Are Pets Slaves?: meeting the ruducto argument

[TheNoNamedOne]

Failing to meet arguments in their broad general sense, some opponants to positions (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18184&postcount=88), particularly those concerning treatment of animals, inevitably choose to go down the hill of reductionism e.g. mosquitos, microbial organisms, bacteria, etc... and now to pets in regards to slavery as a way of trying to make those who have animals and who put forth abolition of exploitation of animals not any worse than the factory farmer. Reductionism is not so bad so long as its use is equally acceptable by both sides without prejudice.

The OP title question is an ambiguous one because typically what is referred to as a pet is intermixed with specific animals, for the most part dogs and cats, and the function of the animal. Because of that, the answer is both, yes and no.

First of all, what are some of the characteristics of a slave (figuratively and non figuratively) or slavery and their treatment and main purpose?


production units
a particular job
maximizing efficiency
being exploited for a skill or ability
create profit for the one who has power over them
not permitted freedom of will
etc...


Some dogs sure do fit this criteria. Sheep dogs used by herders, seeing eye dogs for the blind, military police dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, show dogs, security dogs...etc...all fit these points.

So, yes. Dogs can be slaves, too. But, are these kinds of dogs pets? Certainly not.

So, what is a pet? Isn't it based on the purpose that the animal fills? What would be the difference between a "pet owner" and a "guardian"?

Is a dog obtained solely for the purpose of warning the owners of a house that a person has approached by barking loudly and keeping it chained to the porch constantly a pet, or is it a slave?

[DougP]

I guess if a seeing eye dog can be a slave so can a regular pet. I mean seeing eye dogs are usually just helping out their blind friend but I suppose regular pets are slaves for companionship.

People can be slaves for sex why can't animals be slaves for companionship?
Makes sense. Lets look at the guidelines

production units (pet shops?)
a particular job (watching the house, protecting the family)
maximizing efficiency (still thinking on this one)
being exploited for a skill or ability (The ability to provide companionship and the skill to scare away thieves)
create profit for the one who has power over them (not sure on this one)
not permitted freedom of will ( They don't get to pick their own names or poop in the house)
etc... (etc...)

[Fonze]

To me AR loons and others talk of freeing animals, all of them. If you OWN a pet that pet is no longer FREE it is OWNED its choices are limited by what you want it to do. TP in your case your vegan and probably feed your animal food without meat am I wrong? Who's choice is that? YOURs. your pet might like meat but cant tell you.

Owned like a slave? Probably not as bad.
People say we have him for protection. Well do you pay him for that or just provide shelter and food, just like slaves.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Doug, what would be the difference between being a guardian of an animal(e.g. of a dog) and a pet owner (e.g. of a dog) -- if we both agree that pet owners equate to a relationship of slavery?

After all, my neighbor is the guardian of her children -- both the normal one who will eventually grow up and become independent -- and the other one who will be dependent on her for the rest of her life because of her handicaps. They are not slaves.

[Fonze]

Doug, what would be the difference between being a guardian of an animal(e.g. of a dog) and a pet owner (e.g. of a dog) -- if we both agree that pet owners equate to a relationship of slavery?

After all, my neighbor is the guardian of her children -- both the normal one who will eventually grow up and become independent -- and the other one who will be dependent on her for the rest of her life because of her handicaps. They are not slaves.

There you go again comparing humans with animals. Try and prove your side without making comparisons. She is not the guardian, she is the mother. the kids weren't takin bought from a store after the mother gave birth.

[DougP]

Doug, what would be the difference between being a guardian of an animal(e.g. of a dog) and a pet owner (e.g. of a dog) -- if we both agree that pet owners equate to a relationship of slavery?

After all, my neighbor is the guardian of her children -- both the normal one who will eventually grow up and become independent -- and the other one who will be dependent on her for the rest of her life because of her handicaps. They are not slaves.

See you make a good point. Especially here where you wrote and the other one who will be dependent on her for the rest of her life because of her handicaps. They are not slaves. Now I wonder if that child would be considered the slave owner later in life because she relied on her mother for support much like a blind man relies on a seeing eye dog.

It is hard to tell though isn't? Without direct feed back from the pets its hard to tell if they're slaves or not. Even in the old times dating back to Rome Slaves appeared happy on the outside sometimes.

[Fonze]

There you go again comparing humans with animals. Try and prove your side without making comparisons. She is not the guardian, she is the mother. the kids weren't takin bought from a store after the mother gave birth.

Breeders breed and sell their pets just like slave owners sold there slaves when others had kids that were of working age. I also see your point TP. But without your comparisons your point at least to me oesn't have much gas to run on.

TP could you answer the question of your pets diet? If you put a steak or some broccoli waht would your pets go for?

[Fonze]

So I guess no answer from you TP on the freedoms you do or don't allow your pets.

[socalheart]

Some pets can also be considered domesticated animals. The sheep herding dog was used as an example previously, and could fall into this dual category. Some domesticated animals are also used for profit. Cows could be considered for this dual category.

Most pets are simply companions. As (I think tP) previously mentioned, humans can be considered merely primary caretakers of animals that are considered pets; such as dogs, cats, hamsters, etal. Some people consider pets and other domesticated animals as part of the family, as seen in farm life sometimes.

I think that anyone who treats an animal like a slave can not consider that animal a pet. Pets should be taken care of, and in return will provide companionship. Or, look at it the other way, pets provide companionship, and are taken care of... but that isn't grammatically correct. :)

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I think that anyone who treats an animal like a slave can not consider that animal a pet. Pets should be taken care of, and in return will provide companionship. Or, look at it the other way, pets provide companionship, and are taken care of... but that isn't grammatically correct. :)
IIUC, The Prosecutor believes that since pets cannot choose to live free or be kept as property, they are like slaves. The fact that some "slaves" are treated better than other slaves doesn't make them any less slaves, if that is indeed his argument. Kind of like house slaves and field slaves way back when.

[DoctorP]

I don't consider pets slaves, but I do consider myself a guardian.

[dk]

As I said in the other thread, animals cannot be slaves. Slavery is a human thing. This is my opinion and as far as I want to go on this idea.

That being said, when you own a pet, that animal is yours. You are a "pet owner". You can call yourself a guardian or make up some other phrase if you want for justification or what ever reason, but I'm pretty sure that if your pets got you in any trouble with the law, you would be written down as a "pet owner". And on any kind of official documentation, you will be referred to as a "pet owner".

[DougP]

Kinda like when people say a marriage is a partnership :D

[dk]

Kinda like when people say a marriage is a partnership :D
Yeah, exactly! lol!

[TheNoNamedOne]

IIUC, The Prosecutor believes that since pets cannot choose to live free or be kept as property, they are like slaves. The fact that some "slaves" are treated better than other slaves doesn't make them any less slaves, if that is indeed his argument. Kind of like house slaves and field slaves way back when.

To a good degree, E, you have summed up my position rather nicely with the house slave/field slave analogy. I do consider animals that are regarded as pets as slaves. It depends on the purpose and situation under which they/the responsibility of them are acquired under.

Animals purchased for any main purpose that has the priorities of the purchaser above that of the animal is viewed by me as a slave -- even if that is just companionship e.g. house slave. As a house slave is meant to please the owner by making lemonade and serving it to the owner, a pet purchased for companionship has the responsibility of providing something to the purchaser i.e. joy from companionship.

People who rescue animals from the street or pound or adopt them from families that can't care for them any longer or remove them from an abusive situation, however, are no more slave owners, than Abolitionists who provided sanctuary for slaves that came into their guardianship -- albeit a secret and underground one. That is why ARists do not view the pets they have come to have responsibility over in those was as slaves; they are charges they have accepted responsibility for under their guardianship.

Peter, let's say he an ARist, who picks up a stray dog, does so out of a compulsion of charity and to provide safety to/for the dog -- not one of seeking companionship. And if that animal has no responsibility to Peter, even being a loner from Peter, the fact that Peter does not turn this animal out speaks to the point that this animal is not providing any material benefit to Peter. In fact, it has become a strain or drag on Peter's recourses of time and finances and Peter gets nothing in return.

Again, in this case there is no slave environment. It is the environment of a sanctuary and one of guardianship. I am sure there are many owners who have come across and adopted animals like this and will testify that the animal has no ulterior purpose for them other than just letting them be. Do they get enjoyment out of watching them play, or just sleeping lazily on the porch or under the kitchen table? Yes, perhaps, but that enjoyment received is/was not the purpose for adopting them. The purpose was to provide refuge. Period. If no duties are foisted upon this animal, then it is not a slave. Now, if after being adopted a person decides to give it duties then it would qualify as a slave.

[Fonze]

Now TP of course I don't believe pets are slaves.
I'm sure though some people out there with super debating powers that could make a case that they are.

You still don't give your pets a choice to eat meat or not though

[DougP]

So then picking up strays is not slavery if we don't expect anything from the animal. Even if by feeding the "free pet" becomes dependent upon us and virtually a captive of sorts. Also what about when we have to force it to get shots and see a vet. Or should we not take it to a vet because vets are part of the sadistic and morally wrong animal exploitation circle? Too many tough choices really.

One more thing: What about buying a pet from a pet store in the name of liberation.

Like if Johny Lovepetz went to a pet store and felt that it was so wrong to keep the animals all caged up. So he payed the evil pet store slave owners to fee a kitten from confinement. Now this kitten is a refugee and Johny is its guardian.
As long as Johny doesn't force the cat to clean the house or mow the lawn the kitten is not providing any material benefit to Johny. All is good in the animal kingdom, well at least for this animal.

We'll call this the "Schindler's List" scenario

[TheNoNamedOne]

...when you own a pet, that animal is yours. You are a "pet owner". You can call yourself a guardian or make up some other phrase if you want for justification or what ever reason, but I'm pretty sure that if your pets got you in any trouble with the law, you would be written down as a "pet owner". And on any kind of official documentation, you will be referred to as a "pet owner".

I agree with you 100% on the current state of the situation of labels in most cases. The thing is dk, that is undergoing a change -- and not just in the minds and semantics of ARists who have pets. Also, I don't think it is accurate to say it is just being "made up." It is coming to pass based on guardianship phylosophy of humans.

But don't be so quick on judging how one will be written down on official documentation. It will depend on areas and how the spread of the new concept is gaining ground.

A Bold Move in Boulder (http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_2000/boulder_pet_guardian.html)

But the journalists who declared that such a thing could happen "only in California" will now have to revise their articles, because in an 8-1 vote last July, the Boulder, Colorado, City Council passed a proposal from the Humane Society of Boulder Valley (HSBV) to change the city's municipal code so that it will now refer to people as the guardians of their companion animals. ...

"Probably we're going to see that if it's tried in any of the courts, [other] ordinances are going to have to be amended to add [guardian] as well," she says. ...

Even though the move in Boulder was controversial, McHugh says that now that the language is part of the law, most people have stopped mocking. And the calls and letters the shelter receives are largely supportive. "We get letters from people all the time now saying they're happy to be their animal's guardian, and saying they like the word," McHugh says.


and...

San Francisco became the seventh city (http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner02222003.html) in the country to codify animal guardian language. Boulder, Colorado, was the first city to pass such a measure, in July 2000; later came Berkeley and West Hollywood, in California, followed by Sherwood, Arkansas, Amherst, Massachusetts, and Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. In July 2001, Rhode Island became the first state to include the term "guardian" in its pet-related legislation.

You see my point? Language changes with time and traditional views will not always stand up to phylosophy and law when the status quo's door is being pounded on by activists for change. So, you are still right in most cases, but "guaridian" is not something I have made up and in those cities, the official report will report the opposite of what you suggested they would. Though, I admit, we are still playing catch up to your view and to overcome that will be maybe another 10 or 20 years away (on the legal term for those responsible for house animals).

Now, after having done my homework to provide support for my point about the word usage of guardian, do I get a "well done. Fair enough" from you? <wink>

Still doesn't mean you have to agree with it, and to be fair, I still admit that it is in the minority view. My point is that the door to this language change in law is cracked open and activists have their foot in the courthouse/city/state council door, and in some cases have walked out victorious. The trend is in motion.

[DougP]

Well if what you predict about movements is true then perhaps people will one day stop using the N word because the NAACP held a funeral for it. Or BET will stop showing rap videos with lude content because 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH CAMPAIGN' has started a "movement" against them.

So what does PETA think of spay/neuter programs? What does it think of gardianship of animals?

If need be, what does each "head" think?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Not really a thread about PETA phylosophy. It is a thread about the phylosophy of pets as slaves or not regardless of one official org or another. Though, there is a whole thread dedicated to PETA here (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=977&highlight=PETA) we could go off on that tangeant with pertaining specifically to PETA.

You have to remember, too. I am not a PETA spokesperson. I am an ARist but I wouldn't presume to guess that there are no differences of opinion between some ARists on detailed points of topics. Mine could be slightly different from PETA's, so for me to explain exactly what their policies are on those points could be a misrepresentation of their views. Why don't you go to their site and look it up and discuss what you find on those in the PETA thread? I will join you if you do.

[Mad Hatter]

Some dogs sure do fit this criteria. Sheep dogs used by herders, seeing eye dogs for the blind, military police dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, show dogs, security dogs...etc...all fit these points.

So, yes. Dogs can be slaves, too. But, are these kinds of dogs pets? Certainly not.

So, what is a pet? Isn't it based on the purpose that the animal fills? What would be the difference between a "pet owner" and a "guardian"?

Is a dog obtained solely for the purpose of warning the owners of a house that a person has approached by barking loudly and keeping it chained to the porch constantly a pet, or is it a slave?



I just have a couple questions for ya...

Are you going to stop these animals from breeding? If not, who's going to take care of the young?

Because if we are going to free all the animals fro there cruel lives of fulling purposes like "Sheep dogs used by herders, seeing eye dogs for the blind, military police dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, show dogs, security dogs"... I know damn sure that they better not come onto my lawn, ask me for food, try to sleep under my roof, or shit in my lawn...

Now there just freed "slaves".... sink or swim, makes no difference to me.
All I know is that they better not come back 50 years from now wanting something for free because their great great great dad was a seeing eye dog.

[P_chan]

I don't consider pets slaves. After all, the only thing I get from my dog is companionship (which goes both ways) and the occasional turd on my floor:D Yet I give him everything he needs (toys, exercise, food, water, and the occasional slap on the butt for the turd).

Sure he is a 'captive' but he's been a 'captive' all his life and that's all he knows. To release him into the wild would be cruel because he has no idea how to fend for himself.

[Mad Hatter]

I so agree!!! I really don't think that they could survive on their own after generations of human care...

I would be like kicking a retarded cousin in the streets with 20 bucks and telling him to have fun with life...

Maybe not that cruel... but a close second place!!!

[socalheart]

Releasing a domesticated animal into the wild isn't fair to the animal. Some friends in college had "rescued" a duck during the easter holidays and raised it rather well for a bunch of drunk college kids. The only thing was, Oswald didn't know how to fly and was overweight. The guys tried to teach him to fly, but without luck. Well, when a few years after we all left college, one of the guys took him to his parent's ranch and set him free. Oswald was found dead at the creek's edge a few weeks later. The wild killed Oswald, because he was a domesticated pet.

[Mad Hatter]

I think that the same thing might happen to the slaves... just give it time!!

I'm so sorry, tha twas such a bad joke... I don't even know why i typed it ;)

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

In general, I don't have problems with working animals. As a team, people and animals can accomplish more and do it faster and better than individually. The trainers and handlers generally care greatly about their charges, and try to instill the same love of animals in their trainees. Real bonds of friendship and family are formed between these teams of people and animals. I understand that their are exceptions where breeders of these working dogs are out for profit and nothing else, and do little to help, but much to harm their breeders. For those people I have no patience or sympathy.

I do not like puppy mills and the like where animals are breed in great numbers and terrible conditions to satisfy the latest pet craze. The breeders want a fast buck, the pet store does too, and the owners have little or no concept of care and responsibility. It's a bad situation all around, and is no better than slavery. There is no feeling of love, respect, companionship, and trust between person and animal. The pet is an accessory and a thing, property to be exploited for fashion and attention.

I see these two purposes and situations as distinctly different and worthy of separate consideration. I do think the animal shelter is the best place to find an animal to care for if you want to have a pet and be a responsible citizen.

[P_chan]

This thread makes me want to run home and hug my dog.

[Muku]

When I was a kid, we had a pet cow. Was she a slave? I dont think she was, but she did give us plenty of milk, and helped pull my brothers and sisters and I around in our wagon. She fulfilled her duty in life and I will always be grateful to her for providing me with childhood memories and enjoyment. But I will also remember how great her steaks tasted on the grill.

We knew that she was put here on this earth for us humans to use. We never abused her but everyone knew what her "goal" in life was........



I have to agree with dk here;
animals cannot be slaves. Slavery is a human thing

There are those however whose main goal in life is to get humanity to equal the two, but as long as us carnivores are around it isnt going to happen anytime soon.:D

[dk]

but as long as us carnivores are around it isnt going to happen anytime soon.:D
<insert long post two steps forward one back yada yada takes long time yada yada AR yada yada cruelty yada yada evolved yada yada smart kids>

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

We knew that she was put here on this earth for us humans to use. We never abused her but everyone knew what her "goal" in life was........
Whoa. A statement of religious faith. That brings us to the whole "god" debate. You have to believe there is a god to know he has put things here for people to use. The whole intelligent design thing. And, I think it's the Judeo-Christian bible that gives man dominion over the animals. I'm not sure what the Quran says, let alone the Buddhist or Hindu or other scripture. So you're taking it further by saying that the Judeo-Christian god is The One, and that any other scripture or belief about animals contrary to the Old Testament view is false.

[Muku]

<insert long post two steps forward one back yada yada takes long time yada yada AR yada yada cruelty yada yada evolved yada yada smart kids>

Whoa...yada yada, really?, yada yada, yada, yada, never knew you really cared yada yada finish, yada yada.

Damn I think we could go on all day just having a yada of a conversation.

Whatyadathink?

Slow day today:o

[dk]

I agree but yada yada yada not to mention the fact that yada yada.

What's funny is I just put up a better arguement than some of TP's opposition! j/k j/k

[Muku]

Whoa. A statement of religious faith. That brings us to the whole "god" debate. You have to believe there is a god to know he has put things here for people to use. The whole intelligent design thing. And, I think it's the Judeo-Christian bible that gives man dominion over the animals. I'm not sure what the Quran says, let alone the Buddhist or Hindu or other scripture. So you're taking it further by saying that the Judeo-Christian god is The One, and that any other scripture or belief about animals contrary to the Old Testament view is false.

Keeping in form here with the yada yada tone so appropriately initiated by dk.:D

Yada yada, you yada yada, assumed something here yada yada, that wasnt written yada yada.

Next time please take the time to ask how or what I meant instead of making a Knee Jerk response or conclusion (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18493&postcount=25) :D Please read the first paragraph of Knee Jerk Defensives. Thank you!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Uchinamuku, you wrote exactly the same way those of deep religious faith do when discussing animals issues. No evidence, just "we knew...". If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

Incidentally, Mr. Okinawan Hubby, you write more clearly and logically than many of your online buddies. I find it less necessary less often to wonder just what you meant in each of your posts. Is this one of the few cases where you'd like to clarify? By all means...

[Muku]

Uchinamuku, you wrote exactly the same way those of deep religious faith do when discussing animals issues. No evidence, just "we knew...". If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
That may be partially due to my education, however that isnt the point here. I wrongfully assumed that the average reader here would view the post with the intent that I wrote it, that was humor mixed with a healthy dose of sarcasm. It is evident that you took it literally.

However like I wrote in my original reply about this, next time if you aren't sure on how to take it, please feel free to ask. Thank you:D

Incidentally, Mr. Okinawan Hubby, you write more clearly and logically than many of your online buddies. I find it less necessary less often to wonder just what you meant in each of your posts. Is this one of the few cases where you'd like to clarify? By all means..

I dont know whether I should say thank you or :cursing: you, but I will ask the following either way.

What difference or point is there other than to be sarcastic or condescending in making the statement Mr. Okinawan Hubby?

Now I ask you, did you take the time to read the link I included in my last post? I will assume that you did, however if you didnt I apologize, but suggest that you go back and check out what it says again.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I certainly saw the sarcasm in the part about enjoying your pet cow as steaks in the end. But your start seemed sincere enough. The odd emoticon helps distingish the serious from the silly. I certainly could use a few more when I'm just goofing around (yes, calling you "Mr." was all in fun). Thanks, I read your link, but it clearly did not apply to my situation. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

So then picking up strays is not slavery if we don't expect anything from the animal.

Yes. Correct.

Even if by feeding the "free pet" becomes dependent upon us and virtually a captive of sorts.

Yes, some humans due to not developing a certain degree of cognative ability become dependent for life upon their parents -- forever in guardianship by them. They are not slaves.

Also what about when we have to force it to get shots and see a vet. Or should we not take it to a vet because vets are part of the sadistic and morally wrong animal exploitation circle? Too many tough choices really.

Not too difficult. Yes, people who are forever in the guardianship of their parents, too, are forced to get vaccinations and undergo treatment without their consent.

Vets, like human doctors, too, are part of the problem at times. Hopefully in both cases one gets their loved ones treated by a good one.

One more thing: What about buying a pet from a pet store in the name of liberation.

If that is the main purpose motivating one in the purchase, then it would be one as same if a human a few hundred years ago looked upon a black in the bidding market off the ship from Africa and suddenly felt compassion for it and purchased it so that it would not be forced into service for someone, letting him/her live on her estate without being forced to do work for the benefit of the one who purchased them.

Like if Johny Lovepetz went to a pet store and felt that it was so wrong to keep the animals all caged up. So he payed the evil pet store slave owners to fee a kitten from confinement. Now this kitten is a refugee and Johny is its guardian.
As long as Johny doesn't force the cat to clean the house or mow the lawn the kitten is not providing any material benefit to Johny. All is good in the animal kingdom, well at least for this animal.


That's right! You got it!!

We'll call this the "Schindler's List" scenario

That is funny.

[newvalor]

ah if it wears a collar, or is walked on a leash it's a slave. hey if it drinks from the toilet it is definately a slave.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I have a question for Uchinamuku. Did you guys have 4H when you were a kid? It was really popular in my area. I remember a lot of kids raised calves and put a lot of effort into winning prizes for the best calf in show at a fair or agriculture convention. Thing was, after that the calf was bought by some company to be fattened and killed for meat. It was quite tramatizing for many of the kids at my school when this happened. The story you wrote about your own calf reminded me of that. I wasn't in 4H myself, but had a lot of classmates who were. I wondered if you had any 4H experience and if so, what was it like? Was it good for teaching the life lessons they claim it does?

[newvalor]

If a person is mentally bothered by the lose of an animal, they have something wrong with themselves.

I see it as better the animal than me, as opposed to being killed.

[Mad Hatter]

I went to a customers house today, tehy told me that they just got their dog out of a $2500 eye surgery. I was shocked. Plus they paid something close to $1500 for the dog...

I ain't nothing but a country boy, we'd never pay that much for a dog... let alone take it have surgery like that. I buddy took his huntin dog to have eye surgery, but that was a prize winning huntin dog. It still didn't cost that much.

My answer to a dog that went blind, has the mange, deathly sick... A 5 cent shotgun shell and a trip behind the shed.

[Tanimaga]

Your telling me you could hurt a defenseless puppy like mine??

[newvalor]

I had a lady complain to me once about how she had a $250K sick horse she was taking to a specialized vet.

Why would you pay for a sick horse that cost 250K, or even why would a $250K horse get sick. that thing better be like superman if I was to pay that much.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I have a question for Uchinamuku. Did you guys have 4H when you were a kid? It was really popular in my area. I remember a lot of kids raised calves and put a lot of effort into winning prizes for the best calf in show at a fair or agriculture convention. Thing was, after that the calf was bought by some company to be fattened and killed for meat. It was quite tramatizing for many of the kids at my school when this happened. The story you wrote about your own calf reminded me of that. I wasn't in 4H myself, but had a lot of classmates who were. I wondered if you had any 4H experience and if so, what was it like? Was it good for teaching the life lessons they claim it does?
Still wondering if Muku was a 4H kid...

[themadscientist]

I think anyone with a cat would know who the slave in that relationship is. :rolleyes:

[Paul McDaniel]

Here is a perspective on the controversial issue of the proper care and management of the planet’s wildlife and the keeping of pets that may make some small contribution to the discussion. I was once sharply criticized by an acquaintance who had visited my house for keeping an “exotic” animal, characterizing it as inappropriate and perhaps cruel. He spoke, not out of any interest in anything resembling animal rights, but as do many with borrowed opinions, without thinking, merely parroting words and phrases in emulation of some media parody of righteous indignation.

Had he thought, he might have considered a number of factors that distinguish caring for an animal to its benefit from exploiting one to its detriment. Of course, the wholesale and headline-making exploitation of exotic animals for sale as pets with which to impress the neighbors, where it results in suffering and death, or the marketing of their parts—pelts, for one example—should not be tolerated. It would be gratifying to see effective and rational regulation of the animal trade, but considering political self-interest and the small number of voters who care, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Some animals have very specific requirements regarding environment and diet, which in turn requires a caretaker both knowledgeable and possessing sufficient funds. Some fare quite well if they’re merely not abused.

One should also consider the almost total lack of medical care in the wild. A minor and otherwise easily treated injury or sickness can kill an animal in the wild in short order, not to mention being hunted and eaten. Then there is the matter of disappearing environment. It can come down to living with people, getting into a zoo, or becoming extinct, both as an individual and as a species.

From “A Mongooses Tale: The Story of Arrow” by Paul McDaniel.
Photos of Arrow can be seen at http://www.okinawablue.com/arrowshow.htm.

[dk]

If you're quoting something larger than a few lines, if possible, please use the forum's built in quote or indent features. I'll do this one for you. It improves readability. This is something we are beginning to clamp down on, so it wouldn't be fair if I let this long quote go after bringing another's post to his attention. Just FYI. The quote and indent features are neato.

Please don't be offended. :)

The quote tool is available in the quick-post area. To use the indent tool I used, "Go Advanced."

[Isaak Brodsky]

Political Correctness has now forced our nation's verbal hygenists to put forward a new more widely accepted spelling for the term "human" - given its inherent sexist connotations with "man" in such close proximity to "hu."

"Humyns" being now the widely accepted term for all humanity are presently reconsidering the meaning of the term "pet" - given its inherently negative connotations regarding any creature not humyn.

The alternative being put forward??

"Humyn companion"

The question in the original post ought to be recast and replaced with the more acceptable term for the sake of precision and honesty for what is happening to the language today.

[DougP]

Political Correctness has now forced our nation's verbal hygenists to put forward a new more widely accepted spelling for the term "human" - given its inherent sexist connotations with "man" in such close proximity to "hu."

"Humyns" being now the widely accepted term for all humanity are presently reconsidering the meaning of the term "pet" - given its inherently negative connotations regarding any creature not humyn.

The alternative being put forward??

"Humyn companion"

The question in the original post ought to be recast and replaced with the more acceptable term for the sake of precision and honesty for what is happening to the language today.

Love that post... Couldn't have said it better.

I just can't wait to see what will happen when we all realize that none of this is real and it was all a dream....

What does that have to do with anything? Well perhaps if all we humyns can do is sit around and bicker about semantics then maybe we really need to wake up.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

Political Correctness has now forced our nation's verbal hygenists to put forward a new more widely accepted spelling for the term "human" - given its inherent sexist connotations with "man" in such close proximity to "hu."

"Humyns" being now the widely accepted term for all humanity are presently reconsidering the meaning of the term "pet" - given its inherently negative connotations regarding any creature not humyn.

The alternative being put forward??

"Humyn companion"

The question in the original post ought to be recast and replaced with the more acceptable term for the sake of precision and honesty for what is happening to the language today.

Interesting posts Ian and Doug. I think the phrase "Political Correctness" itself is semantical -- a way to throw mud at the term semantics, if you will. It's as if the term semantics is a dirty word or concept.

Ask any black person if they are glad our linguistic heritage has semantical abilities so that things can evolve and take into account the pain language can indeed cause. Change is only "going to far" in the beginning when the ideas are first put forth by the group that feels wronged by the words, or the group that is championing a change for another. First they are ridiculed, but then, if the term has merit and slowly grows as acceptable within the population, it is eventually seen as the more enlightened choice of words.


Nigger --> black
Pet owner --> pet guardian
Pet --> human companion
human --> humyn


The success in change to any of the new from the original will depend entirelly on the tireless efforts of the activists that push hard to change it. If they give up before the change, then it won't reach a staying point in our vernacular. If it does reach that point then it is reasonable to assume that the masses did eventually see the reasoning behind it and then embraced it.

But ridicule meets the beginning of most change. Nothing new. [Sidenote to Ian: Even Jesus was mocked for the change he was ushering in -- and weren't his parables bordeline if not fully semantical?] Been happening for thousands of years in social issues. This thread and last several posts are another clear example of that.

[Paul McDaniel]

Pet issues:

Slavery-
DK said it. Slavery is a human concept. Like religion, political correctness, aspirations, self-worth, and self-determination as a principle.

Animals live very much in another world. They perceive and think differently. They see and hear at different ranges of wave lengths than we do. For people, thought is based upon language and vocabulary. (Cases of feral children—as in raised by animals—show that, without language, thought and communication are impossible.) Animal thought is based upon inborn instinct. A cat is born a cat, a dog, a dog, a jakabar, a jakabar. A human being has to learn to be a human being.

Religion-
Oprah says that if you believe in God, then He exists for you. The truth is that either God exists or God does not exist. If God does not exist, then rightness or wrongness regarding the treatment of animals is merely a matter of opinion, whether individual, by consensus, or by legislation.

If God does exist, actual rightness and wrongness cannot be determined without considering His intentions, has He any.

Practical Considerations-
Here it is a matter of the comfort levels of individuals or individuals in the aggregate. (Sometimes a massive concrete construction project can involve individuals in the aggregate.) One may feel protective of these lesser creatures; another may see only pests to be eliminated. One may eat meat, one may not.

There are, just for example, the harvesting of animal parts, such as the bristles for your higher quality artists’ brushes torn from living creatures, as practiced in India, and the creating of fad markets for unusual pets resulting in neglect, and the use of small animals as toys for small children. A neighbor brought home several chicks for his kids to play with, after which they were abandoned in his yard, no coop, no food, no water. (I gathered them up and called the city office animal control, who said they get a lot of chicks that way.)

Laws regarding animal protection and animal rights are a result, rightly or wrongly, of political pandering for votes (from sympathetic voters or, if Koko the gorilla gets her way, the animals themselves).

[Isaak Brodsky]

(Sometimes a massive concrete construction project can involve individuals in the aggregate.)

You mean like, say, Jimmy Hoffa??

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Pet issues:

Slavery-
DK said it. Slavery is a human concept. Like religion, political correctness, aspirations, self-worth, and self-determination as a principle.
I don't agree that is the case.

Peculiarities of Insect Societies

SLAVERY

A biological, not a cultural trait, that is wide-spread among ants. Most ant battles you see are actually slave raids. Ant slavery is unique because ant slavery is usually between species, unlike human slavery.
Slave making ants
Capture larvae and pupae of another species.
Carry them back to there own nest where:
They acquire the nest odor.
Develop into adults and act as workers for their new colony. Some slave making ant species are incapable of surviving without slave workers. They are no longer able to collect food or feed their immatures or themselves.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/entomology/topics/societies.htm

Animals live very much in another world. They perceive and think differently. They see and hear at different ranges of wave lengths than we do. For people, thought is based upon language and vocabulary. (Cases of feral children—as in raised by animals—show that, without language, thought and communication are impossible.) Animal thought is based upon inborn instinct. A cat is born a cat, a dog, a dog, a jakabar, a jakabar. A human being has to learn to be a human being.Was Helen Keller not human, because she was unable to see, hear, or speak? Do different sensory abilities and/or a lack of them preclude humanity? What of bear and tiger cubs who don't learn to hunt and forage for food from their mothers. They starve and die. Learning is essential to their survival. Just being born is not enough.

[Tony Stacks]

It's not.
Slavery requires a human under other human control.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Pet issues:
For people, thought is based upon language and vocabulary. (Cases of feral children—as in raised by animals—show that, without language, thought and communication are impossible.) Animal thought is based upon inborn instinct. A cat is born a cat, a dog, a dog, a jakabar, a jakabar. A human being has to learn to be a human being.

What of animals that hunt with partners? In packs? Is it all random luck when each member of a group plays a role and the hunt is successful? What of whalesong and dolphin vocalizations? Do they not qualify as language because we haven't cracked the code yet?

[DocTurtle]

Are pets slaves?
My knee jerk answer is no. Not a chance. When some one says slave the first thing I think of is a black man working in the fields in the south. That's my first though, worst case scenario. I think people being traded and treated under sub-par conditions. I was ready to be up in arms stating that TP has once again just put out a post to get people fighting (even though more often it is to get people thinking). ARist or not, it really all depends on your definition of the word slave. If you are like me, and your first thought was something along the similar lines of mine, then I would dare to say your answer would be "no".

Now, because I would rather make an educated statement then just one on gut instinct and moral belief, I decided to look up the word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave

The first set of def. all start with "a person..."
I was ready to stop there and use that as fact for my arguement as many others have already. Slavery is a person on person thing. But as I continued down I came across this def. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence
Made me question if what I was thinking was wrong. The rest of the def. continue stating "someone" or "a person" and even "to another person".
So, while there are slave ants, the term is humyn in the sense.

I will have to agree with the majority on this in saying that pets are not slaves.

You can get techniqual on all of this and state that even forcing a dog on where it should deficate is slavery. But that's just being silly and IMHO taking the term a little to literal. Children are not considered slaves to children because they are forced to do chores around the house, not teachers for having to teach to classes. So why should pets be seen in a different light?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I was ready to be up in arms stating that TP has once again just put out a post to get people fighting (even though more often it is to get people thinking).

@red: Yes, indeed.

Thanks for pointng that out, DocT.

Keep in mind, personhood is that which is granted. It is not inherent to humyns as a fixed thing.

[DocTurtle]

@red: Yes, indeed.

Thanks for pointng that out, DocT.

Keep in mind, personhood is that which is granted. It is not inherent to humyns as a fixed thing.

Thanks, but "personhood" is granted just like humanity. We don't get to choose who is apart of humanity, that's just the way it is, for better or worse.

[TheNoNamedOne]

"Personhood" is a legal concept, while humanity is a description of our characteristics in character.

We sure can choose personhood for groups we wish to grant it to or deny it from. Blacks, 200 years ago had no standing before courts because they lacked personhood. However, despite ignorance to the contrary that some thought they were not humans to some extent, we know through biology that they are. But, their standing before courts, or anyone's for that matter, could always be taken away and that would be the vanishing of their personhood.

[DocTurtle]

I see what you are saying, but I think that they really go more hand in hand. In the past people have been treated as if they weren't people, but they still are. To deny personhood is more a state of mind...ignorance really. Just because the majority believe something, like you said with blacks back in the day, doesn't make it so. Personhood, like humanity, can not be given or taken away. Legally they did try it...but it is really just how one perceives it. To say one race does not have personhood is ignorance and once that was acknowledge it was changed.

[Paul McDaniel]

You’re making me tired, Mr. eelecurb . . . you wouldn't like me when I'm tired. Just kidding. If anything, I’m probably better liked when I’m tired.

Your comments, in and of themselves, are accurate and well taken, quite acceptable to me. You seem to have a fund of information with which to work and take time to search out substantiation.

As a critique of my post, however, they miss the mark. (No Habana Marvelliosa for Mr. eelecurb)

To my “Slavery is a human concept” you responded with a reference that explained that “[Slavery is] a biological, not a cultural trait, that is wide-spread among ants.” This Seems to be saying that slavery in toto (including human) is a biological imperative that is ALSO characteristic of ants. The writer Seems to further minimize the ethical aspects of slavery (in toto) by saying that THE difference between human and ant “slavery” is that ants enslave other species of ants.

If This Is Truly The Case, then I have to strongly disagree with this writer, the mother who bore him, the father who skimped on his education, and the horse he rode in on.

Human slavery is a concept subject to considerations of motive, choice, decision, ethics, and morality. By Contrast, ant slavery is a natural and necessary condition of their existence, not a choice, not a decision, not a matter of motive, ethics, or morality, and certainly not an ant-held concept. These two usages of the word “slavery” are totally unrelated but for being the same word.

Helen Keller? I said nothing about the ability to see, hear, or speak as bearing upon humanness—nor language, for that matter. She and her mentor went to great pains to provide her with the Language and Vocabulary (Her language was, of course, tactile.) absolutely necessary for participation in society, and without which “thought and communication are impossible.”

The above, as I wrote, is the case for people—Not bears, tiger cubs, or baby jakabars.

The case for animals is different, based upon (as I wrote) instinct, which instinct provides for communication and learning (more or less depending upon the kind of animal and a bit too much in the case of my cat). Mother bears, tigers, and jakabars do not Ponder over whether or not to teach their kids vital skills and the kids do not Decide if they had better pay attention. For all concerned, it is that ol’ biological imperative.

Ditto pack animals.

Whale songs? I really don’t know. Are they instinctive? Are they—human-like—learned? A little bit of both? I can only guess. Are they communication? No doubt about it. Are they a “language?” Must be if they are a means of communication. If their language has to be learned but an individual whale fails to do so, will that whale also fail to develop his whaleness with respect his pod? (In this case, I think the designation is “ipod.”) Could be.


Language is a funny thing . . . when properly used. – Paul McDaniel

You say tomahto, I say get the h**k outta my garden. – Paul McDaniel

A jakabar, a jakabar, my kingdom for a jakabar. – Paul McDaniel

[DougP]

If This Is Truly The Case, then I have to strongly disagree with this writer, the mother who bore him, the father who skimped on his education, and the horse he rode in on.

This is by far the best line I have read in a long time.:D Simply wonderful.

[Bones]

As posted by Paul McDaniel:

To my “Slavery is a human concept” you responded with a reference that explained that “[Slavery is] a biological, not a cultural trait, that is wide-spread among ants.” This Seems to be saying that slavery in toto (including human) is a biological imperative that is ALSO characteristic of ants. The writer Seems to further minimize the ethical aspects of slavery (in toto) by saying that THE difference between human and ant “slavery” is that ants enslave other species of ants.

If This Is Truly The Case, then I have to strongly disagree with this writer, the mother who bore him, the father who skimped on his education, and the horse he rode in on.

Human slavery is a concept subject to considerations of motive, choice, decision, ethics, and morality. By Contrast, ant slavery is a natural and necessary condition of their existence, not a choice, not a decision, not a matter of motive, ethics, or morality, and certainly not an ant-held concept. These two usages of the word “slavery” are totally unrelated but for being the same word.

Well put Paul, but I would have to ask why humans would even think about enslaving another human being. Also would have to ask how they came up with that concept to begin with. Could it be, that these concepts came to be from watching animal behavior?

NBTP

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Ah, very nicely done Mr. McDaniel! Pandering to the peanut gallery with a few sharp jabs to score points. I must say, your wit is rather sharper than the usual bores one comes across here. Rather than critiquing your post, I merely pointed out what I felt were some inconsistencies.



The case for animals is different, based upon (as I wrote) instinct, which instinct provides for communication and learning (more or less depending upon the kind of animal and a bit too much in the case of my cat). Mother bears, tigers, and jakabars do not Ponder over whether or not to teach their kids vital skills and the kids do not Decide if they had better pay attention. For all concerned, it is that ol’ biological imperative.

Just as mother humans do not ponder over whether or not to teach their children - they just do it. Oh sure, they may ponder over what to teach their kid(s), but not whether to teach their kids. The instinct to teach is there. Like many, you seem to attribute some special magic to humanity, that somehow makes us a completely separate study, and unbound by the laws of nature. No so, I say.

The same goes for animals. The environment the mother animal finds herself and her offspring in will dictate what she teaches. If it were merely instinct, with no distinction as to time and place, the necessary skills for survival would not be passed on.

Whale songs? I really don’t know. Are they instinctive? Are they—human-like—learned? A little bit of both? I can only guess. Are they communication? No doubt about it. Are they a “language?” Must be if they are a means of communication. If their language has to be learned but an individual whale fails to do so, will that whale also fail to develop his whaleness with respect his pod? (In this case, I think the designation is “ipod.”) Could be.

Whales born and kept in captivity imitate their keepers calls and whistles used in training. The few cases where such captive whales are released demonstrate thus far that the ones raised in captivity cannot communicate effectively with their own kind in a natural setting. Perhaps worth considering...

[nincompoop]

Just as mother humans do not ponder over whether or not to teach their children - they just do it.

A mother that teaches is a mother that was taught by her mother. If you watch "Nanny 911" or just society in general, you can see that more and more parents are neglecting to teach their children how to behave and act appropriately, even for basic survival to get along in society.

That is the difference between humans and animals.

[DocTurtle]

Well put Paul, but I would have to ask why humans would even think about enslaving another human being. Also would have to ask how they came up with that concept to begin with. Could it be, that these concepts came to be from watching animal behavior?

NBTP

Slavery, I imagine, came about as either 1)Punishment (e.g. POW's ment to do the dirty work) or 2)Laziness (e.g why should I do think hard work when I can overpower or trick someone else into doing it)

[Paul McDaniel]

Dear Mr. e,
You do read my posts and you certainly hang in there, but I must say, with all equanimity and good fellowship, that you are not prepared to pursue this discussion further until you arm yourself with a much better understanding of the nature of intelligence and thought, human and otherwise. It is a fascinating subject though, and I recommend it to you. I do not, however, have the time to pursue it with you.

Now, there is a yet another even more important aspect of this forum to which you might consider paying additional attention: given the futility of trying to change minds and the fact that life is short, I think you could be having a great deal more fun with it.

Some say that ideas have the power to bring about change—for better or worse—and should be treated with all sober seriousness. Ironically, those same people also say, blah, blah, blah and yadda, yadda, yadda. (I paraphrase.)

I say, ideas are toys, to be played with and tossed back and forth amongst friends like aperantic nerf balls to the screaming delight of the mentally deranged. But, maybe that’s just me. (I myself was once diagnosed as mentally deranged by a navy doctor. He didn’t even come close.)

See?

Ian! Jimmy Hoffa?

The individual “in the aggregate” is more likely one Sheldon McMurphy, a retired soldier.

Hoffa’s murder was botched when the Gambino family inadvertently hired an actual carpenter named Frank Sheeran instead of the hit man of the same name. There were threats, recriminations, confusion, some running for one’s life, and aggravated assaults resulting in his being left for dead in a Detroit alley.

He managed to recover and spent the next dozen years in a trailer park in Ocala, Florida under the name of Sheldon McMurphy, living by cashing the real McMurphy’s retirement and Social Security checks at a nearby grocery store until he died in 1987 at the age of 74.

Sheldon visited Okinawa in the early ‘70’s by way of a sentimental journey, having served at Torii Station five years prior. We met, we talked, we wrote. I received no more letters after 1975.


Horses do not exist. What most people think is a horse is actually a completely different animal. —Paul McDaniel

When you strike at a king, you must kill him. —Ralph Waldo Emerson

Yeah . . . what he said.—Paul McDaniel

[Asshat]

...you are not prepared to pursue this discussion further until you arm yourself with a much better understanding of the nature of intelligence and thought, human and otherwise. It is a fascinating subject though, and I recommend it to you. I do not, however, have the time to pursue it with you.

This has me laughing....eel, in other words, you are a dumb shit! But Paul doesn't have the time to teach you. :w00t:

Paul, I must borrow this statement from you as I continue to supervise a cadre of otherwise intelligent people who ask questions before they research.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

This has me laughing....eel, in other words, you are a dumb shit! But Paul doesn't have the time to teach you. :w00t:

Yes, Mr. McDaniels has copped out. Unable to explain away inaccuracies in his rhetoric, he resorts to insult (though a nicely crafted insult), and thus slithers away.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

To my “Slavery is a human concept” you responded with a reference that explained that “[Slavery is] a biological, not a cultural trait, that is wide-spread among ants.” This Seems to be saying that slavery in toto (including human) is a biological imperative that is ALSO characteristic of ants. The writer Seems to further minimize the ethical aspects of slavery (in toto) by saying that THE difference between human and ant “slavery” is that ants enslave other species of ants.

If This Is Truly The Case, then I have to strongly disagree with this writer, the mother who bore him, the father who skimped on his education, and the horse he rode in on.

Human slavery is a concept subject to considerations of motive, choice, decision, ethics, and morality. By Contrast, ant slavery is a natural and necessary condition of their existence, not a choice, not a decision, not a matter of motive, ethics, or morality, and certainly not an ant-held concept. These two usages of the word “slavery” are totally unrelated but for being the same word.
No, slavery is not a necessary condition of ant existence, any more than it is of human existence. Some species of ants do need slaves, and some do not. If suddenly it were no longer possible for ants to enslave other ants for any reason, the world's entire ant population would not die out and vanish from the face of the earth. Ants that have the ability to do their own work would survive and procreate, and life would indeed go on. The same was true in humans. Those who couldn't adapt to the great emancipation died out over time, and those that could moved on and passed on their genes.

I'm also of the opinion that human slavery is not gone. Bar hostesses from foreign countries working in Japan routinely have their passports held "for security" by their gangster sponsors. Are these working girls free? Third world sweatshops beat laborers, block exits, and use all sorts of vile tricks to prevent escape from the harsh conditions of their "employment". Are these workers any more free? Have humans really stopped enslaving other humans?

[atb35]

It is slavery, we should create an Underground Railroad for all the animals!! They need to be freed and hopefully, when we as a society is not so closed minded, one day all pets will be allowed to voice their opinions and vote!!

[DocTurtle]

Beautiful atb35, beautiful. literally "LOL"ing :D

[TheNoNamedOne]

It is slavery, we should create an Underground Railroad for all the animals!! They need to be freed and hopefully, when we as a society is not so closed minded, one day all pets will be allowed to voice their opinions and vote!!

There is already an Underground Railroad for animals -- well kinda.

They don't need the vote. They merely need to have humans which can vote vote in a way to grant them more protections and the right from ownership and exploitation.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Is a dog obtained solely for the purpose of warning the owners of a house that a person has approached by barking loudly and keeping it chained to the porch constantly a pet, or is it a slave?


Pets, like beasts of burden, are indentured servants. Under a contract they never even signed, pets are paid in meals, occasional toys and freedom on a leash or in a backyard.

[Isaak Brodsky]

All pets must be emancipated and allowed to roam free and fend for themselves.

[TheNoNamedOne]

All pets must be emancipated and allowed to roam free and fend for themselves.

lol. Funny, that is almost the exact view I have of the minds which are held captive by the superstitions of religious orgs. I bet it is hard to fend for one's self by thinking for one's self -- so they stay captive.

Yikes! Glad I'm free and not indentured to a religion.

[TheLastDon]

I would let my piranha roam free but I think he would only flop a few feet before he died.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

I bet he/she could survive in a clean Okinawan river or stream up in Yambaru, if you released him in the summer so that he could gradually change to the cooler water temps that come in the winter.

Not that I am saying to you to do that, but just saying if you really wanted to let him roam free you could ...

[socalheart]

LMAO! :D there's sort of a moat around my apartment building, but I think it's sea water as it seems the water level rises and falls with the river tide next to us. Gawd, that's funny stuff... pirahna.

I would let my piranha roam free but I think he would only flop a few feet before he died.:D
I bet he/she could survive in a clean Okinawan river or stream up in Yambaru, if you released him in the summer so that he could gradually change to the cooler water temps that come in the winter. Not that I am saying to you to do that, but just saying if you really wanted to let him roam free you could ...

[TheLastDon]

I was joking but I don't think a piranha is indigenous to Okinawa.

[socalheart]

Say it isn't so! :crying: And I was looking forward to pirahna sushi... oh wait, no, allergic. Don't mind me on this one - feeling dopey with the grumpy thing. :p
I was joking but I don't think a piranha is indigenous to Okinawa.

[TheLastDon]

Oh I thought about doing something with "him" many times. Piranhas are too high maintenance; just like some women I have known.:D
I don't mind Socal, but "somebody" might mind and move these off topic posts.:thumbup1::D

Don't mind me either, I'm drunk:cool:

[Asshat]

Is a dog obtained solely for the purpose of warning the owners of a house that a person has approached by barking loudly and keeping it chained to the porch constantly a pet, or is it a slave?

It is a slave by a simple definition. However, the dog who lives with the family and performs the same function might be a pet.

Knowing canines like I do (an amature who has had dogs as pets since I was born) I know there is a lot of joy in a dog who is allowed to operate for his human in his natural capacity. Dogs live to please- or to become the alpha-member who must be put in his place constantly.

Many military working dogs live with their handlers. Hunting dogs live for the scent. Cats are useless, fickle and perhaps are pets. Perhaps their purpose in the home of an elderly woman living alone as a companion is also slavery. Wouldn't the cat prefer to be outside rooting through the trash can, climbing trees, tracking mice?

[atb35]

There is already an Underground Railroad for animals -- well kinda.

They don't need the vote. They merely need to have humans which can vote vote in a way to grant them more protections and the right from ownership and exploitation.

Damn, Im glad you werent around for all the african americans when they were trying to be freed......

TP states, "They dont need to vote, they just need white folk to vote for them!!"

It was sarcasm, anyone who thinks animals are slaves is a moron....sorry, I need to try and be nicer. Not a moron, but someone I dont agree with.....

[Isaak Brodsky]

Since the millions of emancipated domesticated pets won't have the means of fending for themselves in the wild, what can be done to deal justly with this multitude of slaves?

[Isaak Brodsky]

lol. Funny, that is almost the exact view I have of the minds which are held captive by the superstitions of religious orgs. I bet it is hard to fend for one's self by thinking for one's self -- so they stay captive.

Yikes! Glad I'm free and not indentured to a religion.

That's some goooooooooood stuff, yo.

Ha ha... ha....ha..ha hohoho. l-ing ol.

As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.

A skeptic’s mind stands in a prison of material dimensions and a congested imagination confined merely to what the eye and ear can perceive.

More than just a badge of honor, free-thought is but a contradiction to those who cannot use the mind to contemplate beyond immediate physical boundaries, to those who, for the sake of their hubris, ignore their own multilayered meta-cognitive ways of perceiving meaning and purpose — properties entirely unique to human beings but which they choose to deny.

Animal Rights efforts are noble insofar as they call attention to man’s depraved mind and, sometimes, his utter disregard for other creatures in his care.

Beyond that, isn't AR just a humanist cult replete with all of the practiced rites and all of the preaching profits peculiar to the world’s major religions?

[TheNoNamedOne]

A skeptic’s mind stands in a prison of material dimensions and a congested imagination confined merely to what the eye and ear can perceive.

I think that means skeptics are not delusional and that we are liberated from primitive and high superstition. I'll take it.

More than just a badge of honor, free-thought is but a contradiction to those who cannot use the mind to contemplate beyond immediate physical boundaries, ...

No, we can. But we just reject answers from the mind's propensity towards creating imaginary explanations for things that have not been answered by science yet. We do not fill the gaps in knowledge with a god. A religionist's is the god of gaps who gets displaced every time one is filled up i.e. more and more marginalized.

Animal Rights efforts are noble insofar as they call attention to man’s depraved mind and, sometimes, his utter disregard for other creatures in his care.

I am happy we can agree on that.

Beyond that, isn't AR just a humanist cult replete with all of the practiced rites and all of the preaching profits peculiar to the world’s major religions?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Hmmm...interesting. Well, I have actually heard something like this before, Ian. Basically you are using religion in a way so that anything of passioned interest could be called a religion. You are playing semantically with the word and you know it. But, to indulge your question using the more normal term of religion as the model -- no, not at all.

Look at Christianity for example. Christians believe in a personal god, one in which hears millions of prayers a second and perhaps even answers many of them. ARists do not pray to some personal AR deity deluding themselves of that which I just explained for Christians.

Why don't you show us an exhaustive construct paralleling "all the practiced rites and all of the preaching profits peculiar to the world’s major religions" that ARists do? I would be interested to see that. For starters, feel free to just use Christianity as the model.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Why don't you show us an exhaustive construct paralleling "all the practiced rites and all of the preaching profits peculiar to the world’s major religions" that ARists do? I would be interested to see that. For starters, feel free to just use Christianity as the model.

Please give me an hour or two to produce this "exhaustive construct" - at least one as exhaustive as the humans-are-a-cancer metaphor you've already propounded.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Sure, no problem.

Time's up!

[Isaak Brodsky]

I apologize for my tardiness.

It would be fairly easy to defend, I think, the proposition that Animal Rights Activism and fundamentalist religion share a number of overlapping and interrelated features. For starters, adherents from both camps proselytize in typically insufferable fashions. Both varieties of adherents have been known to stand on crowded street corners handing out tracts summarizing their holier-than-thou perspective and inviting new believers to repent.

They often both view the unbeliever, heathen or unenlightened as in some way morally and ethically vacant or lesser than themselves. Both camps of belief also involve adhering to some sort of self-denying doctrine.

For the fundamentalist Christian, these codes may involve abstinence from things such as alcoholic binges during fellowship, provocative genital gyrations during disco dancing episodes, or premarital sex. For Animal Rights Activists, these codes may appear as strict vegetarianism. (Even those who eat fish apparently are frowned upon and are effectually in sin.) Like the fundamentalist religionist, those of the AR ilk tend to endeavour transforming their personal beliefs into a matter of public policy enforced by new forms of legislation and other state powers. The very latest parallel appears in Rev. John Spankitt’s efforts to make masturbation illegal.

Perhaps most alarming, like galvanized Communist insurgents of 1980s Nicaragua or fundamentalist Islamists in hijacked jetliners, AR maintains a rank of zealots all too willing to engage in violence and terror campaigns in order to encourage others to bend to their will and accept their beliefs.

Given the similar features so far outlined, you’ll likely find even more in a peer-reviewed article published in the professional periodical Society & Animals Journal of Human-Animal Studies.

Jamison, Wenk, and Parker’s article entitled Every Sparrow That Falls: Understanding Animal Rights Activism as Functional Religion is a cogent and dispassionate analysis of this movement.

The abstract is pasted below for your convenience:

This article reports original research conducted among animal rights activists and elites in Switzerland and the United States, and the finding that activism functioned in activists’ and elites’ lives like religious belief. The study used reference sampling to select Swiss and American informants. Various articles and activists have identified both latent and manifest quasi-religious components in the contemporary movement. Hence, the research followed upon these data and anecdotes and tested the role of activism in adherents’ lives. Using extensive interviews, the research discovered that activists and elites conform to the five necessary components of Yinger’s definition of functional religion: intense and memorable conversion experiences, newfound communities of meaning, normative creeds, elaborate and well-defined codes of behavior, and cult formation. The article elaborates on that schema in the context of animal rights belief, elucidates the deeply meaningful role of activism within a filigree of meaning, and concludes that the movement is facing schismatic forces not dissimilar to redemptive and religious movements.

For further reading, the full text article may be found at the following link.

http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa8.3/jamison.shtml

If you’re not interested in the full article but want only its pith, you’ll find that the authors conducted their research by using Yinger's typology of functional religion as a standard to examine how well AR beliefs meet the criteria for functional religion of that typology. These criteria are as follows:

- Conversion experience
- Community
- Creed
- Code
- Cult (collective meanings expressed as symbols and rituals)

In sum, the study found that AR meets all five of these defining criteria. Subject participates in the study reported having “formative events” in their lives that lead to their conversion to AR ideology. Converts, in turn, form communities as they seek out the company of those who share a similar set of beliefs. The authors also found common beliefs among ARAs that add up to a functional creed, or system of beliefs. Among these beliefs are the following:

-Human use of animals is wrong and is not necessary
-A belief in the moral “goodness,” as opposed to the moral neutrality, of animals
-Assertion of the moral righteousness of the movement
-True belief calls for evangelising
-The belief that suffering is always “evil” and the mitigation of suffering is always “good.”

The study also found that AR, like religion, involves a code, or a set of appropriate and inappropriate behaviours that are to be observed by the believer. That is to say, legalism or dogma. One of those kinds is likely to be veganism.

At last, a reference or two to the rites and symbols of the cult. Participants in the study reported details about how at AR meetings, they would talk about themselves and their failures to maintain the code (such as in a public confession of “sin”) in a ritualistic manner. Much like a profession of faith in religion, participants also noticed the importance of personal profession of beliefs in AR. The study also found that many ARAs also used symbols such as pictures of animals being used in research, much like religions use symbols and imagery.

An ARA may identify to such a picture as a symbol of “unnecessary” animal suffering in much the same way that a Christian identifies with the cross as symbol of Jesus’ suffering.

The study is fascinating inasmuch as its findings illustrate again how widespread and varied belief systems and practices of belief appear in our lives. It confirms what I’d imagined for a while about popular social-secular activism: although the AR quasi-religion lacks the spiritual deity of traditional religions, it contains nearly all the other key I.D. features - from evangelism to militant fanaticism.

Another article worth looking at for self-reflection purposes is one by Jamison and Muth entitled On the Destiny of Deer Camps and Duck Blinds: The Rise of the Animal Rights Movement and the Future of Wildlife Conservation.

The bibliographic material is as follows:

Robert M. Muth, Wesley V. Jamison
Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 841-851

A link to the abstract can be found at the following URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-7648(200024)28%3A4%3C841%3AOTDODC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

If you can’t access JSTOR but want this article, I can very likely get it for you. Let me know.

[Muku]

Ian now I wonder what would happen if the fundamental Christan is also an Animal Rights Activist. :eek:

I wonder would there be conflict of interest issues as well.

[Isaak Brodsky]

i think i know what you mean by your question, but i'm not fully certain.

could you elaborate?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ian, that was interesting information you provided above with the parallels to behaviour, but that surely is not for just ARists. It could be for other groups as well. Hell, you may have just included things as "breathing, sleeping, writing etc..." as well.

I don't deny that there are parallels, but I am holding you to your hyperbole here. Note the red below:

...isn't AR just a humanist cult replete with all of the practiced rites and all of the preaching profits...

Religion not only has a physical side to it as it regards mechanics towards behaviour in what human groups do, but also a belief system that transcends the physical. So, you were so bold to use the word "all", so I must ask you where is the AR deity that is prayed to for the spirit of ARists? What peculiar to ARists do they pray for and more importantly to what that stands themsleves apart as the same to "all" religions? What is their view of the afterlife as whole from the AR perspective? How are they put right with their God?

Now, if rather than using the word "all" and you had simply wrote "some similarities" then I wouldn't have even asked you to have made that construct paralleling, because of course it is clear there are some aspects of all group behaviour that seeks change which are similar to one another -- particularly if activism is a part of that. Why would anyone think otherwise?

I have no objection to using religion adverbialy such as, "I religiously persue ARist goals." But then that way there is no deity baggage involved. In that case I could simply substitute "constantly" or "strongly" and the nuanced meaning remains in tact.

[DougP]

But if they are called companions instead of pets wouldn't that be insinuating that they are not slaves? Perhaps suggesting that it is more of a symbiotic relationship and less of a master/ slave relationship.

[TheNoNamedOne]

But if they are called companions instead of pets wouldn't that be insinuating that they are not slaves? Perhaps suggesting that it is more of a symbiotic relationship and less of a master/ slave relationship.

Interesting point, Doug. After thinking about it, though, I don't accept that. However, I would prefer "companion" as a term in lieu of "pet."

But I don't think "companion" is very accurate because as far as human relationships are concerned, "companion" is usually referred to when both parties have recognized agency. Keep in mind, a dog will not have the cognitive level (hence no agency) of an adult human, or even a 16, 14, 10, or 8 year old.

Being kind, let's say they would have the cognitive ability of a 4 year old. Now, how strange it would be for a 30 year old man to refer to his (or any other) 4 year old human child as "my companion."

If the child were his or not and he had legal responsibility of this child, then he would/could refer to the child as, "this is the child I have guardianship of" (albeit that would be the legal and technical way). Both getting benefit from that relationship in a symbiotic sense would not entail the child being referred to as "companion."

[atb35]

Ok, so say you have a cat as a animal occupying the same living space as you (vice calling them 'pets'). If they are not chained or restrained at all, are they slaves? They are free to come and go as they please, there is no lynch mob searching for them if they run off (yes, people look for them, but they arent hung when found). Animals that are kept to Vick them I could see as being called slaves, but that is the wrong word for it to begin with. They are just pets that are treated cruelly. Now unless you can convince me that a pet is either a person or a printer, they are not slaves.

[DougP]

I wonder if feeding them and petting them is considered enslaving them?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ok, so say you have a cat as a animal occupying the same living space as you (vice calling them 'pets'). If they are not chained or restrained at all, are they slaves? They are free to come and go as they please, there is no lynch mob searching for them if they run off (yes, people look for them, but they arent hung when found).

No.

Animals that are kept to Vick them I could see as being called slaves, but that is the wrong word for it to begin with. They are just pets that are treated cruelly. Now unless you can convince me that a pet is either a person or a printer, they are not slaves.

In this thread we have already gone over the point that traditionally the word "slave" has been reserved for humans. But note, a slave is not exclusively defined as a person, but also by the relationship of one with power has over the powerless and what profit can be gained from that relationship by denying the latter of their freedom.

ARists are simply widening the meaning of slave to include pets by not getting hung up on the prejudice of human form, but rather focus on behaviour and relationship. And we know it is quite rational that the status quo who does not want to accept rights for animals to fight against that.

[atb35]

In this thread we have already gone over the point that traditionally the word "slave" has been reserved for humans. But note, a slave is not exclusively defined as a person, but also by the relationship of one with power has over the powerless and what profit can be gained from that relationship by denying the latter of their freedom.

What 'power' does a pet owner have over a pet? Vast majority of pets are free to roam as they please. Most dogs are tied up to protect them from being taken to the pound, not to keep them in servitude. And other then the Vick type of pet ownership, what profit is to be made of owning a pet?

One last thing, I looked up slavery in the dictionary and on the internet....if you know of some reference (other then a PETA handbook) that states slavery is something more then a person or a printer, please let me know.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

http://www.animalslavery.net/

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=75023

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/patterson.htm

[Paul McDaniel]

Hi, Mr. Eelecurb,

On topic:
What you perceive to be inconsistencies in my posts are merely the bad result of trying to simplify a complicated subject. Merely scratching at the surface, I decided (unilaterally), was not going to be at all productive, so I slithered away. (Actually I just logged off, but slithered is good too.) Perhaps my qualifications to instruct in this subject would have been more apparent if I had used my real name, roughly translated, Grrr Slurp.

Off topic:
I have an idea for a new thread I’d like you to really consider starting up yourself. Under, say, oh, I don’t know, maybe Rants and Raves, how about a thread called “What the c**p is Wrong with Paul McDaniel?” I’ll participate, too. I actually have quite a lot of material along these lines. (No, I am not kidding.)

Back On topic:
I happen to have some small ability to see into the future (the present, not so much). I can’t see anything on purpose, it just comes and goes at random or when I’m kickin’ back, relaxed like this morning when I was in the middle of a hot cup of cocoa (It was a very large cup.) something came to me as a waking dream, something that goes right to the topic of this thread. Something disturbing. This is what I saw and heard:

At a press conference hosted by the Governor of State #27 in the year 2032—
“You in the striped shirt, your question?”
“Thank you. Governor Phebus, I’m quite gratified, as I’m sure most of us here are, over the recent sweeping reforms regarding animal rights, the abolition of animal slavery, and the implementation of an array of legal protect—“
“Your question, please!”
“Oh, yes, sorry. My question. My question is: is there any legislation currently being proposed or considered that would extend similar or the same rights to the human citizens of the Great State of #27?”
(That very instant, a small black dot appeared just below the left eye of the man in the striped shirt. He started to fall backward, his legs buckled, and he pitched forward onto the ground.)
“Next question! You in the back—you had your hand up!”

Then I took another sip of my hot cocoa . . . mmm, good.


Good idea.—(Never Cry Wolf)

Before trying to hurt me, consider, I know where I live. — Paul McDaniel

The truth is a shattered mirror strewn in myriad bits, and each believes his little bit the whole to own. —from The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Paul,

You always make me laugh! :) I do enjoy your style. Glad to see you back.

Cheers, and happy holidays.

[TheNoNamedOne]

lol. Paul, I think you are in the wrong thread. Weren't you looking for the Creative Writing thread? Maybe a thread on aphorisms would be good for you, too.

But, I do admit you write well and your writing is entertaining. Just I don't see much content and I find what is there slippery -- nothing to grab hold of.

[Maggie]

Failing to meet arguments in their broad general sense, some opponants to positions (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18184&postcount=88), particularly those concerning treatment of animals, inevitably choose to go down the hill of reductionism e.g. mosquitos, microbial organisms, bacteria, etc... and now to pets in regards to slavery as a way of trying to make those who have animals and who put forth abolition of exploitation of animals not any worse than the factory farmer. Reductionism is not so bad so long as its use is equally acceptable by both sides without prejudice.

The OP title question is an ambiguous one because typically what is referred to as a pet is intermixed with specific animals, for the most part dogs and cats, and the function of the animal. Because of that, the answer is both, yes and no.

First of all, what are some of the characteristics of a slave (figuratively and non figuratively) or slavery and their treatment and main purpose?


production units
a particular job
maximizing efficiency
being exploited for a skill or ability
create profit for the one who has power over them
not permitted freedom of will
etc...


Some dogs sure do fit this criteria. Sheep dogs used by herders, seeing eye dogs for the blind, military police dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, show dogs, security dogs...etc...all fit these points.

So, yes. Dogs can be slaves, too. But, are these kinds of dogs pets? Certainly not.

So, what is a pet? Isn't it based on the purpose that the animal fills? What would be the difference between a "pet owner" and a "guardian"?

Is a dog obtained solely for the purpose of warning the owners of a house that a person has approached by barking loudly and keeping it chained to the porch constantly a pet, or is it a slave?

Unusually I have to disagree.

I have eight dogs. They are all either working or retired explosives search dogs.

They enjoy the work they do.

When they aren't working, they are either sleeping on my bed or furniture (and no, my house isn't dirty, and doesn't smell of dog)

When they're working they're my partner and my best friend. When they aren't they're very much loved pets

They stay with me until the day they die, and if they become ill, working or retired they get the best medical attention.

If they can't be saved, they die in their home and in my arms with no pain knowing I'm there.

I am a pet OWNER, and as such I consider it my responsibility to care 100% for their mental and physical welfare. I own my dogs, and they own me.

I would never allow another person any say in my dogs lives.

I believe I know what is best for them.

Maggie

[TheNoNamedOne]

Don't care about disagreeing with me on this point, Maggs. It's ok. This is an issue debated within the AR community and many fall differently on the belief spectrum about this. I don't think we are fully united on this, and it surely is not the most pressing issue most animals face.

I think I created this topic mostly because in other threads the topics about AR kept getting pulled off on my dogs and referring to them as slaves, and some wanted my opinion on it, so I created this thread to address that.

We can agree to disagree on this and still work against the biggest abuses which affect more animals that most in the AR community agree on. We are more effective that way.

Our house smelled like dog big time when we had a sofa, curtains, and rug. Those things just trapped in the smell. Now, all tile floor, no sofa, no curtains. Smell problem is not a problem anymore -- or to my nose it isn't.

[Maggie]

Don't care about disagreeing with me on this point, Maggs. It's ok. This is an issue debated within the AR community and many fall differently on the belief spectrum about this. I don't think we are fully united on this, and it surely is not the most pressing issue most animals face.

I think I created this topic mostly because in other threads the topics about AR kept getting pulled off on my dogs and referring to them as slaves, and some wanted my opinion on it, so I created this thread to address that.

We can agree to disagree on this and still work against the biggest abuses which affect more animals that most in the AR community agree on. We are more effective that way.

Our house smelled like dog big time when we had a sofa, curtains, and rug. Those things just trapped in the smell. Now, all tile floor, no sofa, no curtains. Smell problem is not a problem anymore -- or to my nose it isn't.

Our whole house is geared for dogs. Wood flooring, leather furniture and easily washable fluffy dog bedding.

I think I was over defensive. I've been asked numerous times to supply mines search dog abroad. I have always refused. Firstly because I become very attached to any dog I train, and secondly because I would have no say in the welfare of the dog once it left me.

The British Army euthanizes any dog that has been posted abroad, once they leave that location. A dog is a tool and as such it isn't economic to pay quarantine fees, or passport fees.I would call them slaves, and poorly treated slaves considering how hard they work and the reward they get for it.

I would never donate a dog to the Army. I would euthanize it first.

I've seen Vietnam Veterans cry on public TV when they talk about the service dog they had to leave behind. God knows what happened to them. I really don't want to think about it.

I equated the question to my own dogs, and was automatically on the defence.

Why do people always think that Police and Service dogs have the best life. It absolutely stinks.

Maggie:mad:

[Maggie]

after reading this thread... arent you as according to TP a slave owner


With all due respect, TP is welcome to his opinion. I'm just not going to agree with it :D

Maggie

[DougP]

Well maybe not all pets are slaves. Perhaps if you own one of these (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/29/robot.creature/index.html) pets you can sleep better at night knowing you aren't enslaving animals and guilty of unethical behavior. :)

[dk]

So, nine months later: what's the verdict?

[NotSoAverageWife]

I'm not one to debate on issues really. I just wanted to share my thoughts.

I do not believe my dogs are slaves. I believe without us, if they were roaming free...they would already be dead. Due to illness, poor health, poor diet, and so on. Reproduced, more animals to be put in those same situations, then their offspring put in those situations and so on. All in all adding to the huge problem we have now with animal overpopulation. And having to suffer from who knows what kind of pain. I believe there would be a lot more suffering going on if they were free to roam.
I never asked nor taught my dogs to bark when someone knocks on the door, nor to protect us or the house in which we live. I believe dogs are pack animals, and because mine have no other "pack" persa...We, the humans are their pack in which they protect, without my asking or teaching. I keep them fed and watered. A comfy place to sleep and a loving home. A yard to play. I make sure they don't get heartworms, or fleas and ticks and so on.

Hence, why I believe my dogs are not slaves. I believe I have saved them, rather than enslaved them.

***anyways, some really good points have been brought up. I am happy to see you all able to debate without really getting ugly about it. I respect everyones opinon on any subject even if we don't agree.***

[DougP]

So, nine months later: what's the verdict?

Still in deliberation it would seem. :argh3:

[dk]

http://www.wels.net/wmc/Downloads/clipart2/Sabc075.gif
Slaves

http://fireflyforest.net/images/firefly/2005/December/Golden-Retrievers-pool-1.jpg
Hmmmmm

What do you think, SexWax? You seem to have your head on straighter than most people around here. :D

[DougP]

http://www.wels.net/wmc/Downloads/clipart2/Sabc075.gif
Slaves


hmm

slaves
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/DougGTR32/happy-pet-owners.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/DougGTR32/Capone-2-800x800-710060.jpg

I definitely see a strong correlation here.

[dk]

Here is another slave:

http://albinowolfman.info/updown/happy%20cat.jpg

Poor thing.

[Asshat]

dk, I just spit beer! LMAO!!!!

[Maggie]

I'm not one to debate on issues really. I just wanted to share my thoughts.

I do not believe my dogs are slaves. I believe without us, if they were roaming free...they would already be dead. Due to illness, poor health, poor diet, and so on. Reproduced, more animals to be put in those same situations, then their offspring put in those situations and so on. All in all adding to the huge problem we have now with animal overpopulation. And having to suffer from who knows what kind of pain. I believe there would be a lot more suffering going on if they were free to roam.
I never asked nor taught my dogs to bark when someone knocks on the door, nor to protect us or the house in which we live. I believe dogs are pack animals, and because mine have no other "pack" persa...We, the humans are their pack in which they protect, without my asking or teaching. I keep them fed and watered. A comfy place to sleep and a loving home. A yard to play. I make sure they don't get heartworms, or fleas and ticks and so on.

Hence, why I believe my dogs are not slaves. I believe I have saved them, rather than enslaved them.

***anyways, some really good points have been brought up. I am happy to see you all able to debate without really getting ugly about it. I respect everyones opinon on any subject even if we don't agree.***



I spent some time in Kathmandu, and it's overrun with dogs there. They don't belong to anyone, they live on the streets with loads of homeless children.

A normal street would have about 60 dogs living on it, completely wild.

They had mange, so badly that I knew it was going to kill them. They had legs broken and mended badly. Some only had three useful legs. Because they're territorial, and remained in their own areas, there was a huge amount of in breeding. I saw dogs with a fifth limb attached to a leg. Dogs with two sets of adult teeth.

Bitches running across roads in labour. Pups which looked as if their mother had been killed, they were so thin, and also covered with mange. They had no chance of survival whatsoever

The people who live there don't hurt the dogs, but they don't help them either. They consider them free to go their own way, and have done for generations.

Judging from the state of all the dogs I saw, they probably had a miserable lifespan of about three to four years.

I saw in a post recently someone said "you'd probably step over a dead body"

Well, I did. There was a body of a young man laying outside The Temple Of The All Seeing Eye. He'd been there a good while too. People just stepped over him or round him.

Most of the people are in as bad a state as the dogs. The only healthy animals I saw were the monkeys that live around the Temples.

The dogs weren't drawn to people, they didn't beg for food, they just carried on with the most miserable lives imaginable.

Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. They can't survive on their own. If we set them free, the majority will die, and those that don't will take generations to reach the miserable stage the dogs in Kathmandu have.

I know I've skirted over Dingo's, which are the only canine to have made it in the wild, having once been domesticated, but I've never seen a Dingo, so I can't say anything about them.

The Wild Dogs in Africa aren't actually canines, so they don't count.

And I didn't use Google for any of this post

Maggie:)