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.
Printable View
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
as so often, it's your grammar that's cruel :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
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? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
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?Quote:
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!)
What's to worry about cruelty, nothing wrong with being cruel! Muwahahaha!
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?
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.
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?
I will try to pass my English Exams one day Sleepy wish me luck :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
[/quote]Quote:
but what about hamsters, rabbits....?
We observed in nature the unrelated animals have developed symbiotic relationship with other animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Supreme Being - don't take this personally. But It's Challenging Idea. Let's debate it :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.
well said sweets
Interesting question. I must admit I have sometimes in the past been angry at my parents for bringing me into this world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
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. :)
It is. I only ever stated it as so.Quote:
Originally Posted by pussnboots
If it's wrong for humans why isn't it wrong for other creatures. There's my dilemma - what's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by pussnboots
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
[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 ?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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?
[QUOTE=pussnboots;511674]I understand what Fifth says too, and this is why it disturbs me. I never wanted to be cruel with my dogs. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The instinct as observed in nature is a Symbiotic Relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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/d.../sophie4-1.jpg
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:
[SNIP]Quote:
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.
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.
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.
But my argument, and that of many here, is that their instinct is to live with people.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Oh I agree, it's not relevant, but i thought it an interesting side question.Quote:
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.
So Lote, what is your symbiotic relationship with hamsters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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. 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Granny5
:lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
bah they are more into lighter reading :p
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Granny5
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 :Quote:
Originally Posted by Granny5
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!).Quote:
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.
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?
None because I don't own pets anymore. I did when I was young.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Lote, Lote, Lote :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
would this be because humans have driven them out of their environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
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.
in case someone feels like answering the Challenging question, and not just talking about their dog ;)Quote:
I think that the less we interfere with other species, the better. In your opinion, is this wrong?
Just wanted to say..sorry but the whole keeping women as pets thing, its not like it hasnt happened in the past .Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElementLote, 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
: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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Im not sure I belive this, I think that if they have had no human contact, any animal can survive in the wild.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
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?
Research for Symbiotic relationships in the animal world...in google.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Not necessarily. They have come into contact with humans. Like seagulls following the trawler.Quote:
would this be because humans have driven them out of their environment?
I have. I have left it outside. And it decided to come inside the house.Quote:
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 think the problem is that in the animal kingdom a lot of animals also form parasitic relationships.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Yes. It was from this I got this :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
And I hate football ;-)
If it knows which shelter will provide food and company it will choose the one that benefits it :DQuote:
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?
Yes, sadly it has happened and probably still happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
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 ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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:Quote:
I would love to see dogs in the wild. I feel privileged when I see a deer,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo. So they too are a different species from the common domestic dog.Quote:
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.
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. ;)Quote:
I wonder if dogs hadn't been useful to humans, what would their situation be now?