Have you ever tasted Red Bull? 
Why use the word slave *** except*** to promote the ‘emotional negatives’ that are currently attached to the word?
And while I realize in a practical sense, I ‘own’ my pet(s) - I personally see it as more of a caregiver status, akin to children which are also in no way ‘slaves’ in any sense of the word as it is used commonly.
Pets are, in essence, perpetual children, and are controlled for their own protection. And yes, you DO have to be oppressed to be a slave; that’s part of what it means to be a slave. This has been explained to you many times, and now you’re just being deliberately obtuse. Your argument was stupid to begin with; now it’s just monotonous. Give up already.
No, it is not “essentially slavery”. It isn’t nearly that.
You have completely stretched out he definition of “slave” until it loses all meaning. You can’t change the definition of a word and expect people to take your argument seriously.
What you describe is dependence. Not slavery.
You don’t have to be oppressed to be a slave, that’s the error that people are making.
We do treat them in the same manner as slaves and the same goes for children. The point is that their lives are within your volition, that’s what it is.
But while we treat them as such, whether they are or aren’t is a matter of how you define slavery. Everyone here is too focused on the oppression part when you don’t have to be oppressed to be a slave.
What he describes is “bullshit.”
I don’t why I still bother.
You do have to be human to be a slave.
Note the use of the words “someone” and “person” in the definition. Any extension of that definition to include animals is complete and utter bullshit.
So you are saying that both pets and children are slaves? So whats your solution? How should we treat children so they are not slaves? Surely you can see that saying children are slaves is radical to the point of absurdity, are we supposed to just go voluntarily extinct so we don’t create any more child “slaves” ? Theres a website for that, but I don’t think you’ll find many people to agree with you:
http://www.vhemt.org/
yeah, everyone agrees that is the case.
What’s your point? Do you want everyone to throw their cats, dogs, budgies, and house bunnies out into the woods to starve in the name of freedom?
Let’s just sum up the thread:
Pets are not slaves.
Or, if they are, it’s not an issue.
You seem to still be hung up on the oppression part when they don’t have to be oppressed to be slaves.
The thing is you can’t treat them otherwise. But we do treat them like slaves, but that doesn’t make them such. We restrict where they go, we give them commands that they must follow, we restrict what they eat. Their lives are entirely in our hands.
I find it odd that the only reason you don’t consider pets as such is because the definition is a person, when everything else seems to fit. They are treated in the same manner that slaves are (once again, one doesn’t have to be oppressed to be a slave.
Everyone can’t be objective about it because the word has such a strong negative connotation just because of the cases of oppressed slaves and not the ones that were treated well.
Even if you do things for their benefit it’s still you that has the power to do as such. Just as you have the power to be cruel.
Obviously not, because they would die. But I’m saying the way they are treated is similar to the way slaves are. Same thing for kids. But that’s not a bad thing. As you said, a pet would eat something that could kill them, or wander into the street. The same applies to kids.
Freedom is a rather arbitrary and useless term, which I don’t even think truly exists.
So, in your own words, animals aren’t slaves.
You just busted your own argument wide open.
Move along, folks. Show’s over.
Says who?
It’s really a matter of definition to be honest. Treating someone as such doesn’t mean it. It’s unclear pets understand the concept
No, we don’t treat our children as slaves. At least, good parents don’t. The big difference between the way parents treat their children and masters their slaves is that parents ar expected to treat their chilren’s lives as more important than their own, frequently do, and are held in contempt if they do not. By contrast a slave is treated like an object, because slaves are property.
The basic problem I & many others have your argument, Machinaforce, is that you are trivializing slavery by claining that animals are slaves. Slavery is not a historical phenomenon; it’s a evil land unjust atrocity still being committed today. To equate the suffering of, say, those poor girls abducted by Boko Haram a few years ago with the pampered existence of cats and dogs is offensive.
Again, your words:
Either you believe animals are slaves or you don’t. You can’t claim they are, then they aren’t in the same breath. And yes, it’s a matter of definition. All the definitions are about people, person or persons, or humans. Not dogs, cats, fish, birds, badgers, mongooses, or monkeys. At this point, you’re just spouting self-indulgent bullshit.
Machinaforce seems to not be sure what he believes, I’m guessing some extremist animal rights advocate has been lecturing him, he feels guilty about keeping his dogs and he wants some reassurance its ok to keep them.
Am I right Machinaforce?
The original articles were complete nonsense. The discussion since them seems solely sustained by ruminations about semantics. Everyone realizes, or should, that the key component of slavery as a practical political matter is fundamentally equal creatures exerting that sort of control over one another, humans.
And the further problem with that sort of naval gazing is it obscures the much more real issue of animal cruelty, which has its own subtleties lost in a silly discussion of whether having domestic animals is ‘slavery’.
My dog as a product of human breeding is very strong and quick and extremely aggressive to other dogs. Her ‘freedom’ (even if it didn’t mean soon getting hit by a car which it would where I live) would be death for other animals including other dogs. She can’t be held ‘morally’ responsible for that. She just has to be kept in her room (she has no interest in getting out by herself, unfixed dogs are usually the ones which want to get out) or on her leash outside. Otherwise she’d have to die. If she wasn’t friendly to people (she is) she’d have had to die, period. We wouldn’t have adopted her. And she came close to dying in the shelter as it was. Lots of her shelter mates surely did (bred by dogs being allowed out unfixed, or by backyard breeders). In many areas all dogs that look like her are put down by shelters, while other designer dogs are created to fit people’s tastes. Her ears were basically cut off when she was young, probably without anesthetic. But even if it was used, the morality of that could be questioned IMO.
IOW there are many real practical questions about the treatment of dogs, my dog’s experience just hints at a few, distracted from by silly discussions about dog slavery.
A good argument. Hell, if slaves had been treated as well as some pets are, I wouldn’t be surprised to see people signing up to be slaves. (Christ, my cousin’s cat drinks her water out of a wine goblet)
That seems more or less accurate.
That second article I posted hurt my brain. Saying that we need slaves because we exist as slaves (oblivious to how society works) or that pets are a crime against nature (no such thing really). It was just a raving lunatic. Plus he capitalized “me” so that should tell you something.