Make points to argue AGAINST the existence of rescues/shelters

>>2195584
its easy to fall into having too many animals in a cramped space if the business isnt under control.

>>2195588
that's not an argument against their actual existence, but an argument against poor management.

>>2195584
Okay let me just do your homework. Use your brain

It isn't our species' duty to be the personal Savior of all animals. If an animal, or a species, is at risk - well that's life; not everyone can win at the end. If a species goes extinct it really isn't the tragedy animal lovers try to make it out to be.

File: article-2193986-14B316ED000005DC-279_634x710.jpg (88KB, 634x710px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 634x710px

>>2195584

The invisible and artificial intervention delays public awareness to the actual ethical and practical problems the modern pet industry continues to facilitate by placing money over animals, public health, safety and basic human values.

As long as shelters are there to clean up the mess away from the public eye, theres no motivation for the industry to take responsibility for their poor profit-oriented distribution model. People continue to think its okay for exotic animals to be purchased by people wholly unqualified on many levels to take custody of them. There is no metric or standard required.

There needs to be industry imposed scarcity. This not only would raise the value of the animals in their own model, but resolve many of the problems attributed to abandoned pets. We are selling pets that were once only accessible to royalty to children. There needs to be standards...

File: 1337911898924.jpg (51KB, 500x514px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x514px

>>2195610

The co-habitation of other species among human society should not be taken lightly or for granted. The story of poor Excalibur, the innocent pet dog of the Spanish nurse who briefly had ebola is an example.

Without a shred of protocol, data or regard for the citizen herself, the Spanish government executed her pet in a frenzied panic. The woman recovered only to learn the state murdered her beloved companion in a completely obtuse and juvenile panic over something they didn't understand. Animal co-habitation with humans is a serious thing. The mere fantasy of an outbreak was enough for government to make rash and clumsy decisions with no basis in fact, and *still* has no protocol, leaving another opportunity for the next panicked public health hysteria.

This is just one example of public health and safety that is overlooked by taking the concept of pets so casually. There are also the common occurrence of dog attacks, herds of alien animals rampaging across the wetlands of Florida wreaking eco-havoc from abandoned pets and the constant plague of unethical breeders. And thats before you even scratch the surface of ranching operations. Tens of thousands of livestock were burned to death in Canada last year creating nothing short of an ethical atrocity on a massive scale. And while the fur industry does honestly do their best in North America to conduct ethical business, many animals such as rabbits and chickens enjoy no such protection.

The relationship between animals and humans remains embarrassingly primitive, and shelters only help hide the domestic pet issues that could be resolved but for the acceptance of the status quo that only remains because shelters mask the public horror that would be in our face if we were forced to confront what we are actually allowing to happen in every town in America. The human custody of animals is not a trivial thing...

File: bff.png (580KB, 640x462px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 640x462px

>>2195611

... I fully, fully support shelters of course. But you asked for a counter argument and thats what I thought of.

>>2195605
it's not homework.
thankyou for offering nothing of value.

>>2195613
Thankyou, although most of it centers around arguing against domestic animals in a broader sense rather than just shelters (really only raises 1 point against them).

File: mzlcosz.gif (745KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 500x281px

>>2195616

Not domestic animals so much as the casual way we treat it.

I admit the meta was a bit stronger than the thesis itself, but I wanted to flush out the context fully for you to assemble your own argument with plenary context. You can pull from the context more refined, focused avenues to the main point about shelters.

>>2195621
It was a point I've already gone over a lot (the existence leading to a more casual stance/removing consequences).
More looking for someone to present new points to me.

>>2195627
>looking for someone to present new points to me

Im sorry. You're not going to find them. You are looking for arguments to support a conclusions, so you are already working against reason from go.

You have a business, so to speak, performing a function. So what you are really saying is the function is wrong, either ethically or in its own execution.

In other words, if it is wrong in execution, then you aren't arguing the purpose, but rather that there is a better way to do it, how and why. That would make the function seem wrong for being inferior, not wrong on premise.

Otherwise, you are just going to end up with absurdity for its own sake. You cant stay tethered to the shelter itself, you have to work backwards. Thats why I gave so much context. Its not enough to be contrarian. The listener has to listen to you building up to the conclusion he already knows and then reach it before you actually state it. Its not enough to convince him maybe shelters are bad, he has to reach the notion that they are horrible or ridiculous before you do, because your conclusion is already stated. You have to distract him from the apparent absurdity and give him fuel to build and anticipate the same conclusion himself without dragging him by begging for agreement just because you dislike it.

Shelters are bad. Ok, why? Do you have a better idea? Why not? Maybe its the model itself. Or maybe it would vastly benefit by including some new factor.

You sound like you are asking for a list of un related points. That isnt going to make you look legitimate, its going to make you look like you are doing exactly what you are doing, just compiling excuses to justify a conclusion. There has to be a coherent convergence of logic to arrive at the main point, not a lot of unrelated points that 'coincidentally' arrive at your position...

>>2195665

Remember the Iraq war? What did Bush do wrong in selling it to the public? He had a conclusion and then began to list one unrelated point after the next. It made him look like a disingenuous idiot, like a child making excuses.

"Weapons of mass destruction" Then 'terrorist sponsor'. Then 'democracy in the mid east' It was one unrelated excuse after another and it exposed insincerity.

If he had just stuck to one point that couldnt immediately be disproven, the public may have accepted it better. He was simply trying to obstruct a government from manipulating oil prices. But it seemed like to petty of an argument the public wouldn't care about or buy.

Instead, he should've lobbied the consequences of doing nothing and showcase incidents of it happening, and let pundits busy themselves with tearing up his argument while he moved on.

The tragedy is the last year of his last term saw the highest fuel prices since Carter, and he lost all credibility.

You need to find one point and work backwards to develop it in a coherent way. Lobby the impact. Do you want to see them improve or shut down altogether?

I cant write it for you. I dont know if you are taking this in or not, but I hope its helping. Its a rich topic full of things you can develop, but you have to decide what your attack is. You also have to have your opponents stats in mind, in general, to expand on the details and then discredit their merit to his own position, which is when you move in to either show shelters lack some improvement or are wrong-headed altogether, but it would be incoherent to do both.

Good luck.

>>2195614
You're too lazy to come up with points of your own so you're using /an/

>>2195672

Its not lazy to use a forum to ask for contribution. I do it all the time to develop my own ideas.

>>2195680
Again I'm not doing your school work

>>2195681

Im not OP. I think he left some time ago. I know you're not him and I know you aren't me, so who the hell are you and why are you chiming in on a thread and responding to it by telling us what you aren't doing? I just saw the other posts saying the same thing. Literally the Seinfeld of trolls.

For that matter, wtf am I talking to you for?

>>2195687
Because you're triggered

>>2195672
I have points of my own very similar to what someone else already expressed, as I said, but I do like to hear other's opinions and thoughts on the subject. That's not laziness. That's being interested in a topic.

>>2195606
Our lives would be directly impacted by an increase of strays and the extinction of entire species. This isn't a very solid argument.

>>2195666
The best trips.

But this.

If OP is looking for solid arguments against having them, there won't be many. If OP wants to sway an audience, he's gonna have to look at it from a different angle, instead of making educated arguments, he needs to exploit people's ignorance, biases and emotions because otherwise, there will not be a convincing argument to prove shelters are a bad thing.

I wish I could help OP, but I have the opposite viewpoint. It seems like you have some good points here already.

I do hear people say things that animal shelters should just euthanize all the animals they get in to save tax money, but there are many problems with that including the fact the vast majority of animal shelters are private owned. There is also the argument that people will be forced to keep animals without a shelter to drop them off, but looking at other countries and even into our own past, that has been proven to be untrue.

>>2195606
I think OP is asking more about an argument against protection and housing of domestic animals, as in house pets and strays. Not wild or endangered animals.

>>2195584
There really aren't any good arguments.

What's the difference between public and private shelters aside from funding?

>>2195883
Not to mention it would make people less likely to support shelters, increasing the number of strays and hoarders. Even if other countries can do it, we already have a pre-set idea of how animals should be handled and going against it won't exactly be a smooth process.

I can see a benefit in shifting the attention to private owned shelters though.
Let's say the government shuts down their shelters and instead the same money goes towards assisting private shelters or the government provides more free vet services like euthanasia, shots and fixing animals.

>>2195936
The way they work, basically. A private shelter can, if they want, have a facility ready to keep animals until their natural deaths. They can be more strict or less strict on their adoption policies, shit like that.

Poorly socialized animals that weren't bed for health and temperament going to potentially inexperienced homes

That's all I got.

There are literally no arguments. Do you want us to kill every animal that doesn't currently have a home?

>>2195962
It would fix our animal population issue, that is for sure. So why not?

>>2195973

No, because the cause is ongoing. If you dont stop the cause, the quantity of abandoned pets remains eternal, You could cull them daily, and every day after there is more.

>>2195999
Nice trips!

>>2195999
Naw. You just keep culling and eventually the problem stops. Again, I see no reason not to humanly dispose of any homeless animal.