It's funny, because when I was in high school, this is exactly the question I asked in a Law class, and everyone just sort of laughed and considered me a crazy person. I think the actual question I asked was "Is it morally ok to tattoo flames on a small hairless dog?"
My argument was that indeed, that it does cause some suffering to the dog, but after it healed, that would absolutely be the coolest dog anyone had ever seen, so it would probably get a huge amount of attention, and considering attention is like crack to a dog, it would be a net positive in its life. Not to say ALL dogs should be tattooed but I digress.
Mostly it's just hilarious to see that I'm not the only person who asked the question, and others didn't laugh at them and call them insane.
he might just have something wrong with his whiskers - that's how they "control" rats when they stick electrodes in their brain to control them with a remote - they trick their brains into thinking their whiskers are being touched so they turn away from the sensation.
but they ignored it
My argument was that indeed, that it does cause some suffering to the dog, but after it healed, that would absolutely be the coolest dog anyone had ever seen, so it would probably get a huge amount of attention, and considering attention is like crack to a dog, it would be a net positive in its life. Not to say ALL dogs should be tattooed but I digress.
Mostly it's just hilarious to see that I'm not the only person who asked the question, and others didn't laugh at them and call them insane.
I'm rather attached to a non-nuclear wasteland