Owning Pets Is Cruel Debate

[Lote-Tree]

Fifthelement raised a quite a challenging Idea. And that is Owning Pet is Cruel.


I want to say it is not because all animals develop symbiotic relationships with other animals. Therefore it is part of our nature.

So owning pets is not cruel.

[Sweets America]

Fifthelement raised a quite a challenging Idea. And that is Owning Pet is Cruel.


I want to say it is not because all animals develop symbiotic relationships with other animals. Therefore it is part of our nature.

So owning pets is not cruel.

You are a sweetie. This is all I have to say. :)

[SleepyWitch]

And that is Owning Pet is Cruel.


as so often, it's your grammar that's cruel :)

I agree with you in principle. but I guess there's a difference between animals that live in packs (e.g. dogs) and those that don't. dogs probably think of their "master" as another dog and think he is their mummy or the leader of the pack. but what about hamsters, rabbits....?

[Sweets America]

as so often, it's your grammar that's cruel :)

I agree with you in principle. but I guess there's a difference between animals that live in packs (e.g. dogs) and those that don't. dogs probably think of their "master" as another dog and think he is their mummy or the leader of the pack. but what about hamsters, rabbits....?

Is it ok if I think that my dog is my leader instead of the contrary? :D

[TheFifthElement]

Lote, I'll post my original comment for clarity and leave it there. It is a difficult concept, I think, for most people to get their heads round, particularly if they are unable to divorce their own emotional involvement, and the implications of that, from the debate.


The whole concept of keeping any animals as pets is disturbing to me, like a cruel form of long term torture. Imagine, if a man found a woman 'cute', would it be okay to divorce her from what would be her natural environment, her environment of choice, and keep her, effectively, a prisoner without any chance of self-determination, choice or will for the rest of her life, and foist kisses and other such affections on her as though this makes up for the act of subjugation.

I wonder, if it was acceptable or normal to act towards other humans in this way, would we continue to do so in relation to animals? Is it just another expression of our desire to have dominion over something else, albeit largely well intentioned? If dogs could speak would they say 'let me be a dog'?

I say, if you love them set them free. (or perhaps Sting might have said it, but if he did I agree!)

Sorry, just one addition. Change the statement in the thread to 'Keeping humans as pets is cruel'. How much debate would there be?

[Pensive]

What's to worry about cruelty, nothing wrong with being cruel! Muwahahaha!

[SleepyWitch]

off-topic:
Sweets, could you translate the following words for me:
voisin (verbes de sens voisin), devenir, sembler
does it have to do with words that express 'looking', resemble etc?

[pussnboots]

If Fifthelement thinks owning a dog is cruel, I think he needs to back up his statement as to why.
Whats cruel is owning a dog and not taking care of it or owning one for purposes of dog fighting.
I treat my dog as one of the family.
Sweets: you go right ahead and think that your dog is your leader. I'm with you 100%

I see that fifthelement responded as to why he thinks owning a dog is cruel. That is your opinion. On the other hand owning a human like he described is wrong but unfortunately it does occur in life.

[Pensive]

Just wondering if anybody thinks having a baby is cruel too in such a case? A child doesn't ask to be born after all?

[Lote-Tree]

as so often, it's your grammar that's cruel :)


I will try to pass my English Exams one day Sleepy wish me luck :D



but what about hamsters, rabbits....?
[/quote]

We observed in nature the unrelated animals have developed symbiotic relationship with other animals.



Lote, I'll post my original comment for clarity and leave it there. It is a difficult concept, I think, for most people to get their heads round, particularly if they are unable to divorce their own emotional involvement, and the implications of that, from the debate.

Sorry, just one addition. Change the statement in the thread to 'Keeping humans as pets is cruel'. How much debate would there be?


Supreme Being - don't take this personally. But It's Challenging Idea. Let's debate it :D

[Sweets America]

Lote, I'll post my original comment for clarity and leave it there. It is a difficult concept, I think, for most people to get their heads round, particularly if they are unable to divorce their own emotional involvement, and the implications of that, from the debate.



Sorry, just one addition. Change the statement in the thread to 'Keeping humans as pets is cruel'. How much debate would there be?

I agree that I, for instance, cannot divorce my emotions from the debate. If one says negative things about my dog and I, I react like some people react when one says negative things about their mother, for instance.

I don't think my dog is my slave, once again. I am with him and he is with me. If he thinks I am his pet, I am happy with it. He is such a wonderful friend to me. You should see us together, we are like two friends who learn from each other. He watches over me and I watch over him. I am pretty sure that if I proposed to him to stay with me or go away, he would stay. I would see it if he were sad or depressed. It would be translated in his behavior.

I like that I feel maternal instinct for him, and in the meantime I feel as if he were some kind of father to me. I think that being in contact with him enables me to detach myself from my human condition to go towards something that I find more beautiful.

[pussnboots]

well said sweets

[Sweets America]

Just wondering if anybody thinks having a baby is cruel too in such a case? A child doesn't ask to be born after all?

Interesting question. I must admit I have sometimes in the past been angry at my parents for bringing me into this world.
I think that the FifthElement would respond to what you say in saying that the baby, once it is born and grows older, is free. He can go away, while you keep your dog with you all his life. So there is a difference between the two.

Oh, pussnboots, thanks. :)

[TheFifthElement]

I see that fifthelement responded as to why he thinks owning a dog is cruel. That is your opinion.

It is. I only ever stated it as so.


On the other hand owning a human like he described is wrong but unfortunately it does occur in life.

If it's wrong for humans why isn't it wrong for other creatures. There's my dilemma - what's the difference?


Supreme Being - don't take this personally. But It's Challenging Idea. Let's debate it :D

It is Lote, and I do, but it troubles me when I find myself on the side of Rainbow Warriors, and wondering if their extreme intervention measures are the only way after all.


What's to worry about cruelty, nothing wrong with being cruel! Muwahahaha!

:lol:


Just wondering if anybody thinks having a baby is cruel too in such a case? A child doesn't ask to be born after all?

Sorry, missed this bit. Pensive, I do think that having a child is one of the most supremely selfish acts we can commit, and I don't think it is a choice that can be made lightly. I suppose you have to weigh up what the experience of life is worth against the suffering of life and take it from there.

[pussnboots]

[QUOTE=TheFifthElement;511669]It is. I only ever stated it as so
If it's wrong for humans why isn't it wrong for other creatures. There's my dilemma - what's the difference?



I can understand where you are coming from. When I watch shows about the animal kingdom, I sit there and say to my husband "how cruel" the animal kingdom can be. Its just that as a society we tend to react more on human sufferring than animal sufferring. But once again, people may disagree with this. Maybe there really is no difference ?

[Virgil]

Lote, I'll post my original comment for clarity and leave it there. It is a difficult concept, I think, for most people to get their heads round, particularly if they are unable to divorce their own emotional involvement, and the implications of that, from the debate.



Sorry, just one addition. Change the statement in the thread to 'Keeping humans as pets is cruel'. How much debate would there be?

Fifth, you're making the assumption that animals think in the manner of humans. They don't. May I ask if you've ever had a pet?

Here's an interesting side question. Are mentally ill people who refuse to be institutionalized allowed to live on their own, even if they don't harm others? There was a philosophy in the late 1960's and 1970's (sort of presented in the novel One Flew Over The Cukkoo's Nest) that people such as this should be let out. Of course they lived on the streets and created a huge homeless problem. Should these people be aloowed to live on the streets?

[Sweets America]

[QUOTE=TheFifthElement;511669]It is. I only ever stated it as so
If it's wrong for humans why isn't it wrong for other creatures. There's my dilemma - what's the difference?



I can understand where you are coming from. When I watch shows about the animal kingdom, I sit there and say to my husband "how cruel" the animal kingdom can be. Its just that as a society we tend to react more on human sufferring than animal sufferring. But once again, people may disagree with this. Maybe there really is no difference ?

I understand what Fifth says too, and this is why it disturbs me. I never wanted to be cruel with my dogs. :(

You say that as humans we tend to react more to human suffering. Well I tend to react more to animal suffering, which is wrong, I know. I cannot help it. If I had the choice between saving a dog or a human being, I would choose the dog. I know it is wrong and unfair. But this is the way I feel.

[TheFifthElement]

Fifth, you're making the assumption that animals think in the manner of humans. They don't. May I ask if you've ever had a pet?

No Virgil, I'm assuming that we can have no idea what animals think, and believing such means that we should trust animals to decide how it is best that they live their lives according to their own nature and instinct, without human interferance.


Here's an interesting side question. Are mentally ill people who refuse to be institutionalized allowed to live on their own, even if they don't harm others? There was a philosophy in the late 1960's and 1970's (sort of presented in the novel One Flew Over The Cukkoo's Nest) that people such as this should be let out. Of course they lived on the streets and created a huge homeless problem. Should these people be aloowed to live on the streets?

It's not really a relevant question Virgil, this is a matter of human social responsibility towards our own species and, lets face it, we're not very good at that. It's an entirely separate matter to the question of whether humans should interfere in the natural existence of another species.

[Lote-Tree]

No Virgil, I'm assuming that we can have no idea what animals think, and believing such means that we should trust animals to decide how it is best that they live their lives according to their own nature and instinct, without human interferance.


The instinct as observed in nature is a Symbiotic Relationship.

[papayahed]

You say that as humans we tend to react more to human suffering. Well I tend to react more to animal suffering, which is wrong, I know. I cannot help it. If I had the choice between saving a dog or a human being, I would choose the dog. I know it is wrong and unfair. But this is the way I feel.

Years ago there was a article I read about a Mountain Lion (or some such wild animal) that mauled and killed a jogger. The Mountain Lion was later killed. More donations were sent for the care of the mountain Lion cubs then what was sent for the joggers children. So Sweets you're not alone.

[Sweets America]

I know I can have no real idea of what my dogs think about. I tried to guess once, and here was the result: :D

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd35/SweetsAmerica/sophie4-1.jpg

[Virgil]

I'll post this in this thread Fifth, although i mentioned I would look it up in the platypus thread. This follows the lines of what i've read elsewhere. It looks like an exerpt from a book:


Dogs and Humans - How the relationship began
(excerpt from The Intelligence of Dogs)
Dr. Stanley Coren

"...We will probably never have conclusive evidence to tell us how dogs and humans first formed their personal and working relationship with each other, but it is most likely the case that man did not initially choose dog; rather dogs chose man. Dogs were likely attracted to human campsites because humans like dogs were hunters, and animal remains, such as bones, bits of skin, and other scraps of offal from the victims of recent hunts, were likely to be scattered around human campsites. The ancestors of today's dogs (being ever food conscious) learned that by hanging around man's habitations, they could grab a quick bite to eat now and then, without all the exertion involved in actual hunting.

Although primitive man may not have been very concerned with cleanliness, health issues or sanitation, it is still true that rotting food stuff does smell, and attracts insects that will make humans uncomfortable. Thus it is likely that dogs were initially tolerated around the perimeter of camps simply because they would dispose of the garbage. This waste disposal function continued for countless centuries and is still being fulfilled by the pariah dogs in many less developed regions of the world. Anthropologists studying primitive tribes in the South Pacific have noticed that on those islands where people keep dogs, the villages and settlements are much more permanent. Villages without dogs have to move every year or so simply to escape the environmental contamination caused by rotting refuse. This has even led to the suggestion that dogs may have been a vital element in the establishment of permanent cities in that bygone era before we learned the importance of public sanitation. [SNIP]

You can read a little more here: http://www.pets.ca/articles/article-dog_human.htm.

So you can see a couple of things from this. Dogs, although they evolved from the wolf, have completely different psychologies. Wolves keenly avoid humans. And a mutual symbiotic relationship formed between humans and dogs, where each helped eath other. This doesn't even mention how dogs help in herding and hunting with humans.

And yes, being around dogs as long as I've been, and having read up on their psychology, I think I can understand how a dog thinks. Certainly not completely but i would say i understand 80% of their thought processes. Certainly dogs are individuals and make individual decisions. But just like individual people, their decisions are limited to a finite number of possibilities.

[PrinceMyshkin]

With respect to the question of whether our pets, or our husbands or wives, or even our children, want to be kept or to be set free, few of them can be answered definitively - even if we knew how or dare to ask them. Better to question ourselves whether we keep the foregoing with love and respect, whether we would be prepared to let them go if their behaviour suggested that that was what they wanted.

[Virgil]

No Virgil, I'm assuming that we can have no idea what animals think, and believing such means that we should trust animals to decide how it is best that they live their lives according to their own nature and instinct, without human interferance.


But my argument, and that of many here, is that their instinct is to live with people.



It's not really a relevant question Virgil, this is a matter of human social responsibility towards our own species and, lets face it, we're not very good at that. It's an entirely separate matter to the question of whether humans should interfere in the natural existence of another species.
Oh I agree, it's not relevant, but i thought it an interesting side question.

[TheFifthElement]

The instinct as observed in nature is a Symbiotic Relationship.

So Lote, what is your symbiotic relationship with hamsters?


But my argument, and that of many here, is that their instinct is to live with people.

I do understand your position with regard to dogs, but I'm still not convinced on the point of instinct. I suppose this is because I think, if there were no humans, dogs wouldn't live in houses with locked doors, or gardens with fences and locked gates, they would poop where they want when they want, mate whenever and wherever the opportunity arose, they wouldn't be neutered, they'd live in packs, hunt in packs, fight with each other, and whatever else it is that dogs do when they're not exposed to humans. Dogs are raised in human homes from a very young age, and they adapt to it, they adapt to it well. Perhaps if a human child, say a two year old was given over to a pack of wild dogs to raise (assuming they didn't eat it!) it would similarly adapt but we would not argue that it is the human instinct to live like wild dogs live, just because they could.

But then, again, we are just talking about dogs, what about fish, hamsters, snakes, lizards, gerbils, rabbits, stick insects, birds, etc which are also kept as pets?

I would love to see dogs in the wild. I feel privileged when I see a deer, or a fox doing what deer and fox do when they're out and about. But it seems that the human approach is live with us or die. I wonder if dogs hadn't been useful to humans, what would their situation be now?

[manolia]

I believe there is nothing wrong in owning a pet. I am a bit surprised that some people think it is. I believe dogs such as other domesticated animals can't live on their own..so yes it is better for them to be adopted by people. And usually people who adopt animals love them dearly (that is the case with me and my family who consider our dogs, cats and birds as members of the family). It is much better than having them in animal shelters or running wild.
Of course i don't agree with people who want to buy exotic animals like snakes, lizzards and even wolves ...these animals suffer under captivity and are much better in their physical environment.

[papayahed]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3223/051004hpdodogsthinkexhz4.jpg

[Granny5]

Fifth, have you ever had a pet dog? You may have answered and I may have missed it but I would be interested in knowing. I've had dogs and cats all my life and I feel like I know what they think. They seem depressed and upset when I leave and happy when I get home. They look to me for affection and I look to them for affection. We are in a mutual relationship, not owner/slave unless one considers the time demands on me to take care of them as a slave relationship.
My dogs love me and I have complete confidence in this. They wouldn't choose to leave or they would have already left. They are outside several times a day and we are in an area where they could hit the woods or run across a field and get away easily. But they come back on their own and always seem happy to be home. I would never want my animals to be out running loose and being hungry and catch disease that I can have the vet prevent.

[Sweets America]

Fifth, have you ever had a pet dog? You may have answered and I may have missed it but I would be interested in knowing. I've had dogs and cats all my life and I feel like I know what they think. They seem depressed and upset when I leave and happy when I get home. They look to me for affection and I look to them for affection. We are in a mutual relationship, not owner/slave unless one considers the time demands on me to take care of them as a slave relationship.
My dogs love me and I have complete confidence in this. They wouldn't choose to leave or they would have already left. They are outside several times a day and we are in an area where they could hit the woods or run across a field and get away easily. But they come back on their own and always seem happy to be home. I would never want my animals to be out running loose and being hungry and catch disease that I can have the vet prevent.

Well said. :) I agree.

[manolia]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3223/051004hpdodogsthinkexhz4.jpg

:lol: :lol:
bah they are more into lighter reading :p

[TheFifthElement]

Fifth, have you ever had a pet dog?

Yes, I have had dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits. I understand the affection that is felt towards towards animals, and the appearance of affection in return, and I have to reconcile this past history of mine against my feeling that animals should be allowed to be animals, and live according to their nature.


My dogs love me and I have complete confidence in this. They wouldn't choose to leave or they would have already left. They are outside several times a day and we are in an area where they could hit the woods or run across a field and get away easily. But they come back on their own and always seem happy to be home. I would never want my animals to be out running loose and being hungry and catch disease that I can have the vet prevent.

Granny, it sounds like your dogs have got it great but I'd suspect that your situation is more unique and the majority of dogs don't have the kind of freedom that yours do. And it comes back to this point :


Dogs are raised in human homes from a very young age, and they adapt to it, they adapt to it well. Perhaps if a human child, say a two year old was given over to a pack of wild dogs to raise (assuming they didn't eat it!) it would similarly adapt but we would not argue that it is the human instinct to live like wild dogs live, just because they could.

And again, we are back onto dogs. Do you think this is the same for fish, hamsters, mice, rabbits, snakes, lizards, etc etc (I should have this line on cut n' paste!).

This is not about individuals Granny, it's about the bigger picture and how human beings interact with other species. I think that the less we interfere with other species, the better. In your opinion, is this wrong?

[Lote-Tree]

So Lote, what is your symbiotic relationship with hamsters?


None because I don't own pets anymore. I did when I was young.

If I choose to create a Symbiotic Relationship (and don't forget many animals Choose to form a Symbiotic alliances mostly driven by the need of the environment) it would be thus: Hamster will walk around my garden giving me lots of pleasure. It will perhaps eat some of the parasitic insects in the garden. And in return for that I would feed it, look after it and shelter it.

Is that good enough?

[Sweets America]

None because I don't own pets anymore. I did when I was young.

If I choose to create a Symbiotic Relationship (and don't forget many animals Choose to form a Symbiotic alliances mostly driven by the need of the environment) it would be thus: Hamster will walk around my garden giving me lots of pleasure. It will perhaps eat some of the parasitic insects in the garden. And in return for that I would feed it, look after it and shelter it.

Is that good enough?

And huh...you would love it, also, I hope. :) It's important too.

[TheFifthElement]

Lote, Lote, Lote :D



(and don't forget many animals Choose to form a Symbiotic alliances

I think that 'many' animals, do not form symbiotic alliances. Of course if you have some Scientific data to back up this statement I'd certainly like to read it.


mostly driven by the need of the environment)

would this be because humans have driven them out of their environment?


Hamster will walk around my garden giving me lots of pleasure. It will perhaps eat some of the parasitic insects in the garden. And in return for that I would feed it, look after it and shelter it.

Is that good enough?

That depends, you'd have to ask the Hamster. If the Hamster said it was fine with them, then it'd be fine with me.

I'm glad to hear though that it's not one of those other symbiotic relationships that some men have with hamsters. You had me worried.


I think that the less we interfere with other species, the better. In your opinion, is this wrong?

in case someone feels like answering the Challenging question, and not just talking about their dog ;)

[Nightshade]

Lote, I'll post my original comment for clarity and leave it there. It is a difficult concept, I think, for most people to get their heads round, particularly if they are unable to divorce their own emotional involvement, and the implications of that, from the debate.


The whole concept of keeping any animals as pets is disturbing to me, like a cruel form of long term torture. Imagine, if a man found a woman 'cute', would it be okay to divorce her from what would be her natural environment, her environment of choice, and keep her, effectively, a prisoner without any chance of self-determination, choice or will for the rest of her life, and foist kisses and other such affections on her as though this makes up for the act of subjugation.

I wonder, if it was acceptable or normal to act towards other humans in this way, would we continue to do so in relation to animals? Is it just another expression of our desire to have dominion over something else, albeit largely well intentioned? If dogs could speak would they say 'let me be a dog'?

I say, if you love them set them free. (or perhaps Sting might have said it, but if he did I agree!)

Sorry, just one addition. Change the statement in the thread to 'Keeping humans as pets is cruel'. How much debate would there be?

Just wanted to say..sorry but the whole keeping women as pets thing, its not like it hasnt happened in the past .


Here's an interesting side question. Are mentally ill people who refuse to be institutionalized allowed to live on their own, even if they don't harm others? There was a philosophy in the late 1960's and 1970's (sort of presented in the novel One Flew Over The Cukkoo's Nest) that people such as this should be let out. Of course they lived on the streets and created a huge homeless problem. Should these people be aloowed to live on the streets?

:confused: Your not saying mentally ill people should all be locked up or lobotmised are you Virg? Thats smacks of a return to Bedlum days to me.


So Lote, what is your symbiotic relationship with hamsters?



I do understand your position with regard to dogs, but I'm still not convinced on the point of instinct. I suppose this is because I think, if there were no humans, dogs wouldn't live in houses with locked doors, or gardens with fences and locked gates, they would poop where they want when they want, mate whenever and wherever the opportunity arose, they wouldn't be neutered, they'd live in packs, hunt in packs, fight with each other, and whatever else it is that dogs do when they're not exposed to humans. Dogs are raised in human homes from a very young age, and they adapt to it, they adapt to it well. Perhaps if a human child, say a two year old was given over to a pack of wild dogs to raise (assuming they didn't eat it!) it would similarly adapt but we would not argue that it is the human instinct to live like wild dogs live, just because they could.

But then, again, we are just talking about dogs, what about fish, hamsters, snakes, lizards, gerbils, rabbits, stick insects, birds, etc which are also kept as pets?

I would love to see dogs in the wild. I feel privileged when I see a deer, or a fox doing what deer and fox do when they're out and about. But it seems that the human approach is live with us or die. I wonder if dogs hadn't been useful to humans, what would their situation be now?


I believe there is nothing wrong in owning a pet. I am a bit surprised that some people think it is. I believe dogs such as other domesticated animals can't live on their own..so yes it is better for them to be adopted by people..
Im not sure I belive this, I think that if they have had no human contact, any animal can survive in the wild.


I dont belive keeping pets is cruel persay, but even though weve had pets all my life, I dont think I will ever have any other than maybe fish when Im on my own. Pets tend to need attetion and affection and I really am not the person for either.
And yes with one of those massive fish tank fish out to be alright oughtn't they?

[Lote-Tree]

I think that 'many' animals, do not form symbiotic alliances. Of course if you have some Scientific data to back up this statement I'd certainly like to read it.

Research for Symbiotic relationships in the animal world...in google.



would this be because humans have driven them out of their environment?


Not necessarily. They have come into contact with humans. Like seagulls following the trawler.



That depends, you'd have to ask the Hamster. If the Hamster said it was fine with them, then it'd be fine with me.


I have. I have left it outside. And it decided to come inside the house.

[kilted exile]

Research for Symbiotic relationships in the animal world...in google.

I think the problem is that in the animal kingdom a lot of animals also form parasitic relationships.



Not necessarily. They have come into contact with humans. Like seagulls following the trawler.
"When the seagull follows the trawler, it is because they believe the fishermen will throw fish into the sea" Eric "kung Fu" Cantona - cant be the only person who instinctively remembered this



I have. I have left it outside. And it decided to come inside the house.

I wonder about this (of course it would depend on where you & the hamster are) the hamster would instintively look for shelter & if it could find this easily in the outside would it really come inside?

[Lote-Tree]

"When the seagull follows the trawler, it is because they believe the fishermen will throw fish into the sea" Eric "kung Fu" Cantona - cant be the only person who instinctively remembered this


Yes. It was from this I got this :D

And I hate football ;-)



I wonder about this (of course it would depend on where you & the hamster are) the hamster would instintively look for shelter & if it could find this easily in the outside would it really come inside?

If it knows which shelter will provide food and company it will choose the one that benefits it :D

[TheFifthElement]

Just wanted to say..sorry but the whole keeping women as pets thing, its not like it hasnt happened in the past .


Yes, sadly it has happened and probably still happens.



I have. I have left it outside. And it decided to come inside the house.

What, it's in the house now? I thought it was in the garden. How did the hamster get in the garden in the first place - they're not native to UK. Leaving it outside isn't really the same as asking it and getting an unequivocal answer, is it?

I do like this statement, though it needs a little alteration:

If I choose to create a Symbiotic Relationship (and don't forget many animals Choose to form a Symbiotic alliances mostly driven by the need of the environment) it would be thus: Hugh Jackman will walk around my garden giving me lots of pleasure. He will perhaps eat some of the parasitic insects in the garden. And in return for that I would feed him, look after him and shelter him.

Now, there's a thought ;)

[Virgil]

So
I do understand your position with regard to dogs, but I'm still not convinced on the point of instinct. I suppose this is because I think, if there were no humans, dogs wouldn't live in houses with locked doors, or gardens with fences and locked gates


If there were no humans, dogs would not have evolved to what they are. Natural selection would have either exterminated them or further evolve differently.


I would love to see dogs in the wild. I feel privileged when I see a deer,
I'm not aware of any dogs in the wild. Wild African Dogs are actually a different species, despite the name. the only wild dogs I can think of are Dingos of Austrailia. From Wiki:

The dingo (plural dingoes) or warrigal, Canis lupus dingo, is a type of wild dog, probably descended from the Southern-East Asian Wolf (Canis Lupus Pallipes). [2] It is commonly described as an Australian wild dog, but is not restricted to Australia, nor did it originate there. Modern dingoes are found throughout Southeast Asia, mostly in small pockets of remaining natural forest, and in mainland Australia, particularly in the north. They have features in common with both wolves and modern dogs, and are regarded as more or less unchanged descendants of an early ancestor of modern dogs. The name dingo comes from the language of the Eora Aboriginal people, who were the original inhabitants of the Sydney area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo. So they too are a different species from the common domestic dog.


I wonder if dogs hadn't been useful to humans, what would their situation be now? Judging by my vet bills, probably dead. :lol: My dog has the life. She gets exercise in the morning, eats till full, sleeps all day on the couch, and gets cleaned and given medical care. :lol: That's the life of a rich person. I wish I had it so good. ;)

[Lote-Tree]

What, it's in the house now? I thought it was in the garden.


Yes. It follows me around and has learnt that going into the house will mean shelter and food.



How did the hamster get in the garden in the first place - they're not native to UK.


I found it on the streets.



Leaving it outside isn't really the same as asking it and getting an unequivocal answer, is it?


There is the problem Supreme Being. Hamster have not YET evolved a language to communicate with humans. When it does I shall :D




If I choose to create a Symbiotic Relationship (and don't forget many animals Choose to form a Symbiotic alliances mostly driven by the need of the environment) it would be thus: Hugh Jackman will walk around my garden giving me lots of pleasure. He will perhaps eat some of the parasitic insects in the garden. And in return for that I would feed him, look after him and shelter him.

Now, there's a thought ;)


No Hamster no stay he would say :D

[Virgil]

:confused: Your not saying mentally ill people should all be locked up or lobotmised are you Virg? Thats smacks of a return to Bedlum days to me.


And while we're lobotomising, why not conduct all sorts of cruel experiments on them. :p :p

No, I don't advocate any lobotomes. First of all most people with some sort of mental illness can live with family or possibly even alone. But mentally ill people who are a danger to society or to themselves need to be housed in some institution, even if it's against their will. We had this hippie pholosophy get implemented in the US in the early 1970's and it was a disaster. Like most hippie philosophy that gets tried. No one in their right mental state wants to live in the street. They need medical attention, and I'm sure lobotomy is not a current medically appoved procedure.

[Granny5]

Yes, I have had dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits. I understand the affection that is felt towards towards animals, and the appearance of affection in return, and I have to reconcile this past history of mine against my feeling that animals should be allowed to be animals, and live according to their nature.



Granny, it sounds like your dogs have got it great but I'd suspect that your situation is more unique and the majority of dogs don't have the kind of freedom that yours do. And it comes back to this point :



And again, we are back onto dogs. Do you think this is the same for fish, hamsters, mice, rabbits, snakes, lizards, etc etc (I should have this line on cut n' paste!).

This is not about individuals Granny, it's about the bigger picture and how human beings interact with other species. I think that the less we interfere with other species, the better. In your opinion, is this wrong?

I don't think we can lump fish, snakes, lizards, etc, etc in with dogs and cats. Dogs and cats have been domesticated for centuries and I think they depend on us as much as we depend on them. Horses and other draft animals don't survive well in the wild either although I think man is their worse enemy in the wild. If one lets their dog out, it comes back on it's own. If you let a bird out, it's gone! There is a big difference in the different animals that some keep as pets. Wild animals shouldn't be held as pets, but dogs and cats aren't usually wild.

[TheFifthElement]

Judging by my vet bills, probably dead. :lol: My dog has the life. She gets exercise in the morning, eats till full, sleeps all day on the couch, and gets cleaned and given medical care. :lol: That's the life of a rich person. I wish I had it so good. ;)

:lol: perhaps vets are the new 'blood-sucking' lawyers.


I'm not aware of any dogs in the wild. Wild African Dogs are actually a different species, despite the name. the only wild dogs I can think of are Dingos of Austrailia. From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo. So they too are a different species from the common domestic dog.

Different species, same genus, isn't that just a matter of semantics? Like saying a labrador isn't a the same kind of dog as a poodle, but they are both still dogs?


Yes. It follows me around and has learnt that going into the house will mean shelter and food.

so, you wander around the garden all night, and leave the house open all night? I'm surprised it's only the hamster that's come in!


No Hamster no stay he would say :D

:lol: Another disturbing incident of men and their hamsters.


I don't think we can lump fish, snakes, lizards, etc, etc in with dogs and cats.

See, this is where it gets messy for me, but then perhaps that's because I fall into the 'it's okay, or it's not' camp, regardless of the species, or perhaps it's a matter of logic. Lizards, snakes, fish, etc are all kept as pets and I'm taking it from your post (but I could be wrong, no doubt you'll correct me ;) ) that you agree that creatures such as fish, lizards, snakes, birds should not be kept as pets because they are 'wild'. But they may have lived their entire lives in captivity, so are they domestic or wild? Dogs and cats were once largely wild, but humans interfered and 'domesticated' them. So all that's left now, with the exception of a few wild breeds, are domestic cats and dogs. But where animals have been wiped out or their numbers reduced because of human interferance we are actively seeking to reintroduce them to the wild. But not dogs and cats. So this is to me one rule for one, and one rule for another.

But you didn't answer my question which was : I think that the less we interfere with other species, the better. In your opinion, is this wrong?


Dogs and cats have been domesticated for centuries and I think they depend on us as much as we depend on them.

:lol: Granny, I don't know what your cats have been like, but I've yet to meet one that 'depends' on humans.

[Lote-Tree]

so, you wander around the garden all night, and leave the house open all night? I'm surprised it's only the hamster that's come in!


Yes. I am eccentric English Man :D

But truth is this. I have not owned a Hamster. But I did have a heron.

I raised it from a little baby when it fell from a tree and broke one of it's leg (I grew up on a farm). I nursed it to health and raised it myself. And it became attached to me. It roam around the farm side but it still returned to me. When he saw me he came towards me. When I was not around it went looking for me. It is so strange.

Symbiotic Relationship can happen all the time and with unusual animals.

Edit: I also had a baby calf, a mynah bird and bower bird, a cat and a dog. And I know how Symbiotic Relationship begins...

[TheFifthElement]

But truth is this. I have not owned a Hamster. But I did have a heron.

I raised it from a little baby when it fell from a tree and broke one of it's leg (I grew up on a farm). I nursed it to health and raised it myself. And it became attached to me. It roam around the farm side but it still returned to me. When he saw me he came towards me. When I was not around it went looking for me. It is so strange.

Well let me understand, you didn't own the heron. Presumably as soon as it was well enough you set it free? This is different from keeping it as a 'pet'. If you kept it as a pet I'd be quite disturbed.

[metal134]

If it's wrong for humans why isn't it wrong for other creatures. There's my dilemma - what's the difference?
You really don't see the difference? It's pretty obvious. And here are some clear illustrations as to how. If I were to take a person and hold them prisoner, they'd be miserable. When I pulled up to the house, they wouldn't be peekig out the window with an exicted look in their eyes and they wouldn't run up to greet me at the door. It would be like, "oh no, this sob is back". If I let them out of the house (as I used to do with my cat before they started picking them up in my city) they would run; they'd be gone. They wouldn't come back like the cat. The difference is that if you held a person prisoner, they would hate your guts and be miserbale, unlike a dog or cat who is happy and absolutley extatic your very presence. You keep saying , "I understand that, but..." There is no but. That is the difference; that is the ENTIRE difference and it's enough of a difference. There is no more to it on either side of the argument.

[TheFifthElement]

You really don't see the difference? It's pretty obvious. And here are some clear illustrations as to how. If I were to take a person and hold them prisoner, they'd be miserable.

Not necessarily, Stockholm Syndrome shows that people held captive can feel affection towards, and even defend their captors.


The difference is that if you held a person prisoner, they would hate your guts and be miserbale, unlike a dog or cat who is happy and absolutley extatic your very presence. You keep saying , "I understand that, but..." There is no but. That is the difference; that is the ENTIRE difference and it's enough of a difference. There is no more to it on either side of the argument.

This relies on the assumption that you know that the dog or cat is happy. How do you know what the dog or cat is thinking or feeling or experiencing? I bet you don't know what the next person you meet is thinking or feeling or experiencing, and yet you are the same species, and probably share the same language.

I don't know what animals think, or feel. In the absence of that knowledge I think that cats, and dogs, and birds, and rabbits, and so on and so forth, should be allowed to live as they would live without interference from humans. Are you saying that its wrong to let animals live according to their nature?

[Lote-Tree]

Well let me understand, you didn't own the heron.


By nursing to health and raising it I became it's guardian. I became responsible for it's welfare.



Presumably as soon as it was well enough you set it free?


How can you set a baby free. Even it's eyes were not fully open. It would meant it's death if I set it free. Set it free to die? I aint that cruel.



This is different from keeping it as a 'pet'. If you kept it as a pet I'd be quite disturbed.

You don't get it do you?

The effect of nursing it and raising it became attached to me. It always came back to me.

This how Symbiotic Relationship gets established.

What is there to be disturbed about?

I find your use of this phrase rather bizzare considering in our evolutionary past we have such symbiotic relationships with various animals.

[Sweets America]

Not necessarily, Stockholm Syndrome shows that people held captive can feel affection towards, and even defend their captors.



This relies on the assumption that you know that the dog or cat is happy. How do you know what the dog or cat is thinking or feeling or experiencing? I bet you don't know what the next person you meet is thinking or feeling or experiencing, and yet you are the same species, and probably share the same language.

I don't know what animals think, or feel. In the absence of that knowledge I think that cats, and dogs, and birds, and rabbits, and so on and so forth, should be allowed to live as they would live without interference from humans. Are you saying that its wrong to let animals live according to their nature?

I totally agree with what metal says. We would see it in the dog's behavior if it were not happy to see its 'master'. Haven't you heard of dogs who let themselves die after their 'master' has died himself? Sometimes even if someone else takes care of the dog and feeds it, the dogs still lets himself die. I think it might be because of the attachement it had to its master.
Well, it's the same with happiness. It is visible in the eyes of my dog that he is happy to see me. When you have lived with a dog for a long time, you learn to know him, you learn to communicate in a very special way. You would have to be closed to communication to miss that.

And, I find it strange that you use the Stockholm Syndrome, which is a human thing, to apply it to animals whereas you also say that animals do not have the same psychology as humans.

[Virgil]

I totally agree with what metal says. We would see it in the dog's behavior if it were not happy to see its 'master'. Haven't you heard of dogs who let themselves die after their 'master' has died himself? Sometimes even if someone else takes care of the dog and feeds it, the dogs still lets himself die. I think it might be because of the attachement it had to its master.
Well, it's the same with happiness. It is visible in the eyes of my dog that he is happy to see me. When you have lived with a dog for a long time, you learn to know him, you learn to communicate in a very special way. You would have to be closed to communication to miss that.

Oh when I come home from work I get such a celebration from my dog. She goes on and on wagging and rubbing herself against me. She is so happy. My wife doesn't give me such a reception. :D


And, I find it strange that you use the Stockholm Syndrome, which is a human thing, to apply it to animals whereas you also say that animals do not have the same psychology as humans.
Fifth, this analogy doesn't hold. It's border line silly, if you'll excuse me for saying so.

[Petrarch's Love]

I wonder, if it was acceptable or normal to act towards other humans in this way, would we continue to do so in relation to animals? Is it just another expression of our desire to have dominion over something else, albeit largely well intentioned? If dogs could speak would they say 'let me be a dog'?

I'm in the rather unique position of having a pet that does speak.:D What my bird said this morning was "feed, feed" (or maybe it's "seed, seed," his pronunciation isn't the best). In any case he woke me out of a really great dream to go over and give him his food: not only seed but fruity flavored pellets and some chopped up fresh veggies. Then he had a lovely breakfast, refused my offer to come sit on my shoulder, ran around his bird playground playing with his many toys, and finally started saying his name over and over, which means that its time to pay attention to Spenser, so I picked him up. He's then snuggled up on my shoulder several hours while I work on the computer, periodically giving me a gentle nip to remind me to preen the pin feathers on his head where he can't reach for himself. I absolutely refuse to believe that this bird is not living a perfectly happy life. It's also a safer life than he could possibly have in the wild where birds are not always too lovey dovey to each other.


If you let a bird out, it's gone!

Not so! My bird has gotten loose a couple times, both outside and in O'Hare airport of all places :rolleyes:, and he got far enough away that I could see him, but he was disoriented and didn't know where I was. Both times he let out a homing chirp the way birds do in the wild to find their flockmates, and when I returned it and got close enough to where he could see me he flew straight to me.

My first experience with a bird as a companion was a wild dove that roosted across the street from my house when I was a child. Actually, he may have been a previously tamed bird that escaped since he was a particularly beautiful pure white, but in any case he was flying free when he came into my life. I was about 10 or so, and I'd go out every morning to feed the birds in our front yard. After much patience this particular bird began to eat from my hand and then to come to me to sit on my hand and have his wings stroked. It was a perfectly voluntary, as Lote would say, symbiotic relationship between animal and human.

Incidently, I am against forcibly removing animals from the wild to be pets. I figure a wild bird is happiest with the flock it has known all its life. It probably has a mate, perhaps chicks, maybe even bird friends (I don't know) and it wouldn't be fair to take it from the fellow creatures it has bonded to. On the other hand, my pet bird was brought up by humans and has clearly bonded to his human companions and led a pretty cushy life to boot. It would seem cruel to me to just set him loose in the wilds where he most likely wouldn't thrive. That's not to say it isn't possible, but that animals in the wild fight; they attack and/or exclude strangers from their flock or pack; even if they are part of a group they face many dangers and privations that well cared for pets do not.

I think comparing a woman being kept as a slave to animals being pets is ridiculous, but if you're into making human comparisons, how about this one: Let us say you have a man who has lived in a major city all his life where he works a desk job and gets his food from the supermarket. Now all of a sudden someone gets the idea that humans should go back to nature, and he's taken to an extremely isolated rural area in a foreign country where the people all live as subsistence farmers. Then he's set loose to try to live off the land as best he can. Now, it's certainly possible that he'll survive, maybe even do well. Some local people might take pity on this poor city guy and feed him while patiently helping him learn rudimentary farming skills. The people might also figure he's no use to them as a farm worker and leave him to fend for himself on some rough patch of land no one wants where he's likely to fail at sustaining himself. They might also take offense at this stranger coming in and trying to beg something off them and beat him to a pulp. Similarly a domesticated animal being set loose to fend for itself might indeed find a pack of dogs or a flock of birds and integrate itself and do fine, but the odds are that it won't survive, or will have a very tough time surviving.

[Virgil]

Let us say you have a man who has lived in a major city all his life where he works a desk job and gets his food from the supermarket. Now all of a sudden someone gets the idea that humans should go back to nature, and he's taken to an extremely isolated rural area in a foreign country where the people all live as subsistence farmers. Then he's set loose to try to live off the land as best he can.

I say let that slacker starve to death. :D If he can't farm or hunt then he's not a real human being. Office work is mutating us from being real humans. :p :lol:

[metal134]

Not necessarily, Stockholm Syndrome shows that people held captive can feel affection towards, and even defend their captors.



This relies on the assumption that you know that the dog or cat is happy. How do you know what the dog or cat is thinking or feeling or experiencing? I bet you don't know what the next person you meet is thinking or feeling or experiencing, and yet you are the same species, and probably share the same language.

I don't know what animals think, or feel. In the absence of that knowledge I think that cats, and dogs, and birds, and rabbits, and so on and so forth, should be allowed to live as they would live without interference from humans. Are you saying that its wrong to let animals live according to their nature?
Sorry, I'm just still not seeing what the problem is.

[TheFifthElement]

Perhaps then I am on my own in thinking that creatures, all creatures whether human or otherwise, should be self-determining.

Well, me and Greenpeace.


And, I find it strange that you use the Stockholm Syndrome, which is a human thing, to apply it to animals whereas you also say that animals do not have the same psychology as humans.

I didn't. If you read the post it was in response to the statement that :


If I were to take a person and hold them prisoner, they'd be miserable.


Fifth, this analogy doesn't hold. It's border line silly, if you'll excuse me for saying so.

Virgil, see above.

The reference to Stockholm Syndrome is an analogy, for illustrative purposes only - I don't know what animals think, or feel. I don't assume that because they appear happy that this means they are happy.

Taken from Wikipedia:


Starting in 1950, for example, African Americans petitioned well-known race liberals Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morison to revise their popular textbook, Growth of the American Republic, which declared that the American slave—or "Sambo," as the text called him—was "adequately fed, well cared for, and apparently happy."

If we can make this mistake with humans, can no one here even entertain the possibility that we have made a similar mistake with pets (Lote - pets being different from a symbiotic relationship, just so we're clear).



It would seem cruel to me to just set him loose in the wilds where he most likely wouldn't thrive. That's not to say it isn't possible, but that animals in the wild fight; they attack and/or exclude strangers from their flock or pack; even if they are part of a group they face many dangers and privations that well cared for pets do not.

Petrarch, I agree. Domestication of animals creates a problem not least of which is that there isn't a viable alternative solution for these creatures. To undo it would need to be a gradual thing but I think at the least we could agree to :

1 - not place any barriers to the animal coming and going as it chooses, i.e it does not require a human to let it in or out of the home or the grounds

2- don't interfere with its reproductive system

3- don't apply 'discipline' to it for doing things like pooping on the carpet.

4- don't separate the young from their mother until such time as the young would normally leave anyway

if then creature chooses to remain in the company of humans, then this I would accept as a relationship of choice. Lote, I see this as the symbiotic relationship to which you refer. Different entirely from pet ownership.

[manolia]

Hey petrarch, nice story :) Thanks for sharing. I agree with what you say.

I had similar experience with my cats. Every time they were left outside the house they were trying to force their way back in at all costs :lol: ...not to mention that a cat alone in the streets runs the danger of being runned over by a car ;) And perhaps if they were let loose in the wild they would be easy food for larger carnivorous animals..and i am not sure if they would be capable of proccuring their food either.


Perhaps then I am on my own in thinking that creatures, all creatures whether human or otherwise, should be self-determining.

No you aren't. The first time i heard a similar idea was from my cousin who told me that in her opinion having pets is a human act of selfishness..because we feel alone and isolated and we need to feel that somebody needs us and loves us unconditionally.

[Lote-Tree]

(Lote - pets being different from a symbiotic relationship, just so we're clear).


I want you to know how Symbiotic Relationship got Established in our evolutionary past. And how this can be still established and is being established. There is nothing disturbing about it at all. This relationship has further evolved into keeping pets.

I think to equate pet keeping with Human Slavery may be false because of this: Slaves were kept for the material benefit of the owner. Pets are not in that category I think because most pets rarely provide any material benefit to the owner.

[Sweets America]

Oh when I come home from work I get such a celebration from my dog. She goes on and on wagging and rubbing herself against me. She is so happy. My wife doesn't give me such a reception. :D

In the meantime it would be strange to have your wife rubbing herself against you and licking your face. :eek: :D
I remember when I first met my Calif (the spaniel). He was not a puppy, he was a little older. My parents had made the surprise to me. I opended the door to the house and there he was. He immediately jumped on me and started to lick my face frantically. I thought right away that we were going to love each other very much. I was right. He's an old dog now, and such a sweet person. :)


Fifth, this analogy doesn't hold. It's border line silly, if you'll excuse me for saying so.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem is that whatever we might say, Fifth will always find a solution against it. It's just like psychologists who tell you that you have this or that problem, and when you tell them no, they tell you that it's because you have repressed it. :D

[Shea]

I've not read this whole discussion, but has anyone mentioned the Greyfriar's Bobby yet? That was pure doggy loyalty!! I saw the little statue they put up for the dog when I went to Edinborough.

Here's the story:


Bobby belonged to John Gray, who worked for the Edinburgh City Police as a night watchman, and the two were inseparable for approximately two years.[1] Then, on 15 February 1858, Gray died of tuberculosis. He was buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard, the graveyard surrounding Greyfriars Kirk in the Old Town of Edinburgh. Bobby, who survived John Gray by 14 years, is said to have spent the rest of his life sitting on his master's grave. A more realistic account has it that he spent a great deal of time at Gray's grave, but that he left regularly for meals at a restaurant beside the graveyard, and may have spent colder winters in nearby houses.

In 1867, when it was pointed out that an unowned dog should be destroyed, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Sir William Chambers (who was also a director of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), paid for a renewal of Bobby's licence, making him the responsibility of the city council.

Bobby died in 1872 and could not be buried within the cemetery itself, since it was consecrated ground; instead he was buried just inside the gate of Greyfriars Kirkyard, not far from John Gray's grave.

[Sweets America]

I've not read this whole discussion, but has anyone mentioned the Greyfriar's Bobby yet? That was pure doggy loyalty!! I saw the little statue they put up for the dog when I went to Edinborough.

Here's the story:

Ah, what a sweet story. :) :)

[Granny5]

:lol: perhaps vets are the new 'blood-sucking' lawyers.



Different species, same genus, isn't that just a matter of semantics? Like saying a labrador isn't a the same kind of dog as a poodle, but they are both still dogs?



so, you wander around the garden all night, and leave the house open all night? I'm surprised it's only the hamster that's come in!



:lol: Another disturbing incident of men and their hamsters.



See, this is where it gets messy for me, but then perhaps that's because I fall into the 'it's okay, or it's not' camp, regardless of the species, or perhaps it's a matter of logic. Lizards, snakes, fish, etc are all kept as pets and I'm taking it from your post (but I could be wrong, no doubt you'll correct me ;) ) that you agree that creatures such as fish, lizards, snakes, birds should not be kept as pets because they are 'wild'. But they may have lived their entire lives in captivity, so are they domestic or wild? Dogs and cats were once largely wild, but humans interfered and 'domesticated' them. So all that's left now, with the exception of a few wild breeds, are domestic cats and dogs. But where animals have been wiped out or their numbers reduced because of human interferance we are actively seeking to reintroduce them to the wild. But not dogs and cats. So this is to me one rule for one, and one rule for another.

But you didn't answer my question which was : I think that the less we interfere with other species, the better. In your opinion, is this wrong?



:lol: Granny, I don't know what your cats have been like, but I've yet to meet one that 'depends' on humans.

I don't know how to do the quote with just a line or too, sorry.:lol:
But wild animals, lions, tigers, bears, snakes, lizards, etc are always wild. They may be cute and cuddly when they are little, but they will always, according to experts, revert to their wild nature. Dogs and cats don't. Now if a cat or dog is abandoned and left to go hungry they may become wild, but with love and care they can become pets again. Cats are independent by nature but they are loving and I've never had a cat that would attack except to play. You are correct, in my opinion, that we should leave wild animals along and not interfere with them in their natural habitat except to protect them from poachers. I have a problem with zoos because of the way I feel about keeping wild animals in their natural habitat. If dogs and cats were to be let out into the wild now, there would be so many of them that we would have hunting seasons for them to control the population like they do deer. Can you imagine millions of dogs and cats running around wild?

[TheFifthElement]

By nursing to health and raising it I became it's guardian. I became responsible for it's welfare.

How can you set a baby free. Even it's eyes were not fully open. It would meant it's death if I set it free. Set it free to die? I aint that cruel.


My point here Lote was that you must have set it free eventually? I took this as implied because you said that the heron came back to you, which is fine. If you kept the heron after it was well enough to fend for itself, and this occurred in UK, then you were breaking the law. According to the law this is the situation :


It is not an offence to take a disabled protected bird for the purpose of tending it and returning it to the wild or to kill such an animal if there is no reasonable chance of recovery.

(this was taken from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website.)



I If dogs and cats were to be let out into the wild now, there would be so many of them that we would have hunting seasons for them to control the population like they do deer. Can you imagine millions of dogs and cats running around wild?

Granny, I agree with this. I said, in response to a comment made by Petrarchs Love, the following:


Petrarch, I agree. Domestication of animals creates a problem not least of which is that there isn't a viable alternative solution for these creatures. To undo it would need to be a gradual thing but I think at the least we could agree to :

1 - not place any barriers to the animal coming and going as it chooses, i.e it does not require a human to let it in or out of the home or the grounds

2- don't interfere with its reproductive system

3- don't apply 'discipline' to it for doing things like pooping on the carpet.

4- don't separate the young from their mother until such time as the young would normally leave anyway

I'd be interested in your views on whether this would be, in your opinion, an acceptable test of the 'relationship of choice' as opposed to my concern which is that it might not be, and in the absence of a common language the inability to know. Where I find difficulty in the concept of 'relationship of choice' when this involves locked doors, along with other things which, in my opinion, overstep the mark of 'symbiosis'.

This would mean that animals which, to be kept, had to be kept in a cage of some description, tank, or so on could no longer be kept as pets. There would have to be a commitment then that those already in captivity would have to be properly cared for until the end of their natural lives, as you and Petrarch have said you cannot just release them into the wild. There would also have to be a long term and carefully managed programme of reitroducing those creatures into the wild, much as is happening with beavers and (hopefully) wolves in Scotland.

I'd be interested in your views on that point, and everyone else's, actually.

[Lote-Tree]

I took this as implied because you said that the heron came back to you, which is fine.


That is my point! Animals get attached to humans. That is why they come back. They no longer choose to go to the wild.

And this is what I am getting at. That Human-Animal Symbiotic Relationship occur in this fashion. And there is nothing disturbing about it.



If you kept the heron after it was well enough to fend for itself, and this occurred in UK, then you were breaking the law. According to the law this is the situation:


There is no Law to stop Animals forming Symbiotic Relationship with humans.

[Sweets America]

If dogs and cats were to be let out into the wild now, there would be so many of them that we would have hunting seasons for them to control the population like they do deer. Can you imagine millions of dogs and cats running around wild?

I really disagree with you here. Why would human beings have the right to consider that there are too many of this or that animal?? It sounds so wrong.
This is terrible. Why would we kill animals because of their number? Do animals kill human beings because they are too many humans on the planet?

[TheFifthElement]

That is my point! Animals get attached to humans. That is why they come back. They no longer choose to go to the wild.
And this is what I am getting at. That Human-Animal Symbiotic Relationship occur in this fashion. And there is nothing disturbing about it.

There is no Law to stop Animals forming Symbiotic Relationship with humans.

Lote, weird as this may sound I think we agree, though I'm never too sure as my 'Loteish' is improving but still a little rusty. So, let me explain.

I'm in no way uncomfortable with animals and humans forming symbiotic relationships.

Pet keeping and symbiosis are not the same. Pet keeping is a matter of ownership, symbiosis is not.

If animal/humans relations were like so :

Humans do not in relation to their animal symbiote:
1 - place any barriers to the animal coming and going as it chooses, i.e it does not require a human to let it in or out of the home or the grounds

2- interfere with its reproductive system

3- apply 'discipline' to it for doing things like pooping on the carpet.

4- separate the young from their mother until such time as the young would normally leave anyway

(and I may have missed some things, but these were the ones that struck me as being somehow fundamentally beyond the boundaries of a relationship of choice) then this would seem, to me to be evidence of true symbiosis, and if this is what is happening then fine, let it be.

Is this, in any way, clearer?


I really disagree with you here. Why would human beings have the right to consider that there are too many of this or that animal?? It sounds so wrong.
This is terrible. Why would we kill animals because of their number? Do animals kill human beings because they are too many humans on the planet?

Sweets, I completely agree with your point. You can't take the step from 'domesticated' to 'wild' in one leap and I think it would be wrong to solutionise the problem by simply killing the animals off. On the whole, I'd like them to be self-determining, not dead! It would have to be a gradual movement, responsibly and carefully managed, and for those animals that 'choose' to live with humans (as Virgil has alluded to) they should still be able to do so, subject to some reasonable ground rules (see above).

I would be interested in your views on the proposed ground rules.

[Virgil]

In the meantime it would be strange to have your wife rubbing herself against you and licking your face. :eek: :D


Oh she does that when i come to bed. :D

[Sweets America]

Oh she does that when i come to bed. :D

I somehow knew it. :D God, now I am having a strange image on my mind. :D Please keep the rest to yourself. :D

[Virgil]

I somehow knew it. :D God, now I am having a strange image on my mind. :D Please keep the rest to yourself. :D

Well I think you can imagine the rest. :D

[Sweets America]

Fifth, let me tell you something.

The thing is...if I didn't have this strong love for dogs and need to be with them, if I had not experienced the joy they give me, I would totally agree with your point. The thing is that I am so emotional on that question that I cannot be objective. I hate that I cannot be objective.

Of course everything you said is appropriate, and if I were stronger, if I didn't have this weakness of my emotional side, I would back up everything you said, and I would defend you view, because what you say is fair and you are defending freedom and you are saying that we, humans, do not have any right on other species.

But, even thought I usually make the effort to be objective and as fair as I can about everything, here, when it comes to dogs, I just cannot. It is too difficult for me to accept that my dog should be left living in the wild, because I love him too much and I cannot separate myself from him.

I think your ideas are right and fair, but I will go on going against them because I cannot help it. You are just stronger than me on this point because you can detach yourself from your feelings.
I know it is selfish to keep a dog, to take it away from its parents, but I reassure myself in clinging to the fact that my dog seems to be happy with me. I so hope he is. I give him all my love.

If for instance you could make a law saying that no one has the right to own a dog, I would think it is fair to the dogs because we never ask them their consent before taking them, but I would above all be terribly angry at you because that would ruin a great part of the joy and love I receive in my life. I just hate that this joy and love started with an act of selfishness.

Anyway, I just wanted you to know that even if I will go on defend my views according to my knowledge of my own dog and the behavior he shows me, it will not mean that I think you are wrong, because I know you are not really.

[Lote-Tree]

I'm in no way uncomfortable with animals and humans forming symbiotic relationships.


Good. Thats a start.



Pet keeping is a matter of ownership, symbiosis is not.


Now you think about this. Think how these Relationship Evolved.

Pet Keeping became extention of that.



Humans do not in relation to their animal symbiote:
1 - place any barriers to the animal coming and going as it chooses, i.e it does not require a human to let it in or out of the home or the grounds


So you want Animal-Human relationship to be on their own terms? Like animal comes to your house and poops on your carpet and leaves? But the poop might carry disease and kill you :D



2- interfere with its reproductive system


So you want animals breed like mad jepordising it's own survival? :D



3- apply 'discipline' to it for doing things like pooping on the carpet.


If a human came to your house and pooped on your carpet I bet you will be mightily unpleased. And you would severly tell him or her off - that would be classed as discipline :D



4- separate the young from their mother until such time as the young would normally leave anyway


In nature those young would have mostly died.

[TheFifthElement]

Fifth, let me tell you something.

The thing is...if I didn't have this strong love for dogs and need to be with them, if I had not experienced the joy they give me, I would totally agree with your point. The thing is that I am so emotional on that question that I cannot be objective. I hate that I cannot be objective.

Of course everything you said is appropriate, and if I were stronger, if I didn't have this weakness of my emotional side, I would back up everything you said, and I would defend you view, because what you say is fair and you are defending freedom and you are saying that we, humans, do not have any right on other species.

But, even thought I usually make the effort to be objective and as fair as I can about everything, here, when it comes to dogs, I just cannot. It is too difficult for me to accept that my dog should be left living in the wild, because I love him too much and I cannot separate myself from him.

I think your ideas are right and fair, but I will go on going against them because I cannot help it. You are just stronger than me on this point because you can detach yourself from your feelings.
I know it is selfish to keep a dog, to take it away from its parents, but I reassure myself in clinging to the fact that my dog seems to be happy with me. I so hope he is. I give him all my love.

If for instance you could make a law saying that no one has the right to own a dog, I would think it is fair to the dogs because we never ask them their consent before taking them, but I would above all be terribly angry at you because that would ruin a great part of the joy and love I receive in my life. I just hate that this joy and love started with an act of selfishness.

Anyway, I just wanted you to know that even if I will go on defend my views according to my knowledge of my own dog and the behavior he shows me, it will not mean that I think you are wrong, because I know you are not really.


Sweets, I really appreciate your honesty. I understand that the question is a challenging one - it's not an attack on pet owners per se, just pet owning. I think, from what you have said, that you understand this. I don't doubt for a minute that you aren't loving and caring towards your dogs. Thank you for making these comments.



So you want Animal-Human relationship to be on their own terms? Like animal comes to your house and poops on your carpet and leaves? But the poop might carry disease and kill you :D

Yes, I think that if you are saying that human/animal relation is symbiotic, and it is the animals choice to live with humans then it would be on both our terms. I don't have to let the animal in, and it doesn't have to live with me. If I let it in and it poops on the floor then I can clean it up, it's me that doesn't want it there after all. I think it is probably a moot point though - from my experience of cats, if the door is open they poop outside anyway.


So you want animals breed like mad jepordising it's own survival? :D

I want animals to decide how much they breed. I think Sweets made a similar point to this effect, here :


Why would human beings have the right to consider that there are too many of this or that animal?? It sounds so wrong.


If a human came to your house and pooped on your carpet I bet you will be mightily unpleased. And you would severly tell him or her off - that would be classed as discipline :D

I thought we couldn't compare human psyche with animal psyche? I don't leave my door open for humans to come in a poop on my carpet, but then most of my friend's parents taught them to use a toilet. Animals don't have toilets in the way that we do, they poop on the floor. Back to point 1 above. You probably didn't read it anyway.


In nature those young would have mostly died.

What's that got to do with anything.

So, do I take it that you don't believe animals should be self determining?

[Lote-Tree]

Yes, I think that if you are saying that human/animal relation is symbiotic, and it is the animals choice to live with humans then it would be on both our terms.


Both terms that does not kill each other?



I don't have to let the animal in, and it doesn't have to live with me. If I let it in and it poops on the floor then I can clean it up, it's me that doesn't want it there after all. I think it is probably a moot point though - from my experience of cats, if the door is open they poop outside anyway.


So why raise this point in the first place?



I want animals to decide how much they breed.


Even it is becomes deadly to others?



I thought we couldn't compare human psyche with animal psyche?


I thought thats what you were doing?

That I need to ask whether my heron wants to stay with me or not.



I don't leave my door open for humans to come in a poop on my carpet, but then most of my friend's parents taught them to use a toilet.


Yes. And like a parent we teach animals to poop correctly so that their poop does not affect either the animal or the human or others. :D



What's that got to do with anything.


Everything. We have compassion. Animals it's hard to see if such things exists.



So, do I take it that you don't believe animals should be self determining?

I told you. When they choose to remain with a human they have just done that.

[Sweets America]

Sweets, I really appreciate your honesty. I understand that the question is a challenging one - it's not an attack on pet owners per se, just pet owning. I think, from what you have said, that you understand this. I don't doubt for a minute that you aren't loving and caring towards your dogs. Thank you for making these comments

Thank you. The question really disturbed me, you know. Prince can tell you I spent part of the other day crying over it, because I was wondering about so many things. What if my dogs never loved me? How could I take them with me out of selfishness? Really, a lot of what you said made me feel terrible about myself because I am sure you are right if we take things objectively.

And it is just unbearable to me that I could do that to dogs. I still know (or I guess) how much my doggy loves me though, and I guess I will just go on loving him as much as I can and take care of him so that he is happy even if he is not free.
I think this is my weakness, as I said, because dogs are a source of love and happiness to me, and I just need them, I feel it in my guts.


Animals don't have toilets in the way that we do, they poop on the floor.

Well, I had a cat who peed directly in the toilets! :lol: He just sat there and did like humans!

I am thinking: do you know the French movie called Baxter? It's about a dog, we hear his thoughts and actually this dog just hates human beings. He is cynical and even a little perverse. (he kills his master, an old woman, and after that he tries to drown a baby!). It is a strange movie, I've only seen parts of it.

[TheFifthElement]

So why raise this point in the first place?

I raised the point that creatures who live with us as friends, should not be disciplined like subordinates. You're the one who's hung up about pooping ;)


I thought thats what you were doing?

Nope, I have always maintained that I don't know what animals think.


Yes. And like a parent we teach animals to poop correctly so that their poop does not affect either the animal or the human or others. :D

hung up about poop ;)

Define 'pooping correctly'.


Everything. We have compassion. Animals it's hard to see if such things exists.

So it is compassion to separate young from their mother before they are ready? This was the point you were justifying, as so:






Humans do not in relation to their animal symbiote:

4- separate the young from their mother until such time as the young would normally leave anyway

In nature those young would have mostly died.



I told you. When they choose to remain with a human they have just done that.

Indeed, so no need to lock them in, they will stay of their own volition.


Thank you. The question really disturbed me, you know. Prince can tell you I spent part of the other day crying over it, because I was wondering about so many things. What if my dogs never loved me? How could I take them with me out of selfishness? Really, a lot of what you said made me feel terrible about myself because I am sure you are right if we take things objectively.

Sweets, there is no reason to feel terrible about yourself. If you ever have kids you'll find yourself asking the exact same questions. The issue is much wider than one individual, if the social majority accepted the reasoning then it would demand complete social change, and you couldn't just toss domesticated animals onto the street. At a fundamental level human society would have to decide whether they should, or shouldn't keep animals as pets. If a decision was taken that humans should no longer do this, that doesn't mean that everyone who did keep pets before (which would be the majority) has done something wrong, because at the time it was wasn't wrong, it was accepted. In terms of 'right' and 'wrong' you could only judge how people behaved towards those animals when it was accepted that they could be kept as pets. In this respect you have treated your pets with love and care. You have not wished any cruelty on them, and in that respect, your conscience should be entirely clear.

For my own part, I don't feel that my conscience will be clear unless we opened the doors, followed a few basic principles, perhaps those that I suggested, and see if the animals stay. Perhaps that is the fault of my questioning nature, and my demand for unequivocal proof - feel free to curse it (I do!).


Well, I had a cat who peed directly in the toilets! :lol: He just sat there and did like humans!


Yes, I have also seen this on TV. One of my former cats went through a phase of pooping on the kitchen worktop, or in the sink. I have no idea why she did it, there was a cat flap so she was free to go outside. Before Lote leaps in I didn't discipline her for it, just cleaned it up, but I was quite worried about her for a while. Eventually she just stopped. I have no idea why.


I am thinking: do you know the French movie called Baxter? It's about a dog, we hear his thoughts and actually this dog just hates human beings. He is cynical and even a little perverse. (he kills his master, an old woman, and after that he tries to drown a baby!). It is a strange movie, I've only seen parts of it.

I haven't seen it. Perhaps I should look it up, thanks.

[Sweets America]

Sweets, there is no reason to feel terrible about yourself. If you ever have kids you'll find yourself asking the exact same questions. The issue is much wider than one individual, if the social majority accepted the reasoning then it would demand complete social change, and you couldn't just toss domesticated animals onto the street. At a fundamental level human society would have to decide whether they should, or shouldn't keep animals as pets. If a decision was taken that humans should no longer do this, that doesn't mean that everyone who did keep pets before (which would be the majority) has done something wrong, because at the time it was wasn't wrong, it was accepted. In terms of 'right' and 'wrong' you could only judge how people behaved towards those animals when it was accepted that they could be kept as pets. In this respect you have treated your pets with love and care. You have not wished any cruelty on them, and in that respect, your conscience should be entirely clear.

Yes but the fact that it is accepted in our society today is not really an excuse. But I still see what you mean. Anyway, I know I behave a good way with my doggy, that is a consolation. :)



For my own part, I don't feel that my conscience will be clear unless we opened the doors, followed a few basic principles, perhaps those that I suggested, and see if the animals stay. Perhaps that is the fault of my questioning nature, and my demand for unequivocal proof - feel free to curse it (I do!).

I am pretty sure that my dog would stay with me if I asked him today, because he has spent years with me and I think he is attached to me. The thing we cannot know is if he would have accepted to stay with me at the very beginning of his life, or if he would have preferred being as a wild animal. I wonder if dogs have a natural tendency to like being with humans since they have been with us for a long time in history.


Yes, I have also seen this on TV. One of my former cats went through a phase of pooping on the kitchen worktop, or in the sink. I have no idea why she did it, there was a cat flap so she was free to go outside. Before Lote leaps in I didn't discipline her for it, just cleaned it up, but I was quite worried about her for a while. Eventually she just stopped. I have no idea why.

Well, about your cat pooping in the sink. Did you clean your sink with bleach? Because the smell of bleach really attracts cats.

[TheFifthElement]

Yes but the fact that it is accepted in our society today is not really an excuse. But I still see what you mean. Anyway, I know I behave a good way with my doggy, that is a consolation. :)

I think this depends on how you apply morality. Take, for example, ownership of handguns in UK. This is now illegal, following a tragedy which occurred in which a mentally unstable man entered a primary school and shot a bunch of children. Handguns were banned. This does not mean that owning handguns before the ban came in was wrong, or the people who owned handguns were doing something wrong or they were irresponsible, or they were all going to butcher school children, but the society in UK decided that, on the whole, handgun ownership should no longer happen. If people continued to own handguns afterwards then it would be wrong, because society has imposed a collective morality on the point. But what occurred before was fine.

[TheFifthElement]

I feel that there is a need, on my part to explain my thinking on this subject in a bit more depth, because a number of people have stated that I am applying human psychology to animals, but this is something I have tried very hard to avoid. In my thinking I have only sought to apply my human morality to human behaviour. I think this is best explained by illustration so, take for example the following moral statement :

"It is wrong to kill for fun."

If I apply this statement to human interrelation the statement becomes :

"It is wrong for a human to kill another human for fun."

Which is a statement I agree with. So, if I were to apply the psychology of this statement to, say, lizards it would become :

"It is wrong for a lizard to kill another lizard for fun."

but this I cannot answer. I cannot apply my human morality to lizards. However, I can (and will) apply my human morality to the behaviour of humans towards lizards, in which case the statement would be :

"It is wrong for a human to kill a lizard for fun."

Which I agree with. If I didn't agree with the statement I would need to examine why and, if changes to the statement are needed, qualifications for example, then I must apply the revised statement back to human interrelation to ensure that the qualified statement worked. Only if it works in relation to the behaviour will the precept be sound, in my opinion.

Applying this process to the question of ownership, I apply the same approach:

"It is wrong for a human to own another human."

and I agree with this statement as ownership implies subjugation. Take the statement and apply it to human behaviour towards lizards:

"It is wrong for a human to own a lizard."

I think this rings true, again, in my opinion.

But Virgil, Sweets America and Lote have raised interesting and valid points. Virgil stated that, in the example of dogs, dogs live with humans by instinct, or choice, Sweets America stated that she does not feel that she owns her dog, and Lote stated that it is a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, whilst I have satisfied myself on the question of ownership, does it ring true that a relationship of choice, or symbiosis is acceptable, and what the statement would be if, in relation to humans and dogs, it was not a question of ownership. So, I make this statement :

"It is not wrong for a human to enter into a relationship with a human."

but then I can think of examples where this would not be true, for example in the case of a celebrity and a stalker. So, it seems that an element of mutual consent seems to be a requirement, the statement becomes :

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting human."

and in relation to dogs,

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting dog."

which I agree with. I could apply this statement consistently to lizards, fish, birds and so on.

This then becomes a question of consent, how do we know that the dog is a consenting dog, or the lizard a consenting lizard? The only answer I can give to this is that there must be no barriers to the dog or the lizard entering or leaving the relationship, i.e. the 'no locked doors' rule, unless someone can suggest a better test. I don't think, on the basis that we cannot apply human psychology to animals, that you can say that the appearance of 'happiness' is the test. So, in the example of the dog, it is fair to say that 'my dog wags it's tail when it sees me', but it is application of human psychology to say that 'my dog is pleased to see me', or 'my dog is happy to see me' as 'happiness' and 'pleased to see me' are both human psychological states.

It is important to me that I apply my human morality consistently, and as objectively as is possible to my behaviour. But I can only apply them to my human behaviour and, unless society accepts the same morality and makes it law, I can only apply it to me.

I fully accept that everyone will not agree with my morality, but the application of it is logical, consistent and in so far as it is possible, objective. If there are people that think my moral statement : "It is wrong for a human to own a lizard" is incorrect then the statement must need qualification. If so, the question is what qualification, and is it possible to apply the qualification consistently i.e back to human interrelation?

[Lote-Tree]

You're the one who's hung up about pooping ;)


It was you who said that animals should not be disciplined and we should take them on their on terms and that we should not control their breeding , that they should decide for that themselves.

Now let's think about this.

Even in a friendship - freinds discipline each other. Obiviously if your friend pooped on your carpet you will be highly crossed and ask them to clean it up and not to do it again :D

In animals obviously they don't clean up. But you can teach them to poop in the correct place or train them to poop in the right place so that their poop does not affect them or you.

As for breeding. If breeding goes unchecked it will jepordise themselves and those that around them. In nature such over-breeding might lead to extinction either via starvation or disease.

So sake of survival of both...breeding needs to be moderated. Even as humans we do that. Obviously animals are not in our level of awareness to do that themselves.

So in both of your points do not hold :D



So it is compassion to separate young from their mother before they are ready?


In nature most of them would have died. Your compassion rescues them from death.



Indeed, so no need to lock them in, they will stay of their own volition.


When a relationship is fully developed - there is rarely a need for that.

[TheFifthElement]

It was you who said that animals should not be disciplined and we should take them on their on terms and that we should not control their breeding , that they should decide for that themselves.



Yes I did, because I am applying my moral principles solely to human behaviour, not to animals. If I apply my morality directly to animals then I am saying that they should live as I live. But this is not my statement, it is yours. In explanation of this point I can only restate my post above.


I feel that there is a need, on my part to explain my thinking on this subject in a bit more depth, because a number of people have stated that I am applying human psychology to animals, but this is something I have tried very hard to avoid. In my thinking I have only sought to apply my human morality to human behaviour. I think this is best explained by illustration so, take for example the following moral statement :

"It is wrong to kill for fun."

If I apply this statement to human interrelation the statement becomes :

"It is wrong for a human to kill another human for fun."

Which is a statement I agree with. So, if I were to apply the psychology of this statement to, say, lizards it would become :

"It is wrong for a lizard to kill another lizard for fun."

but this I cannot answer. I cannot apply my human morality to lizards. However, I can (and will) apply my human morality to the behaviour of humans towards lizards, in which case the statement would be :

"It is wrong for a human to kill a lizard for fun."

Which I agree with. If I didn't agree with the statement I would need to examine why and, if changes to the statement are needed, qualifications for example, then I must apply the revised statement back to human interrelation to ensure that the qualified statement worked. Only if it works in relation to the behaviour will the precept be sound, in my opinion.

Applying this process to the question of ownership, I apply the same approach:

"It is wrong for a human to own another human."

and I agree with this statement as ownership implies subjugation. Take the statement and apply it to human behaviour towards lizards:

"It is wrong for a human to own a lizard."

I think this rings true, again, in my opinion.

But Virgil, Sweets America and Lote have raised interesting and valid points. Virgil stated that, in the example of dogs, dogs live with humans by instinct, or choice, Sweets America stated that she does not feel that she owns her dog, and Lote stated that it is a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, whilst I have satisfied myself on the question of ownership, does it ring true that a relationship of choice, or symbiosis is acceptable, and what the statement would be if, in relation to humans and dogs, it was not a question of ownership. So, I make this statement :

"It is not wrong for a human to enter into a relationship with a human."

but then I can think of examples where this would not be true, for example in the case of a celebrity and a stalker. So, it seems that an element of mutual consent seems to be a requirement, the statement becomes :

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting human."

and in relation to dogs,

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting dog."

which I agree with. I could apply this statement consistently to lizards, fish, birds and so on.

This then becomes a question of consent, how do we know that the dog is a consenting dog, or the lizard a consenting lizard? The only answer I can give to this is that there must be no barriers to the dog or the lizard entering or leaving the relationship, i.e. the 'no locked doors' rule, unless someone can suggest a better test. I don't think, on the basis that we cannot apply human psychology to animals, that you can say that the appearance of 'happiness' is the test. So, in the example of the dog, it is fair to say that 'my dog wags it's tail when it sees me', but it is application of human psychology to say that 'my dog is pleased to see me', or 'my dog is happy to see me' as 'happiness' and 'pleased to see me' are both human psychological states.

It is important to me that I apply my human morality consistently, and as objectively as is possible to my behaviour. But I can only apply them to my human behaviour and, unless society accepts the same morality and makes it law, I can only apply it to me.

I fully accept that everyone will not agree with my morality, but the application of it is logical, consistent and in so far as it is possible, objective. If there are people that think my moral statement : "It is wrong for a human to own a lizard" is incorrect then the statement must need qualification. If so, the question is what qualification, and is it possible to apply the qualification consistently i.e back to human interrelation?

[Virgil]

I feel that there is a need, on my part to explain my thinking on this subject in a bit more depth, because a number of people have stated that I am applying human psychology to animals, but this is something I have tried very hard to avoid. In my thinking I have only sought to apply my human morality to human behaviour. I think this is best explained by illustration so, take for example the following moral statement :

"It is wrong to kill for fun."

If I apply this statement to human interrelation the statement becomes :

"It is wrong for a human to kill another human for fun."

Which is a statement I agree with. So, if I were to apply the psychology of this statement to, say, lizards it would become :

"It is wrong for a lizard to kill another lizard for fun."

but this I cannot answer. I cannot apply my human morality to lizards. However, I can (and will) apply my human morality to the behaviour of humans towards lizards, in which case the statement would be :

"It is wrong for a human to kill a lizard for fun."

Which I agree with. If I didn't agree with the statement I would need to examine why and, if changes to the statement are needed, qualifications for example, then I must apply the revised statement back to human interrelation to ensure that the qualified statement worked. Only if it works in relation to the behaviour will the precept be sound, in my opinion.

Applying this process to the question of ownership, I apply the same approach:

"It is wrong for a human to own another human."

and I agree with this statement as ownership implies subjugation. Take the statement and apply it to human behaviour towards lizards:

"It is wrong for a human to own a lizard."

I think this rings true, again, in my opinion.

But Virgil, Sweets America and Lote have raised interesting and valid points. Virgil stated that, in the example of dogs, dogs live with humans by instinct, or choice, Sweets America stated that she does not feel that she owns her dog, and Lote stated that it is a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, whilst I have satisfied myself on the question of ownership, does it ring true that a relationship of choice, or symbiosis is acceptable, and what the statement would be if, in relation to humans and dogs, it was not a question of ownership. So, I make this statement :

"It is not wrong for a human to enter into a relationship with a human."

but then I can think of examples where this would not be true, for example in the case of a celebrity and a stalker. So, it seems that an element of mutual consent seems to be a requirement, the statement becomes :

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting human."

and in relation to dogs,

"It is not wrong for a consenting human to enter into a relationship with a consenting dog."

which I agree with. I could apply this statement consistently to lizards, fish, birds and so on.

This then becomes a question of consent, how do we know that the dog is a consenting dog, or the lizard a consenting lizard? The only answer I can give to this is that there must be no barriers to the dog or the lizard entering or leaving the relationship, i.e. the 'no locked doors' rule, unless someone can suggest a better test. I don't think, on the basis that we cannot apply human psychology to animals, that you can say that the appearance of 'happiness' is the test. So, in the example of the dog, it is fair to say that 'my dog wags it's tail when it sees me', but it is application of human psychology to say that 'my dog is pleased to see me', or 'my dog is happy to see me' as 'happiness' and 'pleased to see me' are both human psychological states.

It is important to me that I apply my human morality consistently, and as objectively as is possible to my behaviour. But I can only apply them to my human behaviour and, unless society accepts the same morality and makes it law, I can only apply it to me.

I fully accept that everyone will not agree with my morality, but the application of it is logical, consistent and in so far as it is possible, objective. If there are people that think my moral statement : "It is wrong for a human to own a lizard" is incorrect then the statement must need qualification. If so, the question is what qualification, and is it possible to apply the qualification consistently i.e back to human interrelation?

Perhaps logical, but but even fallacies are logical. First of all who says humans live by logic: that's for computers, robots, and vulcans (from Star Trek)? Second, who says that this isn't coming out of your emotions and like most logic is back filled with rationalizations? Third, application of philosophy to every day life is hilarious. That's why I hold philosophy in such low esteem. As to the subject at hand, Ive already stated why dogs are intertwined with humans. I need not repeat myself.

A good try Fifth, but you haven't convince me. :)

[TheFifthElement]

A good try Fifth, but you haven't convince me.


Virgil, I did not expect to convince you, my purpose was only to explain my thinking, and in the interests of transparency. I find it hard to debate without transparency. It's like talking to my mother ;)

In the matter of logic and morality, yes, I agree that human morality is constructed from a combination of both emotion and logic - what I have attempted to do is apply a standard that is, in so far as it is possible, objective whilst accepting that true objectivity and true logic are things beyond my reach. But this, again, is a statement of how I construct my morality, how you construct yours must be by a method that is acceptable to you. How society constructs collective morality must be in a manner acceptable to the society, and so on.

I also sought to explain, contrary to your comments and the comments of others, that I was not applying human psychology to animals, only to human behaviour.



Perhaps logical, but but even fallacies are logical.


Third, application of philosophy to every day life is hilarious. That's why I hold philosophy in such low esteem.

These are rather sweeping statements Virgil. I'd be interested in the reasons why you think these so. Just, again, for transparency, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wonder how you have reached conclusions which appear, from the tone of your language, to be quite extreme.

[SleepyWitch]

Third, application of philosophy to every day life is hilarious. That's why I hold philosophy in such low esteem. As to the subject at hand, Ive already stated why dogs are intertwined with humans. I need not repeat myself.

hey Virge. I didn't read all of your post, but why do you think philosophy shouldn't be applied to everyday life? I agree that it is not often applied to everyday life. But in my opinion, all that proves is that it's everyday life that's got something wrong with it, not the other way round. :p

[TheFifthElement]

hey Virge. I didn't read all of your post, but why do you think philosophy shouldn't be applied to everyday life? I agree that it is not often applied to everyday life. But in my opinion, all that proves is that it's everyday life that's got something wrong with it, not the other way round. :p

I'm beginning to wonder if we should request that Lit-Net add a new feature being the disclaimer button. When selected it would add, in large text over every entry 'IN MY OPINION', that way we could all save ourselves a lot of typing!

[Sweets America]

Fifth, I think that was a good demonstration you made. Even though I feel uncomfortable with that idea, I must say that it is true that I did not ask for my dogs' consent before taking them with me.

Today, as my dog has spent years with me, as I said, I am pretty sure he would choose to stay, because he has his home, his comfort, his loved ones around. But, if I had asked him in the beginning, I don't know what he would have replied. I'm sure some part of him would have disagreed to stay locked in a house and garden and to only go out when we went out with him.
I also think that he would however have thought that he would enjoy some parts of being in our house. But I don't know what would have been his final decision.

This is why leaving the doors open seems to be the best idea. The thing is that this idea cannot be applied since dogs would get run over by cars if we let doors open. :eek: So I don't know what other solution could be found.

Oh, Virgil, I would like to hear more about your views on philosophy too.
Hey, I'm not sure but I think I dreamt of your dog Brandi last night. :D :alien:

[Lote-Tree]

Yes I did, because I am applying my moral principles solely to human behaviour, not to animals.


We are the only species on this planet that are moral makers. Animals are not capable of such thing.

If you only apply your morals to yourself then all animals can be exterminated because our morals do not apply to them and they have no morals. In fact such morality human's have displayed in abundance in past by extermination many species.



If I apply my morality directly to animals then I am saying that they should live as I live.


But that will be stupid won't it? Because Animals are not on the same level as us. They can't possibly live like us. We can't make a hamster walk like us, talk like us, dance like us - can we?

I think you are hung upon this Ownership of Pets thing. But as I said Pet keeping is just an extention of our past evolutionary Symbiotic relationship with animals.

Symbiotic Relationships and Pet keeping has done great service to the Animal world...it has made us more compassionate and understanding towards them...they have made us connect with them on a level that would not have been possible...

[Nightshade]

We are the only species on this planet that are moral makers. Animals are not capable of such thing.


See this is an argument I have never understood... how do we Know that animals are incapable of moral descions?

[Lote-Tree]

See this is an argument I have never understood... how do we Know that animals are incapable of moral descions?

Because scientific research so far have not been able to demonstrate this.

[Nightshade]

But that doesnt mean.. that we are right, after all the purpose of experiment is not to prove the hypothesis but the null hypothesis so surley if we can prove it and we have disproven it it is still a factorable possibility.

[Lote-Tree]

But that doesnt mean.. that we are right,

Right or Wrong is our own moral concepts. Animals have not demonstrated such things.

[Nightshade]

to our understanding, but perhaps they have a differant moral code.

[Lote-Tree]

to our understanding, but perhaps they have a differant moral code.

Is instinct a moral code? If so that would be it.

[Sweets America]

Lote, you know nothing about the fact that animals have a moral code or not. The only thing you can say is that you just do not know.

[Lote-Tree]

Lote, you know nothing about the fact that animals have a moral code or not. The only thing you can say is that you just do not know.

Research says no Sweetie...but if our own morality is a evolved construct...then I have no doubt that rudimentary moral code will also shown to be in the animal world...I am hoping research will find it...perhaps we have already found it but have not noticed yet...

[Sweets America]

Research says no Sweetie...but if our own morality is a evolved construct...then I have no doubt that rudimentary moral code will also shown to be in the animal world...I am hoping research will find it...perhaps we have already found it but have not noticed yet...

What I am trying to say, dear Lote, is that we will never know if animals have a moral code, because all that we can do in order to try to know it will be scientific experiments.
However, scientific experiments are based on science which has been made by human beings themselves, according to human logic and way of thinking. Humans use this logic to interpret the world around. But no one knows if the scientific rules as they have been made by human beings are the right tool to study other species. we are not objective at all since we see and interpret the world through human eyes.

[Lote-Tree]

What I am trying to say, dear Lote, is that we will never know if animals have a moral code, because all that we can do in order to try to know it will be scientific experiments.
However, scientific experiments are based on science which has been made by human beings themselves, according to human logic and way of thinking. Humans use this logic to interpret the world around. But no one knows if the scientific rules as they have been made by human beings are the right tool to study other species. we are not objective at all since we see and interpret the world through human eyes.

Logic holds for animals too...they can count...eg 1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs :D

This can be demonstrated.

[Sweets America]

Logic holds for animals too...they can count...eg 1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs :D

This can be demonstrated.

Yes, it had also been demonstrated that a horse could count. His master asked 5+5 for instance, and the horse hit the floor ten times with its hoof. The audience was stunned, until someone realized that the horse just hit the floor until he somehow perceived that people didn't expect it to hit anymore. It was all in the audience's reactions. :)

[Lote-Tree]

Yes, it had also been demonstrated that a horse could count. His master asked 5+5 for instance, and the horse hit the floor ten times with its hoof. The audience was stunned, until someone realized that the horse just hit the floor until he somehow perceived that people didn't expect it to hit anymore. It was all in the audience's reactions. :)

No seriously. Some animals have been demonstrated to count ie. 2+2=4 :D

Look it up in google :D

[Sweets America]

No seriously. Some animals have been demonstrated to count ie. 2+2=4 :D

Look it up in google :D

My point was not that animals cannot count. :D I was just trying to say that sometimes, we, humans, interpret things according to our expectations or to our logic, but we might be totally wrong.

It is strange, also, how you always seem to know everything and to have read everything about every subject that is discussed here. You are the real Lote-Tree, I have no more doubt now. :D

[Lote-Tree]

we, humans, interpret things according to our expectations or to our logic, but we might be totally wrong.


2+2=4 lassie...either in Animal Logic or an Alien from Planet Zog.

Do you know why?

Because it is written in the Fabric of our Universe :D




It is strange, also, how you always seem to know everything and to have read everything about every subject that is discussed here. You are the real Lote-Tree, I have no more doubt now. :D

Please I am a humble man :D

[Sweets America]

2+2=4 lassie...either in Animal Logic or an Alien from Planet Zog.

I have not been on planet Zog yet, so I cannot tell. :D


Do you know why?

Because it is written in the Fabric of our Universe :D

Actually I remember someone here explained this to me once. No it was not you, you are not the only one to know everything. :D

But anyway, this has nothing to do with what I was saying at first. I was just saying that the human way of thinking might not be able to understand animal behaviors.



Please I am a humble man :D

Yes of course. :)
Let me give your banana back to you. :banana: ;) I don't know what to do with it anymore.

Oh, question: is 'give your banana back to you' grammatical?? Or was it 'give you back your banana' or 'give you your banana back?'. :confused: :D

[Virgil]

Fifth, here are some pictures of my dog, Brandi. Now tell me she doesn't live the life. :D


http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o123/virgil_015/Image076-1.jpg


http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o123/virgil_015/Image046-1.jpg


http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o123/virgil_015/014_12.jpg


http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o123/virgil_015/003_1_00.jpg


http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o123/virgil_015/Brandi1Yr0018.jpg

Do you think this looks like a prisoner in my house? :lol:

[Lote-Tree]

No it was not you, you are not the only one to know everything. :D


No problemo :D and I don't know everything. The only thing I am sure of knowing is that I know nothing ;-)



Let me give your banana back to you. :banana: ;) I don't know what to do with it anymore.


Has my banana offended you in some way :D

If so it will be disciplined ;-)

[Sweets America]

[QUOTE=Lote-Tree;513167]No problemo :D and I don't know everything. The only thing I am sure of knowing is that I know nothing ;-)

Oh Lote I am so happy to hear you say that!:D :D


Has my banana offended you in some way :D

If so it will be disciplined ;-)

Well, no, it has not offended me, it is just that it spent its time talking and talking and talking, explaining me its banana life, and how it was fed up with being constantly attached to you, how you treated it badly, never left it alone...and now I hear that it will be disciplined? You should be nicer with it, poor little banana.:D

[TheFifthElement]

If you only apply your morals to yourself then all animals can be exterminated because our morals do not apply to them and they have no morals.

This is because you're missing a step. See as follows :

1) "all animals can be exterminated because our morals do not apply to them "

This depends on how you construct your morality. I agree, our morals do not apply to animals, but our morals dictate how we behave towards animals. If your moral view is that humans are dominant and that we can behave towards animals exactly as we like then your statement is logical. That may be your morality. It is not mine.

2) "they have no morals"

This is not for us to decide. They might, they might not. We don't know.




If I apply my morality directly to animals then I am saying that they should live as I live.

But that will be stupid won't it?

Good, we agree then. I see we are getting somewhere ;) I also see you omitted perhaps the more important point of my statement above which was :



If I apply my morality directly to animals then I am saying that they should live as I live. But this is not my statement, it is yours.


Because Animals are not on the same level as us.

This was also the white slave owners argument in relation to the black slave.


Logic holds for animals too...they can count...eg 1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs :D

This can be demonstrated.

Animals have logic but no moral code. Somehow this seems a rather inconsistent argument.


Fifth, here are some pictures of my dog, Brandi. Now tell me she doesn't live the life. :D

Do you think this looks like a prisoner in my house? :lol:

Virgil, these are nice pictures. As I said to Sweets America, I don't doubt that any of the pet owners who have posted here are anything other than concerned, caring and diligent. This is not about you and your dog. I've explained my reasoning to you. It requires taking a step back from your relationship with your pet and think about the bigger picture, applying our human rules concerning human behaviour consistently to our behaviour. I have had pets in the past, I have loved and cared for them. I do not regret that, but I will not take a pet into my home again. This is my choice, my morality. It does not have to be yours (unless it is law, then it does!).

Nice try Virgil, but you have not convinced me ;)

[Lote-Tree]

This depends on how you construct your morality. I agree, our morals do not apply to animals


No I did not say that. I said our morality extends to everything around us. It is you who said human morality should only apply to humans. And I said if that was the case then we can exterminate all animals.



If your moral view is that humans are dominant and that we can behave towards animals exactly as we like then your statement is logical.


It is you who are saying that human morality should only apply to humans only.



That may be your morality. It is not mine.


You are saying your morality should only apply to humans. That is NOT my morality. My morality extends to all the things that I have around me. My compassion for example is not for my humans alone but for everything that is around me.

Your morality is Selfish.



This is not for us to decide. They might, they might not. We don't know.


As far as we can tell - they have not shown such things. We can only go by the available evidence.

And if you don't believe in Evidence based truths then...I can do nothing for you. You might as welll believe in the Great Elephant Tree's in the Sky and that will be your Truth and your Truth alone.



Good, we agree then. I see we are getting somewhere ;) I also see you omitted perhaps the more important point of my statement above which was :


No, we are not getting anywhere. We just going in circles.

You are confusing the issues further for yourself.

You say these things:

1. Human Morality should only apply to humans - I am telling you that would be a nonsense.

2. You are saying that if you apply human morality to animals then they should live like us...and I am saying that would be stupid becase they are not on our level of awareness.

3. You are saying animals should not be disciplined and they should be treated as equals and not subordinates. And I am saying even in a freindship friends discipline each other.



This was also the white slave owners argument in relation to the black slave.


As I have said Slavery and Pet ownership is not the same. One is about material gain of the owner the other is not.



Animals have logic but no moral code. Somehow this seems a rather inconsistent argument.


No it's not. I have said animal morality is not evidenced by research.

[Sweets America]

Lote,I think you have not understood anything to what Fifth was trying to say.:D

About morality not applying to animals, you say 'I apply my morality to animals too because I have compassion for them too, not only for humans.' Then you say 'animals are not on the same level as us', but that contradicts what you have just said.
Also, when Fifth says that our morality does not apply to animals, she doesn't say that she is more compassionate towards humans, she only says that she cannot interpret animal's behaviors and treat them according to her own human morality since they might not have the same. So your answer was not relevant.

What makes me cringe is that you say her morality is selfish. This is when I thought you had totally misunderstood her. Her morality is everything but selfish since she will impede herself from having pets because she wants them to be free. Comprendo?:D Those who are selfish are the ones who, just like me, take animals with them because they love them too much.
You are twisting her arguments in your own way.

Also, I will add once again that the fact that scientists, with their human methods, have not proven the presence of morality in animals IS NO PROOF to say that animals do not have morality. You should really detach yourself from science instead of believing in it as if it were the only truth. Maybe it is, maybe not.

Fifth is just trying to detach herself from her human condition and see beyond. When she does that, she realizes that to her, owning a pet is not fair to the pet in question. I understand her view, I find it fair, even if I will keep owning dogs because I just cannot live without them. I put my needs first.

[TheFifthElement]

Lote, I am not confused.


And I said if that was the case then we can exterminate all animals.

Yes, we can. Whether we should or not is where morality comes in. Morality is both individual and social. We can choose our individual morality to an extent but even our individual morality must bow to social morality - i.e. law.


It is you who are saying that human morality should only apply to humans only.

Yes, humans and human behaviour including human behaviour towards other species, and the planet as a whole.


You are saying your morality should only apply to humans. That is NOT my morality. My morality extends to all the things that I have around me. My compassion for example is not for my humans alone but for everything that is around me.

Yes, and my compassion extends to humans, and my human behaviour towards other species, and the planet as a whole.



Your morality is Selfish.

I could say your morality is arrogant, but this does nothing to aid the debate.


You say these things:

1. Human Morality should only apply to humans - I am telling you that would be a nonsense.

Again Lote, this is because you are missing a step. I believe that human morality should apply to humans and human behaviour towards others this includes human behaviour towards animals and the planet. Human behaviour is the only thing within our control, and the only thing we should seek to regulate. Anything else is interference.

[Virgil]

Nice try Virgil, but you have not convinced me ;)

:lol: Touche.

[kiz_paws]

Fifth I have been reading this thread and want to say what a great question and what interesting points have been made. I have to collect my thoughts to think deeper to the original question posed, because as a dog-owner, I think in terms of MY dog -- but there is a greater scenerio out there -- all the hamster owners, the baby pig owners (yes, there are many that keep these adorable beasts as pets), and the list goes on.

p.s. Virgil's photos of Brandi are sooooo endearing! :p

[Lote-Tree]

Again Lote, this is because you are missing a step. I believe that human morality should apply to humans and human behaviour towards others this includes human behaviour towards animals and the planet.
Human behaviour is the only thing within our control, and the only thing we should seek to regulate. Anything else is interference.

I still don't understand you.

Human morality should only apply to humans and human behaviour towards others? What is this?

And what is thing called interfrence?

I would say this is nonsense because all animals and humans INTERACT EACH OTHER. Our existence is one of interactions.

We are not separated into different spheres where we try to seal ourselves so that our Existence does not affect others.

[Sweets America]

I still don't understand you.

Human morality should only apply to humans and human behaviour towards others? What is this?

And what is thing called interfrence?

I would say this is nonsense because all animals and humans INTERACT EACH OTHER. Our existence is one of interactions.

We are not separated into different spheres where we try to seal ourselves so that our Existence does not affect others.

What she means by 'interference' is that it would be arrogant and unfair for human beings to think that they can decide what to do with lives of animals.

[Lote-Tree]

'I apply my morality to animals too because I have compassion for them too, not only for humans.' Then you say 'animals are not on the same level as us', but that contradicts what you have just said.


How so? Animals are NOT on our level of awareness are they?


she only says that she cannot interpret animal's behaviors and treat them according to her own human morality since they might not have the same.

I don't understand this. What does that mean? We have compassion so we don't apply this because you can't interpret animals behaviour of compassion?



What makes me cringe is that you say her morality is selfish.


I understood that her morality only applies to humans. And the human compassion does not extend to the animal world because we don't understand their moral behaviour?



Her morality is everything but selfish since she will impede herself from having pets because she wants them to be free.


No pet owner ever thinks of their pet as a Slave. Pet's are not in bondage like a human slave is. Animals seek contact so do humans. And from this contacts relationship develop. All animals interact with each other. We do not live in an isloated sphere from the rest of the animal world. We interact and have been interacting from the dawn of life. To deny that is self-imposed repression. And I think that is not healthy.



Those who are selfish are the ones who, just like me, take animals with them because they love them too much.


Love is anything but selfish.



You should really detach yourself from science instead of believing in it as if it were the only truth.


No way! Science is the ONLY TRUTH we can agree on because it is based on VERFIABLE evidence.

Science has banished human superstitions to the pages of myths where they belong. It has achieved spectacular results in all branches of human knowledge. It has take us to the moon and back!

Do not be so naieve to give it up :D



Fifth is just trying to detach herself from her human condition and see beyond.


If seeing "Beyond" is not based on Evidence then it does not amount to much.



When she does that, she realizes that to her, owning a pet is not fair to the pet in question.


But animals seek contact. Human seek contact. What so unfairness in this?

[Lote-Tree]

What she means by 'interference' is that it would be arrogant and unfair for human beings to think that they can decide what to do with lives of animals.

When animals interfere with humans? Is that an Arrogance on Animals to intefere with humans?

Sweetie. All animals interact with each other. There is no getting away from it.

If you want seal yourself away from this interactions then go ahead...

For survival of both animals and humans human "arrogance" as you say it is very much is justified or else it would be the death of both. And that would be quite illogical thing to let happen arrogance or no arrogance :D

[Sweets America]

Lote, you make my head spin.:D


How so? Animals are NOT on our level of awareness are they?

What makes you think that? What you say sounds like our level of awareness is higher than theirs. First, I would like you to define what you call a 'level of awareness'. Then, I would like you to realize that my dog and I, for instance, just have different ways of seeing the world, with different abilities and different ways of interacting with it (I personally don't sniff people when I meet them:) ).
My point is to say that you cannot really compare their level of awareness to ours because you cannot put yourself at the place of a dog, for instance.
You just cannot know. And it's not your science which will help you since your science is based on how HUMANS see and interpret things. It's biased since it's made on human rules. You see? I mean, the way dogs interpret the world might be entirely different.


I don't understand this. What does that mean? We have compassion so we don't apply this because you can't interpret animals behaviour of compassion?

Lote, Lote, Lote. :D Nobody said that Fifth or I had no compassion for dogs. we have compassion. What we say is that since we cannot know how animals think (?), we have no right to interact with them in our own way, according to or own rules, WITHOUT knowing if they would really agree with it. Maybe my dog, when he was younger, wanted to get out of my house and see the world.



No pet owner ever thinks of their pet as a Slave. Pet's are not in bondage like a human slave is. Animals seek contact so do humans. And from this contacts relationship develop. All animals interact with each other. We do not live in an isloated sphere from the rest of the animal world. We interact and have been interacting from the dawn of life. To deny that is self-imposed repression. And I think that is not healthy.

Of course I agree, I don't think of my doggy as being a slave, of course. I also agree that we don't live in an isolated sphere from the rest of the animal world. BUT, the only thing that bugs me is that I took my dog with me and imposed my rules to him. He was in my house, in my garden, and he had no right to go out alone. Of course it was to protect him from being run over by cars, but in the meantime I cannot help thinking that I didn't ask for his consent about these rules. This is what Fifth made me realize.
I don't see why it would be unhealthy to think this way. To me, what Fifth says is fair because she thinks of the animal before thinking of herself, it is generous. For my part, I just cannot do that.


Love is anything but selfish.

I agree very much, love is the experience of sharing and giving oneself and being given. I agree, I agree. But in the meantime I am lost because the love I have for my dog made me lock him in my house and garden. I'm sure he is happy, even if I cannot be sure (I practice doublethink about that:p ) but even if he is very happy, I cannot deny that I took away some parts of his liberty.
I mean, if someone took you away from your house and put you in theirs, and if you had no right to go out without them, and if whenever you went out you were tied to a leash... well, even if they treated you a wonderful way, covered you with kisses and presents, they would still take away some of your liberty.



No way! Science is the ONLY TRUTH we can agree on because it is based on VERFIABLE evidence.

Science has banished human superstitions to the pages of myths where they belong. It has achieved spectacular results in all branches of human knowledge. It has take us to the moon and back!

Do not be so naieve to give it up :D

Jesus, Lote, there is nothing I can do for you at this point. Science is not the only truth. No one knows what the only truth is. Science is a truth among others. It is a 'truth' which is based on things that can be proven with a certain amount of tools. We judge things as being true if we can prove them true with science, but no one knows if the rules of science are right, because the rules of science are just one interpretation of the world. It really surprises me that you cannot understand what I mean.
Why could everything be proven by science? What if the scientific methods and tools were just NOT ADAPTED to prove some things? What if? What if, Lote?:D
It is funny that you say that science has banished human superstitions and that those superstitions are thus wrong. What if science was wrong?


If seeing "Beyond" is not based on Evidence then it does not amount to much.

Ehehehe. Trying to see beyond, even if you never succeed to really see beyond, will always be more intelligent to me than relying on science in a blind way.


But animals seek contact. Human seek contact. What so unfairness in this?[/QUOTE]

There is nothing unfair in this. There is nothing unfair as long as both partners can decide when they want to stop this contact. When you have a pet, you are the only one who decides what you want to do with it.


When animals interfere with humans? Is that an Arrogance on Animals to intefere with humans?

Sweetie. All animals interact with each other. There is no getting away from it.

If you want seal yourself away from this interactions then go ahead...

For survival of both animals and humans human "arrogance" as you say it is very much is justified or else it would be the death of both. And that would be quite illogical thing to let happen arrogance or no arrogance

It is arrogant for humans to think that they have the right to control animals.
I never said I had a problem with interacting with animals or humans. But, for instance, if I took you to my home and forced you to listen to my ranting all day loooooong and if you could not escape, how would you feel? :D

I want to keep interacting with my dog because I love him. The thing I hate is that I have been born as a human, I have been born in this particular species who think they can do whatever they want to do with animals. Thus, I have not really wondered about that before, I've had my dog and I was happy with him. I am still happy with him, but I realize that my behavior towards him has not been as great as I had always thought it was. I know he will forgive me, but still, that bugs me.

[Lote-Tree]

What you say sounds like our level of awareness is higher than theirs.


Because we have a demonstrable higher Congnitive Complexity in our brains than animals. We can conceive of things that do not exist.



Then, I would like you to realize that my dog and I, for instance, just have different ways of seeing the world, with different abilities and different ways of interacting with it (I personally don't sniff people when I meet them:) ).


We have all these capabilites and more because of our Higher Cognitive Complexity. We can see the world as black and white like the way a dog does. We are influenced by smells and sounds just like a dog does.



My point is to say that you cannot really compare their level of awareness to ours because you cannot put yourself at the place of a dog, for instance.
You just cannot know.


Sweetie. We can demonstrably show that humans have higher cognitive complexity than dogs and dogs have higher cognitive complexity than a insect etc. Plants have no cognitive complexity because they have no neorones.



And it's not your science which will help you since your science is based on how HUMANS see and interpret things.


We have achieved spectacular results with our science.



It's biased since it's made on human rules. You see? I mean, the way dogs interpret the world might be entirely different.


Sweetie we can demonstrate to you how a dog interprets the world around it. We know that dogs see the world in Black and White. Insects see the world in UV light etc.



We have compassion.


See thats what I don't understand. You say you want to apply human morality to humans. That means you can't appy your human compassion to animals. That what it means isn't it? So we should not interefre with animals we should let them do whatever they please even if it involves death of both humans and animals.



What we say is that since we cannot know how animals think (?),


We can study how animals think. And we have studied that even octopuses can navigate complex mazes.



we have no right to interact with them in our own way, according to or own rules, WITHOUT knowing if they would really agree with it.


That is the thing I don't understand. If animals did not like human contact we would not able to keep them as pets. But animals do and interact with humans. They become attached to us.

As for getting "agreement" from animals is barking up the wrong tree. It's like asking babies for agreement to be born or not.

You say we should not apply human morality to animals and yet you quite easily apply human thinking of "consent" and "agreement" to animals.



Maybe my dog, when he was younger, wanted to get out of my house and see the world.


So would toddlers? Little children who know nothing about the world.



BUT, the only thing that bugs me is that I took my dog with me and imposed my rules to him.


You had to because without it the relationship would have affected each
other badly. You being wiser took the decision to toilet train him.



To me, what Fifth says is fair because she thinks of the animal before thinking of herself, it is generous. For my part, I just cannot do that.


But you don't realise that it was the very pet keeping experience that human compassion extended to whole of the animal world. It has given a shared experience that says we are not alone. We share this world with millions of other creatures who seek interactions with each other.

Supreme Being's thinking in my opinion is very narrow - this thinking does not see the Wider Picture how we have evolved - evolved interacting with each other.

If we are too extend her thinking then we should NEVER interact with animals because that would be INTERFERING even if it kills both animals and humans.



But in the meantime I am lost because the love I have for my dog made me lock him in my house and garden.


You do these things because your dog is not a slave but for reason's of safety just like a human will ensure a baby is safe in it's cot.



Jesus, Lote, there is nothing I can do for you at this point. Science is not the only truth.


Sweetie. I think you don't just get it. Science is the ONLY TRUTH we can agree on because it is based on evidence. You and I can say 2+2=4 so can rest of the humanity. But if you say purple is pink to you and red is blue. we can never agree...



It is arrogant for humans to think that they have the right to control animals.


Why is it arrogant? If we did not control it it may lead to death of both the animals and humans. In our evolutionary past this could have been the case like the dinosaurs. But we have evolved to such an extend that we can see this now.

[Whifflingpin]

S A: "It is arrogant for humans to think that they have the right to control animals. "
L-T: "Why is it arrogant? If we did not control it it may lead to death of both the animals and humans. In our evolutionary past this could have been the case like the dinosaurs. But we have evolved to such an extend that we can see this now."

Humans do control vast areas of the earth and seas and are still, in the evolutionary present, causing the death of whole species of animals, and at this stage show no signs of caring about their own destruction. Humans have demonstrably failed and shown themselves unworthy and incapable of the kind of stewardship on which Lote-Tree bases his argument.

[Sweets America]

Because we have a demonstrable higher Congnitive Complexity in our brains than animals. We can conceive of things that do not exist.

Yes, I know tests have been made with animals to see what their abilities were. But what if we had interpreted the results the wrong way? What if a behavior, in an animal, did not mean the same thing as the same behavior in a human being?



We have all these capabilites and more because of our Higher Cognitive Complexity. We can see the world as black and white like the way a dog does. We are influenced by smells and sounds just like a dog does.

One part of me wants to answer:
You make me laugh real loud here when you compare the way we perceive smells to the way dogs do. Because dogs' perception of smell is really higher to ours.
Now the other part of me realizes that I cannot use that argument because it relies on how science has proven this about dogs' perception of smells. And since I have just said that science is not necessarily a truth, all I can do is stop laughing real loud and just shut up. :D
My problem is that some part of me agrees with science because I have always been into this world ruled by science, but some other part of me wonders about it all. I want to question the world, I don't want to follow things blindly.


Sweetie. We can demonstrably show that humans have higher cognitive complexity than dogs and dogs have higher cognitive complexity than a insect etc. Plants have no cognitive complexity because they have no neorones.

Yes, but maybe dogs, humans and insects could be classified in a different way if we classified them according to other abilities? Abilities that we might not know about because science cannot measure them?



Sweetie we can demonstrate to you how a dog interprets the world around it. We know that dogs see the world in Black and White. Insects see the world in UV light etc.

We? When I told you that you had multiple personalities...:D
I see what you mean, but some other part of my brains wonders. It's difficult for me to explain my point because I want to be open minded, I just want to be open to the fact that the human interpretations might not be accurate to judge everything on this planet.
Now maybe dogs see in black and white, but maybe they also see other things that we are not able to see.


See thats what I don't understand. You say you want to apply human morality to humans. That means you can't appy your human compassion to animals. That what it means isn't it? So we should not interefre with animals we should let them do whatever they please even if it involves death of both humans and animals.

Well, I think nobody has the right to interfere in the reproduction of animals for instance, because animals do not interfere in ours. Who do human beings think they are? They say 'let's regulate animal breeding so that the planet won't be overpopulated and it will prevent the death of everyone', but in the meantime they create wars with other human beings and create atomic bombs. there is something wrong with human beings. If I were an animal, I would be greatly scared of having humans take care of my survival, seeing how they take care of theirs!



We can study how animals think. And we have studied that even octopuses can navigate complex mazes.

We can study how animals think according to our own conception of thinking. Now maybe animals have other ways of thinking, ways that we will never know of because we are not like them.


That is the thing I don't understand. If animals did not like human contact we would not able to keep them as pets. But animals do and interact with humans. They become attached to us.

When I see my dog, I am sure he loves human contact, and I am sure he is attached to me. But he is still locked up.



As for getting "agreement" from animals is barking up the wrong tree. It's like asking babies for agreement to be born or not.

You say we should not apply human morality to animals and yet you quite easily apply human thinking of "consent" and "agreement" to animals.
Well, having a baby is selfish in a way, just like Fifth said. But the thing is that the baby, when he grows up, is free to live his own life, which is not the case for dogs.
No, I do not apply 'consent' to animals. Actually, maybe dogs love being locked up, who knows? The thing is that since I cannot know for sure that it is not a problem for my dog to be with me, it will still bug me.


You had to because without it the relationship would have affected each
other badly. You being wiser took the decision to toilet train him.

Well, in a way, if not applying my rules to my dog would have affected our relationship badly, maybe I should not have had any relationship with him in the first place? It sounds horrible to me not to be with him, but I cannot help wondering. I guess that I am trying, with my dog, to balance things. I make him follow my rules for some things and he makes me follow his rules for some others.


Supreme Being's thinking in my opinion is very narrow - this thinking does not see the Wider Picture how we have evolved - evolved interacting with each other.

Absolutely not. Her way of thinking is on the contrary very wide, a lot wider than yours. I was so outraged at first when I read her lines, I was so angry, but it was because I saw that she was somehow right and it really disturbed me. I am glad that I realized all of this even if it makes me sad and anxious.


If we are too extend her thinking then we should NEVER interact with animals because that would be INTERFERING even if it kills both animals and humans.

We have the right to interfere with animals as long as we do not force them into anything.
And, I would prefer dying than controlling animals. I have no right to do that. I don't want to be like these humans who want to control this planet. I don't want to. I hate it. Now, I see that I am controlling my dog in some ways, which distresses me very much. I hate to be this way and I cannot be otherwise.



Sweetie. I think you don't just get it. Science is the ONLY TRUTH we can agree on because it is based on evidence. You and I can say 2+2=4 so can rest of the humanity. But if you say purple is pink to you and red is blue. we can never agree...

I actually think that purple might be pink to me and blue to you. I have no problem with that. :) I don't want to enclose myself into any theory. Science is just a theory among others. Science is nothing supreme. You don't know what the truth is. I don't know either. I don't think I will ever know. The most important, to me, is not to know the truth, it is to stay open minded.


Why is it arrogant? If we did not control it it may lead to death of both the animals and humans.

As I said, I prefer dying then. I cannot stand to control other beings. And since I'm controlling my dog, I guess I should kill myself right now. :D

[Sweets America]

S A: "It is arrogant for humans to think that they have the right to control animals. "
L-T: "Why is it arrogant? If we did not control it it may lead to death of both the animals and humans. In our evolutionary past this could have been the case like the dinosaurs. But we have evolved to such an extend that we can see this now."

Humans do control vast areas of the earth and seas and are still, in the evolutionary present, causing the death of whole species of animals, and at this stage show no signs of caring about their own destruction. Humans have demonstrably failed and shown themselves unworthy and incapable of the kind of stewardship on which Lote-Tree bases his argument.

:thumbs_up
Thank YOU.

[Bakiryu]

I guess it's too late to add anything to this thread, but I do not think owning pets it's cruel. As long as you're not abusing them or eating them, pets are in a way like children. If we can't keep pets, we shouldn't have babies either, it's nearly similar!

[Sweets America]

I guess it's too late to add anything to this thread, but I do not think owning pets it's cruel. As long as you're not abusing them or eating them, pets are in a way like children. If we can't keep pets, we shouldn't have babies either, it's nearly similar!

It's not absolutely similar since babies, when they grow up, can live their own lives.

All I have been trying to do through this thread is to open myself and recognize some of my faults.

[TheFifthElement]

I still don't understand you.

Human morality should only apply to humans and human behaviour towards others? What is this?

Perhaps it would help if I gave you another illustration.

Illustration A :

I find an injured child in the street. The child is unfamiliar to me. My priorities are :

1 - the child's safety. This would mean ensuring the child was not in any danger of further injury, and seeking appropriate medical treatment. This may mean that the child needs to go to hospital. If so I would arrange for this to happen.

2 - returning the child to where it belongs. This would involve alerting the authorities. The authorities are able to mediate the return of the child to where it belongs.

Illustration B :

I find an injured hawk in the street. The hawk is unfamiliar to me. My priorities are :

1 - the hawk's safety. This would mean ensuring the hawk was not in any danger of further injury, and seeking appropriate medical treatment. This may mean that the hawk needs vetenary care. If so I would arrange for this to happen.

2 - returning the hawk to where it belongs. This would involve alerting the appropriate authorities, in this case the RSPB. It is likely that they will also supply the medical treatment and so step 2 would be incorporated into step 1. The RSPB are able to mediate the return of the hawk to where it belongs.


In both cases I have applied the same process to my human interaction with humans and my human behaviour towards another species. In both cases whilst I was acting in stewardship over either the child or the bird I would do so with care and compassion.

I think where you may be misunderstanding me Lote is the statement 'human morality applies to humans'. Perhaps the statement would be clearer if I said that human morality applies to human behaviour and human interaction both with other humans and with other species. So :

I apply the exact same morality:
- to myself
- to my behaviour towards humans
- to my behaviour towards animals
and so on.

This should not ignore the fact that human morality should also apply to human interaction with the planet, but then this is assumed as part of the above - we protect the planet to protect ourselves and other species...or we should, in my opinion.

Just as a side issue. Lote, I believe in the value of science but even science has rules and a process. If a scientist carries out research and comes to a conclusion this does not become 'accepted' science until those results have been replicated independently, the results replicated and examined independently, and the conclusions validated. In terms of the research that you mentioned, i.e. that animals have logic, apart from the fact that simply presenting this as a statement does not constitute scientific proof, I do not know whether this is the unvalidated conclusion of one set of scientists, or whether it has been accepted as a scientific 'fact'. If you present the evidence I'll happily consider it.

[Lote-Tree]

Humans have demonstrably failed and shown themselves unworthy and incapable of the kind of stewardship on which Lote-Tree bases his argument.

You are arguing for my point.

In the past we have shown total lack of disregard for nature. But our interactions with animals have managed to extend our compassion to the animal world. We now have Wild life protection laws all over the world.

Yes. Human Cruelty has been far more dangerous and devasting than anything animal world has shown. But we learn from our mistakes. We have in our power to repair the damage. What we need is the Will to do so.

[muhsin]

Lote dear, you are doing great here. Though we Africans and living in Africa don't know much about your topic of discussion here because it has relation with living in luxury and...you can guess the rest, huh?

[Lote-Tree]

Yes, I know tests have been made with animals to see what their abilities were. But what if we had interpreted the results the wrong way?


We have the evidence. You can deny it.




One part of me wants to answer:
You make me laugh real loud here when you compare the way we perceive smells to the way dogs do.


The point I was making we are influenced by smells too. Obviously dogs have very specialised smell perception ie they can detect very minutes amount of smell. But the functionallity is the same. It is just that dogs can detect it better. We have now improved on this with our techonology. We can smell "smell" that even dog can't.



And since I have just said that science is not necessarily a truth, all I can do is stop laughing real loud and just shut up. :D


Well, it is upto you. If you disregard evidence based truth then it does not matter what your truth is to anyone. You can believe in the Elephant Trees in the Sky where Pink Elephants comes to rust each evening :D



My problem is that some part of me agrees with science because I have always been into this world ruled by science, but some other part of me wonders about it all. I want to question the world, I don't want to follow things blindly.


Science is anything but Blind. Scientific Method is one of the great achievements of human beings have made.



Yes, but maybe dogs, humans and insects could be classified in a different way if we classified them according to other abilities? Abilities that we might not know about because science cannot measure them?


Lassie. Why do you do this to yourself?

All animals are made of DNA. In fact the most wonderous thing is that all lifeforms that have ever been on this planet have been related to each other because they share common ancestor.

If dogs were not built from DNA then your argument could have been valid.



We? When I told you that you had multiple personalities...:D


I used We because I am defending Science and humanity.



It's difficult for me to explain my point because I want to be open minded, I just want to be open to the fact that the human interpretations might not be accurate to judge everything on this planet.


Well humans have not been on this planet for very long. In fact humans have been on this planet for very short period of time. Before that the dinosarus came and went. And many millions of species have risen and perished. All these species interpretations of the world have died with them.



Now maybe dogs see in black and white, but maybe they also see other things that we are not able to see.


Obiviously scientific knowledge is accumulative.



Well, I think nobody has the right to interfere in the reproduction of animals for instance, because animals do not interfere in ours.


Pesky Mosquitoes have killed more human beings and other animals than humans themselves.



there is something wrong with human beings.


What a piece of work is man?
How noble in reason?
How infinite in faculty?
In form and moving how express and admirable.
In action how like an angel.
In Apprehension - How like a God!



Well, having a baby is selfish in a way, just like Fifth said.


If humanity had her attitude we would have perished long time ago. Huamnity can't continue with an attidue like this.



But the thing is that the baby, when he grows up, is free to live his own life, which is not the case for dogs.


Because animals never reach human like awareness.



Absolutely not. Her way of thinking is on the contrary very wide, a lot wider than yours.


Not it's not wider. It's reductive. She applies Human thinking of "consent" and "agreement" to animals and the posits the notion that human morality should only apply to humans.



And, I would prefer dying than controlling animals.


You would not have that choice.



I don't want to enclose myself into any theory.


If you choose to live in the caves then there is nothing I can do. But rest of humanity has moved on.



Science is just a theory among others.


You speak like a Creationist! Before Newton came of the "Theory of Gravity", gravity still held this plant around the Sun :D



Science is nothing supreme. You don't know what the truth is.


Science is the ONLY TRUTH WE CAN AGREE ON. The rest is your wishful thinking.


Perhaps it would help if I gave you another illustration.

Illustration A :

I find an injured child in the street. The child is unfamiliar to me. My priorities are :

1 - the child's safety. This would mean ensuring the child was not in any danger of further injury, and seeking appropriate medical treatment. This may mean that the child needs to go to hospital. If so I would arrange for this to happen.

2 - returning the child to where it belongs. This would involve alerting the authorities. The authorities are able to mediate the return of the child to where it belongs.


And if the child turns out to be abandoned? - and you can't trace it's parent? And in the process the child became attached to you? and you still don't find the parent? Do you throw the child out because it does not belong to you genetically?



Illustration B :

I find an injured hawk in the street. The hawk is unfamiliar to me. My priorities are :

1 - the hawk's safety. This would mean ensuring the hawk was not in any danger of further injury, and seeking appropriate medical treatment. This may mean that the hawk needs vetenary care. If so I would arrange for this to happen.


But why would you do this?

Since you say you don't know Animal Morality?

You choosing to have it cured is that not interfering with their morality?

Perhaps their morality is that if the bird is injured it should be left to die?

Can you see how your argument falls apart?



that animals have logic, apart from the fact that simply presenting this as a statement does not constitute scientific proof, I do not know whether this is the unvalidated conclusion of one set of scientists, or whether it has been accepted as a scientific 'fact'. If you present the evidence I'll happily consider it.

I think you should research it.


Lote dear, you are doing great here. Though we Africans and living in Africa don't know much about your topic of discussion here because it has relation with living in luxury and...you can guess the rest, huh?

Life is sucks even in Luxury chappy - so don't worry.

It is the Human Condition that we are never satisfied with anything it seems :D

[TheFifthElement]

And if the child turns out to be abandoned? - and you can't trace it's parent? And in the process the child became attached to you? and you still don't find the parent? Do you throw the child out because it does not belong to you genetically?

This is a matter for the authorities. I didn't say that I would trace the parents, I said I would alert the authorities - i.e. the police who would trace the parents. If there were no parents then the child would be placed into the care of social services, in accordance with the law, and they would take the appropriate steps to ensure the care of the child. If I took the child without going through the appropriate authorities, if I kept it, that would be kidnapping, which is a criminal offence.


But why would you do this?

Since you say you don't know Animal Morality?

because I am applying my behaviour consistently in accordance with my moral code. I would behave in the same way towards animals as I do towards humans. This illustrates the point. It is the specificity of the moral code which is important to me. If I can't apply the moral code consistently to my behaviour whether this is towards humans or animals then the code needs adjustment. Again to illustrate, it's like saying:

It is wrong to kill

but this statement isn't clear or specific enough. There are circumstances where I would consider it not to be wrong to kill, for example:

it is not wrong to kill in self-defence
hence
it is not wrong to kill a human in self-defence
it is not wrong to kill an animal in self-defence.

This can be applied consistently, it is therefore, in my opinion, a sound moral code.


I think you should research it.

It is not for me to prove your theory. You say it is so, I say okay if it is so show me. If you're not prepared to show me, then I'm not prepared to believe you ;)

[SleepyWitch]

Because scientific research so far have not been able to demonstrate this.

nope, so far scientific research has been mainly concerned with proving that only humans are capable of moral judgments or disproving that animals are capable of it. if your basic assumption is that they are not capable of it, you will find a lot of evidence in favour of this hypothesis (if you find evidence to the contrary, you can still relegate it to the realm of 'instinct'). if scientists set out to prove that animals are moral beings, their findings might look different.

[Virgil]

nope, so far scientific research has been mainly concerned with proving that only humans are capable of moral judgments or disproving that animals are capable of it. if your basic assumption is that they are not capable of it, you will find a lot of evidence in favour of this hypothesis (if you find evidence to the contrary, you can still relegate it to the realm of 'instinct'). if scientists set out to prove that animals are moral beings, their findings might look different.

How do you know no one's tried, Sleepy? I bet they have. Of course it depends how we define moral behavior, but I have never noticed moral behavior from my dogs.

[Lote-Tree]

This is a matter for the authorities.


Animals have no such authorities of themselves do they?

What you are doing it passing it some other humans arn't you?

And what do they do with them?

If it is a child they place them in care, adoption - the end result just as I said.

And what they do with the bird?

A animal that was attached to humans is released to the wild and gets eaten by a fox.

That animal could have lived and had an excellent relationship with a human. It would have made that human more compassionate towards the rest of the animal world.



because I am applying my behaviour consistently in accordance with my moral code. I would behave in the same way towards animals as I do towards humans.


But this will result in death of the Animal?



It is not for me to prove your theory. You say it is so, I say okay if it is so show me. If you're not prepared to show me, then I'm not prepared to believe you ;)

I thought you would be eager to educate yourself.


if scientists set out to prove that animals are moral beings, their findings might look different.

There is your chance to win the Nobel Prize Sleepy - go for it :D

If you could find it - you will overturn the foundation of science! That would be something right tell your grand kids :D

[Sweets America]

We have the evidence. You can deny it.

Yes I can.:D



Well, it is upto you. If you disregard evidence based truth then it does not matter what your truth is to anyone. You can believe in the Elephant Trees in the Sky where Pink Elephants comes to rust each evening :D

why not? That makes me think of those people who have what we call hallucinations. When I was studying psychology, we said those people had a mental illness. But, I could't help wondering: what if what they saw was true? What if I was just not able to see it? This is part of why I had real problems with psychology and I quit because I could just not enclose myself in any theory and decide on human being's health according to these theories.
I have corresponded for some time with a schizophrenic girl who had 'hallucinations', she saw dead people and also people burning in front of her and she could even feel the smell of the burning flesh! How horrible it was to her. I couldn't help wondering about these 'hallucinations'.


Science is anything but Blind. Scientific Method is one of the great achievements of human beings have made.

:D I think that the scientific method is great too, all the work they have done is great. It is just that I refuse to reduce everything to that.



Well humans have not been on this planet for very long. In fact humans have been on this planet for very short period of time. Before that the dinosarus came and went. And many millions of species have risen and perished. All these species interpretations of the world have died with them.
Do you think that science will die when humans die? Or not?



Pesky Mosquitoes have killed more human beings and other animals than humans themselves.

Yes, but what I was saying is that there might be a difference between the reasons why mosquitoes and human kill other species. When my stepfather went hunting, he did not do it to bring food to the house, he only did it for his own pleasure, which I find quite surreal.



What a piece of work is man?
How noble in reason?
How infinite in faculty?
In form and moving how express and admirable.
In action how like an angel.
In Apprehension - How like a God!

I disagree. :D


If humanity had her attitude we would have perished long time ago. Huamnity can't continue with an attidue like this.

I see what you mean. But it's true that life on this planet is not always a bed of roses. :) Maybe we would feel better about having babies if we made this planet a more welcoming place? If we stopped considering ourselves as the masters of it?



Not it's not wider. It's reductive. She applies Human thinking of "consent" and "agreement" to animals and the posits the notion that human morality should only apply to humans.

She does not really apply the notions of consent and aggreement to animals. She just says that since she cannot know if these notions can be applied to them, she prefers being careful with what she allwos herself to do with them.




If you choose to live in the caves then there is nothing I can do. But rest of humanity has moved on.

I think humanity as you see it might be the ones living in the cave they have put themselves in. I am on the contrary trying to get away from there.


You speak like a Creationist! Before Newton came of the "Theory of Gravity", gravity still held this plant around the Sun :D

I don't speak like a Creationnist. If i did so, I would defend creationnist theories. What I am doing here is accepting every theory, even the creationnist one. Scientists who laugh at creationnists are as stupid and close-minded as creationnists who laugh at scientists. No one knows. I will never laugh at a creationnist because as far as I know, he might be right. Scientists might be right as well. But no one knows. Of course scientists can find proofs with their scientific theories, but creationnists will also find ways of explaining theirs. If you told me that the world had been created by a giant tomato, I would consider that option too, because who knows?:D



Science is the ONLY TRUTH WE CAN AGREE ON. The rest is your wishful thinking.
If you like.:) I am not trying to convince you, you know. I am just exposing my views. I do not pretend that I know the truth, contrary to you.

[Lote-Tree]

If you like.:) I am not trying to convince you, you know. I am just exposing my views. I do not pretend that I know the truth, contrary to you.

I think you don't understand what I am saying.

Sciencetific Truths is something we can agree upon. The rest we can't.

Once you grasped this then you will realise your Other Truths is only the Subjective Experience of the Individual.


How do you know no one's tried, Sleepy? I bet they have. Of course it depends how we define moral behavior, but I have never noticed moral behavior from my dogs.

In all my readings I have yet to find Animal displaying Morality.

[Sweets America]

I think you don't understand what I am saying.

Sciencetific Truths is something we can agree upon. The rest we can't.

Once you grasped this then you will realise your Other Truths is only the Subjective Experience of the Individual.

Yes I see what you mean, but it's not because a lot of people agree on a point that I will blindly follow them. Don't you call yourself an independent thinker?

[Lote-Tree]

Yes I see what you mean, but it's not because a lot of people agree on a point that I will blindly follow them. Don't you call yourself an independent thinker?

Do you understand the term Verifiable?

It is nothing to do with agreement of others.

[Sweets America]

Do you understand the term Verifiable?

It is nothing to do with agreement of others.

What do you do with the things that might not be verifiable with the tools of your science? You just throw them away and say they do not exist?

[pussnboots]

don't want to be a party pooper but how much longer is this discussion going to go on ? I think everyone has made their point or at least attempted to.

[Sweets America]

don't want to be a party pooper but how much longer is this discussion going to go on ? I think everyone has made their point or at least attempted to.

No one compells you to read it either if you don't like it.:)

[pussnboots]

No one compells you to read it either if you don't like it.:)

no need to get testy!!!! I was just making a comment just like everyone else.
I find it quite funny how long some of these discussions can go on. Chill!

[Lote-Tree]

What do you do with the things that might not be verifiable with the tools of your science? You just throw them away and say they do not exist?

Treat it with a degree of Skecpticism until it becomes verifiable.

[Sweets America]

Treat it with a degree of Skecpticism until it becomes verifiable.

I think this is a good attitude actually. It is just that I also question the way science verifies things. I treat everything with skepticism I guess.

[TheFifthElement]

Animals have no such authorities of themselves do they?

What you are doing it passing it some other humans arn't you?

And what do they do with them?

Lote, if you want to know what happens to an injured wild bird you can read about it on the internet...oh, sorry I'll help you along, information here : http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/helpingbirds/health/injuredbirds.asp
In accordance with the law in UK, if an injured wild bird is discovered it may be taken in by humans only if it is to be treated then released into the wild. This is the reason why you hand the bird over to people who have the skill to both minimise the impact of human contact on the creature, and successfully reintegrate it into its natural environment.

More here :http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/helpingbirds/health/law.asp

Lote, you have argued that it is in the best interest of both animals and humans that humans keep them as pets. Consider then the current concerns with regard to avian flu which is a threat both to the bird population and the human population. The source of bird flu in UK results from the importation of birds (and unless you know of other reasons it would seem likely that they were imported to become pets), so the benefits/detriments of pet ownership both to the human and animal population is less than black and white. Information about the bird flu timeline here :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4882824.stm

It is also suggested that the ability of diseases to cross the animal/human barrier results from living in close quarters with animals. Perhaps you'd like to read this article which provides some information concerning this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/birdflu1.shtml

Again, the fact that disease can spread from animal to human and vice versa does not affect my moral choice. However, you have argued that the human/animal interaction as it stands is mutually beneficial. I offer the above points as evidence that it is not so clear cut.


I thought you would be eager to educate yourself.

I am thank you, but I also entertain the possibility that you could be giving me duff information ;) It would be compassionate, wouldn't it, to point me in the right direction of your research.


In all my readings I have yet to find Animal displaying Morality.

Perhaps this is because one person cannot read all things, so I will help you ;)

Here is information from an animal welfare group who claim to have scientific proof of the existence of animal morality. Information about this here :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3014747.stm
and here : http://www.ciwf.org.uk/education/animal.html
From the articles it is not possible to tell if this research has been subjected to full scientific scrutiny and acceptance by the scientific community. One might argue that as an animal welfare organisation their position may be somewhat biased, but then this is often the case in scientific research which is why independent testing and verification is required.


Of course it depends how we define moral behavior, but I have never noticed moral behavior from my dogs.

Virgil, I agree it depends on how we define morality. In terms of your dog, it is difficult to judge how it would behave in the wild because it has always been a domestic dog. However, behaviour which has been observed in African Wild Dogs includes social co-operation, communication, feeding young before adults, sharing meals, sharing the care of the young, caring for young without mothers. I cannot say if this is morality or not. It does make me think that dogs could take perfectly good care of themselves in the wild. Information here if you're interested (it took ages to load!):
http://search.bbc.co.uk/click/p/1/ds/bromsgroveallbbc/t/Science%2520and%2520Nature%2520%252D%2520Wildfacts %253A%2520African%2520wild%2520dog/id/17231391447691200317043353723030000/-/http%253A%252F%252Fwww%252Ebbc%252Eco%252Euk%252Fn ature%252Fwildfacts%252Ffactfiles%252F157%252Eshtm l

[Lote-Tree]

Lote, you have argued that it is in the best interest of both animals and humans that humans keep them as pets.


I would say humanity still needs to retain the connection with the animal world for the survival of both because our relationship is an inter-connected one. It has developed over millions of years.



However, you have argued that the human/animal interaction as it stands is mutually beneficial. I offer the above points as evidence that it is not so clear cut.


Do you know how immunity works? Reserach that and you will find that it is quite beneficial to have more interactions with animals.



Perhaps this is because one person cannot read all things, so I will help you ;)

Here is information from an animal welfare group who claim to have scientific proof of the existence of animal morality. Information about this here :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3014747.stm
and here : http://www.ciwf.org.uk/education/animal.html
From the articles it is not possible to tell if this research has been subjected to full scientific scrutiny and acceptance by the scientific community. One might argue that as an animal welfare organisation their position may be somewhat biased, but then this is often the case in scientific research which is why independent testing and verification is required.


So you can actually find information for youself... :D


I think this is a good attitude actually. It is just that I also question the way science verifies things.


The very fact that we are communicating over cyberspace proves that Scientific Method is quite sound! if it was not then everytime you clicked your mouse the universe would be turned itself into fairy :D



I treat everything with skepticism I guess.
[/quote]

Good.

[Sweets America]

The very fact that we are communicating over cyberspace proves that Scientific Method is quite sound! if it was not then everytime you clicked your mouse the universe would be turned itself into fairy :D

I am not sure this is relevant. :p But I appreciate the effort. :D


Good.

GREAT. :D

[TheFifthElement]

So you can actually find information for youself... :D

Yes I can, can you? Why don't you share it?

Cheeky :D

[Lote-Tree]

Cheeky :D

A little ;-) :D

Because I don't have the time to find the correct references for you. But with Google at your disposal you can do it for yourself :D

[TheFifthElement]

A little ;-) :D

Because I don't have the time to find the correct references for you. But with Google at your disposal you can do it for yourself :D

and I have time to find your references for you?!!! Typical man, why do a job for yourself when you can get a woman to do it for you ;)

[Lote-Tree]

and I have time to find your references for you?!!! Typical man, why do a job for yourself when you can get a woman to do it for you ;)

You women are, after all, Multi-tasking :D You can do ten jobs all at the same time and still have the time to post on a forum :D

[Sweets America]

Lote, Mr Einstein asked me to tell you this:

"Insofar as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and insofar as they are certain they do not refer to reality." Einstein

:D :D

[Bakiryu]

It's not absolutely similar since babies, when they grow up, can live their own lives.

All I have been trying to do through this thread is to open myself and recognize some of my faults.

Yes, I can see that.

However, children are obligated to take care of their parents until death and provide them with all they need. In the same way we care for dogs 'til they go and give them food, love and shelter.

[1n50mn14]

I would just like to refer to a piece from The Life of Pi (Yann Martel, for those of you who aren't trendy... I'm so sad that became trendy.) I can not access the direct quote, however, it is something along the lines of the fact that we have turned >our< habitats into those of our pets, as well, and how would we, as humans feel, if turned out of said habitat? If somebody came to our home and said "Go, go, be free!" and ushered us out, away from our reliable food source, family and friends?

I believe that owning pets is, however, a debatable topic. Some animals have been domesticated for so long that they must be pets. Some animals seem to be made for humans. I think we all need to treat our pets with the love and respect they deserve, and not remove wild animals from their natural habitat.

[Bakiryu]

I would say that human and pets have a sort of partnership going, we give then food, love and shelter and they give us love, warmth and protection (if they're dogs)

[Shalot]

Let me tell you about my pet. My old cat with the barfing problem that the vet has no solution for came up and barfed on my feet while I was sleeping.

I have ignored this thread because I don't think that providing animals with food and shelter is cruel when the animals could be out in the cold starving, or dodging cars or getting squished by cars or eating anti-freeze so I am not here to debate.

I am just here to tell you that the cat that I provide shelter for came up and barfed on my feet and I was not happy. Anyone else have a pet barf on you?

[1n50mn14]

I am just here to tell you that the cat that I provide shelter for came up and barfed on my feet and I was not happy. Anyone else have a pet barf on you?

My poor old kitty had bowel problems and was huge, white and shed everywhere. But I loved him anyway. When I was little, I would pick him up and accidentally squeeze him till he pooped. I feel bad about that...

[Shalot]

My poor old kitty had bowel problems and was huge, white and shed everywhere. But I loved him anyway. When I was little, I would pick him up and accidentally squeeze him till he pooped. I feel bad about that...

and I thought we had problems :lol:

poor cat! poor you!

[Bakiryu]

Let me tell you about my pet. My old cat with the barfing problem that the vet has no solution for came up and barfed on my feet while I was sleeping.

I have ignored this thread because I don't think that providing animals with food and shelter is cruel when the animals could be out in the cold starving, or dodging cars or getting squished by cars or eating anti-freeze so I am not here to debate.

I am just here to tell you that the cat that I provide shelter for came up and barfed on my feet and I was not happy. Anyone else have a pet barf on you?

well, no. But my dog always pees on my blanket, which I have to HANDWASH! so I have to keep the door locked (which I forget) or else, it'll poop on the carpet also and make me have to scrub it for an hour. Then, it'll try to eat my undies! Bad dog, bad! :sick:

[Jozanny]

Fifth Element:

There is new evidence out to suggest that domesticated dogs literally evolved to read human emotional responses as a survival tactic. Species interdependence is nothing new, shelters simply impose limits on territorial space. *Cruel* I think, takes it a bit far. If humans understand the needs of animals in a captive environment, and provides, I am not sure how cruel it is. I have had cats in one form or another for 20 years, and when I lived in the burbs, the big orange male we let run outside got killed by a car. Sure, the two I have now get a bit restless in the studio, and want trees, and to go out, and they will make that known--but they like walking the hallway, and I buy them toys and pay attention to them, and when they do catch mice they are doing public housing a service. They think I am mom, they get medical attention, and my first, Oliver, lived slightly longer than 19 years. Had he stayed in inner-city Jersey, where he came from, he would have probably stayed infested with fleas and would have been lucky to make it past 10.

Mammals adapt pretty quickly, and nature may be favorable for life to thrive, but it is otherwise indifferent. A lion getting its jaw crushed in a hunt faces what I imagine would be an agonizing death--if humans intervene, and destroy it humanely, that seems less cruel. Our civilization comes at a price, but when we die off, and we will, of that I am fairly positive--the mammals surviving us will adapt fairly rapidly, I am sure--although I don't know if another human-like animal would re-emerge. Maybe souls watch all this with heaven's version of microwave popcorn.:D

[Virgil]

Jozy, that is such a beautifuly reasoned and presented argument. I enjoyed reading it. :) It's basically what I said throughout the thread, but you said it better. ;)

[kiz_paws]

Just a note on the original vein, as I saw it, of this thread, that 'owning pets is cruel'.

I don't have a black nor white answer for this question. There is always going to be some grey that I have to reckon with. :nod:

A beef, if you will, that I have is that people who 'order' pure bred dogs could easily have a wonderful pet if they went to animal rescue centres (i.e. if they wanted a doberman, go to a doberman rescue centre -- not difficult to find with a computer now-a-days). OR they could go to animal rescue stations, where unwanted puppies are abandoned recklessly by irresponsible owners, and the list goes on and on.

On another thought -- people who try to squelch the very will of an animal to absolutely obey the human -- they are horrible people to witness, be around. Yes, to have a dog (I use the dog example because I have Pepper, my animal friend) one needs to train it to not do things that may be natural to the dog (mark the carpet with urine as territorial, eat my shoes for fun, etc.). We train our dog to coexist with us in our home, I don't feel that I am squelching her very canine instincts in order to do this.

BUT: we had a trainer at one time try to get us to do an ALPHA WOLF HOLD on Pepper, which was preposterous (I thought). Pepper is a little miniature schnauzer. When this move was suggested -- Pepper was under sixteen weeks old, less than twelve pounds ... need I go on?

AND: this trainer was well recognized in our circle of dog trainers as having that special touch. BAH! She was evil I tell ya!! :crash:

Anyhow those were some of my reflections on the topic. Sorry so wordy! :blush:

[aBIGsheep]

You know what's cruel?
Leaving an animal in an unsafe environment where they're half starved and rabid.

If a person can give a dog a better life, why not? This discussion is stupid.

[kiz_paws]

You know what's cruel?
Leaving an animal in an unsafe environment where they're half starved and rabid.

If a person can give a dog a better life, why not? This discussion is stupid.Hmmmm, thems strong words, Sheep. However, I respect the fact that you want a good life for an animal, glad you responded.

However, the discussion cannot be written off as 'stupid'. Just my two cents worth. :)

[Delta40]

is owning a pet, an animal, despite what species it may be nothing more than an extension of the human ego? Sure, you say you are a loving compassionate individual. Is that what 'owning' an animal is really about? That is not altruistic. So what is it then? It is about you, the human. It must be translated into selfish terms. It isn't about the welfare of animals, since free choice is not given in the first place. Don't we need to identify that place which resides within - which humans need to satisfy. It turns out that pets have a marvellous knack of filling this void. Why paint it any other way than what it is?

[librarius_qui]

You seem to have lost some of the romanticism of being human ... Which is understandable, for people like us, who live in the big city.

However fictional, I remember the relationship between Dances-with-wolves (Lt. John Dunbar) and the wolf Two-socks. If we go back in our first ancestors, it was the making of a friendship to make friendship with a beast, giving it food, and making it trust you, because you loved him, and was lonely, maybe ...

It can't be generalized. There are some relationships between man and animal that I don't recommend! But, well, it all depends on how you measure your actions and feelings in general.

I find it interesting to have friendship with animals.

I used to be afraid of dogs, when I was a kid. And cats.

In a certain part of my life, I began understanding dogs (with "a little help of my" god ...), then, a while after (some years) I was still afraid of cats, but a friend (a girl) helped me to make friends with cats.

I'm still afraid of horses, I think because they're too big. It's going to be tough to go over it, because it isn't easy or cheap to have access to horses, but I still have a dream of learning to have friends among horses, or at least to loose the fear of them.

There are a lot of other animals ... These are the three kinds I think about.


Libri~
:crash:

[aBIGsheep]

is owning a pet, an animal, despite what species it may be nothing more than an extension of the human ego? Sure, you say you are a loving compassionate individual. Is that what 'owning' an animal is really about? That is not altruistic. So what is it then? It is about you, the human. It must be translated into selfish terms. It isn't about the welfare of animals, since free choice is not given in the first place. Don't we need to identify that place which resides within - which humans need to satisfy. It turns out that pets have a marvellous knack of filling this void. Why paint it any other way than what it is?

All humans work in their own interest. Whatever YOU do, YOU'RE always going to be working in YOUR own interest. Saying that having an animal for the sake of increasing YOUR own ego is diluted.
If I take a piss in the morning, I'm working in my own interest. If I buy a house and have a kids it's because I want a house and kids.

Are you saying that, although I'm developing a parasitic relationship to an animal, I'm suddenly impacting its life in a negative way? No. If I have a pet I'll take care of it. In exchange, he gives me his lovin'. But is that selfish? No. I don't see how your argument really is, errr, arguing much of anything. Just saying that humans have pets to increase their own peen is natural. umans, by nature, hell, everything and anything by nature, is always going to work in its own self-interest first and foremost. As long as you take care of the dogs, jeez, feel free.

Everything is an extension of the human ego. That argument can be translated into EVERY argument possible. Jeezus, I swear, man. I've said the same thing whenever I ran out of things to say.

[Virgil]

Sheep, if it makes you feel any better, I'm with you. This is silly. Dogs and cats are domesticated animals. I know it's a big word, but what part of domesticated don't they not understand?

[kiz_paws]

All humans work in their own interest. Whatever YOU do, YOU'RE always going to be working in YOUR own interest. Saying that having an animal for the sake of increasing YOUR own ego is diluted.
If I take a piss in the morning, I'm working in my own interest. If I buy a house and have a kids it's because I want a house and kids.

Are you saying that, although I'm developing a parasitic relationship to an animal, I'm suddenly impacting its life in a negative way? No. If I have a pet I'll take care of it. In exchange, he gives me his lovin'. But is that selfish? No. I don't see how your argument really is, errr, arguing much of anything. Just saying that humans have pets to increase their own peen is natural. umans, by nature, hell, everything and anything by nature, is always going to work in its own self-interest first and foremost. As long as you take care of the dogs, jeez, feel free.

Everything is an extension of the human ego. That argument can be translated into EVERY argument possible. Jeezus, I swear, man. I've said the same thing whenever I ran out of things to say.
You know, that was wonderful. You are right and I salute you. :thumbs_up

[aBIGsheep]

:DDD
Fo surius
I'm glad you agree with me.

[Delta40]

Lol. Perhaps you're right. I am not sure where the word 'cruel' comes into the debate. However, I do know that owning a pet is for my satisfaction first and foremost and secondly the animal's - or to put it another way; I would at least rationalize that it is in the interest of the animals once I decide to own a pet, domesticated or not. Do I need to look further on this topic? That is rather like asking me if Chum is superior to Pedigree Pal.

[JacobF]

Not to beat a dead horse, but yeah: adopting a pet, feeding it, and giving it all its necessities and more is not cruel by any means. I guess we own pets because of their naive loyalty. It's a bit self serving, but even if you have a terrible day, even if you wake up to discover that the world hates you, your pet will continue to love you (something that a lot of humans can't compete with). We try to put animals on par with humans but it just isn't so. An animal is not like a human. Does that mean we should butcher them into patties? Well, that's for you to decide, and I think that would have been the better debate, because I can't understand how having a pet is remotely cruel or even morally wrong.

[Emil Miller]

To say that I love my cat would be an understatement because she is the light of my life, but the relationship is entirely symbiotic, which is why she constantly jumps onto my lap when I am sitting down reading and why she often sleeps on my back at night.
As far as the original thread is concerned, it is simply a case of rationalism gone mad.

[librarius_qui]

I usually am well received, at night, when I arrive at the building, by the two cats of the generation. (There has been some generations of cats, since I arrived here ...)

Now there are these two, whom I call Narica (Little-Nose) and Pingada (Drop, cause she has a drop at the forehead). They do like always to see me, and I to see them, but I don't think it's so much about me. I like to put the hands on them, and move my fingers on their heads. Of all kinds of caresses I've tried, this is, oddly, what they like the most!

I don't feed them. (Others do.)

I only say hello, talk to them. We're friends. Like brothers, or something. They're definitely not human. If they were, they'd possibly don't care whether I came back home or not. They'd be in the internet! :lol:


Libri~
:crash:

[Delta40]

But you like to put your hands on them. A choice which you make. How would they manage if you didn't touch them at all? My point is this. Your action is about you and not about the cats, despite how they respond. I have a dog and a cat. Hung Phat Chow has his own peculiarities and I am sure they are borne out of our unique relationship and our responsiveness to one another. This does not detract from my desire to want this in the first place and so I make the choice to fulfill or satisfy this need.

[aBIGsheep]

But you like to put your hands on them. A choice which you make. How would they manage if you didn't touch them at all? My point is this. Your action is about you and not about the cats, despite how they respond. I have a dog and a cat. Hung Phat Chow has his own peculiarities and I am sure they are borne out of our unique relationship and our responsiveness to one another. This does not detract from my desire to want this in the first place and so I make the choice to fulfill or satisfy this need.

My point is this. All your actions are about YOU.

[Delta40]

Exactly. didn't you allude to urination somewhere??? (lol) what is the purpose of the thread then? That selfishness does or doesn't equate to cruelty?

[Delta40]

Hey, I'm hungover and my brain hasn't kickstarted into 2009. Perhaps my actions rather than debates on whether they are selfish need to be addressed in the context of being cruel. Is that better ABS?

[Delta40]

No that's wrong. Is it cruel to own a pet notwithstanding that all actions are about me. Got it!

[aBIGsheep]

So you're saying, everyone is cruel for trying to live? That's ridiculous. You could've condensed everything that you've said in 4 words:

Everything is about you.

Which is true to a degree, but also ridiculous when you say it's cruelty. The point of this thread is about animals. Not about how cruel you are.

[Delta40]

Now, now I'm a short story writer. NOT a philosopher! Cut me some slack on this

[aBIGsheep]

No that's wrong. Is it cruel to own a pet notwithstanding that all actions are about me. Got it!


Hey, I'm hungover and my brain hasn't kickstarted into 2009. Perhaps my actions rather than debates on whether they are selfish need to be addressed in the context of being cruel. Is that better ABS?

Definitely didn't see that. But chyeah, I'm not a philosopher either. I'm a short story writer.

And ABS? That's a first. I like it.

[6079]

The fact of the matter is we don't actually treat our pets, puppies, kittens, all that differently from the way we treat new born children- But here's the thing: Animals ARE different to people, no matter what how you treat them. I'm not saying worse, or better, just, think about it: The reason it's not cruel to own a pet is because it doesn't develop in the same way people do.
Babies learn the language, develop, and wish to move out, get married, get a job etc. If pets wished the same things, to be free from their caregivers, they would. We're not imprisoning them!
Animals act differently, and should be treated differently as such. That isn't cruel.

[librarius_qui]

But you like to put your hands on them. A choice which you make. How would they manage if you didn't touch them at all? My point is this. Your action is about you and not about the cats, despite how they respond. I have a dog and a cat. Hung Phat Chow has his own peculiarities and I am sure they are borne out of our unique relationship and our responsiveness to one another. This does not detract from my desire to want this in the first place and so I make the choice to fulfill or satisfy this need.

Do you look up at the sky, when you're walking out? ... Do you marvel at the small things even this *cruel* (since human first built a city) civilization cannot erase, or destroy? A leaf of a tree falling ... A white bird flying around? A cat at the stair of your building? ... No, it wasn't only a decision of a man to put hands on the world around. There IS the world around, with cats, stones to stumble onto, girls -- damn girs ... bless them! --, with fathers & mothers, with sharks and butterflies ... And sheep ... And flying saucers that are not ... (to me).

No, it wasn't a mere decision of mine to put hands on those cats. What led them to live across my way? I won't answer this. It's ... personal, aye? Maybe coincidence. Maybe ... Dildrum, the king of the cats ordered them. Maybe it was Palas Athene, Minerva ... or the god of Jacob ... Who will know? Who will tell anyone else what it was. Because, maybe it was cruel selfishness, another modern god ... It all depends on what you live based on.

:crash:



The fact of the matter is we don't actually treat our pets, puppies, kittens, all that differently from the way we treat new born children- But here's the thing: Animals ARE different to people, no matter what how you treat them. I'm not saying worse, or better, just, think about it: The reason it's not cruel to own a pet is because it doesn't develop in the same way people do.
Babies learn the language, develop, and wish to move out, get married, get a job etc. If pets wished the same things, to be free from their caregivers, they would. We're not imprisoning them!
Animals act differently, and should be treated differently as such. That isn't cruel.

Cruel or not cruel? ...

To some, it will be always cruel. To others -- lucky these ... blessed? hm! -- to others it won't ever (never!) be cruel.

& We're even too different human beings among ourselves to reach any agreement on this, which leads me to close my participation in this vain discussion, and think about (or wait someone else to do so) opening another more interesting place to talk about dogs, cats & horses. (& Elephants, if we will, because there are places on this vast world where even elephants are happy (or unhappy? poor them!) "pets".

Elephants who (who??) who run away from tsunami.~



I'm through this | & sorry for the rough answers, but ... come on! :bawling:

[librarius_qui]

&, however, what kind of human beings would we be, if we didn't discuss, and disagree? ...

[TheFifthElement]

Hey, I'm impressed this thread is still going. Everyone is a slave to Lote and his inflammatory, if slightly misguided, tendancies!


If pets wished the same things, to be free from their caregivers, they would. We're not imprisoning them!

Hey, that's funny 6079! Just last week I was walking along the street and I bumped into a pair of Ciclids (they're fish, for the uninitiated) in their freshwater suits with backpacks over their shoulders. They were standing at the bus stop. I asked them what they were doing and they said they'd been for a nice holiday and were making their way back to Lake Tanganyika, back to their kids. Had a great time they said. Weird, huh? ;)

Forgive me, I'm in a silly mood today.Couldn't resist.