Talk:Animal companions

Essay space?

Do you mean this to be an essay? It certainly reads that way. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Had I meant this to be an essay, I would have thrown away the cumbersome citations and examined the moral theory behind our obligations to companion animals, as well as what these obligations entail and why. As it stands, I thought this article fit a small cranny on RW, since it is controversial and discussed nowhere else on RW. It also focuses more so on the moral philosophy rather than charges of ad hominem inconsistency, which compose almost the entirety of RW's PETA article.--Animalian (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the fact that this article reads like an essay suggests that it is fluent and readable. I believe your qualm is over bias. However, this bias is appropriate--I have seen no compelling arguments for permitting the vast suffering inherent to the animal trade. The objections to the status quo are also grounded on sound moral principles. For instance, if it is in our capacity to prevent some amount of suffering, without sacrificing anything of substantial significance, we ought to do so. By not breeding as many animals, we forsake fewer dogs and cats to miserable lives and deaths on the street while simultaneously freeing more resources for the care of already existent animals. Therefore, we can take better care of the animals that exist at present. "Euthanizing" millions of animals who are killed simply because of overpopulation, which we can mitigate and ultimately prevent, is an unacceptable waste of life.--Animalian (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, then write it like a proper fucking article -- title in bold in the first sentence, define your terms clearly, and link some pages to it so it's not just floating around unmoored. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)