of humanity if that's what you're implying. It's not as black and white - a well functioning society needs people from all around the political spectrum.

Why, if there's utility in the judgement?

There might not be utility in the judgement if you don't know the circumstances or the person.

But general slogans like "adopt don't shop" and a shift in the mindset of the majority that creates, even a little shaming for purebreds, does have utility. If people get welcomed with their mutts at dog parks but get the cold shoulder with a purebred that makes a difference over time. Shame campaigns can and do work if they're done right and carried out by the majority with something that's easy to do.

I agree, but we should do so to a reasonable extent and keep in mind that our goal should be to destigmatize dog adoption. We should remove the aura of superiority around pure-bred ownership but not do it too aggressively because then we deepen the divide which we should try to remove. Also, the first step should be education. There's no need in shaming people unaware of their wrongdoing (or the possibility of better-doing). Also what I'm trying to argue throughout this discussion also comes to play here - people that own pure-breds aren't necessarily doing something wrong - they're simply not doing better. I think that shaming people in this instance would be morally questionable, even if it would yield positive results.

Competitive sports for dogs don't have that kind of evidence to weigh against the risk of abuse, and they have much lower risk alternatives in non-competitive activities like walking dogs which offer benefits to the owners and dogs.

Do you have evidence on that? Based on my experience, the difference in the rates of abuse in owners engaging in sports with their dogs and not is not noticeable. It might even be smaller among the former, as, based on current knowledge, positive enforcement is a highly superior training method to negative enforcement.

My point is that we can do that overnight. Dogs can be genetically engineered as needed. We're also not fighting against people deliberately trying to breed poor health.

Are we not? What about the countless cases of pseudo-breeders trying to produce cutest pugs or the neighbourhood "hobby breeder" experimenting with breeding the chihuahuas with biggest eyes?

I don't think it makes sense to breed a dog for that speculative advantage though. Most of the problems come from breeding. A hybridized shelter dog is already going to be healthier than most bred dogs, special breeding probably isn't going to see that big of a monetary advantage over natural random hybridization of mutts.

I'm for controlled breeding over uncontrolled breeding. If breeding was regulated, we could focus on principles of health, low carbon footprint and personality suitable for life in the modern world. If we don't regulate it or ban it people will do it in an unhealthy way. That is to say, breeding should be limited nonetheless, even if it's regulated.

Yes, because that's 0.001% of the population and that enabled 99.999% to be pushed to adopt rather than shop.

Source? A much bigger percentage of the population deals with mental health issues and would benefit from a dog. That said, we should invest in better shelter staff education for them to be able to train dogs to match those needs. Currently, the breeders are in a better position to provide this kind of training (this is not an argument for breeding, I'm simply stating what the situation is right now.)

Why wouldn't you call it bigotry? And why do you think that's a valid justification?

Because we're not talking about an opinion, but law.

That's fine if that's what you prefer, but why speak against the general messaging of activists? Why judge people who don't have *time* to get to know people but still want to make a difference on average?

Because this can easily backfire. You have to be well-versed in effective activism for your contribution to actually be a net-positive. I applaud every vegan activist out there as I know they probably have good intentions but, frankly, I think many of them contribute to the public image of vegans and veganism as an aggressive pseudo-scientific cult. I know, because I was partially influenced by it, and I think it's part of the reason why I didn't go vegan sooner.

Context matters, but it has to matter in an evidence based way and not based on biased speculation.
What is fluid about it? Like having double standards based on your mood that day?

Our perception of culpability can and should change when the context changes. And as we can never find the truly objective truth we have to rely on the approximation that evidence may provide. Bias is something natural that we can factor in while trying to provide accurate judgement.

Informing people is often the most important part of activism.

I agree. Additionally, we should try to first present people with only the facts, because coupled with an interpretation they often lose their strength of argument, even if the information is still as true.

It is, though, when it comes to YOUR choice not to adopt. It's one of those ten dogs who would have not died if you had adopted. Yes there are other people who *could have* adopted the dog, but they did not. It's like saying the man by the pool is innocent of letting the child drown because there was another man sitting beside him who also did nothing.

No, most likely they would have died anyway. Many of the dogs taken in are already sick or wounded and even the best care wouldn't have helped. There also is approximately a 90% chance I would have taken a dog that wouldn't have died in a shelter. Again, I disagree with the analogy - in this case, we rather know there is a lot of children in the pool and some of them are probably drowning - the man doesn't know that though. Also, if the man rescues a child, it probably wasn't drowning anyway. Your statement is simply wrong, even if I might agree with the sentiment.

Are you one of those people who blame the *farmers* for the death of the cow and consider the consumer innocent? It's the most morally outrageous belief which adds insult to injury.

No, I don't blame them. I try not to blame anyone, finding one culprit of such a wide-spread phenomenon is futile and usually hurtful to the targeted group. The responsibility is (usually unequally) divided among those who participated. There are also other important factors to consider, such as social and economic pressure.

Animal farming is legal and where one farmer does not produce beef to meet market demand another will (or a factory farm will take up the slack by adding more cows). There's complete fungibility there in source of supply. It's the consumer who decides how much beef to consume and how many cows will be killed, it's not from a specific farm.

It is even more complicated than that. Mind that the status quo is carnivorism and how hard personal change is considering abovementioned factors. A regular person has the least amount of influence but their strength is that society is a sum of such regular people. It's something one can consider from many different angles, and bring compelling arguments for any amount of blame to put on the individual.

You can't pawn off that responsibility on farmers who 1. don't have a choice and 2. that if they don't do it somebody else (or a soulless company) will. The consumer is the one with the choice and the action that initiates and sustains the harmful practice.

Many consumers are in a similarly difficult place economically, they are a pawn in a complicated machine that no one person operated to put the blame on. All the facts you've stated are correct and opinions are but opinions. "Blame" and "responsibility" are not linear in nature, as they are not rooted in facts, only in the interpretation of them.

[brimstoneSalad]

The latter is true if you really assume the alternative parents are going to be abusive. I'm astonished that you believe this though.

I don't. I believe the alternative might be living at an orphanage, which almost certainly is worse than having loving parents.

This isn't true for younger children, who are in high demand.
Even in the case of older children, it's more likely to be foster care -- which is with a family.

Maybe this varies greatly by country. You're right that institutional upbringing in an orphanage is probably worse.

You ARE speculating. You're assigning generalizations and assumptions to hypothetical situations.

What assumptions? That the person wants a dog? No, that was part of the premise of the hypothetical.
Each person probably knows pretty well what he or she wants and if he or she reflects on it should be able to uncover those biases.

Moral value is a very elusive thing, and we cannot have a meaningful discussion about it without admitting our own bias.

That's my point about consequentialist analysis. This is particularly for the case for those that affect animals we can't just ask about what they prefer.

One thing to consider is that most people don't really care either way (vote, hold strong political views, engage in social change).

It's a little more complicated than that. It's more that for most people, when the system is working for you, you don't have the motivation to be politically active about it. Once the system is doing something you don't like, the most benign and apolitical person can throw a pretty big fit.

Additionally, even if IQ is indeed inherited, that doesn't mean it's genetic.

I think you're confused here. Heratibility means genetics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability
IQ is mostly genetic. This isn't that controversial. It correlates to family, and it correlates to biological children in cases of adoption.

There are factors outside of genetics that depress IQ a lot, like malnutrition, prenatal drug abuse, neglect, heavy metal exposure, and certain diseases. Those are accounted for in studies on heritability.

It's quite a dangerous opinion to have, considering that because of it eugenics was able to become mainstream.

It's not an opinion really. It's unfortunate that people use this information to promote bad social policies, but it doesn't really change the fact of the matter.
Now you might argue that we shouldn't be broadcasting this information far and wide because it may be misunderstood and misused (like to promote pseudoscience like race realism), but that's not what we're doing here in this discussion.

Education can do wonders when it comes to intelligence

It doesn't really. It's like a point or two. It makes a big difference in kids, but when they reach adulthood the difference all but vanishes. Changing environmental factors I mentioned above do much more, raising adult IQs by 10 points or more in some cases -- basically enable the person to reach a "genetic potential" which was depressed by environmental harms.

I don't believe conservatives are the worse half of humanity if that's what you're implying.

Talking about social conservatives who oppose progressive values. There's nothing about bigotry like homophobia that contributes to the proper functioning of society,

a well functioning society needs people from all around the political spectrum.

I strongly disagree. I don't think we need the homophobe and Nazi contingents represented in politics to have a functioning society.

There might not be utility in the judgement if you don't know the circumstances or the person.

It's the inherent challenge of advertising: a broad appeal that will miss or offend a few people but mostly hits the mark vs. carefully targeted campaigns that cost a lot more in time and effort to implement but have a higher success.

You might want to strive for perfection, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Sometimes the efficacy for resource use is better in a generalized campaign.

We should remove the aura of superiority around pure-bred ownership but not do it too aggressively because then we deepen the divide which we should try to remove.

That's an interesting point. You see that happening a little with smokers, where you have this insane pro-smoking counter culture that has incubated in the shadows to spite the mainstream's messaging.
The thing is, I don't think this makes up a majority, and I think that once we get enough people on board (as with anti-smoking efforts) we can just legislate against the practice and there's nothing they can do about it unless they want to turn terrorist (which is unlikely around lifestyle issues like pet breeding and smoking; it's rare enough even for religion).

Also, the first step should be education. There's no need in shaming people unaware of their wrongdoing (or the possibility of better-doing).

To the best of our ability we should package education in with messaging, but there's a limit to that. Most people aren't ready to take a class in ethics or evolution or any of the relevant topics, and it would be too expensive even if they were. Sometimes a slogan is just more effective and affordable over all.

Also what I'm trying to argue throughout this discussion also comes to play here - people that own pure-breds aren't necessarily doing something wrong - they're simply not doing better.

Which is perhaps a distinction without a difference. If it's useful in messaging to encourage people to do more good if they don't feel shamed that could be an argument for it, but I'm not sure if it is or not.

I think that shaming people in this instance would be morally questionable, even if it would yield positive results.

That seems quite contradictory to me. As a consequentialist, what has positive results is good.

It might even be smaller among the former, as, based on current knowledge, positive enforcement is a highly superior training method to negative enforcement.

Like I said, it being more effective doesn't mean it's always going to be used. Most people who just walk their dogs have little to no need for any training negative or positive enforcement. The higher need means more risk of abuse.
I think the only argument you could make is that the community inherently comes with certain education (like some areas require classes for licensing firearms) and that education teaches positive enforcement and results in less use of negative reinforcement than normal pet owners...

My point is that we can do that overnight. Dogs can be genetically engineered as needed. We're also not fighting against people deliberately trying to breed poor health.

Are we not? What about the countless cases of pseudo-breeders trying to produce cutest pugs or the neighbourhood "hobby breeder" experimenting with breeding the chihuahuas with biggest eyes?

I don't know what you're saying here.

I'm for controlled breeding over uncontrolled breeding. If breeding was regulated, we could focus on principles of health, low carbon footprint and personality suitable for life in the modern world. If we don't regulate it or ban it people will do it in an unhealthy way. That is to say, breeding should be limited nonetheless, even if it's regulated.

OK, so the pragmatic libertarian argument. I don't think that really applies, though. It's hard to have a black market for this kind of thing, and much less incentive than things like recreational drugs. I don't think it makes any sense to use those analogies and assume unregulated illegal breeding will just happen on any meaningful scale.

I'll try to address the rest later.

[Red]

I split this thread if that's cool with you

[Adloud]

What assumptions? That the person wants a dog? No, that was part of the premise of the hypothetical.
Each person probably knows pretty well what he or she wants and if he or she reflects on it should be able to uncover those biases.

You're assuming the hypothetical dog would die in a shelter if it was not adopted. You're basically assigning specific circumstances to a generalization. I do get why you would do this - otherwise, we would not be able to have a meaningful discussion with the hypothetical as a starting point. I only would like you to admit that in some cases the circumstances might be different and the 'right' choice could be different.

It's a little more complicated than that. It's more that for most people, when the system is working for you, you don't have the motivation to be politically active about it. Once the system is doing something you don't like, the most benign and apolitical person can throw a pretty big fit.

Even if the system doesn't work for those people, many remain apolitical. That is the case with many people I know. Even in extreme situations, people rarely revolt. You're right, it is complicated - the society isn't divided into conservatives and progressives.

Additionally, even if IQ is indeed inherited, that doesn't mean it's genetic.

I think you're confused here. Heratibility means genetics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability
IQ is mostly genetic. This isn't that controversial. It correlates to family, and it correlates to biological children in cases of adoption.

As far as I know, there isn't a gene responsible for IQ - in this sense, it isn't genetic. There is evidence, however, of intelligence being inherited from the parents.
Suppose you are working with parents that have a below-average IQ. There is a high probability that their children will also have a below-average IQ. However, if you provide sufficient education to the parents, and then to the children, the probability that the grandchildren will have a below-average IQ is smaller. Intelligence isn't an oracle and we shouldn't treat it as such.

It's not an opinion really. It's unfortunate that people use this information to promote bad social policies, but it doesn't really change the fact of the matter.

Could you please provide some sources then? If it's true it could have serious implications on social politics overall.

It doesn't really. It's like a point or two. It makes a big difference in kids, but when they reach adulthood the difference all but vanishes. Changing environmental factors I mentioned above do much more, raising adult IQs by 10 points or more in some cases -- basically enable the person to reach a "genetic potential" which was depressed by environmental harms.

You're again talking about one person. If you consecutively educate them and their descendants, you will see a significant increase in their genetic potential.

Talking about social conservatives who oppose progressive values. There's nothing about bigotry like homophobia that contributes to the proper functioning of society,

Political views aren't carved in stone and we should a person to their words and actions without assigning value to them as a person. It's only deepening the divide we are trying to bridge. Things like tolerance and equality should be regarded as the status quo. It is possible to show people they're wrong, but only when we regard them as people, not as enemies.

I strongly disagree. I don't think we need the homophobe and Nazi contingents represented in politics to have a functioning society.

People naturally fall around the spectrum. There is utility in having those few extremists around. They show us where we do not want to be heading and serve as an example of what we condemn and don't want to become. It's a natural self-regulating system with which I wouldn't want to be messing with.

It's the inherent challenge of advertising: a broad appeal that will miss or offend a few people but mostly hits the mark vs. carefully targeted campaigns that cost a lot more in time and effort to implement but have a higher success.

And many advertisements definitely hit the mark for most people. The problem with many forms of vegan activism is that even if it encourages more people that it discourages, it usually works for people that harm the image of the movement as a whole.

We should remove the aura of superiority around pure-bred ownership but not do it too aggressively because then we deepen the divide which we should try to remove.

That's an interesting point. You see that happening a little with smokers, where you have this insane pro-smoking counter culture that has incubated in the shadows to spite the mainstream's messaging.
The thing is, I don't think this makes up a majority, and I think that once we get enough people on board (as with anti-smoking efforts) we can just legislate against the practice and there's nothing they can do about it unless they want to turn terrorist (which is unlikely around lifestyle issues like pet breeding and smoking; it's rare enough even for religion).

I would argue that most people if asked, would say pure-bred dogs are better. It's not a very vocal majority but a majority nonetheless. Just like with eating meat, some things are common knowledge and regarded as normal even though they shouldn't be. In every movement being able to estimate the "strength" of both parties is very important - here I think we're not yet at a point where being "on the other side" is inexcusable. We achieved it with slavery and, to a lesser extent - racism and homophobia.

To the best of our ability we should package education in with messaging, but there's a limit to that. Most people aren't ready to take a class in ethics or evolution or any of the relevant topics, and it would be too expensive even if they were. Sometimes a slogan is just more effective and affordable over all.

A slogan can be educational or attacking and lead to a position of reconsidering one's habits or taking a defensive position. Both ways can be effective but we need to pick them carefully in certain points of a movement's development. When a movement is emerging and we have evidence we are right about an issue, it's important to gather people that will listen and are open-minded - for this, the educational approach seems more fitting. When we have enough people on-board we can employ more aggressive slogans to get the majority and establish our opinion a fact in the public eye. It is important still for the evidence-driven pioneers to be at the front of our movement and manage it carefully. I think it's one of the more serious problems with veganism as a movement nowadays - it's not that the campaigns it employs are of a wrong type but rather often not fitted well-enough to the situation.

I think that shaming people in this instance would be morally questionable, even if it would yield positive results.

That seems quite contradictory to me. As a consequentialist, what has positive results is good.

Even if the side effects are catastrophic? For example, if by shaming a person they would adopt and not buy a dog but they would then kill themselves, is it worth it? You should consider all the outcomes of your actions.

I think the only argument you could make is that the community inherently comes with certain education (like some areas require classes for licensing firearms) and that education teaches positive enforcement and results in less use of negative reinforcement than normal pet owners...

I think it definitely should be more controlled. For example, there should only be licenced trainers working in established training schools. Fortunately, in my environment, people (with their dogs) that achieve something in the sport come from this sort of background.

I don't know what you're saying here.

One of the biggest problems in the industry, that should be a priority, is breeding dogs for features that directly contribute to their poor health.

I'm for controlled breeding over uncontrolled breeding. If breeding was regulated, we could focus on principles of health, low carbon footprint and personality suitable for life in the modern world. If we don't regulate it or ban it people will do it in an unhealthy way. That is to say, breeding should be limited nonetheless, even if it's regulated.

OK, so the pragmatic libertarian argument. I don't think that really applies, though. It's hard to have a black market for this kind of thing, and much less incentive than things like recreational drugs. I don't think it makes any sense to use those analogies and assume unregulated illegal breeding will just happen on any meaningful scale.

Completely banning something that has public approbation is almost always a bad idea (i.e. prohibition). I am against outlawing things in general - if there is a healthy way to do it, we should consider it first.

[brimstoneSalad]

You're assuming the hypothetical dog would die in a shelter if it was not adopted.

If healthy unadopted dogs are fungible (and they are), and there are some kill shelters (or even animal control that euthanizes healthy animals) in any area you could possibly adopt from (and there are) then that's not an assumption, it's a reasoned conclusion.

I only would like you to admit that in some cases the circumstances might be different and the 'right' choice could be different.

I already gave many exceptions. Cases where the dogs are actually not fungible, and hypotheticals where demand for the dogs is so high that there's no longer any reason to institutionally euthanize dogs.

Even if the system doesn't work for those people, many remain apolitical. That is the case with many people I know. Even in extreme situations, people rarely revolt.

I'm not talking about revolting, but voting and even just being a vocal constituent by complaining. People aren't necessarily going to pick up guns, but complaining is very easy.

You're right, it is complicated - the society isn't divided into conservatives and progressives.

It is, though. Not in terms of identity, but in terms that a certain portion of people are going to be politically more good than bad, and a certain portion are going to be more bad than good. In theory you could have a group of people who are precisely equal on that razor's edge, but that's never going to happen in practice, just as in reality it's impossible to balance a system without friction. No matter how precisely you weigh your weights, if you stick them in a vacuum with a no-contact magnetic bearing one side is always going to be a little heavier than the other.

As far as I know, there isn't a gene responsible for IQ - in this sense, it isn't genetic.

You're misunderstanding what something being genetic means. It doesn't mean there's an identified gene. We can determine quite conclusively that something is genetic through strong controls without even knowing about genes; indeed, this is how genetic inheritance was first discovered by Mendel, through deduction with no ability to sequence genes.

Suppose you are working with parents that have a below-average IQ. There is a high probability that their children will also have a below-average IQ. However, if you provide sufficient education to the parents, and then to the children, the probability that the grandchildren will have a below-average IQ is smaller.

You're describing Lamarckian evolution.
There are possible effects from epigenetics, but these are still inherited in a way you can not change after the fact and at that point it's irrelevant to the issue which is what adopted children are not fungible with biological children. I also explained how prenatal nutrition, heavy metal, drug and disease exposure has a large effect too; again, not something adoptive parents can choose.

Could you please provide some sources then? If it's true it could have serious implications on social politics overall.

I think I already linked you to a starting point.
What implications? It doesn't say anything about one "race" or ethnic group being more or less intelligent than another, except maybe certain small groups with identified mutations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi ... telligence
The thing is, the differences between groups are still small and within the range of the Flynn effect which likely represents environmental variables. There are too many confounding environmental factors to credibly claim different "races" have different genetic intelligence levels.

What is implicated is that we need to work on reducing those prenatal factors that are known to depress IQ. We need safe water without heavy metal contamination. We need to eradicate diseases that affect fetal development (and all others really). We need to work on educating women about prenatal nutrition and develop programs to help with substance abuse.

With aggressive public policy, in one generation the most marginalized portions of the population could jump in IQ by 15 points which would help massively with school and career success.

You're again talking about one person. If you consecutively educate them and their descendants, you will see a significant increase in their genetic potential.

There's not any evidence of that. Also, epigenetics don't even work like that, gene expression has very limited states.

Political views aren't carved in stone and we should a person to their words and actions without assigning value to them as a person. It's only deepening the divide we are trying to bridge. Things like tolerance and equality should be regarded as the status quo. It is possible to show people they're wrong, but only when we regard them as people, not as enemies.

Some people can change, but the probability of that is low and the investment required to change people's minds is very high. There's a reason the culture war is getting worse; most people are more rationalizing than they are rational, and they don't have the toolbox or interest in changing their political views. Sometimes you just need to wait for conservatives to die off and work on outpopulating them as the path of least resistance.

I strongly disagree. I don't think we need the homophobe and Nazi contingents represented in politics to have a functioning society.

People naturally fall around the spectrum. There is utility in having those few extremists around. They show us where we do not want to be heading and serve as an example of what we condemn and don't want to become. It's a natural self-regulating system with which I wouldn't want to be messing with.

We have history, movies, TV, etc.
Do you also think we really need to have rapists and cereal killers running around to, to show people what we don't want to be? Where exactly does it stop?

You can have political diversity without having Nazis and homophobes.

And many advertisements definitely hit the mark for most people. The problem with many forms of vegan activism is that even if it encourages more people that it discourages, it usually works for people that harm the image of the movement as a whole.

Well we're talking about adopt don't shop. That message is pretty mainstream (much more so than veganism).

I would argue that most people if asked, would say pure-bred dogs are better. It's not a very vocal majority but a majority nonetheless. Just like with eating meat, some things are common knowledge and regarded as normal even though they shouldn't be. In every movement being able to estimate the "strength" of both parties is very important - here I think we're not yet at a point where being "on the other side" is inexcusable. We achieved it with slavery and, to a lesser extent - racism and homophobia.

Adopting instead of buying purebreds seems to be getting there. I think if you asked most people they'd say it's better to adopt. Perhaps it's different where you live, and if that's the case then a shaming message would be less effective. Although I don't think "adopt don't shop" is really shaming.

I think it's one of the more serious problems with veganism as a movement nowadays - it's not that the campaigns it employs are of a wrong type but rather often not fitted well-enough to the situation.

Yes, vegan activism can not afford to be as aggressive as adoptiong and anti-breeding activism.

I think that shaming people in this instance would be morally questionable, even if it would yield positive results.

That seems quite contradictory to me. As a consequentialist, what has positive results is good.

Even if the side effects are catastrophic? For example, if by shaming a person they would adopt and not buy a dog but they would then kill themselves, is it worth it? You should consider all the outcomes of your actions.

Then that would be part of the consequences. If everybody who heard the message committed suicide that wouldn't really be "positive results" would it? I don't think that's happening, though.

I think it definitely should be more controlled. For example, there should only be licenced trainers working in established training schools. Fortunately, in my environment, people (with their dogs) that achieve something in the sport come from this sort of background.

If highly regulated that might fix it.

OK, so the pragmatic libertarian argument. I don't think that really applies, though. It's hard to have a black market for this kind of thing, and much less incentive than things like recreational drugs. I don't think it makes any sense to use those analogies and assume unregulated illegal breeding will just happen on any meaningful scale.

Completely banning something that has public approbation is almost always a bad idea (i.e. prohibition). I am against outlawing things in general - if there is a healthy way to do it, we should consider it first.

That's what I just addressed. You can't really compare this to drugs and alcohol.

[brimstoneSalad]

Yes, because that's 0.001% of the population and that enabled 99.999% to be pushed to adopt rather than shop.

Source? A much bigger percentage of the population deals with mental health issues and would benefit from a dog.

That doesn't mean those people need a bred service dog, but it seems like you already agree with that.

That said, we should invest in better shelter staff education for them to be able to train dogs to match those needs. Currently, the breeders are in a better position to provide this kind of training (this is not an argument for breeding, I'm simply stating what the situation is right now.)

Also, I don't think the "adopt don't shop" message is going to hurt the feelings of people who really need service dogs, because they'll understand why that's an exception and I think most people they talk to would too.

Why wouldn't you call it bigotry? And why do you think that's a valid justification?

Because we're not talking about an opinion, but law.

You don't think laws can be bigoted? Like laws that black people have to sit at the back of the bus and have to stand if a white person comes and wants the seat?

If that's not technically bigotry, then it's a distinction without a difference.

That's fine if that's what you prefer, but why speak against the general messaging of activists? Why judge people who don't have *time* to get to know people but still want to make a difference on average?

Because this can easily backfire.

Do you have evidence that it *is* backfiring? Or are you just guessing that it is?

Something that's untrue is much more likely to backfire. A shaming message from a small minority, also, will likely backfire.
But there's no reason to believe this particular messaging is prone to backfiring, since it's both true and mainstream.

You have to be well-versed in effective activism for your contribution to actually be a net-positive.

I don't think that's true at all, no. It depends very much on what you're advocating and how. Certain causes are much easier to advocate and others.

I applaud every vegan activist out there as I know they probably have good intentions but, frankly, I think many of them contribute to the public image of vegans and veganism as an aggressive pseudo-scientific cult. I know, because I was partially influenced by it, and I think it's part of the reason why I didn't go vegan sooner.

Veganism is a lot trickier than pet adoption for a plethora of reasons.

"Adopt don't shop" still allows people to get pets, it's focusing on animals people already have the most empathy for (dogs and cats), and it's a mainstream message centered around something most people already think is altruistic (animal shelters, saving strays).

Context matters, but it has to matter in an evidence based way and not based on biased speculation.
What is fluid about it? Like having double standards based on your mood that day?

Our perception of culpability can and should change when the context changes.

When did I say it shouldn't?

And as we can never find the truly objective truth

Why do you think that?

Bias is something natural that we can factor in while trying to provide accurate judgement.

Controlling for biases is how you arrive at objective truths.

I agree. Additionally, we should try to first present people with only the facts, because coupled with an interpretation they often lose their strength of argument, even if the information is still as true.

If you can rely on the person to put one and one together, you're right that it may be stronger if the person thinks he or she figured it out vs. you explaining it.

No, most likely they would have died anyway. Many of the dogs taken in are already sick or wounded and even the best care wouldn't have helped.

Those dogs, then, are not fungible with the others.

There also is approximately a 90% chance I would have taken a dog that wouldn't have died in a shelter.

The point is that if they're fungible we're talking about the total supply vs. demand, not any particular dog.

Again, I disagree with the analogy - in this case, we rather know there is a lot of children in the pool and some of them are probably drowning - the man doesn't know that though. Also, if the man rescues a child, it probably wasn't drowning anyway. Your statement is simply wrong, even if I might agree with the sentiment.

No, you'd have to amend that to where every time you remove a child from the pool another child is allowed in the pool and out of a shark infested ocean where most children are eventually eaten if they stay there long enough, and virtually all of them are cold and terrified.

It's not just that you saved a dog in the shelter, you also opened up another slot in that shelter to bring a dog in from a worse situation.

No, I don't blame them. I try not to blame anyone, finding one culprit of such a wide-spread phenomenon is futile and usually hurtful to the targeted group.

The reason to identify a culprit is to encourage that culprit to change -- so any identified culprit must be able to change.

The responsibility is (usually unequally) divided among those who participated. There are also other important factors to consider, such as social and economic pressure.

The division is extreme or totally on one side when the other group is unable to do otherwise, even more so if the act would be performed by somebody else if they refused.

It is even more complicated than that. Mind that the status quo is carnivorism and how hard personal change is considering abovementioned factors. A regular person has the least amount of influence but their strength is that society is a sum of such regular people. It's something one can consider from many different angles, and bring compelling arguments for any amount of blame to put on the individual.

What are you saying?

Many consumers are in a similarly difficult place economically, they are a pawn in a complicated machine that no one person operated to put the blame on.

In the case when a consumer has no choice, such as has no income and has to rely on food banks, then there can be no culpability anywhere. The people who are culpable are those who can change.

All the facts you've stated are correct and opinions are but opinions. "Blame" and "responsibility" are not linear in nature, as they are not rooted in facts, only in the interpretation of them.

We can talk about what free will means, but aside from that we are very much talking about facts of the market. Interpretation alone can't save people from being culpable for choosing to do something harmful when they can choose otherwise. There must be genuine mitigating factors.