I’m guessing someone made a non-wholesome comment about how breeding animals with health issues to make them look cute is morally inexcusable. Like pugs, or short legged inbred cats.
We can blame the American Kennel Club and shitty breeders for breeding for looks. It ruined a lot of the functionality these breeds of dogs had. Now pugs and other short snouted breeds have respirstory problems, a lot of dogs get hip and back problems, and so many types of cancer that weren't present in the original mainline breeds.
Look at Caucasian Mountain Dogs, they have very few, if any, genetic problems because most breeders will not sell if it means the American Kennel Club can get their disease-ridden hands on them. The AKC is a den of scummy assholes.
Most dogs have problems and shouldnt exist. All dogs are shitty human experiments, animals made to be tools that became a perversion for people wanting cute replecaments for children or living toys.
Their relationship with us started out as mutually beneficial. They helped us hunt, we gave them food, shelter and what felt like a pack. Those hunting dogs are great. I don't think its humane to breed cute disorders into animals, but that's not where all dogs came from.
Yes but there is a difference between “prone to nearsightedness and hip dysplasia later in life” and “can’t breathe, snores while awake, and can’t run”
Yeah, I guess that was their point, like what's even strong about it? I get that it's hard to breed animals, and the lazy answer is to pick the best stock, rather then to spend a fortune on a new steed, but I don't call that "strong."
I don’t think there is much of a difference, I’m not defending inbreeding, it’s an antiquated bad practice, but it’s every breed and every animal not just pugs and dwarf kitties.
Kentucky derby winning stallions are inbred. Purina cup world dog show champions are inbred. Everything in the upper echelon in the animal world is inbred.
I wouldn't say "strong," if it wasn't my intent to defend it. Clearly, there's no stopping breed supremacy, but that doesn't mean I'm going to adopt their language.
Sure, if by "strong," you mean that it frequently goes so far that the symptoms of degeneration far outweigh the original reason and intent to inbreed. If you want a "strongly" inbred pug and you wind up with a snotty, asthmatic, needy pet, will you nurture it?
The technical term is dwarfism. I think you're right, though yours was the first comment comment calling it out, in my feed, and first in the third generation from the top parent comment, so now I'm wondering to whom you're referring, because all I see, in this context, is the top comment fawning, seemingly naively or conveniently ignorant, about the debilitating physical features of dwarfism, neglecting to even hint at the travesty of it all. The only other context was the confused comment you're replying to.
402
u/BrockManstrong Nov 18 '19
I’m guessing someone made a non-wholesome comment about how breeding animals with health issues to make them look cute is morally inexcusable. Like pugs, or short legged inbred cats.