Wait, what?
If it’s not the same thing, then what do you mean by “enslave”, just so that we are clear.
Thank you! I learned a new word today! (Would a really, really bad expression be a cacophemism?)
(My b.i.l. suggests, in place of “weapons of mass destruction,” “megaclysmic weapons”)
Trinopus (loves Greek and Latin roots!)
IIRC machines like vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers often produce loud ultrasonic noise in operation, which is one reason why dogs freak out around them.
I’ve owned four cats and two dogs in my life. All four cats have been indoor/outdoor cats. Any time they wanted, they could have just walked out of the house and gone their own way. They kept coming back, though.
One of the dogs would regularly lounge in front of the wide-open front door. Never ran away. The other was a bit of an escape artist, but if he got out and we didn’t find him, after a couple of hours, he’d come back to the house on his own.
Not that it makes a difference one way or the other, because they’re fucking animals. They don’t have any sort of conception of personal freedom, liberty, bondage, or natural rights. Equating pet ownership with slavery is utterly asinine. There are no points of contact between the two institutions.
That much of a declaration is making my point.
Not really. Humans make animals dependent on food and shelter and then call them “pets”.
Spoken like a standard enslaver.
You just expressed the equation yourself, above. Only, you claim that enslaving animals should be an accepted practice.
Well, I’m saying it shouldn’t.
I also own my car. Doesn’t mean my car is a slave.
Nature made animals dependent on food and shelter. Humans are just providing more of it, and of higher quality, than an animal could obtain in the wild.
Are you saying that animals do understand those concepts?
No, I’m not saying that enslaving animals should be accepted, I’m saying that applying the concept of slavery to animals is ridiculous.
Naxos, you haven’t answered the question in post #142. Please do so.
I re-read #142 a few times… what is it that I did not answer to?
Humans impose their will on other animals that they call “pets”.
That much is enslavement - no question about it. It’s one thing for hunter-gatherer human societies to have a symbiotic relationship with other mammals, like humans living with dogs that hunt or protect sheep, but the late situation of humans imposing their will on other mammals by forcing them to live in city apartments, for example, is a clear indication of abuse and enslavement.
I’m quite in awe at the perfect reversal of conventional logic you’re displaying here. There’s layers of doublethink involved that can only be glimpsed at as if through a glass, darkly ; yet shine like beautiful, paradoxical diamonds of pure nonsense.
Human keeps dog around for the purpose of getting the dog to *actually *work and accomplish tiring tasks for which it will go unrewarded: s’cool, it’s a symbiotic relationship dawg.
Human keeps dog around for the purpose of… having a dog around, I guess ? A dog that’ll live a thoroughly cozy, if somewhat boring, existence of no effort and all needs cared for, no questions asked ? SLAVERY AND ABUSE.
Does that not sound just a tiny bit silly to you ?
Also, and I’ve been meaning to say this for a while but at the same time refraining from saying it because it’s so very close to playing the Think Of The Childreeen barf card, but… you’re not really thinking this shit through.
Let us assume for a second here that we’re in the one bizarro parallel universe where PETA has even a dream of winning this lawsuit, and “slavery” is hereby revoked for pets of all shapes and sizes. That is what you want, isn’t it ?
But you have to realize we’re not talking 40 acres and a mule here. Rather, we’re letting their people go gentle into that good night*. Rather, that PETA win would be an exercise in anagrams, turning “pets” into “pest”. Millions of feral dogs and wild cats, just let loose on the streets ? This, looked soberly in the face, is not very satisfactory.
For one thing, it would be intolerable cruelty to the pooches and kittens. There would be blood and carcasses all over the place from furry ex-cons fighting for survival on their now very limited food & shelter resources. As torturous for them as life in any post-apocalyptic flick I could name. I wouldn’t wish this on a dog, man.
For another, they’d turn every city, every dumpster, every trash can, every landfill into chaos with fangs in and would ravage existing eco-systems wherever they may roam. Then there’s the matter of the explosive reproduction, the inevitable diseases, the roving packs of meat-lovers hunting little Kevin, the fucking up of crops and/or flocks… To put it bluntly, 150+ million cats, dogs and those vicious anklebiting fucking ferrets set loose all over the US all at once would necessarily entail Act-of-God scale disruption of society and the environment. Remember Australia and rabbits ? Yes, that.
I’m going to assume we don’t want that.
So, having established that simply letting them piss off to find their Kittysrael is not on the table, we’re only left with the kind of doublethink you seem fond of: in the name of the ethical treatment of animals, we’d have to settle for “destroying” the grand majority of these selfsame animals, on an industrial scale.
Oh well, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to cull.
And this just to head you off at the pass: yes, you might argue (if you were…insane ? Or possibly the Joker ?) that Auschwitz 2 - Xtreme Fur Edition would be totally justifiable under such lofty principles as “give me Liberty or give me Death !”, “Death before Dishonor”** and similar nonsense. “They can take our lives but they can’t take our freedom ?” is not the motto of a clear thinker, if you ask me. But anyway, if that were the case, those would be your principles. Not the beasts’. As I said before, only humans are retarded enough to care about intangibles.
So who’d be intolerably imposing wills, then ? You’d basically be condemning millions of fuzzy critters to death just to satisfy your ego and its misguided, patriarchal notion of “ethics”. And you wouldn’t give the animals the dignity and independance of which you’d purport to defend any choice in the matter. Because you’d know what’s good for them. Do you perhaps grok *this *particular paradox ?
*That’s right. Mixed references. I went there. What you gonna do about it, huh ?
** In the words of Dylan Moran, I would for instance fellate a Smurf before I picked death. To each their own.
Lemme guess. Mom and Dad wouldn’t let you have a puppy, right?
In post #55 you said this:
You have not explained the difference. At a later point you said you may have erred using the term “slave” because so many people will only apply it among humans, but at that point you didn’t explain any difference, and you continued to use variants of the word “slave”.
Your definition above is not different at all from human slavery.
For the love of god, won’t someone think of the poor defenseless Tanooki