I wanted to make a post about this article on the main page since I'm banned over there and I think it's kind of interesting. While she was under for spleen surgery, a guy took the opportunity to put a self-described "cool tattoo" on his dog. A lot of people are freaking out about it, but frankly I don't understand why. How much discomfort does it cause the dog really? She was asleep for the hard part, all that's left is maybe some itching and soreness. Obviously the dog cannot consent to this, and in a magical ideal world people would not tattoo their dogs, but here are the reasons I cannot get upset about it:
1) This guy obviously cares about his dog a lot if he is paying for some undoubtedly very expensive spleen surgery. It feels like it's coming from a place of love.
2) The amount of discomfort for the dog is probably very minimal, less than lots of things the dog might do to itself.
3) If the dog could understand what was going on it would probably eagerly consent because it is going to lead to an awesome amount of attention and petting from pretty much everyone.
In fact, it kind of makes me angry that people are getting upset about this because it feels very much like it is coming from a place of negativity towards tattoos in general and lower class people that would get them for themselves/their dogs. Want to cut the tail off your expensive purebred Airedale show dog? Go right ahead Sir Richington Moneypants, we couldn't dream of impeding such a venerable tradition. Want to put a harmless tattoo on your shelter mutt? Oh heavens, that's cruel and we should make a law banning it immediately. I won't even get into the MUCH worse cruelty that we permit to be carried out on livestock...