I am not understanding this. Pericles says we shouldn’t have pets. Protagoras calls him a meat eating hypocrite. Mr Stuart comes in and says it is time to get down from the cross now.

Everyone is going on about logic whereas I looked the word up and feel you all really mean rationale. It might do me a lot of good in the future if someone could straighten me out on that one.

Exam is trying to make a submission about flawed dogs that were made on purpose – surely proving there is no god and that basically there is something even more flawed about humans although everyone on OLO has either not owned a pet or only purchased one in dire need or saved it from dire straits.

I got away with buying mine by quickly associating it with fostering – it is my ace card at all times, amazing what I get away with by being nice to short people. The poodle stuff is true I jsut know it helps to mention the kids as well.

Just while writing this post I have yelled at one to get off another one, picked one up and moved it away before the one that had the train first gives him a slap and told one small miss to remove her finger from her nose before it gets stuck. I have one dog standing at the door waiting for hubby (when hubby goes overseas this dog will stand there at night for weeks) and the other is hiding under my bed because I caught him in the chicken coup an hour ago and he knows where not to be right now.

Exam, give us a hand.. what sort of specific stuff were you looking for?

Did anyone see tonight's bit on Australia.
I was happier with the show in that it mentions some of the steps that had and would be put into place to combat the original issue.
When writing a submission to anyone it is always wise to deal with both sides and offer plausible solutions then explain how they could be implemented. Most interest groups unfortunately simply give their definition of the problem without considering the hic cups, road blocks etc.
Sadly I tend to take this analytic function/methodology in conversations on OLO. Sorry

Pericles
How are your answers etc in context to the question as posted?
'What do you think should be done about 'breeding pure bred dogs to death' for cosmetics? and therefore 'what do you think should done?'

Simply put they aren't they don't even remotely go to addressing the questions posed. It is as if I had asked dogs what are the issues relating to them...I didn't.

Protagoras
I am neither miffed nor do I wish to stifle your enthusiasm or what you say I did suggest you start your own topic.
as per the above reasoning or at least address the one posed.
I really don't think that's unreasonable.
But it doesn't matter now your ego is more important than anything I had in mind.

rstuart

<< .. Bronwyn's refusal to let any man made organism enter her body (be it GM food or vaccines) is another .. >>

What the hell! Thanks for slipping that one in. So I'm a prime example of illogical religious fervour, am I? I don't think so.

My scepticism towards GM food and vaccines, seeing as you've so kindly brought it up, is shared by many and is based on a wide body of reputable research. It's much more than the precious and simplistic picture you've painted here of me not wanting some contaminant to pass my lips. It takes in a whole range of factors relating to profiteering and exploitation as well as a sound understanding of holistic health, nutrition and organic farming. How dare you reduce all that to a so-called 'religious thing'. You're a nut case.

I'm not about to highjack examinator's thread, but in the right context I'll happily point out the lack of logic inherent in placing unquestioning faith in the efficacy of GM food, vaccination and whatever other harm-inducing medical and chemical intervention you care to hold up as gospel.

“<< .. Bronwyn's refusal to let any man made organism enter her body (be it GM food or vaccines) is another .. >>”

What the hell! Thanks for slipping that one in.”

I got that so so so wrong for a minute there, but thank you for even the accidental morning giggle.

Exam, I have missed all TV programs. What steps were suggested?

Does this breeding thing not simply come under an animal cruelty act already in existence that needs reinforcing?

Morning all

Piper

Repairing damage to breeds as discussed on ABC:

One of the suggestions was a blanket ban on incest, no more mating daddy with daughter. Which, BTW, I referred to when I stated that breeding records are kept by breeders and, therefore, it is relatively easy to monitor who has been mating with whom.

Also discussed was the probability that some breeds' genetic diversity has become so limited, that the breed may not be able to be brought back to full health. Which may mean we will never see toy poodles again. Somehow I am not upset.

While my suggestions have been dismissed as not strictly on topic, I still believe that a suitable advertising campaign touting the advantages of mixed breeds and saving the unlucky purebreeds that frequently wind up in animal shelters as an effective action. However, it is not useful for Examinator's SUBMISSION - hence the tanties on any contribution that does not directly concern purebred animals.

Rstuart

Your ad hominem on Bronwyn - completely called for, I'm surprised that you were not slapped on the wrist for being completely off topic. As a sufferer of ME, I understand how vitally important it is to eat fresh, organic, unprocessed food.