Comments on: Coming Soon: Kitten with a EULA?

By: jojoji

jojoji — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:04:59 +0000

jojojoj

By: HawkShark

HawkShark — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:07:27 +0000

Okay so lets be honest scientifically their clause cant be intended to stop a corperation from “reverse catgineering” their gene… All you’d have to do is a simple cloning, extract a fertile egg from any random female cat, remove its genetic material, and inser the nucleous from any cell of the Allerca kitty. You get an exact fertile copy of your original cat. Now granted your generic cat breeder cant do this, but corperate rivals sure as hell would. As for the moral issues, im reasonably sure that TheDoctor was joking in his statement, i however find 90% of what he said to be true. As for if the gene were actually artificial and spliced in not by breeding, who gives a damn? You dont like it, dont buy it. Picketing a scientific advancement of a method humanity has been doing for centuries is retarded. Furthermore on that topic, the idea of engineering humans to avoid nasty dangerous allergies is something i find perfectly reasonable.

By: Toast

Toast — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:37:20 +0000

Um… Nature’s totally all, “Wait, you don’t like how I did it the first time? Fine! Do it yourselves!”

This is a definate allusion to a Brave New World future, and as much as I like Aldous Huxley’s works, I really don’t wanna’ get labeled dumb.

Those cats have totally messed up noses too. Coincedence? Yeah, probably.

By: LB

LB — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:55:37 +0000

This company is not CREATING anything new, they are merely exploiting natural reproduction to isolate certain genetic traits and concentrate them in a new sub-breed of cat. Others will be able to do the same thing, I’m surprised it hasn’t been attempted before.
To my knowledge no other breed of cat has any legal restriction on it, trying to restrict the propagation of a new breed of cat simply to increase your profit is grossly immoral. And wont work, some smart arse breeder somewhere will do the same thing and start selling breeding stock.

By: Hannah

Hannah — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:18:54 +0000

Besides the fact that this is juuuust slightly twisted, the allergen in cat dander that triggers most people to react is an antibiotic enzyme in their saliva. Without that, the kittycat will have health problems, and won’t be able to heal its wounds as fast as it normally would. Poor kitties.. if you’re allergic and you just have to have a cat, get an allergy shot! This is upsetting.

By: Billy

Billy — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:51:14 +0000

“I’m not fully defending what Allerca is doing, but I can imagine (an would probably join) the outcry if they just gave a cat to anyone with $4000 dollars to spend on one. ”

ROFL.. yeah because usually Every Nut ball that has 4 Grand to throw away on a CAT… is planning to cook it’s ass for dinner, or throw it on the street.

By: Sabre_Justice

Sabre_Justice — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:54:26 +0000

Erm, that’s what we’ve all been on about…

They’re very cute. And I don’t disagree this is a great idea, there are a lot more people than you think who have allergies preventing them from owning cats. As for the neutering… well, I’ve been around cats since I was born, and get along with them better than most people, so I don’t like the idea of des-exing (as we call it here in Australia) too much, but face it- it’s pretty much necessary because you’ll eventually have a lot more cats than you can look after. (both my family cats just had kittens… half have gone feral)

It’s not really that big a deal when you think about it… and eventually they’ll probably make them public domain. Or someone else will.

The middle one is cute, but the white ones look weird… almost like mice..

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:18:09 +0000

I wonder if they make them sterile, to prevent you from breeding your own.

By: Draconis)Wyrm

Draconis)Wyrm — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:50:30 +0000

YAY! Everybody hates everybody!

I don’t see what everybody’s problems are. :P there’s nothing wrong with breeding programs if they make healthier animals, and it’s a plus if the animals benefit something. (Most-to-all of the time, it’s us.) You can not get around human greed, because it’s hard-wired into us and every other animal as a survival instinct, so just shut up about how immoral this is because, really, it isn’t.

^.^ Aww, lookit ‘dem! Dey so cuute! The “EULA” agreement thing seems pretty reasonable to me. “You can not distribute our gene we worked so hard to find and produce, so that we can gain full credit for our efforts and make a little money off of it.” I mean, seriously. People with allergic reactions to kittens should be able to touch something furry with breaking into hives. It’s also a good idea to prevent genetically modified animals - whether bred or screwed around with - from breeding with the normal population. It could have any number of side effects, just about all of them bad.

By: Judecca

Judecca — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:46:35 +0000

I think it’s funny how half of you take the comments of those who are disgusted, and rationalize them with scientific techno-babble to make yourselves sound more impressive. Seems to me people are expressing, very simply, that they disagree. They don’t need a justification through examples of common practice. I mean, what the hell? Just because there’s a line of reasoning doesn’t mean something is valid or right. Oh wait, I forgot. Forums are a breeding ground for
egotistical idiocy. My mistake..

Being politically correct and grossly objective can be even more detrimental than intolerance. Bullshit aside, it’s retarded and wrong.