What do you think of Platypuses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

But, I am thinking of something... you are even throwing your lance at men now!

---

Only to scare them with the Size of it all :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbara0207

I'm ready to be second and referee.

---

Ah Lady Guinevere...Sure :D

Quote:

---

And I must say, Sir Lote, choosing the weapon yourself is rather un-knightly.

---

But I am Sir Lance-Lote - the lance is an extenstion of myself :D

Quote:

---

As you are the challenger, your opponent may choose the weapon.

---

He is the challenger! I am the real Lote-Tree :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Doesn't anyone else wonder what they would taste like in a sauce? :D

---

Yes, I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weisinheimer

Am I the only one that thinks platypuses are incredibly ugly? Look at those horrid feet, ugh:sick:.

---

There is another thing as yet unmentioned about those feet that makes the "They are cute animals, I want one as a pet." option less attractive: They have poisonous spurs!

Quote:

---

Adult males have a pointed spur (about 15 millimetres long) located just above the heel of each hind leg, which can be used to inject poison produced by a gland in the thigh (the crural gland).

If provoked, a male platypus can use his spurs as a defensive weapon. In the days when platypus were shot for their fur, dogs were sometimes killed after being sent to retrieve a wounded male from the water. These days, people mainly get spurred when they handle a platypus which has become hooked inadvertently on a fishing line.

Platypus venom is not considered to be life-threatening to a healthy human. However, spurring is painful - in part, because platypus spurs are sharp and can be driven in with great force. As well, platypus poison triggers severe pain in the affected limb and can result in quite spectacular localised swelling.

---

So there you have it: Don't pet them... Did you notice just how the keeper is holding the platypus in the pictures in the beginning of this thread? Looks a bit awkward, doesn't it? Now you know why.

Added in edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Diplomatic Platypus by Patrick Barrington

I had a duck-billed platypus when I was up at Trinity,
With whom I soon discovered a remarkable affinity.
He used to live in lodgings with myself and Arthur Purvis,
And we all went up together for the Diplomatic Service.
I had a certain confidence, I own, in his ability,
He mastered all the subjects with remarkable facility;
And Purvis, though more dubious, agreed that he was clever,
But no one else imagined he had any chance whatever.

I failed to pass the interview, the board with wry grimaces
Took exception to my boots and then objected to my braces,
And Purvis too was failed by an intolerant examiner
Who said he had his doubts as to his sock-suspender's stamina.
Our summary rejection, though we took it with urbanity
Was naturally wounding in some measure to our vanity;
The bitterness of failure was considerably mollified,
However, by the ease with which our platypus had qualified.

The wisdom of the choice, it soon appeared, was undeniable;
There never was a diplomat more thoroughly reliable.
The creature never acted with undue precipitation O,
But gave to every question his mature consideration O.
He never made rash statements his enemies might hold him to,
He never stated anything, for no one ever told him to,
And soon he was appointed, so correct was his behaviour,
Our Minister (without Portfolio) to Trans-Moravia.

My friend was loved and honoured from the Andes to Esthonia,
He soon achieved a pact between Peru and Patagonia,
He never vexed the Russians nor offended the Rumanians,
He pacified the Letts and yet appeased the Lithuanians,
Won approval from his masters down in Downing Street so wholly, O,
He was soon to be rewarded with the grant of a Portfolio,
When on the Anniversary of Greek Emancipation,
Alas! He laid an egg in the Bulgarian Legation.

This untoward occurrence caused unheard-of repercussions,
Giving rise to epidemics of sword-clanking in the Prussians.
The Poles began to threaten, and the Finns began to flap at him,
Directing all the blame for this unfortunate mishap at him;
While the Swedes withdrew entirely from the Anglo-Saxon dailies
The right of photographing the Aurora Borealis,
And, all efforts at rapprochement in the meantime proving barren,
The Japanese in self-defence annexed the Isle of Arran.

My platypus, once thought to be more cautious and more tentative
Than any other living diplomatic representative,
Was now a sort of warning to all diplomatic students
Of the risks attached to negligence, the perils of imprudence,
Beset and persecuted by the forces of reaction, O,
He reaped the consequences of his ill-considered action, O,
And, branded in the Honours List as 'Platypus, Dame Vera',
Retired, a lonely figure, to lay eggs in Bordighera.

---

/Claes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClaesGefvenberg

There is another thing as yet unmentioned about those feet that makes the "They are cute animals, I want one as a pet." option less attractive: They have poisonous spurs!

---

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!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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!)

---

I agree with what you say here. Though, about dogs, I am certainly not part of those who want to dominate their dog. I have never considered myself as my dog's master, we are equals, and I would say that in some ways I actually still have a lot to learn from him.

His company, friendship and love are such an important part of my life. I am trying to make him as happy as he makes me. I know there is a part of selfishness in keeping an animal, I think you're right. But, without everything my dogs have shared with me, I would certainly not be the same person today. I owe them so much.

I wonder if dogs would like to be left alone, living their doggy life. Maybe. When I wander in the countryside with my dog, I try to give him all the time he wants to sniff whatever he feels like sniffing, I let him decide and I am happy with wherever he goes. I think he is happy with me. I feel it in the way he comes to my arms, snuggles up with me and falls asleep on my lap.

Now, I gues the situation with dogs is different from the situation with wild animals. I know I would feel guilty to take a wild animal as a pet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Only to scare them with the Size of it all :D

---

Ah, I see. :D But, I thought it was a needle?! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

I wonder if dogs would like to be left alone, living their doggy life. Maybe. When I wander in the countryside with my dog, I try to give him all the time he wants to sniff whatever he feels like sniffing, I let him decide and I am happy with wherever he goes. I think he is happy with me. I feel it in the way he comes to my arms, snuggles up with me and falls asleep on my lap.

---

I think this is a danger we all fall into, assuming that a creature loves us because it appears, to our standards, to be so. But this phenomenon is observed in humans subjected to acts of subjugation and denial of self-will, for example in cases of kidnapping. It's called Stockholm Syndrome, more about it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

This, I think, is part of the concern for me, is the behaviour we observe in our pets merely an animal version of Stockholm Syndrome?

Quote:

---

Now, I gues the situation with dogs is different from the situation with wild animals. I know I would feel guilty to take a wild animal as a pet.

---

I'm not sure it is different, in fact the more I think about it, the more I think that the whole matter of domestic pets is worse. We breed 'pets' purely for the purpose of our amusement and gratification without them ever having the possibility of living life according to their nature, with the freedom to behave as they choose to behave without complying to human expectations and rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think this is a danger we all fall into, assuming that a creature loves us because it appears, to our standards, to be so. But this phenomenon is observed in humans subjected to acts of subjugation and denial of self-will, for example in cases of kidnapping. It's called Stockholm Syndrome, more about it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

This, I think, is part of the concern for me, is the behaviour we observe in our pets merely an animal version of Stockholm Syndrome?

---

I feel greatly hurt by your post. It's not because of you, it's because the greatest part of my life revolves around my love for dogs and theirs for me. I feel misunderstood. My relationship with dogs is very special and I fail to explain it. You wonder if dogs really love us. I know what the Stockolm Syndrome is, and this is an interesting idea. But I am absolutely certain of the love my dog gives me. If you were at my place you would know. It's like nobody sees what I mean. I am very sensitive on this subject, because I think that what you say here makes a great fear appear in me: what if my dogs had never loved me? What if it was all an illusion? It would just destroy me, I think. While I had no one, they were there. They were the only ones. They were the ones who adopted me and welcomed me. I would do anything for them. I always put them first.
I know I cannot be sure of it, but I just somehow know how my dog feels for me, how he loves me unconditionally, because he communicates it to me. With just one touch of my hand or with a touch of his nose, we know. We need no words. I have never had a relationship as deep, as sincere as the one I have/had with my dogs.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure it is different, in fact the more I think about it, the more I think that the whole matter of domestic pets is worse. We breed 'pets' purely for the purpose of our amusement and gratification without them ever having the possibility of living life according to their nature, with the freedom to behave as they choose to behave without complying to human expectations and rules.

---

Here I disagree when you talk about amusement and gratification. I feel insulted, because if I have a dog it's not to be amused or to show my beautiful dog to people and boast aloud. I have a dog just like I have a best friend, a soulmate or a father. I certainly do not want my dog to live according to the human nature, I on the contrary want to learn from him and his own nature. I listen to him. I give him everything I can, and I'm not talking about material things here but about love and tenderness.

My dogs are special to me, but dogs in general give me so much. You have no idea of what I feel when I touch them.
The link I have with my dog is just so mysterious to me, so beautiful that I feel so lucky just to be able to feel it.
I wonder what my dog would tell you if he could. I wonder if he could explain better than I do here. Maybe he would not be as sensitive as I am, maybe he would be wiser, kiss my tears and tell me that as long as we both know how we feel for each other, nothing else matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think this is a danger we all fall into, assuming that a creature loves us because it appears, to our standards, to be so. But this phenomenon is observed in humans subjected to acts of subjugation and denial of self-will, for example in cases of kidnapping. It's called Stockholm Syndrome, more about it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

This, I think, is part of the concern for me, is the behaviour we observe in our pets merely an animal version of Stockholm Syndrome?



I'm not sure it is different, in fact the more I think about it, the more I think that the whole matter of domestic pets is worse. We breed 'pets' purely for the purpose of our amusement and gratification without them ever having the possibility of living life according to their nature, with the freedom to behave as they choose to behave without complying to human expectations and rules.

---

I've never owned a pet. The closest relationships I have with 'domesticated' animals are the three Lhaso Apsos in the care of a friend of mine who drops in with them once or twice a week. Their behaviour towards me is unique from one to the other. Chookie is rather aloof (he was once abused by a man) but has lately chosen to accept me, to the extent that he will leap up on the sofa when I am seated there and permit me to run my fingers back & forth under his chin. Shiwa, the one female among them, appears - as far as one can read animal behaviour - to have a 'crush' on me! That is, she does an excited, ritual-like dance whenever she comes over, rushing around in circles, then placing her front paws on my legs, backing off, running some more circles, &c., and constantly comes over for attention when I am seated.

No Stockholm syndrome there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

I feel greatly hurt by your post. It's not because of you, it's because the greatest part of my life revolves around my love for dogs and theirs for me. I feel misunderstood. My relationship with dogs is very special and I fail to explain it. You wonder if dogs really love us. I know what the Stockolm Syndrome is, and this is an interesting idea. But I am absolutely certain of the love my dog gives me. If you were at my place you would know. It's like nobody sees what I mean. I am very sensitive on this subject, because I think that what you say here makes a great fear appear in me: what if my dogs had never loved me?

---

Although Thefifth's argument is perfectly valid for her own choices, a fault in it is that one cannot indeed know in human terms what a dog or cat's feelings about us truly are. One might argue with equal conviction that your beloved Calif, as did Mabrouck before him, understands and deeply appreciates the love you feel for and demonstrate to him.

If he were capable of comparing his situation with that of a wolf or any other undomesticated animal, he may very well be uttering thanks to whatever deities he knows of for your love, your protection of him &c.

Let me reiterate: in terms of TheFifth's way of thinking, it would be ludicrous and possibly cruel for her to keep a pet. But in this and other moral matters, she can be no more than the authority on her feelings and perceptions. And you are the authority on yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

I feel greatly hurt by your post. It's not because of you, it's because the greatest part of my life revolves around my love for dogs and theirs for me. I feel misunderstood.

---

I think this is my point Sweets America, actions that are well intentioned can still be cruel, it isn't meant so, but it can be. I think that keeping pets, personally, is cruel, and to change this opinion because it upsets a few people would be unacceptable to my moral choices, but then as Prince says :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

Let me reiterate: in terms of TheFifth's way of thinking, it would be ludicrous and possibly cruel for her to keep a pet. But in this and other moral matters, she can be no more than the authority on her feelings and perceptions. And you are the authority on yours.

---

Which is eminently true. This is my opinion, I may be wrong in my opinion, I may be right. The likelihood is that I an no one else will ever know either way. At a fundamental level I believe there is very little which can be professed as fact, perhaps I should preface all my posts this way, to avoid confusion.

In point of fact, the only statement made which I disagree with is this one:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

Although Thefifth's argument is perfectly valid for her own choices, a fault in it is that one cannot indeed know in human terms what a dog or cat's feelings about us truly are. One might argue with equal conviction that your beloved Calif, as did Mabrouck before him, understands and deeply appreciates the love you feel for and demonstrate to him.

---

I don't think it was the fault in my argument, but actually the point of my argument. I do not believe that we can know what a dog or a cat feels. I don't think I have the right to assume that I know what it feels, or that my judgement on what constitutes a good life for a creature should override the natural state of that creature. Dogs are wild animals, until I know better I believe they should be allowed to live as wild animals, according to their own rules. Same for cats, fish, hamsters, gerbils, snakes etc etc. These are my choices, perhaps many will disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think this is my point Sweets America, actions that are well intentioned can still be cruel, it is meant so, but it can be. I think that keeping pets, personally, is cruel but then as Prince says :



Which is eminently true. This is my opinion, I may be wrong in my opinion, I may be right. The likelihood is that I an no one else will ever know either way. At a fundamental level I believe there is very little which can be professed as fact, perhaps I should preface all my posts this way, to avoid confusion.

In point of fact, the only statement made which I disagree with is this one:



I don't think it was the fault in my argument, but actually the point of my argument. I do not believe that we can know what a dog or a cat feels. I don't think I have the right to assume that I know what it feels, or that my judgement on what constitutes a good life for a creature should override the natural state of that creature. Dogs are wild animals, until I know better I believe they should be allowed to live as wild animals, according to their own rules. Same for cats, fish, hamsters, gerbils, snakes etc etc. These are my choices, perhaps many will disagree.

---

I see what you mean and if I reacted this way, it was because some part of me wonders if what you said could be true. No one will ever know.
But, my dogs saved me. In many ways. If you only knew. I think you will never know what I feel if you never develop such a relationship with an animal.

I will never think I have done anything cruel to my beloved Calif and Mabrouck. Some human beings, however, have done cruel things to me, and maybe that explains why I turned towards the creatures who accepted me.

I know that I cannot 'know' for sure what my dog feels. We are different creatures with different ways of seeing the world. But, the wonderful thing is that all of these differences seem to be washed out on the gound of love.

I know what a deep relationship I have with my dogs. I know the dread I suddenly felt in the middle of a night, feeling death all around and thinking of my Mabrouck whereas I was miles away from him. How strange I felt when I learnt that he had been greatly sick on that precise night, and how desperate I felt when he died a week after.
I see your point, but I guess I will trust my feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

If dogs could speak would they say 'let me be a dog'?

---

interesting question. i read an article about some psychologists or behavioural studies guys who are studying the intelligence of dogs. people used to assume that dogs are really dumb an wolves must be smarter than them. they did experiments where a student raised a wolf and kept him like a dog. but it turned out the wolf's social intelligence was much lower than that of dogs. It failed to learn many things that dogs can learn. it seems like dogs have evolved over the millenia since they were domesticated and have developed a different kind of social intelligence than wolves, which is geared to living together with humans. so a dog is not just a dumb ex-wolf (as they put it in the article) but is used to living with humans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

interesting question. i read an article about some psychologists or behavioural studies guys who are studying the intelligence of dogs. people used to assume that dogs are really dumb an wolves must be smarter than them. they did experiments where a student raised a wolf and kept him like a dog. but it turned out the wolf's social intelligence was much lower than that of dogs. It failed to learn many things that dogs can learn. it seems like dogs have evolved over the millenia since they were domesticated and have developed a different kind of social intelligence than wolves, which is geared to living together with humans. so a dog is not just a dumb ex-wolf (as they put it in the article) but is used to living with humans

---

Yes, but what if the wolf used in the experiment was just one 'dumb' or lazy wolf while all the others are extremely intelligent? :D

;) I don't remember the details, but I think they had more than one wolf. but of course, they might have picked a whole bunch of dumb wolves. as they say, wolves of a feather flock together

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think this is my point Sweets America, actions that are well intentioned can still be cruel, it isn't meant so, but it can be. I think that keeping pets, personally, is cruel, and to change this opinion because it upsets a few people would be unacceptable to my moral choices, but then as Prince says :



Which is eminently true. This is my opinion, I may be wrong in my opinion, I may be right. The likelihood is that I an no one else will ever know either way. At a fundamental level I believe there is very little which can be professed as fact, perhaps I should preface all my posts this way, to avoid confusion.

In point of fact, the only statement made which I disagree with is this one:



I don't think it was the fault in my argument, but actually the point of my argument. I do not believe that we can know what a dog or a cat feels. I don't think I have the right to assume that I know what it feels, or that my judgement on what constitutes a good life for a creature should override the natural state of that creature. Dogs are wild animals, until I know better I believe they should be allowed to live as wild animals, according to their own rules. Same for cats, fish, hamsters, gerbils, snakes etc etc. These are my choices, perhaps many will disagree.

---

So, if I have a puppy I've had since it was 6 weeks old and care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it? Have you ever had a pet and felt the unconditional love they give? It's hard to understand you're argument, especially for someone who has always had pets of all kinds. Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles? Most, no all, pet owners take very good care of their pets. It's a relationship just like any other we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Granny5

So, if I have a puppy I've had since it was 6 weeks old and care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it? Have you ever had a pet and felt the unconditional love they give? It's hard to understand you're argument, especially for someone who has always had pets of all kinds. Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles? Most, no all, pet owners take very good care of their pets. It's a relationship just like any other we have.

---

I greatly agree with you here. TheFifthElement's point distressed me though.
But, I had my dog on the phone (sort of! :p :D ) a few hours ago and hearing his 'snif' over the phone made me feel better. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Granny5

So, if I have a puppy I've had since it was 6 weeks old and care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it? Have you ever had a pet and felt the unconditional love they give? It's hard to understand you're argument, especially for someone who has always had pets of all kinds. Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles? Most, no all, pet owners take very good care of their pets. It's a relationship just like any other we have.

---

It's not a lack of love Granny, just a matter of respect. I ask myself the question 'how would dogs live if there were no humans', and take a philosophical view that humans should allow them to live that way now, without intervention.

Sleepy raised an interesting point which, perhaps, further polarised my opinion on this which was :

Quote:

---

dogs have evolved over the millenia since they were domesticated and have developed a different kind of social intelligence than wolves, which is geared to living together with humans. so a dog is not just a dumb ex-wolf (as they put it in the article) but is used to living with humans

---

which basically means that we have so intervened in the nature of this species that if the human race manages to destroy itself, then we're taking dogs with us because we've taken away their natural ability to fend for themselves, which they were probably pretty good at. Isn't that cruel?

Take this point you make here : ..."care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it?", and without restating the entirety of my original post, apply the same rules to humans. That would make it okay for any man, or woman for that matter, to imprison you providing they took good care of you. Would that be okay? Isn't a well treated slave still a slave?

And this : "Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles?" in my opinion yes, it would be less cruel to allow animals to live according to their natural instinct, and though you have stated examples such as if animals were left wild then they would get sick, overpopulate etc, there are probably an equal number still suffering because of mis-treatment by humans, what about the droves of fish that die in transportation alone, just on the off-chance that we'll look at them in a tank? What about the animals that are put down because they are 'inconvenient'? What troubles me is the question of why we think we have the right, or the ability to decide what is the best life for animals, when we can't even agree on what is the best kind of life for humans. Perhaps we should solve our own problems first, before tinkering in the development of other species, and possibly causing them damage in the process - without meaning too perhaps, but doing it anyway. We don't know enough to know what is right and wrong, so why not let them decide?

So, I offer this as explanation. As I said before, this is my choice philosophically. If we are, as a species, going to keep pets then we should do so responsibly and with care for their needs, but, in my opinion, it would be better not to keep animals as pets in the first place.

Platypi are awesome. They're all venomous and funny lookin'. If I had one as a pet I'd carry it around on my shoulder like a pirate. "Yarrrrr. This be me pet-Polly the platypus. Polly wanna cracker?" :p Jist kiddin'...

When I feel like doing that "Guess what? Chicken butt." joke I say, "Guess what? Platypus butt."

I bet the guy who discovered platypi thought, "Whaaaaaa...?" when he first saw them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

It's not a lack of love Granny, just a matter of respect. I ask myself the question 'how would dogs live if there were no humans', and take a philosophical view that humans should allow them to live that way now, without intervention.

Sleepy raised an interesting point which, perhaps, further polarised my opinion on this which was :



which basically means that we have so intervened in the nature of this species that if the human race manages to destroy itself, then we're taking dogs with us because we've taken away their natural ability to fend for themselves, which they were probably pretty good at. Isn't that cruel?

Take this point you make here : ..."care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it?", and without restating the entirety of my original post, apply the same rules to humans. That would make it okay for any man, or woman for that matter, to imprison you providing they took good care of you. Would that be okay? Isn't a well treated slave still a slave?

And this : "Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles?" in my opinion yes, it would be less cruel to allow animals to live according to their natural instinct, and though you have stated examples such as if animals were left wild then they would get sick, overpopulate etc, there are probably an equal number still suffering because of mis-treatment by humans, what about the droves of fish that die in transportation alone, just on the off-chance that we'll look at them in a tank? What about the animals that are put down because they are 'inconvenient'? What troubles me is the question of why we think we have the right, or the ability to decide what is the best life for animals, when we can't even agree on what is the best kind of life for humans. Perhaps we should solve our own problems first, before tinkering in the development of other species, and possibly causing them damage in the process - without meaning too perhaps, but doing it anyway. We don't know enough to know what is right and wrong, so why not let them decide?

So, I offer this as explanation. As I said before, this is my choice philosophically. If we are, as a species, going to keep pets then we should do so responsibly and with care for their needs, but, in my opinion, it would be better not to keep animals as pets in the first place.

---

I see. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. My dogs are not even close to slaves. I sometimes feel like their slave with the demands they have on my time but now that the kids are all grown what else am I going to do? I truly love my pets and I really believe they love us. I don't think they would choose to live in the wild else they wouldn't come back in when they are let out. We live in a rural area so they do have that option. If we all though alike, wouldn't this forum be a bore?

as for other animals, deer, bear, tigers, lions, meercats, chimps, etc. wild animals do not belong in the home. I think it takes thousands of years to domesticate an animal.

I didn't realize you guys were talking about one of my favorite subjects, dogs!! I thought you were still talking about platypuses, and how tastey they might be. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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!)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think this is a danger we all fall into, assuming that a creature loves us because it appears, to our standards, to be so. But this phenomenon is observed in humans subjected to acts of subjugation and denial of self-will, for example in cases of kidnapping. It's called Stockholm Syndrome, more about it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

This, I think, is part of the concern for me, is the behaviour we observe in our pets merely an animal version of Stockholm Syndrome?



I'm not sure it is different, in fact the more I think about it, the more I think that the whole matter of domestic pets is worse. We breed 'pets' purely for the purpose of our amusement and gratification without them ever having the possibility of living life according to their nature, with the freedom to behave as they choose to behave without complying to human expectations and rules.

---

Fifth a dog is not a human nor is it a wild animal. While it has an ability to live in the wild, it's natural inclination is to live around humans, and yes through domestication have evolved away from the wolf. Their mental processes are different. That's why that study that Sleepy cited that proved a wolf was not as smart as a dog does not surprise me. I bet a wolf would have been supeiror in using its smarts in the wild, but it cannot make the transition to domestication. The dog understands genetically what human interation is, and will outsmart the wolf in a human environment. All I can say is my dog is incredibly happy living with me. Right now she's sleeping on the couch. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Fifth a dog is not a human nor is it a wild animal. While it has an ability to live in the wild, it's natural inclination is to live around humans, and yes through domestication have evolved away from the wolf.

---

yep, that's exactly what I mean. I don't think dogs would die a miserable death if humans weren't around any longer. i mean, look at all those stray dogs who eat mice etc. (of course there are also stray dogs in cities that eat rubbish, french fries, crumbs, but there are also those in the country side that can survive without man-made food). plus, in regions where there are wolves, don't stray dogs inter-breed with the wolves? so even if the wolf packs reject the cross-breeds, eventually there'd be a lot of them and they could start their own pack.

and besides, the domestication of dogs is not a modern phenomenon. i mean they already kept dogs as domesticated animals in the Stone Age or something. so if someone scr*wed up it was those guys. it's a little late to worry about it now :(

Ah, I'm glad to see that Virgil posted here, I was waiting for his opinion. :)
I believe my dog is happy with me too. He can be outside or live in the house with us. He likes it in the house because he has a nice couch, and...also, he likes being around us in the kitchen during meals. :D Especially when I am here because he knows that I will always give him a little something to eat. :p He says it's not his fault if I cannot resist his hangdog look. :D
I live in the country too, and my doggy has a large garden to wander in.

He's far from being a slave. He has a real character and will mainly do what HE wants to do, and if you do something that he dislikes, he will look at you with reproaching eyes. If you talk badly to him, he goes away and YOU have to go and say sorry if you want him to come back. :D :D

Just like Sleepy, I think dogs would survive without human beings. There are dogs who flee from their house and they find a way of feeding themselves.

Well, I didn't expect the pet owners to agree with me. It's an uncomfortable statement. I'd imagine the slave owners didn't agree with the abolitionists either, but then we all now accept that the denial of human freedom is wrong. My view is that the same applies to animals and just because we love them doesn't mean it's okay to put them in a cage, however nice that cage might be. Perhaps I should have prefaced my original post by saying that this statement :

Quote:

---

They are cute animals, I want one as a pet.

---

profoundly hurt, disturbed and offended me, but I accept that this wasn't Sweets America's intent. Perhaps I should say that I'd like to think that if I came across a playtpus (in the wild) and looked it in the eye it would know and understand my feelings, that it would know that I would like live in a world where although humans can interfere in the lives of animals that they wouldn't, and that I would be able to tell that it understood me. But then if I can't even make a few humans understand this point, and we speak the same language, and experience the same emotions, then what chance is there that a different species will understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Fifth a dog is not a human nor is it a wild animal. While it has an ability to live in the wild, it's natural inclination is to live around humans,

---

Virgil, how do you know that a dogs natural inclination is to live around humans? There are still wild dogs in the world that don't interact with the human population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

That's why that study that Sleepy cited that proved a wolf was not as smart as a dog does not surprise me.

---

Again, what troubles me about this is that it applies human standards to the concept of 'smart'. The dog is smart because it can learn to live with humans, and adapt to the human lifestyle. Does this mean that humans are not smart because we can't adapt to other creatures?

In point the discussion has so far been mainly centred around dogs, but what about cats, mice, fish, birds, snakes, gerbils, hamsters, rabbits, etc, etc which are all kept as 'pets'. Are they naturally inclined to live with humans too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

In point the discussion has so far been mainly centred around dogs, but what about cats, mice, fish, birds, snakes, gerbils, hamsters, rabbits, etc, etc which are all kept as 'pets'. Are they naturally inclined to live with humans too?

---

I totally agree with you on this point, Fifth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I'd imagine the slave owners didn't agree with the abolitionists either, but then we all now accept that the denial of human freedom is wrong. My view is that the same applies to animals and just because we love them doesn't mean it's okay to put them in a cage, however nice that cage might be.

---

yep, but then you could say it's wrong for people to marry even when they love each other, because they are putting each other in a cage, too?

I'm sitting on the fence and there's splinters in my bum :D ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

yep, but then you could say it's wrong for people to marry even when they love each other, because they are putting each other in a cage, too?

---

I'd agree with you if marriage was still for life, but it isn't, so I guess it's a cage with the door permanently open, which isn't a cage at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

I'm sitting on the fence and there's splinters in my bum :D ;)

---

Sleepy, get off that fence - think about your poor bum, doesn't it have rights too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Well, I didn't expect the pet owners to agree with me. It's an uncomfortable statement. I'd imagine the slave owners didn't agree with the abolitionists either, but then we all now accept that the denial of human freedom is wrong. My view is that the same applies to animals and just because we love them doesn't mean it's okay to put them in a cage, however nice that cage might be. Perhaps I should have prefaced my original post by saying that this statement :



profoundly hurt, disturbed and offended me, but I accept that this wasn't Sweets America's intent. Perhaps I should say that I'd like to think that if I came across a playtpus (in the wild) and looked it in the eye it would know and understand my feelings, that it would know that I would like live in a world where although humans can interfere in the lives of animals that they wouldn't, and that I would be able to tell that it understood me. But then if I can't even make a few humans understand this point, and we speak the same language, and experience the same emotions, then what chance is there that a different species will understand?

---

Jesus Christ, Fifth! I just cannot believe that you took the 'I want one as a pet' seriously!! :eek: :rolleyes:
It was obvious that it was A JOKE! Look at all the possibilities of vote, they were all JOKES! This is terrible that one cannot write a line without it being taken the wrong way.
That reminds me of when I told my ex American boyfriend in a joking manner : 'Oh I have an English boyfriend, an Irish one, an Australian one, a Canadian one, BUT, you are of course my favorite of all!' and to my great surprise, my boyfriend took that seriously and really believed I had boyfriends in all these countries! :lol: I mean, come on!

I feel insulted when you compare dogs with slaves. I feel that slaves themselves could feel insulted by your statement. It's too easy. It reminds me of those people who compare the French president to Hitler! It's such an insult to use these terrible historical events to one's advantage just to try to shock and prove one's point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

That reminds me of when I told my ex American boyfriend in a joking manner : 'Oh I have an English boyfriend, an Irish one, an Australian one, a Canadian one, BUT, you are of course my favorite of all!' and to my great surprise, my boyfriend took that seriously and really believed I had boyfriends in all these countries! :lol: I mean, come on!

---

so that's what you meant when you said someone should have told you Americans don't understand irony? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

so that's what you meant when you said someone should have told you Americans don't understand irony? :)

---

Well I guess so. :lol: But really, I am just surprised, it was obvious to me that it was a joke, and it just meant 'I find these animals cute'.
Anyway, this thread was supposed to be a funny one at first, believe it or not. :p

what do you think of Kiwis? they are funny, too aren't they?

http://www.kiwihouse.org.nz/nw-kiwi.jpg

huge pic, please click the link. it's a bit scary...
http://www.newscentre.bham.ac.uk/ima...nd_eyes_02.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...wi-Posters.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

what do you think of Kiwis? they are funny, too aren't they?

http://www.kiwihouse.org.nz/nw-kiwi.jpg

huge pic, please click the link. it's a bit scary...
http://www.newscentre.bham.ac.uk/ima...nd_eyes_02.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...wi-Posters.jpg

---

:lol: :lol:
I don't really know what I think of kiwis. I am not really fond of their taste. I prefer Platypuses. That has nothing to do with their taste, though. :p
Your big image was strange. :D

Edit: oh, the first image had not appeared before. This kiwi looks funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

This is terrible that one cannot write a line without it being taken the wrong way.

---

Indeed. Perhaps you could apply the same philosophy to my posts.

woa, what' with you girls? let's talk about something uncontroversial for a change? .........e.g. nudity :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Indeed. Perhaps you could apply the same philosophy to my posts.

---

You are right. Since this subject is a very sensible one to me, I tend to lack objectivity about it and I react a little abruptly.
Sleepy is right I guess, we should forget about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

You are right. Since this subject is a very sensible one to me, I tend to lack objectivity about it and I react a little abruptly.
Sleepy is right I guess, we should forget about that.

---

I understand why Sweets, I have had to reconcile my own prior pet keeping habits with this concept, and it is uncomfortable. But then what is life without regrets? Boring, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Virgil, how do you know that a dogs natural inclination is to live around humans? There are still wild dogs in the world that don't interact with the human population.

---

I'll have to look it up for you. Dogs probably evolved to be inclined to be with humans becuase they were more adept at scavenging, living off the scraps of human groups. And then it became a symbiotic relationship.

Quote:

---

Again, what troubles me about this is that it applies human standards to the concept of 'smart'. The dog is smart because it can learn to live with humans, and adapt to the human lifestyle. Does this mean that humans are not smart because we can't adapt to other creatures?

---

Well, it works both ways. We adapted to live with dogs, cats, and whatever.

Quote:

---

In point the discussion has so far been mainly centred around dogs, but what about cats, mice, fish, birds, snakes, gerbils, hamsters, rabbits, etc, etc which are all kept as 'pets'. Are they naturally inclined to live with humans too?

---

I can't speak to the other animals. I've done a bit of reading and watching documentaries on dogs and their behavior. I've owned one most of my adult life, so I feel I can really see their minds working. But I can't really claim anything close to that for the other animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

so that's what you meant when you said someone should have told you Americans don't understand irony? :)

---

I don't get it? :p ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, it works both ways. We adapted to live with dogs, cats, and whatever.

---

I think it would be fairer to say that we adapted dogs and cats, etc to live with us. There aren't packs of dogs roaming round in my neighbourhood (just naked men peeing on the street ;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think it would be fairer to say that we adapted dogs and cats, etc to live with us. There aren't packs of dogs roaming round in my neighbourhood (just naked men peeing on the street ;) )

---

:lol: :lol: I never went back to that thread and see if you commented on my observation of men doing that oin Glasgow. Is it typical in Britain for men to pee in public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

:lol: :lol: I never went back to that thread and see if you commented on my observation of men doing that oin Glasgow. Is it typical in Britain for men to pee in public?

---

Yeah, it's pretty common especially when they're drunk. I remember a guy at work telling me what it was like when there used to be standing areas in football stadiums (these are not allowed in UK post Hillsborough) where basically the floor would be awash with pee, because men could not get out to use the toilets, or didn't want to in case they missed some of the match. The general advice was not to stand to close to the man behind you, just in case he was caught short :sick: .