Belz...
Fiend God
I think the point is that Elephants dont even understand the concept of extinction, though they do seem to understand the concept of death, one of the few animals who do.
PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her
- Thread starter Desert Fox
- Start date
I think the point is that Elephants dont even understand the concept of extinction, though they do seem to understand the concept of death, one of the few animals who do.
Belz...
Fiend God
Euphemisms, that's all. You buy a dog. You can sell a dog. You own the dog. That you have a pleasant relationship with what amounts to a slave doesn't change that.
Belz...
Fiend God
The above summarizes my own position on "animal rights" well.
Belz...
Fiend God
We do need to eat.
I think many would agree that all this constitutes abuse.
That is such a bad misrepresentation of what DragonLady was saying that it borders on dishonesty.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Beelzebuddy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,629
Yeah, it's hard to get anything but "you might love your pet, but its very existence is an atrocity to be rectified" out of that.
If it was really just the "pet" designation that they objected to, they might instead propose some form of community animal-raising, where "feral" cats and dogs are cared for by tenders using an organized system, e.g. tags with vaccination/health information. Basically the neighborhood's cat lady would become the neighborhood cats' lady.
But they seem to have a more final solution in mind.
Last edited:
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Unfortunately, when dealing with issues like veganism, animal "rights" (vs. animal welfare), and organizations like PETA and Greenpeace, ideology very often takes precedence over reason and skepticism.
This is how I read it too: PETA expressly states on their public website and public statements that they view keeping pets as an ethical affront, and expressly state that even loving, caring, pet keeping is a philosophical wrong akin to how the same would be for human slavery. In expressing this view they do not make any attempt on their own website to distinguish "companion animals" as those creatures who are in PETA-acceptable loving relationships from "pet" animals who are only bred for money and used as toys. In terms of their stated philosophy, "companion animals" are a more polite way to refer to "pets" but neither are acceptable to PETA.
Sure, PETA denounces commercial breeders and owners who do not treat their animals well, and the overpopulation and cruelty caused by not neutering your dog or cat. Well of course- who would argue in favor of such things and those are also the reasonable targets of more traditional humane societies as well. However the PETA website clearly points out the evil of even loving pet ownership, and keeps coming right to the point of, without quite saying it, that they want all pet/companion animals extinct as soon as possible (their leadership has actually said as much, but the PETA people seem to realize that they should be less fully explicit on their website).
But how else would the goals stated on their website, the explicit banning all mating of domesticated animals (an end to commercial breeding, an end to informal home-breeding, an end to the existence of strays and feral animals, universal pet neutering) play out? PETA denies wanting to confiscate pets/companion animals from their current loving "owners" (which I believe) but the wording and the context even on their own website is clear that the PETA ultimate solution is that when the current pets/companion animals die, that will be it, forever.
Once again- some may support this goal: okay I disagree but that is a difference in philosophy. But it bothers me when I see a loving pet/companion owner believe that PETA supports loving pet/companion animal ownership.
By the way- I know that some animal rights advocates do not like even the term "my" companion animal or "ownership." I use "my" to refer to my wife as well- I don't own her, it is just to describe the existence of the relationship. As for "owner" I don't use that for my wife, but I don't have a ready term to replace it when I describe my relationship to my cat. Am I simply its companion human? The relationship with my cat doesn't seem to match very well the companion relationship I had with my college roommates.
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,116
Us humans, we're a bit daft about our pets. I know several people who would have, bypassed the courts, taken matters into their own hands and administered vengance with extreme prejudice. I like to think I could have been talked down on my way out the door with a bag of interesting pointy things but I'm not sure.
I think that the strong emotion that goes into pet/companion animal ownership is because it draws from the same emotions that are programed into us about children: a very deep feeling of responsibility, desire to protect, forgiveness of their errors, a desire to feel needed, and an outlet for wanting to love another creature who can feel loved and love in return. It is a healthy emotion and I certainly have experienced it multiple times in my own life.
I must admit however that when I later had my own children, the feelings toward my pet animals didn't change but the same emotions were elevated and much more ramped up as directed toward my kids. If my cat was in a burning building I would still try to rescue it if there was a chance that I might myself survive. But if my kid was in a burning building I would try to rescue him even if I knew that I would die in the attempt (and even if I only had a tiny, tiny chance of rescuing him). And for my children I would never even stop a fraction of a second to think about the odds- I would just go in the burning building without pause and without thinking.
When people tell me that they love their pets like children, I wonder if they ever had real children. You can love them both intensely, but my feeling about my human children are at a different level- I would kill any non-human animal if necessary to protect my kids, and maybe some human animals as well. One of PETA's policies that I have never agreed with is that they are against use of animals to help improve human health. I would personally euthanize a lot of rats and mice to prevent one of my kids from developing polio. I would feel bad about it, but I would do it. I would kill a dog that was attacking my son. Sorry- for me the equation is simple.
These feelings are despite the fact that my animal pets never looked at me with the same condescending look and rolling eyes that I've had from my children (although my cats have certainly looked annoyed with me at times). My pets have cost me a fraction of the money compared to my kids. My pets are relatively non-critical compared to my kids. But I am programed by my DNA to protect and help my children in a manner that is an exponential version of the deep seated feelings I have about my pets.
What I am saying is that love of an animal is fully legitimate and is often strong because it comes from a very central part of ourselves. It is legitimate and healthy. But personally I do not agree with any view that no hierarchy should apply. Simply I care about almost all animals, but some more than others. I care about snakes more than mosquiitos. I care about mice more than snakes. I care about cats more than mice. It is not just cuteness- I care a lot about octopuses too. But I care about humans more than even cats. That does not mean that I don't care about cats deeply, or that most situations are a cat vs human binary choice; there are a lot of ways to protect both. But that does not mean that I see them as theoretically equal.
I must admit however that when I later had my own children, the feelings toward my pet animals didn't change but the same emotions were elevated and much more ramped up as directed toward my kids. If my cat was in a burning building I would still try to rescue it if there was a chance that I might myself survive. But if my kid was in a burning building I would try to rescue him even if I knew that I would die in the attempt (and even if I only had a tiny, tiny chance of rescuing him). And for my children I would never even stop a fraction of a second to think about the odds- I would just go in the burning building without pause and without thinking.
When people tell me that they love their pets like children, I wonder if they ever had real children. You can love them both intensely, but my feeling about my human children are at a different level- I would kill any non-human animal if necessary to protect my kids, and maybe some human animals as well. One of PETA's policies that I have never agreed with is that they are against use of animals to help improve human health. I would personally euthanize a lot of rats and mice to prevent one of my kids from developing polio. I would feel bad about it, but I would do it. I would kill a dog that was attacking my son. Sorry- for me the equation is simple.
These feelings are despite the fact that my animal pets never looked at me with the same condescending look and rolling eyes that I've had from my children (although my cats have certainly looked annoyed with me at times). My pets have cost me a fraction of the money compared to my kids. My pets are relatively non-critical compared to my kids. But I am programed by my DNA to protect and help my children in a manner that is an exponential version of the deep seated feelings I have about my pets.
What I am saying is that love of an animal is fully legitimate and is often strong because it comes from a very central part of ourselves. It is legitimate and healthy. But personally I do not agree with any view that no hierarchy should apply. Simply I care about almost all animals, but some more than others. I care about snakes more than mosquiitos. I care about mice more than snakes. I care about cats more than mice. It is not just cuteness- I care a lot about octopuses too. But I care about humans more than even cats. That does not mean that I don't care about cats deeply, or that most situations are a cat vs human binary choice; there are a lot of ways to protect both. But that does not mean that I see them as theoretically equal.
Last edited:
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Cats are pretty independent generally but dogs look towards their humans for rules and guidance. They are not independent as your wife is. If you wife says "I am leaving" ultimately you have no choice but your dog does not have that option.
I certainly recognize the fundamental difference in the relationships (although not all wives have the same options as does mine or others, for economic or other reasons). But yes, I was only explaining my casual dual use of the word "my."
I have come to enjoy how cats don't always try to fit in, but usually are pretty blatant about reserving their judgement as to their satisfaction level in the relationship. I used to allow my cats outside, and they could have chosen another home any time they wished (I knew of a cat who left a friend's house for a better food deal down the block, twice). But I learned that outdoor cats create big problems for themselves and for others. So once I closed the cat door permanently the cats, just like a dog, really couldn't easily leave. Not that they ever acted as if they wanted to (although they would periodically turn up their noses at the brand of cat food they always used to like, leading me into a frenzy of a search for a new acceptable food brand).
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Cats were once worshipped by humans as Gods in Ancient Egypt.
They have never forgotten that fact.
I don't think the phrase "the dog must disappear", at face value, is acceptable to animal lovers.
This version might actually appeal to animal lovers:
The dog must disappear from General Motor's vehicle crash testing labs. The cat, like the dog, must disappear from the University of Wisconsin-Madison's animal testing lab.
This version might appeal to animal lovers, because the author's use of the phrase doesn't represent a view he holds:
A utilitarian utopia seeks to end suffering. And how best to end suffering, a utilitarian wonders, than to remove from the earth all things that suffer? In this mindset, the dog must disappear. The cat, like the dog must disappear. The utilitarian utopia is repugnant to those of us who value life. A Kantian argument for animal rights offers a more plausible account of animal rights without falling into for the repugnance that utilitarians find inescapable.
The version might appeal to animal lovers, if they accept certain premises the author believes about the nature of human/animal relationships:
As long the view "pets" are property that humans own and assert their power over, a mainstream animal welfare will never take hold. If we cannot rid ourselves of that harmful view, the principle of least harm dictates that we must rid animals from our homes. The dog must disappear. The cat, like the dog, must disappear.
This version might not appeal to animal lovers, but it might not sound nearly as "extreme" if it were paired up with a persuasive list of reasons which demonstrate how the author arrived at his conclusion:
The dog, as we know it, must disappear. Pedigrees and purebeeds have resulted daschund's who suffer from permanent back problems, mastiff's whose body size causes ulcers along their arms and elbows, pitbulls who are a public danger to people and other dogs.
This version might be tolerable to animal lovers, as long the author tempers his black-and-white with a pragmatic realism:
The institution of "pet" ownership has been a net harm to animal welfare. We cannot undo the harm without removing ourselves from animals sphere of exist. "Pets" must disappear. The dog must disappear. The cat, like the dog, must disappear. This thinking, however, is counterproductive, perhaps even worse than the present state of things. There are millions of stray dogs starving on the street, and millions of homeless animals being euthanized in shelters. We can begin to heal the millinia of harm to animals by re-shaping how think of animals in our care, by adopting them into our homes as companions, not "pets", making them part of our families; by rearing new pups and kittens as additions to our family, not as profitable additions to the commercial breeder's pocket book.
Context matters. There are too many ways that quote mining can distort an author's meaning, making the author appear to agree to views that they don't in fact hold, presenting a controversial statement without requisite context to show how the author justifies their statement, or making an author's view appear more extreme and absolutist than it really is.
At present, the totality of everything you know about John Bryant's opinions on pets is captured in 3 sentences with absolutely no context. You don't know if those heavily elipsed and elided comments are, at face value, representative of Bryant's views. Presuming that they are, you don't know how he arrived at them.
Given the track record that quote miners have with misrepresenting the views of people they quote (biologists who are secretly anti-Evolutionists, Climategate, Peter Singer's critics), I seriously doubt that whoever compiled the quotes had any intention of presenting Bryant's views fairly.
I would be happy to have a discussion whether killing animals is inevitable or ethical, but personally not interested in distracting myself from work for another 50 hours.
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,116
Cats were once worshipped by humans as Gods in Ancient Egypt.
They have never forgotten that fact.
Is that Pterry?
PETA has a guide on maintenance of feral cat colonies, which they term Trap-Neuter-Return-Monitor. It includes, among other things, a recommendation that cats in a colony be vacinnated, neutered, provided with sanitary food and water, and shelter from the elements.
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,116
I wonder how they feel about the rodents that the cats then hunt and play with.
Belz...
Fiend God
I'm surprised they don't consider that unethical.