Iran moving to outlaw dog ownership

  • News
  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
  • #26
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
If dog-ownership is "decadent", then count me among the sinners. Duke has been a godsend, keeping me company and warding off "cabin fever". If I'm feeling a bit blue, he seems to know, and bugs me until I pay attention to him. He brings me his toys one by one, so that we can play fetch, tug-of-war, etc. Plus, whenever I have to drive somewhere, I have a companion in my vehicle with me, keeping me company.
 
  • #27
SamirS
Welcome to PF - care to provide support your comments?
About the nonsense of the war on drugs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Results
Follow the source linkedi n the article if you don't like wikipedia.

Increased use of cannabis.
Decreased use of heroin.
Increased uptake of treatment.
Reduction in drug related deaths.

Keep in mind that Portugal decriminalized all drugs. The four effect mentioned here are those with statistical indicators. Two to four are good results without a doubt (and the last two are good no matter which drug you take, while the first two are drug-specific).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Results_of_the_drug_policy

Overall cannabis statistics are better than most countries with far more restrictive laws. While people there have a slightly higher monthly prevalence of other drugs (which are still completely illegal!), they have fewer problem users; it's balanced.

The effects of complete decriminalization in the Czech republic are not yet clear (they did it very recently).

So if countries with more or less punish-free drug consumption and possession work at least as good as those with stringent laws, civil freedom needs to prevail. There are indicators that they work better than those with complete prohibition. Ergo, prohibition is rooted in irrational moral concepts.

For euthanasia, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands

There is no reason to forbid people from taking such services outside of concern that people might be killed who didn't want to. The latter however is subject to regulation; suffering of people that can not be conventionally alleviated is not.

For abortion, it's a bit more complicated because the effects outside of purely civil rights issues are harder to pinpoint as they also span generations, but we can discuss that, too.

---

About the analogy? What kind of evidence is there to be found to see that two situations are analogous and that it's just not visible for those involved?

Take gay marriage, it's still not allowed everywhere. The reason being what? Children? Well, they're gay. Either they will have children (throught the help of someone of the opposite sex) or they won't. The same as with different-sex couples. Basically, the only reasons that are not possible to be demontaged are those based in religion, that some deity forbids it. Same goes with dogs in Iran. It worked so far, and private and compassionate dog ownership is surely not a problem. If there are too many stray dogs, that problem should be taken from an angle that doesn't cut into civil rights.

Please tell me if you want more or different evidence, and what specifically interests or bugs you.

If dog-ownership is "decadent", then count me among the sinners. Duke has been a godsend, keeping me company and warding off "cabin fever". If I'm feeling a bit blue, he seems to know, and bugs me until I pay attention to him. He brings me his toys one by one, so that we can play fetch, tug-of-war, etc. Plus, whenever I have to drive somewhere, I have a companion in my vehicle with me, keeping me company.
I don't see why it should be decadent. I do not share PETA's point of view that all animals want to be "liberated". It's just oppressive, and senseless - same as with the analogies.
 
  • #28
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
Why is it hard to understand? I mean, the US has a lot of Christianity-based nonsensical laws (about gay marriage for example, or abortion, or euthanasia; don't tell me about intrinsic moral values, there are countries that implemented those and it works well) and wages whole wars rooted in concepts that itself root in religion or irrational morality (war on drugs for example). Iran happens to have more of them; but I fail to see how that feeling can not be understood as analogous. From my (purely atheistic) point of view, dog owners in Iran and gay couples intending to marry are under the same kind of governmentally, yet ultimately religiously created pressure.
Welcome to PF - care to provide support your comments?
I think that's valid request (Edit: and it appears Samir responded to the request so quickly that my post is practically obsolete). Samir chose to ignore how each of these laws evolved over time and focus solely on the types of groups most likely to strongly support those laws.

For example, abortion law has a long history that may be influenced by religion, but it would be a drastic oversimplification to call them Christianity-based nonsensical laws. A very good history of abortion laws and how it evolved is included in Roe v Wade (see Section VI of Blackmun's majority opinion).

(As an aside, I do think the decision to overturn Texas's abortion law was very well reasoned and written, right up until Section XI when the SCOTUS essentially started writing their own abortion laws. While I'm not sure what the best way for the SCOTUS to handle the situation would have been, Section XI really was beyond their scope of responsibility.)
 
  • #29
SamirS
BobG, I agree with you, and I think I have the duty to clarify.

By nonsensical, I mean the stance that abortion is completely illegal and only allowed in the case that the mother would otherwise be seriously harmed or killed. It is of course not purely a Christian stance. It's just as much a Muslim stance, and is also in effect in a wide range of different religions. I just chose Christianity because I suspect the American reader can relate best to it.

The essence of my first post is basically this: I do not find it hard to understand why the Iranian government intends to do this, just as much as I don't find it hard to understand why analogous laws are passed in the US, and I puposefully excluded finer details because the main motivation for people to accept laws of this kind that basically oppress their rights is (very often) religion. Ulterior motives for people as well as policy makers are certainly always a factor.

I basically took the "I don't understand why they do this"-stance and took it one step further, to make an analogy so that readers could mabye better relate as to why and how those things happen. The personal opinion part (I should have clarified that better) is that many of these are nonsensical. I find it important to note that understanding a stance is not the same as endorsing it.
 

Related Threads on Iran moving to outlaw dog ownership

  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
17
Replies
423
Views
54K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
52
Views
9K
Top