Our cat has always been allowed outside; in our neighborhood, such indoor/outdoor cats are the norm.
In fact, in some cases they change owners, if they don’t like their living situation. We had a cat that did that. Our neighbors split up with an acrimonious divorce and then moved out, basically abandoning their cat. We already had a cat, but we took in the neighbors’ cat, because it had no place to stay. Unfortunately, the cat wasn’t used to living in the same house as another cat, and didn’t like it; so it started begging to be let in by another neighbor - successfully. The other neighbor asked if we were okay with that (we were).
All of that is sorta incompatible with “slavery”. The cats pretty clearly decide where they live, they are not coerced into staying, and sometimes they don’t stay. It is true they can’t open doors, not having the height and hands for that, but they go out and come in pretty well as they like.
I think the second article is really explaining animal abuse, not pet-keeping. The italicised part is true in the situations where people abuse the animals they keep. But that’s not a normal pet-keeping situation any more than abusing your children is normal parenthood. I agree with you, that the article is nuts if they’re trying to say these are the same.
So slavery only applies to humans? Isn’t that changing the definition of the term. I thought slavery was a situation where one is within the will and power of another.
But I guess the subject of consent is a good argument point. Slaves don’t usually give consent to be honest, and you can’t really tell how an animal would give that.
No, that’s the established definition of the term. You (and others) have tried to change it by extending it to animals.
(Not that the “argument from the dictionary” is going to carry any weight here. We redefine the meanings of terms all the time. Some people actually tried to oppose same-sex marriage because “it changes the meaning of the word.” Big deal!)
As noted above, that makes the typical American workplace a place of slavery, because my boss tells me what I have to do. You need a slightly more explicit definition.
You’ve chosen to ignore a ton of responses here, so I’ll only ask once more then wander off: what, exactly, do you propose to right this wrong? Do you demand that all animals be set free? Do you want pet-owners prosecuted for wrongful imprisonment? Do you want pet-store managers to be imprisoned?
What would you suggest be done with the millions of pets? Just let them go out in a forest somewhere? They’d die: you do know that, don’t you? Fido and Aeneas are not capable of hunting for themselves.
That’s actually a huge difference between how we treat pets, and how slaves are treated. Even in the most violent and cruel implementations of slavery, there was never any sort of forced breeding programs* like we routinely use on domesticated livestock and working animals.
*(Lots of rape, sure, but that’s not the same thing.)
Right. Which is why it doesn’t make any sense to talk about pets as slaves, because pets do not have a concept of “consent.” One problem you have here with trying to draw a moral equivalency between owning a pet and keeping a slave, is that once you start judging animals by the consent standard of ethics, you pretty much have to conclude that most animals are fucking monsters. I’ve never seen a dog ask for consent before it mounted another dog (or cat, or person’s leg) and started humping. If animals are slaves because they didn’t give consent for their captivity, then most dogs are rapists for never asking for consent before they try to fuck something.
And let’s not even get started on what “consent” means when it comes to a cat killing a bird.
The same is true for children. Are children slaves?
The work argument is irrelevant. Can an animal articulate a demand for freedom or an argument against its own captivity? When they can do that, then we have a basis for this discussion. If the animals aren’t complaining about being pets, then I’m not going to worry about it.
Actually, you can’t. There is no good argument for enslaving humans. This is another of the central reasons why your thesis here fails.
People don’t like the slavery argument not because it equates animals with humans, but because it cheapens and trivializes the plight of slaves, both contemporary and historical. When you try to argue that there are material similarities between this and this, most rational people will dismiss you out of hand.
Because dogs & cats lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the human concept of freedom, or tomourn its loss. In the case of dogs, the master-pet relatisonship takes advantge of canine psychology; a pet dog sees its human as the alpha of its pack. In the case of cats, they seem to be opportunistically exploiting our affection of them topayment for whichz their own advantage. We supplement their food and shelter and pay for their doctoring, in payment for which they do nothing; frequently they come and leave as they please.
Equating pet ownership with slavery is tremendously insulting. It’s like someone who plays CALL OF DUTY calling himself a combat veteran.
I know that. But I’m just trying to get a grip on the whole thing. I mean on the one hand their care is solely upon us. Without us they would surely dies. They are within or power, so it seems like slavery.
On the other hand there is the matter of defining slavery, which is usually based on consent, which is a grey area with animals.
Maybe it’s because slavery carries such a heavy emotional baggage with it that I have a problem. But from what I have read, it doesn’t have to be abusive to be slavery. The dictionary doesn’t define it that way
You are ignoring the key word in the pertient meanings: “person.”
Dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, pigs, snakes, and other non-human animals commonly kept as pets are not persons, because they are not human.
If you believe the penumbra of personhood should be extended to non-human animal, then you must also believe that a dog that kills a rat has committed murder and should be prosecuted. Do you? If not, why not?
Those are not rhetorical questions. Please answer them.
Why do you make that leap to slavery? Look at your own statement, would human slaves surely die if freed? It’s been said over and over again, animals are not people, every time you make that equivalency you run off course. If you think all animals should run free to try to survive on their own then provide a reason for that and stop trying to associate their current condition with slavery.
I raise birds for meat and eggs. They are well, not very smart and would die without constant human attention. Calling them slaves is ridiculous; dependents, yes. The ethics of deliberately breeding such an animal is a different discussion. Most dogs fall into this area-they simply cannot survive on their own and they also don’t want to survive on their own.
They are. The way I read that …“mind bomb”…from the… “Seer of Forbidden Truth” …is that all pet ownership is brutal slavery, not just in cases of abuse, and all child bearing is a form of child abuse. I think dude’s nuts.
Read the article again. It is equating pet ownership with child rearing with slavary.
*All animals kept as pets have been stolen from themselves and from nature itself, enslaved to an artificial state of existence within which they can never realize their potential , in the same way that no human child is allowed to realize his potential at genetic conception or at birth.
<snip>
You use your pets in order to extract an illusion of being loved, so that you can continue hating yourselves, the exact same construct behind parenthood. Your pet does not love you, your pet is your slave, your hostage, and your victim of terrorism. Your pet has been rendered dependent upon you. Your pet might act “happy” to see you, but this is because he has been experiencing terror and trauma at your absence, you are literally terrorizing your pet in order to delude yourself that you are loved and valued and important to an animal*
(My bolding added.)
The author also has a habit of capitalizing Me when he/she refers it him/herself, and ending essays with the following tagline:
*You have just read something brilliant. You can comment on it here. All comments are screened prior to publication.
*
I fail to see the point of that statement. I meant inanimate objects can’t be slaves. Also what about how pets are kept confined to the house the whole time?
The point is that you claim that plants and inanimate objects cannot be slaves but animals can - and yet you fail to give a compelling reason why. Every reason you *have *provided applies to plants and inanimate objects as well as to animals. Or would you say that they are not “kept confined to the house the whole time”?
The cats pretty clearly decide where they live, they are not coerced into staying, and sometimes they don’t stay. It is true they can’t open doors, not having the height and hands for that, but they go out and come in pretty well as they like.
