(untitled). . Se, there I was " . . just relaxing in frend of the TM’. and then the kids yelled, Hey Mom, come see the kittens.‘. Take one. Get stink-glands removed. Keep it as a pet. Scare the out of house guests. ??? Profit!
x
Click to expand

Comments(200):

[ 200 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#6 - carbohydrates ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Take one.   
Get stink-glands removed.   
Keep it as a pet.   
Scare the 			****		 out of house guests.   
???   
Profit!
Take one.
Get stink-glands removed.
Keep it as a pet.
Scare the **** out of house guests.
???
Profit!
User avatar #17 to #6 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
I find it saddening that a human would incapacitate an animal for his amusement.
#22 to #17 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
You're that guy who sees someone petting a cat on youtube and call it animal abuse in the comments aren't you?
Look you ******* idiot skunks can survive witouth their stink-glands just fine, and its not only for amusement, when you get a pet you take good care of it, or else you're just a ****** owner that shouldn't have a pet. Also taking care of something is not animal abuse either.
User avatar #23 to #22 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
Skunks can survive without their stink-glands so it's not animal abuse?

Well yeah , they can also survive without the whole tail. Or without one of their eyes.
Are those fine to remove too?
#27 to #23 - sealofapproval (04/20/2014) [-]
He's right! Nothing should ever be removed or else it's abuse!

Wisdom teeth? leave em
How could you ever take out an appendix! Thats against GOD!
Blister on your toe? You better pray you dont pop it
If you get those tonsils removed im calling the police
We were meant to leave our brain tumors alone
Circumcision is evil
Pierced ears is unjust impalement
cutting you hair? does dismemberment mean anything to you?

thats how stupid you sound
User avatar #29 to #27 - faggotishshit (04/20/2014) [-]
How could you ever cut your toenails? A life in hell awaits you!
#35 to #27 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
Ive never seen such a stupid arguement get so many thumbs up. Congratulations.
#74 to #27 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
but, circumcision is pretty close to evil, isn't it?
#31 to #27 - yiffcario ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#144 to #27 - softdoritocat (04/20/2014) [-]
Well, to be fair, warbob kinda has a point. If you're getting a skunk as a pet and remove its stink-glands it's fine with me, but I feel that sometimes people go too far with "improving" animals. For example, docking and cropping (removing part of dog's tail or ears) is imo abusive. Dog's tail takes a major part in communicating with other dogs, helps to keep balance and poop (vets argue over this one) and removing it because "it looks ugly" is ******* cruel. Sure, technically dog will be fine. But could be better.
#146 to #144 - softdoritocat (04/20/2014) [-]
Ok, I just finished reading the rest of his comments in this thread and warbob is a ******* idiot.
User avatar #50 to #27 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
those are something you choose to do yourself , while the animal has no choice in the matter. And it's not something causing it harm for a human to be helping it.

There is zero reason for removing the glands except attempting to domesticate it and playing a prank.

The whole deal is that the animal will have something removed to better accomodate the human's life. Similar to sterilizing a dog.

All the butthurt coments and people who thumbed me down may speak their ******** all they want, but in the end it's still removing a part of the anima's body.
User avatar #55 to #50 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
NOT sterilizing a dog is abuse - or a cat, for that matter.

Intact males are prone to behavioral problems including but not limited to aggression, urine marking and being desperate to run away and get into fights for a chance to breed; not to mention it promotes prostate and testicular cancer among other health problems.

Unaltered females often suffer from mammary and ovarian cancer, the chances of which rise with every heat cycle they undergo - not to mention pregnancy if they do get access to a viable male where there's a will there's a way which in and of itself is highly dangerous for the mother and litter; especially if the female is too young or too old in which the chances of complications skyrocket.

Yes, one of the main reasons people get their pets fixed is to make them better pets. Is that really such a bad thing? People are much more likely to love and keep an animal who isn't pissing all over their home and attacking people and other animals at every opportunity.

Many aren't equipped to deal with a dog or cat's offspring, so the newborns suffer as a result if they failed to prevent pregnancy from occurring - it's harder than you might think.

So, if it's better for the animal AND it keeps more animals in homes and less in shelters or on the streets, then yes, I do and will continue to strongly support spaying and neutering.
Troll elsewhere please.
User avatar #58 to #55 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
there is a difference between risk from normal biological activities and some disease or harm from physical damage. Removing a body part just because of an " if X event happens" is illogical.

If it has reproductive organs, it may get hurt.
If it has reproductive organs, it may die.
if it has reproductive organs, I won't be able to handle the situation.
If it has stink-glands, it may ... stink in my house.

When someone isn't ready to comit to supporting a living being, he shouldn't be messing it's life at all.
User avatar #86 to #85 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
I stated my oppinion and got responces to it. From that point I feel like I should respond as long as the other party keeps responding.

You know , like a conversation.

Exacly the reason I'm responding to you right now and I'll continue to do so as long as you reply and your comment doesn't imply you want to end the conversation.
User avatar #60 to #58 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Actually, skunk spray is toxic and can harm or potentially kill you or other animals in some circumstances. So the stench of a skunk's spray is not simply overwhelmingly malodorous. If you don't approve of de-scenting a pet skunk, then get a pet skunk and don't de-scent it. Problem solved.
User avatar #63 to #60 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
If someone has a problem with a skunk being in his house spraying it's gas, then he shouldn't be having it in the first place.

It's like saying a dog can bite you and kill you, so I'll remove it's teeth and feed it soup.

I do not have an animal and the reason is because I simply can't take proper care of it. It's not simply about buying/ taking an animal , giving it food and water and then proceeding to throw money at doctors for them to accomodate it to your lifestyle.
User avatar #71 to #63 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
>spraying it's gas
Just by that statement alone, you seem vastly uneducated on this subject.
Skunks don't spray gas. They don't fart menacingly at their enemies. They spray - an actual jet of noxious fluid that can cause respiratory distress and even failure.

I agree with you - if you don't want to accommodate a pet, don't get one. That's why I do not have a skunk. If I wound up having to keep one as is the case with many of my other rescue animals, it would be de-scented. I have nothing against people who do, if they provide the animal with adequate care.

You're just being ridiculous with the dog argument. Dogs bite for reasons and can be trained not to do it unnecessarily. Skunks spray out of habit such as to mark territory, and self-defense over things that mean them no harm. There's kind of a difference.
User avatar #76 to #71 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
No , I'm quite far from where any skunks might be (or so I think).

If I go aline with your argument about keeping a cat and not removing it's claws but instead teaching it what to do or not to do, buying it something to scratch on and etc. then a human should try to teach the skunk what to do and not to do as well.

Do we know how? No. Do we try to learn how? No.
User avatar #90 to #76 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
My comment #75:

If it were a matter of training the skunk not to spray, it wouldn't be so bad - I've heard of a few who are intact but simply don't; but they are the exception to the rule. Part of proper pet care for a skunk would be ensuring that you actually can care for it.

You obviously have never even looked into exotic pet ownership, so you just make things up as you go. Of course people have tried alternatives - not all animals are as easy to teach as others; in many cases, it's simply impossible. Likewise, not everything CAN be trained out of an animal, not everything can be prevented.

Please note that many trained dogs do still bite at some point. It gets a lot of them killed. Skunks who "usually don't" spray, but still can, still will. Ensuring that both the animal and the person providing for it are capable of coexisting together is the definition of having a pet.
User avatar #96 to #90 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
If something can't be prevented, then you shouldn't be doing it surgically either imo.

I find it stupid that humans take something that may endanger them and when it does they decide to kill it (as per the example given with dogs) .
User avatar #101 to #96 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
So basically, if there is anything that a surgery could benefit, which could not be done by other means - you shouldn't resort to utilizing the surgery to achieve that result, for the sole purpose that it is a surgery?

Sigh.
User avatar #104 to #101 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
if originally the reason the said result is wanted it simply because you want to exert control on another living being - yes.


Idk how you have trouble understanding my point, think of your body. It's your own body, do you not want all of it to be intact and perfectly healthy? If someone offered you to remove your apendix for free would you rather do it than not?

If it were me I wouldn't let anyone mess with my body without any serious reason. The animals should surely not be much different in that point.
User avatar #106 to #104 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
The discussions are just becoming circular at this point; I have already answered the same question, except it was a finger last time.

If I were fully dependent on someone caring for me, and if they or anyone else could not or would not then I would suffer and die, and I had to have a useless organ removed in order to survive - then yes, the organ has to go. A one-time operation would be preferable.

But I am not an animal, nor am I a pet, so again - this comparison doesn't really apply.
User avatar #108 to #106 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
and yet again I'm telling you, you're making assumptions to justify the said operation.

I just asked that if you had a chance to remove your apendix without any reason (and this wouldn't cost you anything) would you prefer to or not to do it .

And not all of the said animals are dependent on a human caring for them in order to survive.
#130 to #108 - shrolen (04/20/2014) [-]
Alright, you don't seem to understand the relationship between a domesticated animal and their owner. This relationship is known as a mutualistic relationship. All groups involved in a mutualistic relationship benefit from each other. There is a reason why dogs are known as man's best friend. The mutualistic relationship between wolves and man gave both an increased chance of survival. The breeding of those wolves that worked well with man led to dogs.
In the present, domesticated animals are kept for their companionship.This is still a mutualistic relationship. The quality of life for dogs, cats, or even skunks in this case, are improved by a tremendous amount by being domesticated by man. They don't have to worry about starvation, infestation of parasites, or being eaten by a predator.

So, to address your claim that removing a skunk's stink glands is animal abuse. If someone were to take a random skunk, rip their stink glands out, and place then back into the wild, that would be animal abuse. That is of coarse not what is happening. The skunk would have their stink glands removed so that they can
be kept in a mutualistic relationship with humans. This is true for almost all operations done on domesticated animals.

What you are auguring is that the skunk would be better off searching for food, water, and shelter while trying to fend off the predators trying to eat them, for the rest of their lives. You think this is better than the skunk undergoing an operation and having a short recover time so that they can live a life where they can eat when they are hunger, drink when they are thirsty, and sleep without worrying about getting ripped apart by a predator? Have you ever stopped to wonder about how much better a domesticated animal's life is compared to one in the wild?
User avatar #127 to #108 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
For no reason? The obvious answer is no and there is no reason to ask.

But removing the scent glands of a pet skunk is for a reason, or people wouldn't do it.

All pets are dependent on humans for survival. That is the description of a pet.

But we are not de-scenting wild skunks.

Therefore, nothing here you have just said is relevant in any way, shape or form.
User avatar #128 to #127 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
there is a reason to ask the question.

That'd be the point of view from an animal's perspective.
#129 to #128 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Oh, really? That is how a pet skunk thinks? About the appendix and everything? Thank you, I hadn't conversed with one recently. I better understand the views of your race now. Thank you, mister skunk! : D
Oh, really? That is how a pet skunk thinks? About the appendix and everything? Thank you, I hadn't conversed with one recently. I better understand the views of your race now. Thank you, mister skunk! : D
User avatar #152 to #96 - tornadomad (04/20/2014) [-]
It's called natural selection. We're at the top of the food chain for a reason. OBVIOUSLY if something is endangering us, we're going to rid it. That's why prison and the death penalty exist. Are you against prison and the death penalty? If someone tried to rape or kill you would you tell the cops that prison is abuse and that they should instead just be taught to not rape and murder people anymore?
User avatar #166 to #152 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
By your logic we should exterminate every species on this planet except those we use for food, because they can all be a danger to us except for a minority of them.
User avatar #162 to #63 - olioh (04/20/2014) [-]
i wonder how do u even take care of yourself... if u even do that...
User avatar #149 to #63 - tornadomad (04/20/2014) [-]
If the skunk is in your house, it doesn't need it's ******* stink gland. What's it defending itself against? Oxygen? If I was going to get a rattlesnake for a pet, I would get that thing defanged and devenomed.
User avatar #131 to #58 - ironsoul ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
As somebody who has been actually been sprayed by a skunk, the word stink doesn't begin to cover it. It smells infinitely worse than a rotting corpse. Calling it "stinky" is like calling lava "slightly warmish". THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DOES NOT HAVE A WORD FOR HOW BAD THIS SMELLS. IT PHYSICALLY CAUSES PAIN IT SMELLS SO BAD. THIS IS A STENCH THAT WILL CHASE OFF A BEAR. So yes, while I am against animal abuse, removing a skunks scent glands makes perfect sense to me.
User avatar #132 to #131 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
Or not taking it as a pet at all ... ?
#181 to #58 - splitalterego (04/21/2014) [-]
Its a stink gland I don't think it will need it or really miss it if its removed, however it makes it more difficult for the owner to take care of it.
User avatar #182 to #181 - warbob (04/21/2014) [-]
sigh , I've gone over analogies countless time in this thread but here we go again , more simplisticly this time.

Can you tell me a part of your body that you wouldn't miss if removed? For examlpe would you rather have your apendix or not (if the removal is free and there is currently no reason to remove it )
#186 to #182 - splitalterego (04/21/2014) [-]
I wouldn't miss it but I wouldn't want it to be removed for no reason at all. In a skunks case it case it gets a household and food and people who will take care of it which I don't think would be possible without its removal.
User avatar #189 to #186 - warbob (04/21/2014) [-]
it's certainly not impossible, my viewpoint is that if you don't want to have something that can make your entire house smell like that you shouldn't be getting as skunk as a pet at all.

Changing a animal's body to our liking simply because we prefer it that was is imo immoral. We shouldn't be the ones deciding what's a good trade for someone else's body part either.

But as FJ has shown, my opinion is rather disliked.
#192 to #189 - splitalterego (04/21/2014) [-]
While I'm against things such as declawing cats which negatively affects quality of life after the procedure with skunks I'm fine with since you're getting rid of something that is used as a weapon and its not because you just find them to be smelly. Because animals can't speak we have to make decisions for them and use logic to determine what they would want. I think if skunks could tell us their wants and needs they would be glad that they had their scent gland removed in exchange for the home they got.
User avatar #190 to #189 - warbob (04/21/2014) [-]
simply because we prefer it that was is imo immoral*
User avatar #143 to #50 - zarcos (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I removed my appendix.....I think the doctor did that.
User avatar #42 to #23 - moshimoshi (04/20/2014) [-]
PETA pls go.
#25 to #23 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
dis 			*****		.
dis ***** .
User avatar #73 to #23 - freakyorange (04/20/2014) [-]
Skunk's stink glands evolved to ward off predators. If the threat of predators is removed through domestication of the animal, the need for stink glands is removed. It's a win-win for the animal and the human.
User avatar #79 to #73 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
It's like saying an animal has evolved it's teeth in order to eat (I don't include animals that bite for protection such as dogs and etc. ), so it's fine as long as we give it liquid food and take care of it.
User avatar #95 to #79 - freakyorange (04/20/2014) [-]
Not really, because teeth are part of most, if not every mamal. Stink glands are not.

For example, Your apendix. It serves no purpose to you, and if it were repulsive to every other living thing out there, you, and everyone else would want it removed. I'm not saying that a skunk is aware that it's repulsive, but it won't know the difference anyway.
User avatar #102 to #95 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
So if you broke your leg and it looked really really repulsively and you wouldn't be able to move it anymore (it won't heal) would you cut it off ?

And no, I wouldn't remove any part of my body (such as an apendix) just because someone wants me to. Have you removed your apendix? If I offered you to pay for the operation would you rather have it removed or not ?
User avatar #103 to #102 - freakyorange (04/20/2014) [-]
Damn right I'd get my leg removed if it would never heal.

If you offered to pay, I'd consider it, but I haven't had problems with it, and neither has anyone else.
User avatar #105 to #103 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
Then have you ever thought of all the disabled people who have a part of their bodies paralyzed yet keep them intact as much as possible?
User avatar #34 to #23 - viperish (04/20/2014) [-]
Amazing.
User avatar #26 to #17 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
From what I understand, it's not really any different than a basic spay or neuter surgery for any dog or cat. Spraying is a great defense against predators but for pet skunks bred in captivity (who would not know how to survive in the wild anyway), it's just not necessary.
My father had a pet skunk growing up and it was not de-scented, and yes it did spray. They once had to stay at a hotel just to air out the house afterward. He said it was still better than the abandoned baby raccoon he brought home, though.

For actual animal cruelty, I would agree with you - such as removing the fangs and/or venom glands of snakes (typically cannot be done with anesthetic) that should really only be handled by professionals, never kept as pets nor inhumanely butchered in attempts to make them safe. The "procedure" rarely works at all, and not for long even when it does, because snakes regenerate so well and usually become venomous again.
User avatar #51 to #26 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
It's not simply about if it hurts or not.

Here's a simple example.

Your ring finger (or nameless finger if you prefer , because I'm speaking about any hand) strenghtens your grip but is otherwise not essential. You can live without it and your life will hardly be any different (if we assume people won't pay special attention to a missing finger).

With that being said , do you feel comfortable about it missing ? It's your body , it's how you know and want it to be. Noone should be removing parts of it unless it's causing you harm in any way, much less for someone to have amusement by it.
User avatar #53 to #51 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Ovaries and testes are part of most animals' bodies too. We still spay and neuter for health and, yes, owner convenience to better prevent a dog from piss-marking all over everything, or a litter of unwanted puppies or kittens, especially when it might pose a risk to the animal who has to give birth such as if they are too young or old to breed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as against declawing cats and debarking dogs as it is possible to be - but I don't really find de-scenting a skunk inhumane, sorry.
For argument's sake, yes, if I had to have a finger surgically removed to keep my comfortable home, I'd probably go through with it. But I am a human so the analogy isn't really a good comparison nor a valid argument.
User avatar #195 to #53 - Haentar (04/21/2014) [-]
Honestly I think a better analogy for his case would be "would you give up your right to bear arms for the sake of a good, safe home (guarded by others)?"

Though I would still give that up, anyway, it seems like it would relate better to a weaponized scent gland.
User avatar #196 to #195 - Dember ONLINE (04/21/2014) [-]
That's a good comparison, I agree. For a skunk's scent gland, it is something completely and entirely unnecessary as long as the skunk is not to be attacked or harmed by potential predators.

I have done a bit of research on this topic myself upon wishing to learn more about the concept of pet skunks - from all I have read, there are no negative effects on the skunk, behaviorally nor physically, from being de-scented - much like neutering any other animal, but targeting the anal glands instead of the testes located directly below.

The exception for the now popularly-used 'declawed cat' concept, is that the animal does suffer tremendously both through physical pain and prolonged discomfort, as well as mental and psychological trauma (nearly all becoming prone to biting, refusing to use a litter box, etc.) is that one negatively affects the animal solely for the indifferent owner's convenience.

It's not so much a mere 'weapon' rather than butchering a section of each toe that they still have to step on, dig in gritty cat litter, etc. on a constant daily basis - which the cat as a species does not cope well without, and will almost always resort to becoming aggressive and using its teeth to attack as a result, even when completely unnecessary.

Captive skunks, on the other hand, if the procedure is done appropriately, experience only short-term minor discomfort (once more, comparable to any neuter surgery) to improve the quality of its life as a happy and content, well cared for house-pet.

It would no doubt be a better idea for most to get a more conventional pet that does not need to be de-scented - but you will probably still want to have that pet spayed or neutered at some point and it's the same concept, for the sake of both the animal as well as those who live with it. Unless you only ever want to own fish or perhaps lizards and small birds.

Seems pretty simple to me. I'm not sure why such a huge deal has been made over it, honestly.
User avatar #54 to #53 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
Removing any part of the body as long as it's harming the animal is relatively fine imo.

But if you remove something for simple convenience - not really. If you're not ready to make any sacrifice besides some money for the pet, then you shouldn't be getting it at all.

And about that finger - no, not to keep your home or anything. Just because. The animal doesn't keep it's home , it is (most likely) forced to live there until it
a) gives up on escaping
b) decides to stay

The problem is, the animals don't have any way to tell us what they want.

Would you want a better home than the one you have now?
But what if you had to sacrifice something for it? Depends on the sacrifice would be the most common answear.
But what if noone asked you if you are willing to make the sacrifice and you were instead directly put to sleep and then a part of your body was removed without you even knowing what's going on or why?
User avatar #59 to #54 - becauseoprahsaidso (04/20/2014) [-]
Ok you dumb ************ . The point was that somebody said they would keep one as a pet. That means they will provide for it and all that good **** . Is it reasonable, in your opinion, then to leave that gland alone if the skunk will never have to use it again in order to survive? Do you think the skunk will miss it or something? You're sounding like a huge ******* faggot. I bet you're some kind of vegan that thanks his carrots before he eats them.
User avatar #64 to #59 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Sadly, I would probably agree with this person in most other cases.

Just for instance, declawing a cat is terrible - it hacks off a whole knuckle, forces the cat to suffer walking around on its incisions after the surgery, causes it agony when it uses the litter box so it begins urinating and defecating everywhere else instead, and removes its natural means of defense so it becomes a terribly aggressive biter.

All for...what? Preventing them from scratching your furniture or scratching the kids when they won't stop tormenting it? Buy a ******* cat post for them to shred, discipline them with a squirt bottle if they're being naughty. It's not rocket science.
Cats need their claws, and even if they don't have much use as an indoor pet, the process of removing them is still inhumane.

A skunk's scent glands...not so much.
User avatar #69 to #64 - becauseoprahsaidso (04/20/2014) [-]
See I like that example. There is an alternative to declawing an animal, but the skunk's stink gland needs to be removed unless you want your house smelling like **** 24/7.
User avatar #75 to #69 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Smelling like **** is a pretty mild comparison, really. I can put up with caring for an elderly dog with poor bladder and bowel control until its time comes. I wouldn't be able to handle a pungent liquid that lingers for weeks which can cause you to have trouble breathing and, in some cases, even kill you. If it were a matter of training the skunk not to spray, it wouldn't be so bad - I've heard of a few who are intact but simply don't; but they are the exception to the rule. Part of proper pet care for a skunk would be ensuring that you actually can care for it.
User avatar #65 to #59 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
As I gave an example with the nameless (ring) finger of a human.

It's not really esential but do you prefer to keep it or not? OFCOURSE YOU WILL ******* MISS IT. It's a part of your own body, it has been there for your whole life and suddenly it's not there.

Just imagine yourself going to sleep and the next morning waking up without a finger. How would you feel? Would you be perfectly calm, not giving a **** about it missing or something?
User avatar #78 to #65 - becauseoprahsaidso (04/20/2014) [-]
We use our fingers for everything we do, and that skunk will only need that gland for survival as far as I know . If it'll no longer need it to survive on its own I doubt he'll miss it very much. There are exceptions when talking about mutilating an animal, and I don't always think it's right clipping a dog's ears or tail, for example , but this is one case in which I think removing it would be justified since removing it would only be a minor inconvenience to the animal, but leaving it would be a HUGE inconvenience to the owner.
User avatar #82 to #78 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
Technically your nameless (ring) finger only strenghtens your grip and you'll be perfectly fine without it. It simply complements the functions of the other fingers, similiarly (as far as I know) to the little finger. This could be seen by the fact that those fingers' movements are linked to each other ( try to fold your nameless / little finger only to see).

It may or may not be a small inconvenience for the animal , there is no way of knowing that for sure. And if the owner is trying to accomodate the animal to himself , but not accomodate himself to the animal then he shouldn't be getting a pet at all.
User avatar #57 to #54 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Sorry, please explain - are you trying to argue that a pet, who has no training or teaching to know how to survive on its own in the wild, is better off getting loose than in a home where it will (presumably) be taken care of by the humans who care about it? Instincts only take an animal so far - the vast majority of captive-raised animals simply cannot be released into the wild and expected to live. They will die a slow and painful death.
User avatar #61 to #57 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
the said pets should (if possible) not have being raised in captivity in the first place. When the human has messed with the way of nature, he should be doing so in order to help and should be obligated to continue his work until it's over instead of giving up mid-way.

In other words, the said animal should be given an enviorment where it can learn what it doesn't know in a similiar way as it originally should have.
User avatar #66 to #61 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
You are arguing against how animals such as dogs and cats were created. They didn't come pre-made as pets for humans, we interfered with nature and made them that way. It's not necessarily a crime, nor is it unethical to domesticate something, if you take proper care of it. Proper care sometimes involves physically modifying the animal - spaying, neutering...and yes, de-scenting, for skunks.
User avatar #72 to #66 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
For the record - as long as I'm aware dogs were originally nothing more than domesticated wolves. And humans were fine with them being completely normal as long as they didn't harm people for quite a lot of years. Then their population started getting out of control because humans weren't able to control the birth outbrake.

No idea about cats.
User avatar #81 to #72 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Correct, dogs are a subspecies of the wolf - they are even still the same animal, just two different types. Still, you cannot say that a labrador, poodle or chihuahua is comparable to a wolf - wolves typically make terrible pets; I have studied and worked with wolves and wolfdogs for over a decade. I own wolfdogs. They are NOT for everyone - but most people who think they have one, very rarely do.

Regardless, the animals were drastically changed to better suit - yep, you guessed it - humans who owned them. That includes everything from selective breeding, to haircuts, to removing dewclaws to avoid them getting torn off to docking their tails typically to prevent spinal fractures in some breeds who wag them too hard and smack them against things and cropping their ears to prevent highly painful chronic ear infections. If done right, it is not inhumane or abusive - no, a pair of scissors or a hot knife is never the "right" way to do it, but a thirty-minute surgery with a few days of recovery is often considered better than a lifetime of the alternative. And that is the owner or breeder's judgement call to make.

Cats descended from the African Wild Cat. It is virtually identical to most house cats, but domestic cats are exceptionally more tame, and as with dogs versus wolves, some breeds are unrecognizable from their predecessor.
User avatar #84 to #81 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
the said changes in the breeds were made exclusively to prevent harm from comming upon the animal (as stated by you) and doesn't really support your argument imo.
User avatar #94 to #84 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
It kind of does. People would not keep a pet skunk that sprays - they would get rid of it, where it most likely would die, such as if released - because it would be hard to find a suitable home for it and most sanctuaries are not open to accepting second-hand pets.

It would be difficult and even harmful for both involved.

That's right - skunks are not immune to their own spray; they don't naturally have to live in or near it. It's just as damaging to them as it is to their predators and unsuspecting victims. So yes, technically, it does harm the animal when the animal is a pet skunk.

If you disagree, then stop arguing with me about it. It's clear I know more about the topic but you're probably going to retain your ignorance and stubbornness anyway.
User avatar #70 to #66 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
logically speaking , the next step in your plan would be to remove all reproduction organs from the said animals and all other stuff that might possibly bother humans.

If only that wouldn't kill the species. Oh but what if we could reproduce them in some other way, with some technology? Then maybe it'd be ******* fine?
User avatar #88 to #70 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
I promise you, animals are not going to die out as a species because owners spay and neuter. You sound like the idiot I heard, claiming that he "HAD" to breed his Pit Bulls in order to avoid them dying out.

There are quite literally millions of pit bulls - of all ages, all colors, all shapes and sizes - starving in the streets and dying in shelters every single day. As I type this, more are suffering, dying and being put to sleep right this very moment.

The puppies are so overpopulated that breeders will sell them to anyone and everyone for pitiful prices or just give them away because they are so common - and the majority are not kept for more than a few months, sometimes a year or two. It is rare for one to have a happy hope for the entirety of its life.

In turn, every one of those puppies that goes unaltered past sexual maturity can and often will contribute to the overpopulation as soon as it can breed as well.

It's not just pit bulls. Chihuahuas are another over-populated breed. As are mixes of either. And mixes in general.
And many purebreds too - about half of all dogs abandoned are purebreds, who usually cost someone a lot of money when they were first acquired - the whole "charging a fee to ensure a good home" and "if someone pays for a pet, they will take good care of it" is absolute ******** .

So yes, you SHOULD ******* spay and neuter to prevent needless suffering on all accounts. I'm not suggesting you go and sterilize endangered species - but in MANY cases, it is highly beneficial and necessary.
User avatar #92 to #88 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
when I said " removing the reproduction organs " I ment from the whole species.

The reason there is an overpopulation of the said animals is because of humans and humans should be fixing the mistake they made but not by continuing to modify the animals or killing them (because that's what they do with quite a few stray animals).

Those are simply the efforts with the lowest investment in time required.
User avatar #97 to #92 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
It's not really possible to remove the reproductive organs from an entire species, unless the species is critically endangered already so that there are few enough members left for it to be a plausible task.

You speak as though someone might just up and decide to go spay and neuter all the skunks of the world - or all the dogs, or all of the lions. It doesn't really work that way, and by this point you're just talking out of your ass.

No, a $400 surgery to spay my dog was not the cheapest method. I could have left her to go through heat after heat, potentially breed with anything she came across, perhaps hand off the puppies to anyone who would take them without a care, and leave her to suffer cancer. I know many people whose dogs have lived lives exactly like this.
As her owner, provider and caregiver, I chose not to put her through that, so she went through a half-hour surgery with a one-week recovery period to ensure that she would lead a much better life.
I got my male neutered too. He never had any significant behavioral problems, but I did it for his health and to prevent him from siring any accidental litters. I have no regrets.

And there is nothing wrong with that.
User avatar #107 to #97 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
" investment in time "

if you don't want your animal to suffer any of the said problems then wouldn't you also want any other of the same species not to suffer it?
Just as I said , if it was possible to remove the reproduction organs of an entire species and then humans to produce more members whenever they like via technology would you find that acceptable?
User avatar #126 to #107 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
What in the **** are you even talking about?
User avatar #155 to #126 - Truth (04/20/2014) [-]
Warbob is arguing that it's not moral, or wise, to alter animals for our convenience. I think that warbob fears that the desire for convenience ( i.e., someone says, "i don't want this pet skunk stinking up my home, I'll remove its stink-glands and everything will be better for me") will soon override our morality (i.e., the same person says "i'm going to have my skunk's limbs surgically removed so it can stop climbing into my bed at night). Maybe the argument isn't based on a fear, but I think that sums up what warbob is trying to say.

The investment in!! time!! thing could mean that when we choose things for convenience we are being impulsive, when contrarily we should be deliberate.
User avatar #167 to #155 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
you're pretty close to the point, nice to see a similiar soul amongst this see of red thumbs.
User avatar #168 to #167 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
sea*
User avatar #160 to #155 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Ah, I appreciate the explanation - you seem to be notably better at communicating than Warbob, sadly.
I definitely understand that it is cruel to pointlessly modify an animal in order to convert it into a more appropriate companion for a human - I cannot stress enough; declawing, debarking, defanging and devenoming...it's just sick, as is much of the other treatment subjected on animals, specifically exotic pets.

In all honesty however, I think a skunk with its scent glands removed is really the lesser of the evils, and is generally necessary IF a skunk is to be kept in captivity.

Hear me out: IF done correctly, it's really no different than neutering a dog or cat. Spaying and neutering is advisable not only for conventional pets, but for wolfdogs and tame wolves, pet foxes, the list goes on - including ferrets, which are a reasonably close relative of the skunk - in fact it is essential to spay a ferret for her to survive if she cannot breed.

However, if the procedure is done by some hick with a knife who thinks "Anasthetic" is the name of a Don Bluth children's movie, I could not agree more - that is disgustingly unethical.
User avatar #193 to #160 - Truth (04/21/2014) [-]
I appreciate both of your responses yours and warbob's , and I find your points reasonable, meaning that in the conditions you provided I would understand the necessity by which the lesser evil was chosen. I too wish warbob would communicate his/her ideas more clearly, and would just finish by giving my "peace out" on this thread in a different way: everyone has something good to offer, but i've come to know that not everyone offers it entirely or at once...with this, now, I leave you to contemplate or be guided with whatever you have alongside you, around you.

There. That's sounds a lot nicer and original than just "bye", or "later". More heartfelt. But still... I'll see you all later .
User avatar #171 to #160 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
read his first 2 sentances again.

Perhaps the difference between us is where we draw the "pointless" line.
#148 to #17 - paraplegicdinosaur (04/20/2014) [-]
Hmm, part of me thinks you missed the whole "domestication and training of wild dogs and cats" thing.
User avatar #142 to #17 - zarcos (04/20/2014) [-]
Pets live longer than wild animals.
#111 to #17 - deadlydong (04/20/2014) [-]
i wish obi wan could make you go away
i wish obi wan could make you go away
#114 to #6 - frostbeard (04/20/2014) [-]
or eat one, hope that you have contracted rabbis and go berserk
#154 to #114 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
Eat skunk, turn Jewish.
Dirty skunk-eating-Jews...
User avatar #157 to #6 - toosexyforyou (04/20/2014) [-]
Hello and welcome to this comment thread. I will be your TLDR guide this evening. All you need to understand here is that Warbob is an idiot and every comment of his that you read will drain your brain cells. Go ahead and thumb down all of his comments in this thread without reading them and have a nice day!
#191 to #157 - longtextexplain (04/21/2014) [-]
Excellent work. Listen to this guy^
User avatar #169 to #157 - warbob (04/20/2014) [-]
jump on the bandwagon everybody, start with this comment
#46 to #6 - memeinmycoffee (04/20/2014) [-]
Your house would smell like **** either way.


If you scare the **** out of them
User avatar #115 to #6 - kolpster (04/20/2014) [-]
Get all of them.
Remove stink-glands from all but one.
????
Hillbilly roulette.
User avatar #8 to #6 - rakuraimasuta (04/20/2014) [-]
My uncle had a pet skunk
he said that they are pretty loyal pets
User avatar #179 to #8 - neokun (04/20/2014) [-]
Well, if you could put up with their **** , they know you're a keeper.
User avatar #194 to #179 - rakuraimasuta (04/21/2014) [-]
haha yeah
#117 - Ashtaroth (04/20/2014) [-]
Found this little dude in an aloe plant at work. His momma had been splatted by a car. He wasn't doing so hot. Trying to burrow into this spiny plant, covered in dirt and whatnot. It was so sad to see that I disregarded the possibility of having to bathe in tomato sauce and took him in. Called him "Sniff" and kept him around for a couple weeks while he got his strength and size up a bit. They're so soft it's hard to believe and really not as jittery as you'd think. He didn't mind being held at all. Sometimes he'd flick his tail up at a noise, but as soon as he noticed you he'd be all calm and collected again. Finally released him into a nearby thicket of scrubs and trees (after determining there were no rattlesnakes hiding out in it). Two years later and he still wanders in to say hi occasionally. Still doesn't care if we pick him up or pet him. Somebody above said they make very loyal pets and I don't doubt it one bit after Sniff came into my life.
#120 to #117 - Ashtaroth (04/20/2014) [-]
Couple other pics of Sniff, cuz baby skunks are just adorable.
#138 to #122 - afroadam (04/20/2014) [-]
mfw i read your comment
mfw i read your comment
#5 - windsong (04/20/2014) [-]
Aww! I've always found skunks to be so cute! And just look at those babies! D'aww
Aww! I've always found skunks to be so cute! And just look at those babies! D'aww
User avatar #3 - gelind (04/20/2014) [-]
In my parents backyard there was a litter of skunks once prolly 8+. They moved as a clump and kinda rolled around, super sketchy like. Skunks are weird
#28 - Dember ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #4 - asumfuck (04/20/2014) [-]
Skunks can't even spray until their sexual maturity (averaging 9-10 months) i would cuddle the **** out of some baby skunks,
#10 to #4 - autoxx (04/20/2014) [-]
They can spray almost immediately after birth, they just don't have nearly as much in their glands.
My father was sprayed by a little one like this when he was a kid.
User avatar #11 to #10 - asumfuck (04/20/2014) [-]
I read they couldn't at birth, upon further research you are correct and i am wrong....i do not condone cuddling baby skunks anymore.....and as a side note my dreams are slightly more squished than earlier this evening....
#12 to #11 - autoxx (04/20/2014) [-]
Shhhh, we just won't tell anyone. Hilarity shall ensue.
#32 - lolollo (04/20/2014) [-]
Half of the reason skunks spray is for protection.

It's the same reason why bees sting, and any other animal bites.

Yet everyone's reaction is to start yelling and flailing around like a potential predator.

And I'm just standing there, probably in direct contact with whatever animal they're freaking out about, perfectly fine until they show up.
User avatar #33 to #32 - yunoavailable (04/20/2014) [-]
yeah, my dad did a lot of trapping while I was growing up and when he caught a skunk the way he stopped it from spraying him is talking to it in a calm, higher pitched voice. if you just act calm and non-threatening and back away slowly it's VERY unlikely they will spray you. although that might not be enough in the sort of situation in the OP since there are babies involved
#7 - fistfireace (04/20/2014) [-]
I guess Pepé Le Pew had found the skunk of his dreams and made some babies. ;)
#39 - mutzaki (04/20/2014) [-]
They're so dang cute.
They're so dang cute.
#77 to #39 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
PedoPanda wanted the booty.
User avatar #112 to #39 - shinyscizor (04/20/2014) [-]
get the **** back here you little ****
#45 to #39 - faithrider (04/20/2014) [-]
those are some cute kitties!
#24 - humpingslump (04/20/2014) [-]
It's a black and white cat
User avatar #119 - ishallsmiteyou (04/20/2014) [-]
skunks are cute as **** . Make great pets for keeping thieves away, too. I don't mean the stench, I mean the claws and those ******* razor teeth.
#13 - severepwner (04/20/2014) [-]
Dad's fw just watching
Dad's fw just watching
User avatar #14 to #13 - givememoarpony (04/20/2014) [-]
>dad's an anime girl

damn that's hot

and i get that fw obviously does not mean the actual face. i'm just tired and my mind is a mess right now
#52 to #14 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
spoiler] Chichi ga Loli na Mono de [/spoiler]
User avatar #83 to #52 - orangelightning (04/20/2014) [-]
I think I know what you are referring to and believe me people, that **** is just to weird even for me
#133 to #83 - thefates ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
It's just a funny manga with loli references. Loli is also one of many fetishes, never make fun of a man's fetish.

picture=mfw people say my FETISH is disgusting.
#147 to #133 - flnonymousseven (04/20/2014) [-]
You're fetish is disgusting. nothing funny about it. Loli fethishists are closet pedophiles. fact.
#150 to #147 - thefates ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
True, however, It doesn't matter how perverted or wrong a fetish is as long as you're not hurting anyone. Even a pedo would be okay if it wasn't for the fact that making child porn harms children. Loli, on the other hand, hurts no one. And as such, is completely okay and legal. I don't care how perverted you think it is but me liking loli doesn't affect you or anyone else.
#164 to #150 - thefates ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Bion and hydromatic, you can have your opinion on this but you're clearly bigots. A fantasy doesn't hurt anyone and that's undeniable.
User avatar #170 to #164 - hydromatic (04/20/2014) [-]
Fair enough. I think it's ****** up, but if you no one is hurt by it then there's no real issue.

I am however still allowed to give you red thumbs if i want, am i not?
#172 to #170 - thefates ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
Of course. I'm glad you at least understand the issue.
User avatar #174 to #172 - hydromatic (04/20/2014) [-]
I do to some degree. I've just had some bad experiences with people that are into loli. Some people start out with loli and then move on to CP when they "need more".

Hell i used to fap to loli back when i was 15. But at some point i couldn't really live with myself anymore, so i stopped.

Oh well. Humans are kind of weird.
User avatar #175 to #174 - thefates ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
The only time I ever tried looking up CP was when I was 12, because I wanted porn of girls my age. But by now it has occurred quite clearly to me that child porn messes up a kids life and future. Loli, however, is an appropriate and safe medium for other wise dangerous feelings.
User avatar #176 to #175 - hydromatic (04/20/2014) [-]
I'm glad you understand how much it can mess up a child. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
Sorry to keep up this conversation btw, i should probably just close it out but..
If i had sexual feelings toward real little girls i would probably honestly kill myself rather than risk hurting anyone. Might be weird, i dunno.

User avatar #177 to #176 - thefates ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
It's all just opinion really. Right v.s. wrong and what not. The only definite truth is that your likes should never harm another person and rarely inconvenience them.
I don't think I would go so far as to kill myself but then again, I don't know what situation could cause you to be that sexually attracted to children. In any case I would never act on that attraction.
User avatar #180 to #177 - hydromatic (04/20/2014) [-]
Agree alot with your first sentiment. Something to live by i think.
Anyway, it was just a "what if" thing. I never have to worry about being attracted to a child in any way.
Things that has happened in my life + children that look up to me makes that a fact.

I'm done talking now, lol. Cheers mate, sorry for the red thumb.
User avatar #184 to #150 - thefates ONLINE (04/21/2014) [-]
narufable, do you too disagree with me on human fetishes? If so, prevent a counter argument rather than just thumbing down my comment.
#187 to #184 - narufable (04/21/2014) [-]
What... Now I can not give thumbs down without arguing?? I had never seen someone so thoughtful with their thumbs I no longer answer any more
#198 to #187 - anon (04/21/2014) [-]
Don't worry, well thumb down this faggot (thefates) I do whenever I can until he blocked me. (Xenoquack here)
#188 to #187 - thefates ONLINE (04/21/2014) [-]
You can pick a side in an argument sure, however. We already reached a conclusion to our argument and came to a very reasonable conclusion. You don't go thumbing down a finished argument for no reason unless you're thumbing down everyone in it just because they were arguing and that can be understandably annoying.   
   
 Really though, I am interested as to your reasoning behind your disagreement with me. I legitimately enjoy discussions such as this.
You can pick a side in an argument sure, however. We already reached a conclusion to our argument and came to a very reasonable conclusion. You don't go thumbing down a finished argument for no reason unless you're thumbing down everyone in it just because they were arguing and that can be understandably annoying.

Really though, I am interested as to your reasoning behind your disagreement with me. I legitimately enjoy discussions such as this.
User avatar #199 to #184 - flnonymousseven (04/21/2014) [-]
there is no argument. stop fapping to children.
#200 to #199 - thefates ONLINE (04/21/2014) [-]
No. I'm not hurting anyone by fapping to fake children. Even real looking porn would be legal if it wasn't for the fact that that hurts kids for life. Look at the facts not your own disgust.   
   
 Bigot
No. I'm not hurting anyone by fapping to fake children. Even real looking porn would be legal if it wasn't for the fact that that hurts kids for life. Look at the facts not your own disgust.

Bigot
User avatar #185 to #184 - thefates ONLINE (04/21/2014) [-]
present*
#197 to #185 - anon (04/21/2014) [-]
Stop posting.
#49 - meegal (04/20/2014) [-]
I actually have a pretty funny story similar to this...

>Dad grew up in Brooklyn, New York
>Never really left the 5 burrows so not many animals
>Mom and him move to a suburb near New York
>I don't know why but we had one of those metal squirrel catching cages that you usually keep inside but we had ours outside
>Pic related, the metal cage
>He caught something one night
>Brings it inside
>"Honey what the hell is this?" or something like that
>I was young so don't even remember this happening but mom told me about it many times
>There's a ******* skunk in the cage
>Dad has never seen one before because he's from the city
>She freaks out and tells him to GTFO of the house
#153 - yhamz (04/20/2014) [-]
WHY DO THEY GET TO PET SKUNKS?
User avatar #56 - HailtotheKing (04/20/2014) [-]
Skunks can actually make pretty good pets and you don't even need to take the stink glands out. They are like a great mix of cats and dogs, very snuggly and warm but at the same time they explore your house and try to get into every nook and cranny. They use their stink like a snake uses their venom, very sparingly and only in a life or death situation. Keep them away from a moderate level of danger and they make great house pets.
User avatar #100 to #56 - somethingpants (04/20/2014) [-]
Mainly inside pets, though, because they don't have a very good homing sense. So if you lose it and you don't live in a place where they'd immediately recognize the skunk as a pet and yours if they saw it, it'll basically never be able to find its own way back.
#156 - apulsause (04/20/2014) [-]
Agitate them and then catapult them into your neighbor's yard one at a time during a party and see what happens.
#43 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
Thats not the kind of skunk i thought i'd see on 420
#123 to #43 - ubergoatman (04/20/2014) [-]
To the front page for the day!
#16 - turkaysercan (04/20/2014) [-]
**turkaysercan rolled image** related
**turkaysercan rolled image** related
User avatar #30 to #16 - thedeadlypajamas (04/20/2014) [-]
...You sure?
User avatar #47 to #16 - xmacleodx (04/20/2014) [-]
... I can't argue, purely based on the fact that I have no ******* idea what's going on.
#125 - anon (04/20/2014) [-]
skunks fw
skunks fw
User avatar #15 - mankey (04/20/2014) [-]
I need 4,000 litres of Tomato Sauce and a hose pipe!
[ 200 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)