I found this reply on the matter of them being slaves:
This is a very emotional argument but not a rational one. It’s not looking at the situation objectively.
Here’s the deal with a dog or a cat, and I have both.
For starters, they have been selectively bred and conditioned over time by humans to adopt traits that are more pleasing to humans. This is a level of which makes the slavery argument more plausible.
It really appeals to emotion to say that they are members of the family, and I agree that I feel that my animals are members of the family, but they’re also slaves, like it or not. They can be both, and many slaves even in some of the more generally oppressive eras, were treated well, enjoyed what they did, and were treated as members of the family as well. None of these gloss over that they were slaves, though. Slavery at its base is really a question of consent and freedom.
Think of it this way:
My animals eat what I allow them to. They have no choice. If they do manage to get what I don’t want them to, I take measures to prevent them from doing so again.
The animal’s healthcare, general health and, frankly, whether they live or die is very much in my hands.
My animals can’t leave the house without my allowing them to - if they would manage to “escape”, I would take measures to return them - and, if a person found them, they would be returned to me and are, generally, considered as being my property in terms of the law.
I’m legally responsible for their actions.
We can argue the “but they don’t do work” approach - but that depends on what you consider about what “work” is. Why do people own pets? Generally to fulfill a psychological need for companionship and emotional stability. They do work, it may not be physical labor, but they (more or less) provide a service. Those that don’t own them for the companionship aspect (and even many of those that do) - own them to fulfill much more standard work-like tasks, seeing-eye dogs, hunting dogs, so on and so forth. The animals that don’t fulfill those typically have even less freedom (fish, many types of birds, etc.). The pets that you don’t generally form psychological bonds with usually become the equivalents of artwork and showpieces, really.
We can hash the argument of whether or not it’s beneficial for the pet - but I think that’s honestly a moot point. I could make a very good argument why enslaving some people could be beneficial for them, but that’s not what’s wrong with slavery.
The one valid point to the argument, as I’ve stated in other threads, is that if we disqualify pets from the possibility of being slaves because they are not capable of giving or removing consent, I can at the very least understand that argument and agree that there is a grey area on that grounds.
But I think that people don’t consider pets as slaves because of the negative connotations that we’ve been conditioned to conjure because of some instances of human slavery without realizing that is an example of slavery, not that it’s specifically what slavery is. But another good movie quote is “Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.” - essentially getting at that, just because say they’re not slaves because you don’t want to think of it that way because you equivocate something with slavery other than what slavery actually is, doesn’t mean they’re not slaves.
But I think that people don't consider pets as slaves because of the negative connotations that we've been conditioned to conjure because of some instances of human slavery without realizing that is an example of slavery, not that it's specifically what slavery is. But another good movie quote is "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." - essentially getting at that, just because say they're not slaves because you don't want to think of it that way because you equivocate something with slavery other than what slavery actually is, doesn't mean they're not slaves.Makes me wonder about all the people shackled by faith-based fantasies that they can't even recognize our physical world, but instead live within some media generated day dream. Or all the people who are shackled by their relentless drive for stuff and bigger stuff and ever more stuff, that now hangs like so many chains around their necks, weighing down their heads so much they can't see nothing but the grindstone. Slavery is all over, just like the dream of "freedom" is a farce - considering most people have never thought through what "freedom" actually means for them.
I think “freedom” is something that sounds good and everything but that people don’t really understand what it means.
Seems to me Darron has made an excellent point here.
The whole point of raising a dog as a pet is to breed out and train out all natural dog-like behavior. People also try to breed out and train out natural cat-like behavior, but with much less success.I disagree wholeheartedly. Dogs descended from wolves, and I'm confident you knew as much, but you seem to miss that very important point in your posts in this thread. I've studied the history of dogs a bit, and know that long ago some wolves hung out on the fringes of human hunter-gatherer camps and fed off food scraps. The wolves that were less fearful of humans fared better than wilder wolves, and over thousands of millennia were selectively bred for characteristics beneficial to humans. Early were our hunting partners, and with their help our ancient ancestors could bring down more game with less effort. Judging by how dogs act around babies I'd say protecting babies and children was also a very early selection criterion. Over time our ancestors began breeding dogs for specific purposes, including as house pets. Any "natural doglike behavior" behavior is breed specific and runs the gamut from herding sheep to protecting families to being a pocket decoration. Don't get me started on cats. Maybe in 100,000 years they'll be reliable and useful companions. meow Recently I've watched a few documentaries about the evolution of the dog - there's one "And Man Created Dog" by National Geographic [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFzbBVMR8zA ] that's pretty good and gives the standard telling of the garbage-stealing-wolves. Followed by humans selecting the most curious, least fearful and nurturing them into companions and living 24/7 home security systems. Then they drift into all the different species we've created and so on... Then there was another documentary that I found way more fascinating because it stuck closer to origins and it pointed out the fact that dogs were essential for humans being able to settled and conquer many inhospitable area. For instance people could not have populated the frigid arctic without sled dogs pulling loads, being the most dramatic example but there were other examples also. Great little documentary - truly mind expanding (considered I'd never really appreciated the depth of the connection and the amazing working partnerships that developed between man and dog back in the olden days. When the world was big enough for genuine "freedom" to exist, although as they say the price of freedom is high. (and I ain't talking bombing out civilian neighborhoods!)
Dogs That Changed The World, Part 1of 2 (Documentary Full Length) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3vrYqnxgk Premiere date: April 22, 2007 | 0:53:10 This film explores how the domestication of dogs might have taken place, including the theory of biologist Raymond Coppinger that it was the animals themselves — and human trash — that inspired the transformation. The genetic analysis of Peter Savolainen of the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden has placed the origins of domesticated dogs — and those of the first dog — in East Asia. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that-changed-the-world-video-full-episode-the-rise-of-the-dog/8369/
I think "freedom" is something that sounds good and everything but that people don't really understand what it means.So we agree once in a while ;-)
I think "freedom" is something that sounds good and everything but that people don't really understand what it means.So we agree once in a while ;-) But I find it odd that the person who wrote that point owns both a cat and dog. Isn't that kind of contradictory?
I think "freedom" is something that sounds good and everything but that people don't really understand what it means.So we agree once in a while ;-) But I find it odd that the person who wrote that point owns both a cat and dog. Isn't that kind of contradictory? First off, if life is anything, it's full of contradictions. Secondly, I don't own a cat. Third, no clue what "contradictory" you're referring to.
I mean how he wrote all that about how we treat pets as slaves but he owns a cat and dog
I mean how he wrote all that about how we treat pets as slaves but he owns a cat and dogHe has a small point. Slaves are people owned by other people and forced to work for them, usually for little more than food, clothing and housing. Unfortunately, there are people who force their dogs to do things, such as chaining them up in the yard and giving them little attention. Others use forced training methods such as those Cesar Milan teaches on his television show. These people are irresponsible pet owners and should have their pets rehomed to loving families. My wife and I never force our dogs to do anything. We take them to obedience classes as puppies and use interactive training techniques with various rewards to teach them appropriate behavior. This is little different than raising a child properly. As I mentioned earlier, different breeds have different personalities and jobs. Our dachshund/poodle mix is a little troublemaker but one of the sweetest dogs you'll meet. He loves everyone and everything. Our standard poodle puppy isn't as much of a troublemaker, but he's just as sweet. Our goal is to train him as a therapy dog. The doxie mix is hopeless for that; he gets into everything and is much too vocal.
The key here is consent, which is a big part of slavery. I mean there are dogs and cats that return to their owners, what about that?
I know we don’t train our dogs, they kind of just figure out how things work and how to get things.
I know we don't train our dogs, they kind of just figure out how things work and how to get things.Again I'll give you credit on that one. For me, it's been one of the amazing aspects of the past 11 months with our Maddy, how much both of us have learned more or less intuitively. Simply paying attention to each other and perhaps even having a mutual goal in mind. I like how Darron described it, that his training is not about forcing behavior. It's been that way too. Taking advantage of certain circumstance to reinforce lessons and such, and sometimes just backing down and leaving it be. My gal taught me to just talk to her, go ahead explain your expectations. Amazing how much they figure out if you keep it simple. It's like I have a three year old child in many ways. Of course, we had the luck that Maddy was never a problem dog, never once pissed or defecated in house, when left inside for hours, is just fine, used to even stay out of the kitchen space, but ah you know, familiarity and all. Also always being open to recognizing the flaws in how I'm doing things and a willingness to take different approaches has helped with Maddy, hell it's made every aspect of my life easier.
So then why do people consider it unethical to have pets and consider it to be slavery? It’s even weirder that I know some vegans who have pets, which is just weird to me.
You’re committing the one-to-many fallacy. One person is not “people.”
As for as why he considers it unethical and slavery, all I can say is his ignorant and speaking from his own biases.
You're committing the one-to-many fallacy. One person is not "people." As for as why he considers it unethical and slavery, all I can say is his ignorant and speaking from his own biases.But isn't the examples and logic he gives good points? Doesn't seem like bias to me.
You're committing the one-to-many fallacy. One person is not "people." As for as why he considers it unethical and slavery, all I can say is his ignorant and speaking from his own biases.But isn't the examples and logic he gives good points? Doesn't seem like bias to me. He might have some good points if not for the category error.
You're committing the one-to-many fallacy. One person is not "people." As for as why he considers it unethical and slavery, all I can say is his ignorant and speaking from his own biases.But isn't the examples and logic he gives good points? Doesn't seem like bias to me. He might have some good points if not for the category error. What do you mean category error? It doesn't seem like he's speaking from experience, more like logicz
So how does he commit this error?
Dogs and cats are not people. Different categories.
Dogs and cats are not people. Different categories.Why is that such an important distinction though?