Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2012, 07:51 PM
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
Leela....Leela....come back to the light...

See here they are, the bruises, some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
28-12-2012, 08:39 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2012 08:51 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
(28-12-2012 07:37 PM)Leela Wrote:  Logica humano: If pets were not allowed, these people, who like to work with/on animals, would still have a job. They would probably work in some kind of "pet patrol" or "pet control" or in the security system. Making sure that no wild animals enter cities, so people stay save. See? And in addition the jobs the animals take would be done by people. Also sorry for the autistic person in your family, but the people are animals, too. For autistic people there may be a fitting human out there, just saying. Taking the easy way out, give him a pet, is lazy. People should help people. Having a pet be in charge of the wellbeing and the mental health of a person is not the right way (as I mentioned previously).
Why would one allocate the same resources used in a relatively safer and more productive work environment, training a working dog, to something like "pet control"? In addition, with the job market being so bare that many people would take pet control as a viable job, what positions would be invited by the numerous individuals that work in more useful careers i.e, training working dogs, to something like "pet control".

Over ninety percent of bio-chemical research would also grind to a screeching halt if we were to relinquish the important role animals play. Billions of our own species would die of preventable diseases that we could easily cure, if we were able to experiment on said subjects. And what point do you make stating we are animals as well? When has that mattered for any other species? Why is it that you value certain species over others? Surely you do not value a bat, a relatively useful and docile creature, over that of your own species?* We clearly do not value other animals more than our fellow human beings, and you will find that we, as a humans, are unique in that we value other species enough to invest vital resources for their welfare.

It is, simply put, silly to assume that it is unjust to put animals to work when we, as a species, have imperative needs that they fulfill. These animals are paid, in full, with what they would be struggling for otherwise. Would you rather have them set free in the wild, letting them succumb to the sickening system that is natural selection? Would you rather have the ever-so vigilant animal control centers put them to "sleep"? I'd hardly say either of those options are any more morally "rectified".

Who said that the pet is in control of my friend's unfortunate position? I am simply saying it is an aid, and unless you have actual experience with the autistic and have to live with them, I suggest you change your stance and stop attempting to pin blame on those who have custody over the child. Everything that you have said is, fundamentally, an emotional opinion with no facts to support it.

* To reiterate, if you were to see a spider in the room, you would smash the living shit out of it. However, if you were to see a stray terrier, would you not attempt to adopt it into your own family? Why is it that one prefers a single species over another? How is that partial judgement justified? What did the harmless spider do to you, other than crawl across your floor to find another dark abyss to kill pests in, over what a dog would do?

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 08:57 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2012 09:07 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
(28-12-2012 07:37 PM)Leela Wrote:  Also these things are not opinions, they are facts. Read again, tell me where I'm wrong.
All right.

(28-12-2012 01:28 PM)Leela Wrote:  Pets as companion:
The pet itself gets nothing out of it. Will it fee loved? probably.
Did it chose to live in this family or with this human? No!
No matter how well you feed the pet, how well you excercise it and how well you keep it clean and warm, it is only there for your pleasure. When you are not at home, the pet is waiting. Even when you are working at home, you are not always with it, there are places where you go alone, for example the bathroom for a long shower, bedroom, office. Other forbidden places like the cellar with all the tools and dangerous equipment. Pets that are being kept as a companion are like having a child. But unlike having a child, they can not entertain themselves very well, they can not be sent to school or daycare. They will be bored most of their lifes, living only for the one or two hours of the day, when a normal working person plays with them, feeds, cuddles, or walks them. The other 22 hours are boring and torture. Like jail, just they did nothing wrong, they had no say in all of this, they just ended up with that human.
Pets like dogs or cats can escape into the wilderness if they wish to do so every time they are released freely into the outside world. Given that they decide to stay with their owners most of the time, it seems unreasonable to assume that they don't "like" being with them. That aside, the assertion that they are bored for most of their lives and that they can't entertain themselves is nothing but an attempt at anthropomorphizing other animals.

(28-12-2012 01:28 PM)Leela Wrote:  Pets with a job:
It is a disaster that nowadays we take animals to do jobs humans should do.
Therapy animals? Police dogs? Military dogs? Therapy dolphins? Horse therapy? Guardians, carriers, couriers.... etc...
All these jobs can be done by people. Why willing burden animals with jobs that they have nothing to do with in the first place? Why do I need an Ox to help me do the fields when there are machines to do it. Why would I send a Military dog in a dangerous place, into it's possible dead (!!) when it has nothing to do with the fights between humans. Giving an animal a job for a human is very unfair!
We use animals instead of humans to complete these tasks because they are firstly cheaper and secondly more efficient. This is the essence of productivity.

(28-12-2012 01:28 PM)Leela Wrote:  Especially service dogs (like for blind people), they are actually trained to guard the person, to help in every situation like bringing the person to the other side of the road safely and such things. People would be able to talk, hand things over properly, help pay in a supermarket and things like that.
It is not too much, to say that animals are taking jobs away from humans, and therefore are raising unemployment rates. Maybe just a little, but even a little counts, in this economy.
No, they wouldn't be able to do that. People only work for comparatively short periods of time (~8 hours) and have the right to take a vacation whereas a seeing-eye dog is available 24/7 and requires no free days.

Other than that, who is supposed to pay the folks who replace these animals?

(28-12-2012 01:28 PM)Leela Wrote:  Pets for food:
Breeding animals for food is an aweful thing to do. They are held in inhumane ways, killed cruelly and eaten and used and partly just being thrown away to rot. This is what the human race became.
Since we domesticated animals like this, and food is easily and cheaply obtainable, people get fatter, lazier, and unhealthier.
If food would have to be hunted down, it would be less easy, less cheap and from the excersize one would get from hunting, the obesety problem would go down on it's own again.
People are not obese because they don't need to hunt food themselves, but because they don't have a healthy diet and/or because they don't exercise regularly. Your solution is not going to fix this problem, since folks are likely going to use firearms for their hunt.

(28-12-2012 01:28 PM)Leela Wrote:  Moral side:
Noone should own another living creature. Pets have feelings and they want the companionship of their own. If it is a pet that likes to be alone, it should have the means of that. Like lions. Lions meet to mate and then they will walk around mostly on their own.
Other animals like dogs or birds like to be with their own. And let's face it, although some people have two or three of a kind, the vast majority doesn't. The animal feels lonely and will never be able to socialize with it's own kind.
Many people take the pet as a child substitude and they do treat them like humans. This is wrong. Pets have different needs than children. They do not need a name, their own room, clothes and many accesoirs. Pet ownership evolved into something pretty perverted.
The majority of people has no idea how to take care of their pets, they don't know when the suffering and the abuse begins and they simply walk over the line, not willing to learn more because it might hurt THEIR feelings.
I don't have a lot to say about this argument because it relies on a whole bunch of unsubstantiated generalizations (bold parts) and your particular set of individually chosen morals (underlined parts), both of which have no factual basis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
28-12-2012, 09:13 PM
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
What Vosur said.

As for what Leela said about names and such, I don't see why it's "perverted." A dog doesn't know that the name refers to itself, it simply knows to pay attention when it hears that word. And it's useful for humans to talk about more than one dog that way. If I could afford to give my dogs their own room, I would. Then they wouldn't mess up my stuff so much. Clothing: where I live, we now have ten inches of snow. Many short haired dogs come from warmer areas. There is nothign perverse about putting a dog in a sweater so it doesn't get too cold in the snow.

And as I understood it, it was wolves that started hanging around humans and domesticated themselves. They'd eat the garbage and eventually people liked having them around as security guards. That's not precisely the same thing as humans deciding to enslave the whole species one day, it was more of a mutual agreement.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 11:14 PM
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
Unsurprisingly the threads derailing, the subject matter is pet ownership. Whereas, discussion of animal testing, working dogs and what have you is all very fascinating it is also not relevant.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 06:05 AM
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
Logica:
If pet ownership were illegal, the market for pet controls wouldn't be as bare as you think. You would have a few officers in every city and town, that would have to check signs of pet ownership regulary.
Yes I would prefer our own race to die over the ones that we exploit. Why? Because WE want to use all these products and WE want to be comfortable and lazy, and we want and want. We also are starting to overpopulate this planet, so a few deaths wouldn't matter, sorry if that sounds heart less. Instead of training animals for deadly jobs, we could simply train people who have terminal illnesses instead.
And yes, I would rather, the animals can live in their natural environment. Take bunnies or guinea pigs for example. All their life they sit in a cage that, no matter how big you make it, will be too small, because these animals are supposed to run around all day. And they like to run around all day, that and the healthy diet outside a cage, in nature, is what keeps them healthy.
And yes, natural selection has a reason. Just because humans found a way to avoid natural selection by now, doesn't mean that it is a bad thing. Animals that do not function properly are sorted out by nature.
About Autistic, you brough them up, I replied.
About stray dogs. I live in Romania, do you know how many stray dogs there are? No, I do not intend to adopt them all! Same goes for parts of spain etc, where stray dogs are very common.
For the stray dogs, they should either be put down or castrated so they simply die out or get scared enough of us to leave.

Vosur:
Quote:Pets like dogs or cats can escape into the wilderness if they wish to
Many would wish to, they just can't. Cats being held in apartments. Dogs being walked on leashes. Snakes being held in glass tanks. etc etc. We have great methods to keep our pets with us. Open your door and let the cat out, stop feeding her, and she will not come back. Same for dogs. Same for all the pets that never become tame in the first place.

Quote:We use animals instead of humans to complete these tasks because they are firstly cheaper and secondly more efficient.
Cheaper is only important because the economy is broken. If you release those animals and give people those jobs, you do something for the economy, you create work places and money that way. More efficient? No. You can train any human to do those things. For example, you don't need a dog to sniff all suitcases in an airport. You either invent better machines that show you what's in the suitcases or you have 5 people who quickly check every suitcase. (i don't care about privacy, our stuff is checked anyway with x-rays, who cares if the suitcase is being opened real quick to make sure you are not importing drugs)

Quote:I don't have a lot to say about this argument because it relies on a whole bunch of unsubstantiated generalizations (bold parts) and your particular set of individually chosen morals (underlined parts), both of which have no factual basis.
Not true. Go to an animal shelter and let the care takers tell you the stories of starving pets, of the ill and sick being left behind, of the older ones or those who don't look cute anymore because they grew up. I am thinking about all the little bunnies being given to 5 year old kids, for easter, because they are so cute, and then the family finds out that these pets give you work, and they give them away, or set them free. I think about dogs being beaten, cats being kicked. That is not an overgeneralisation. I made a remark that there are some people out there who try to keep the pets well fed, and well treated and not bored.
Still that is not enough. When the family goes to work and school for 8 hours a day, what is the pet supposed to do? Some start pacing and evolve ticks, some start destroying stuff like eating shoes, scratching doorframes, some just fall asleep out of boredom. Have you ever been bored enough to fall asleep? That is why most of them do sleep so much.


amyb:
Yes, it is perverted. Alone the fact, as you said yourself, dogs from warmer areas being brought into areas where they wouldn't be able to survive, BECAUSE it is too cold for them. But I wasn't just talking about the reasonable stuff, like if you have such a dog, you put a shirt on it. I was talking about the bags you carry your yorkshire in, the dedicated pet beds, the luxury versions of pots for frigging water. The pet food that is often taken better care of, in production, than food for people. And many more examples like that.
http://www.luxurypetdept.com/catalog/47/...sstrollers
http://www.luxurypetdept.com/catalog/112...llsdogbeds
http://www.luxurypetdept.com/catalog/110/dogmansions
http://www.blogsouthwest.com/files/wp/20...ulldog.jpg
http://www.marcofolio.net/images/stories...dog_20.jpg
http://www.wtfcow.com/wp-content/uploads...ed_dog.png
Not sure how you do not see anything perverse here

[Image: 69p7qx.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2012 02:50 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
(28-12-2012 11:14 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Unsurprisingly the threads derailing, the subject matter is pet ownership. Whereas, discussion of animal testing, working dogs and what have you is all very fascinating it is also not relevant.

I am raising that issue because if one would deem pet ownership an "evil", what would prevent them from perceiving animal testing as an evil as well? It is an inconsistency in the belief.

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  Logica:
If pet ownership were illegal, the market for pet controls wouldn't be as bare as you think. You would have a few officers in every city and town, that would have to check signs of pet ownership regulary.

I do not think you are understanding my point. I am saying why would you create a career that endangers the lives of both the regularly safe pet and the person who would work in said industry. As opposed to creating a safe environment for both parties, you create an unsafe environment for both.

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  Yes I would prefer our own race to die over the ones that we exploit. Why? Because WE want to use all these products and WE want to be comfortable and lazy, and we want and want. We also are starting to overpopulate this planet, so a few deaths wouldn't matter, sorry if that sounds heart less. Instead of training animals for deadly jobs, we could simply train people who have terminal illnesses instead.

So you perceive it as immoral to exploit other species of animal, but your apathetic view regarding natural selection as just? You are not making any coherent, logical sense concerning this part of the argument. At all.

As opposed to trying to create ways to kill our species off to prevent overpopulation, why not strive for peaceful solutions to the problem. You are trying to scrounge up the most remedial positive effects of your view, it is pathetic.

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  And yes, I would rather, the animals can live in their natural environment. Take bunnies or guinea pigs for example. All their life they sit in a cage that, no matter how big you make it, will be too small, because these animals are supposed to run around all day. And they like to run around all day, that and the healthy diet outside a cage, in nature, is what keeps them healthy.

Nature also ensures a violent, hostile environment that would often be inhospitable to said rabbit. The purpose the rabbit would maintain is not to have "enough room", but to survive (which it does quite efficiently with the support of an owner).

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  And yes, natural selection has a reason. Just because humans found a way to avoid natural selection by now, doesn't mean that it is a bad thing. Animals that do not function properly are sorted out by nature.

Incorrect. Natural selection has no reason, and no predestined purpose. It is simply the violent system in which an entire species dies out. Natural selection, if you posses any sort of empathy, is a bad thing the the organisms that are subjected to it. According to your logic, it would be best to strive for the "happiness" of these separate species. What would they find so enjoyable about struggling to survive is beyond me. You are under the delusion that nature is a tranquil place.

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  About Autistic, you brough them up, I replied.

I brought up an instance in which a pet is beneficial to a close friend. You decided it would be the most opportune time to display an incredible amount of apathy and disregard for another human being.

Let me make this more personal. You have said, time and time again, that you want a child. If you managed to have one, and it was revealed it was autistic, would you deprive them of something that makes them truly relaxed and happy (assuming you know anything about the autistic)? I'd think not, especially concerning a harmless thing like pet ownership.

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  About stray dogs. I live in Romania, do you know how many stray dogs there are? No, I do not intend to adopt them all! Same goes for parts of spain etc, where stray dogs are very common.

I am not implying you are to adopt all that you see. I am saying that if you discovered a terrier struggling to survive in your yard, the most moral thing you could do would to assist in its survival. I have a hard time believing that you could throw a terrier out on the street because of your ridiculous false ideals.

(29-12-2012 06:05 AM)Leela Wrote:  For the stray dogs, they should either be put down or castrated so they simply die out or get scared enough of us to leave.

So a total lack of empathy is your solution. Ah, classy, Leela. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 03:43 PM
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
Quote:why would you create a career that endangers the lives of both the regularly safe pet and the person who would work in said industry.
How is shooing dogs and cats out of the city a dangerous job? How is a "pet control" or "pet patrol" more dangerous than social service checking on abused children? If there are reports that someone has an illegal pet, the pet control would go check. Probably with a police officer coming with, just like said social services sometimes do.

Quote:As opposed to trying to create ways to kill our species off to prevent overpopulation
I said you use people who are terminally ill for such dangerous jobs. Terminally ill means that they will die, no way out. So giving them a short training and having them do said dangerous jobs, works faster as they understand speech and diagrams etc, there is no death wasted, and probably the families of these people would at least see some sense, some reason, or purpose in that person's death. Not just "oh it is so unjust that he got illnessxyz" but "He got illnessxyz but at least his death was not meaningless!"

about the bunny example. Every animal tries to survive, so what's the problem to have the bunny survive in it's natural environment?

Quote:Natural selection has no reason
Quote:So a total lack of empathy is your solution.
yes it does. Sure species die out because of natural selection, And that happens dayly. But point is, those species were not strong enough to survive. That is the reason and meaning and purpose of it. And if bunnies are unable to survive in their natural environment they die out, that's live. Most of the species that ever existed on this planet have died out > Natural selection.
That is not aparthy from my side or being irrational, that is how the world works.
And it is not about how enjoyable it is to struggle for survival, it is simply the point, if you can't survive, why should you?
Say all of a sudden there were no electricity and no working system of justice anymore. Would you be able to survive? If so, lucky you, you have earned your place in the food chain. If not, bad for you, good for the whole species because your lesser genes will not be transferred into the next generation. (that was not personal, that was a general "you").
And yes, if I (specifically) wouldn't be able to survive in that scenario, good for humanity, bad for me. I am not excluding myself from anything, as you see.

Quote:Let me make this more personal.
Nope.

[Image: 69p7qx.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 03:52 PM
RE: Debate trial run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
(28-12-2012 09:11 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Since my cats seem to own me does that mean I have to be killed?

I guess so....if you are their pet.

What about humans who keep other humans as "pets?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 06:27 PM
RE: Debate trail run. "Pet ownership should be made illegal"
(27-12-2012 09:24 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  1. These animals are being forced to exist (breeding), and forced into artificial environments to serve their masters needs (mostly emotional). Their entire existing, and lives are just as playthings and emotional outlets for people. They're living dolls.

Wow not much fact but lots of opinion. Animals do not live in artificial environments, at least no more than us human animals do. they were bread to live along side of us to be helpers and companions.


Quote:2. The time, money, and affection should be spent on real people - people who need it, and people who are able to appreciate it, and reciprocate. The pet owner and society at large would be better off if they didn't have pets and were forced to interact with real people.

And I don't think any would agree that there should be laws that force us to spend money or free time. If I want to waste my money on video games rather than visiting friends that's my choice. Or if I choose to masturbate/have a sex toy rather than a girlfriend again my choice. If I choose to spend my money in what other perceive as wasteful that is my right and choice.

Also I believe there are several studies that show that pet owners have better quality of life and longer ones too. And as we age many of the pets we have not only are companions but become aides in our daily lives.


My 2 cents
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: