Nobody tell my dog about the cruelty thing, m’kay? She already hates me for only feeding her two doggy treats a day and not being allowed in the bedroom while we’re at work (thus forced to lay on her heated dog bed) and what with the enforced weekend death marches in the park and not being allowed to chase cats.
My cat couldn’t survive in the wild if she wanted to. There’s no one out there to turn on the faucet.
I’m yet another vote to be wary.
Me too. But every time I give it, people get mad. 
I’ve pondered this before (I briefly mentioned it once in a thread here about my budgie). As I understand it, part of the argument is that keeping pets is cruel because it subverts their natural behaviour - for example, my budgie no longer makes any natural budgie sounds - he mimics human speech instead, exclusively. He’s also denied his natural place as a member of a large flock - and although he has the freedom to fly about the room, he’s arguably not getting the same quality of life as he would in the wild.
So there are some senses in which you could argue that he’s an unfulfilled budgie, in comparison to what a budgie is supposed to be, or would be in the wild.
Now, leaving aside all the ‘what if’ arguments where we note that he was captive bred, so wouldn’t even exist in the wild, and the bit about him being an unusual colour combination, so he would be easy prey, there are still several things wrong with the argument.
—For a start, it assumes that there is some platonic ideal of budgie life - that there is some way it’s ‘supposed’ to be, but I don’t think there really is, except through happenstance of opportunity. Budgies happen to be able to survive in a certain way in the wild, but who can say it’s meant to be so?
—Furthermore, it tends to view the wild life of an animal through rose-tinted spectacles - as if animals in the wild are happy, fulfilled little people enjoying their holiday in the sunshine. This is simply not so. The life of many, possibly most, wild animals is hard, brutal, fearful and short - red in tooth and claw, as they say.
—Finally, (and rather obviously) the argument ignores the quality of life that the pets enjoy in ways that are not natural. Budgies in the wild don’t get to play games with marbles, or sit on a cushion nibbling biscuit crumbs, or interact with humans in so many other rich and fulfilling ways. It is sometimes said that pets do this out of desperation because they are ripped out of their natural context, but I think that’s just begging the question.
So… As I understand it, there is a comprehensible argument, it’s just not a very good one.
You people with your pictures of “happy” kitties- I’m sure we could get pictures of the Gitmo prisoners showing them smiling & relaxed also.
I was surprised at the vehemence shown towards a guy who said “I don’t believe anyone should have any pets at all because I think it is cruel to imprision animals.”
Instantly people piled in accusing him of being a violent animal liberationist. For example:
**Silenus **
As I explained upthread, I basically agree with the accused. I don’t agree that having a pet is automatically cruel, but in some cases it can be. I can tell easily whether or not my cats are happy. My goldfish? I haven’t a clue. Do they experience emotions? They might be perfectly content or suffering agonies. I’m fairly sure keeping them in a tank for our gratification is not a good enough excuse to risk their unhappiness (if any).
I haven’t heard of PETA, but here in the UK, we also have violent animal liberationists, but they seem to target animal testing laboratories, rather than me and my moggies.
Either I’m being wooshed, or I have some disappointing news for you… 
Why are you surprised? Expressing how appalled we are at pronouncements that strike us as absurd and intellectually vapid is what Dopers do, and attempts to dampen such expression are unconscionable subversions of our natural behavior. Unlike your goldfish, I can tell you what makes me happy.
Making snide remarks about people who say they are uncomfortable with the idea of pet ownership is quite blissful for me. It would be cruel to stop me.
I am surprised because I have made a *qualified *statement about my views on keeping pets. His problem seems to the no qualification bit. I just think the leap between ‘keeping pets is cruel’ and ‘violent animal liberationist’ and using words like ‘appalled’ and ‘absurd and intellectually vapid’ is a bit reactionary. As has been said before, I’d like to hear what the OP has learnt about this from the object of her affections.
I agree. Leaping to conclusions might be what dopers do, but I don’t think it should be.
No? Every cat I’ve “had” was in factories where I worked, but they all loved to show off their hunting trophies. One of them would keep headbutting us until we took it from her and acknowledged the present. She’d mostly do it to the Maintenance Guy, which is good as he was one of the people least likely to be carrying a container full of sulphuric acid… :smack:
I don’t like the notion of “large pets in small apartments”, hate it when people don’t let their dogs get acquainted with other dogs or with me (I’m ok with it so long as the dog doesn’t throw me to the floor beforehand) etc. - but having pets is not cruel in and of itself. Maybe your date just needs to refine his statement.
NineToTheSky and Mangetout, I have three words for you:
- Tongue
- In
- Cheek
You think everyone who appeared to be jumping to the conclusion that he’s a PETA activist was just joking? I don’t think so.
Gosh, what “everyone” does with their tongue is up to them. The only person whose tongue location I can reliably verify at this moment is my own, and it’s in my cheek.
Oh, OK.
People, people, you’re missing the point.
We don’t have cats for pets, they have us as their slaves.
I just asked Eccles, my cat, this and he nodded in agreement and then went back to sleep.
Poor soul must be exhausted after all that eating
CairoCarol - I chose your post to quote from because it was closest (I’m lazy). Your second paragraph did make me wonder about the seriousness, but I’m with Mangetout: You are probably the only who is being tongue in cheek.
Chowder:
My point exactly: they have a choice.
Actually, they’re just waiting, hoping that you’ll fall down the stairs and die, then they can eat your face while you lie there dead and undiscovered. Sometimes they try to hasten this by wrapping themselves bodily around your legs, as you try to walk past them.
PETA’s position on animals is a very negative one. All they say is what how they don’t want them to be treated.
I started a thread on the subject. Basically, they think in a perfect world, all animals would be able to live “naturally.” But it ain’t gonna happen, and most pets live lifes that I envy.
- Whose
- Cheek?