So in Get Fuzzy, pets can talk, they can write, albeit crudely, but they are still very much just pets, animals with an owner They have no legal rights. What ethical questions arise when considering a world where cats and dogs can talk, but not vote.
I wouldn’t want to live in a world where Bucky was allowed to vote.
Maybe such a thing would explain the last election results.
And I don’t see much difference between a world where pets can talk but have limited rights and the condition of children in the world right now. So, is it ethical to deny children the right to vote since they can write and talk?
I don’t think so, but that might be because ‘that’s the way it’s always been done.’
Um, I think this would depend not on the ability of the critters to talk and write, but on their relative intellect and emotional age.
Obviously, … I can’t believe I’m seriously debating this… obviously, the “18 year old” guideline can’t be used with dogs and cats, so you would have to find the point at which they, on average, enter emotional “adulthood” before setting an age for voting.
Other than that, I don’t really have a problem if they can vote and have rights, as long as they measure up to the intellectual standard.
What was that line… it often works well in debates… “The ability to speak does not mean you are intelligent”
Satchel and Bucky seems as intelligent as many 18 year olds or older I have known. The ability to speak might not mean intelligence, but I think it should count for something. Would you think there is no more ethical problem with an animal shelter that gasses strays it can’t find homes for in the Get Fuzzy world than there is in this one?
Oh, I’d say that Satchel and Bucky are the intellectual equivalents of preteens. Bucky seems to be smarter than Satchel, but Satchel is definitely more emotionally mature than Bucky. Bucky does have his kind moments, though…he fixed Satchel’s watch for his birthday.
Bucky seems to be the feline equivalent of the 12 year old kid who wants to be known as a badass.
Satchel cries because Duncan Donuts doesn’t sell crullers anymore…
[quote]
Satchel cries because Duncan Donuts doesn’t sell crullers anymore…**
And you’re saying that is emotionally immature?
Philistine.
Tris
Why should talking be the determining factor? Dogs and cats certainly communicate with us, e.g. “I’m hungry”, “I’m hurt”, “I’m sad”, “I want that”, “I’m angry”. They don’t happen to speak the same language, but why does that matter? Does a dog really have to tell you in spoken English that it doesn’t want to be gassed?
You take a size 48H bra? Lee, you are my new hero — and I’m a guy. 
I don’t doubt that cows and pigs can communicate displeasure at pain and hunger and other needs. I still eat them. I would not eat something that could talk.
Unlike children, Bucky and Satchel won’t grow up. Bucky has been neutered. Last I checked emotional immaturity doesn’t get you castrated or make castrating you against your will ok.
I agree with those who would be happier in a world where Satchel could vote, but it’s a moot point, unless we’re talking about absentee voting.
As a prior strip has already established (to Satchel’s understandable dismay), he isn’t an eligible voter for a reason other than his species. He’s Canadian.
I’ll have to check when I get home but I remember a strip a couple years back that Satchel asked why he was not allowed to vote (or he assumed that he was allowed). I believe that the strip ended with Rob asking Satchel if he remembered their discussion about why Satchel didn’t have to wear pants (Bucky was on the site saying something about Satchel being pathetic).
Dogs, cats and other domesticated pets, in real life, are all essentially in a permanent state of juvenilehood. That was the key to domesticating them. They view their owners, more or less, as the alpha (this concept obviously works better with dogs). We provide them food, water and shelter. If they become feral then this is lost.
So they’d never really qualify for the vote, if that was a valid criteria. I don’t know that the vote is denied to adults who reach voting age yet don’t mature past juvenile or earlier levels.
Well, Bucky can’t even remember the name of his favorite baseball team (“The whatsits beat [the Red Sox]? The Yankers?”) so that’s a problem right there. Plus, Bucky has a marked preference towards anarchy, so I don’t think voting is quite his bag, anyway. He’s more of a violent, “coup des chats” type, if you will.
Now Satchel, on the other hand … I actually wouldn’t have a problem if it turned out that Satchel could vote (except for the obvious problem that Random mentioned, which is that Satch is not a citizen). We might be better off that way, because he has a conscience, he is aware of what is going on around him (e.g., he saves his allowance money and gives it to PETA), and he generally wants to make his world a better place.
It isn’t fair to say that Bucky and Satchel have no rights. They might not have as many rights as, say, Joe - but as others have mentioned, their status is pretty comparable to adolescent children. Rob has set some rules for them, but he pretty much allows them to just “be” and do what they want to. They have to deal with the consequences of their actions the same as anybody else.
If you asked Rob, I think he would say that it would be OK for the guyzos to vote if “the authorities” allowed them to.
And you remember what that got him: “Fur is murder” painted on his back!
Isn’t the criteria really whether it’s intelligent? What if it is intelligent, but just doesn’t happen to speak your language? Some deaf people don’t “talk”, but they do communicate. You wouldn’t eat them, would you? Or conversely, if cows could talk, but could only say the most rudimentary things like “eat” and “hurt”, but lacked any real intelligence, we’d probably eat them anyway. But dolphins and chimps are somewhat intelligent, and can’t speak at all (except for a couple chimps who were taught some sign language), and most people don’t eat them.
True enough I would not eat dolphis or the mute. What I consider food is decided on a species by species basis. I would not eat dogs because a few have been my friends.
Eating people has added nastiness of introducing a another path for disease, as well as being wrong.
Being able to hold a conversation with someone is a fairly standard way of deciding personhood, which comes with it more than just “maybe I shouldn’t eat that.” In one of the Get Fuzzy plotlines, Bucky was talking to a phone psychic who was just about to call a child abuse hotline when she figured out he was a cat.
If we ran into a species of satchel like aliens, how would we treat them?
To paraphrase Dave Barry: depends on whether men find them, or guys.
I’d say the average house pet is at least as intelligent as the average voter.
On a less bitterly cynical note, I’d say the ability for meaningful communication denotes a sufficient level of intelligence to have most protected rights. Perhaps not voting rights, but certainly all the legal rights we afford to children.