[hshdhdhj4444]

How many hundreds of thousands of individual unhealthy dogs must be forced to life a life of suffering to make the “breed healthier as a goal” even if that laughable idea is successful?

Why not just not breed unhealthy dogs, adopt the many stray dogs that persist and only once we have empty shelters consider breeding healthy breeds?

Dogs are beings, not toys or decorations.

[peacebeard]

To answer your question honestly, the reason is because "healthy" isn't a binary. There certainly are dogs that are so unhealthy they should not be bred. But on the other hand, there is no world in which all dogs are 100% healthy: if your goal is to say animals should not be bred unless they are 100% healthy, they'll go extinct! Making progress reduces suffering.

Efforts to breed healthier dogs should not be mutually exclusive with efforts to empty shelters. I envision a world where the shelters are empty too: I don't believe it's necessary to stop the efforts to have healthier dogs until after the shelters are empty. You can make progress on two fronts at once!

When you say dogs are beings, not toys or decorations, you run the risk of sounding accusatory. I believe we have goals in common and could learn from each other without resorting to villainizing.

[IAmBroom]

You are positing strawmen. GP did not say healthy was binary, nor that we could achieve 100% health in dogs.

And as for accusing: J'accuse. People who buy puppies that can't breathe properly are insensitive jerks.

[IAmBroom]

You may be suffering downvotes, but your point is worthy. Real dogs are suffering lifelong breathing difficulties, hip pain, and so on, all because of breeding ideals.