Sure, but like I said, I’m at the low end of the spectrum. I’ve never owned a pet. I reject the term for me. I have chosen animal companions and at best I will act as their steward when thay can’t, always keeping the golden rule in mind. I’m not saying that pet ownership is a bad thing in general, it just isn’t how I look at my relationships with another living being. The concept makes me feel uncomfortable, I do not feel like I have the right to own any living feeling thing, human or not.
I’ve also never really had to train a cat to shit in a box. I’ve pretty much put the box out and they’ve taken it from there. I had a cat once that refused to learn this trick, I found him a home where this was not an issue. I didn’t try to change the cats mind by force. I let it live somewhere it could be happy.
No, I don’t own flip flops but when I did I certainly didn’t smash them this way. Even if I did though, this is not me wanting to control the lives of roaches rather that I’d prefer not to coexist with them in my house. This is a different moral issue entirely. I woudn’t invite them into the house, domesticate them then smash them.
So if you lived in a house that was infested by roaches or bought a home that became infested by mice or termites, you’d move instead of calling pest control?
Nope, but this isn’t a thing that could happen. I am a rental guy, not a buying guy and even if I had more money, I would still be the same. Any infestation I have had has had to be handled by the management and I don’t expect that their morality has to equal mine and I’m under no illusions that they wouldn’t kill these guys even if I moved.
But to answer your question, if I did have a house I’d have no problem calling pest control. These are not creatures I’ve invited into my abode; they made that choice and they take their chances. These aren’t creatures that I hold power over willingly. Just because I’m not a control freak doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily a bleeding heart.
If I were doing it for my convenience, I’d declaw my cat and have nice carpet, furniture, walls and woodwork. But since my cat has claws, that I regularly clip, I do not declaw for my own convenience. I declaw when an aggressive cat either needs to be declawed or put down.
When I called no-kill shelters for my aggressive cats - there was a six month waiting list before they “might” have room. I knew no one who wanted aggressive cats. So the choice was “declaw or dispose of.”
Or, I suppose that after four trips to the vet for abcessed scratches, constant antibiotics - we could have just let the other cat die of the eventual infection. Or I could have had my kids face stitched up more than once. But yeah, it was all about my convenience. Or maybe I could have gotten rid of the other cat - or the kids. After all, I had no responsibility for any of them living healthy lives.
“Convenience” doesn’t sound so bad to me. The only reason house cats exist through most of the world is because they are convenient to humans for mousing or companionship. Derisively saying you’re declawing them for “convenience” is, to me, like “Well, yeah… I own this thing for convenience in the first place”. If I wanted my cat to live how nature intended, I’d put it in a box and ship it back to North Africa rather than letting it lie in my window or hunt songbirds and fight skunks in the back yard.
So you took a cat in, and then, when having the cat was an inconvenience to you because it couldn’t seem to grasp the concept of the litter box, you decided that your property was more important than giving this living being a home and support, right?
They’re animals. They’re not people. That doesn’t mean they don’t warrant (at least a basic) respect as living creatures nor that they can’t be loved and cherished. It does mean that we don’t have to try and treat them as people, tho; it’s okay to have a different set of criteria when dealing with animals.
Was there anything wrong with an owner hobbling their slaves? They legally owned them after all and could send them back to North Africa if they wanted them to live as nature intended. You see no obligation of an owner to act morally to his property?
For the most part, people are inclined to think well of someone who loves their cat or dog as much as a person. It doesn’t seem to have the same gravitas, tho, if someone loves a person as much as they love a cat or dog, does it?
I was taking in a cat because my sister was not available care for it. I don’t remember how she ended up with them in the first place but the thought all along was to adopt them out as I had two cats of my own and my sister did not want them. This was the last cat to be adopted and I had considered keeping him but one of my cats was not cat friendly and she started withrawing and acting weird. She even started hissing at her brother.
In any case, these weren’t my cats to decide the fate of even though they spent considerably more time with me than their owner. I opted not to permanently adopt the cat that I had rescued from starvation after all nor was I expected to. I found him a good home where he ended up happy. Best I could do. I am not responsible for the lives of every cat in the world.
You’re also terribly off base. You did read that I found him a home where he would be happier at right? Would it have been better to keep him anyway and everyone be miserable?
Both were property though, right? Both are alive right? Both have feelings right? People are animals right? Using their differences as a reason to treat them cruelly isn’t really a good thing.