あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]natebxScooby Doo -18 ポイント-17 ポイント  (50子コメント)

To me, anybody who owns another living being and keeps it captive solely for their pleasure is an asshole anyway, so this is unsurprising.

[–]meowlolcats 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (32子コメント)

So I guess you're a vegan and you pretty much hate everyone? How's that workin out for you?

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]natebxScooby Doo -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Stockholm syndrome (or a related condition). You're comparing a far-off scenario ten thousand years ago to today. In a modern context, pet ownership is entirely cruel and unethical. Especially city pet ownership. I can maybe understand farm animals, or circumstances in which animals are given ultimate freedom to enjoy life. A dog cooped up in a condo? No moral defense at all.

    Also, shelter dogs are akin to slaves that escaped and were re-captured and put in worse conditions... of course they're miserable. How could you possibly defend this? There is still a seed of psychopathy in everyone who accepts ownership of another being as legitimate.

    [–]BelaBartok42south of 4th isn't really kits 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (13子コメント)

    solely for their [own] pleasure

    You've clearly never seen a happy dog. My dog is the happiest sumbitch around. He lives a better life than the majority of the people on this planet. But I guess that makes me an asshole.

    [–]natebxScooby Doo -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (12子コメント)

    Refer to my point about Stockholm syndrome. Refer also to the fact that your dog was (humanely or not) bred and mutated for generations, and has no idea what it would be like to be free. How do you know he would not be happier free? Do you think human slaves are always sulking about? Do you ignore the many, many accounts of slave and slave-owners having amicable relationships?

    Also, to clarify, I'm not saying that animals and humans could not co-exist or enjoy each-other's companionship. I'm merely stating that owning another animal and keeping it captive purely for the owner's enjoyment is an immoral concept.

    [–]BelaBartok42south of 4th isn't really kits 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Well I sure am glad you're not making the rules because you are insane.

    Anthropomorphizing dogs to say they have Stockholm Syndrome is like saying dogs are naked because they don't wear clothes. Neither case can apply to the species since they don't have the capability to understand either.

    [–]natebxScooby Doo -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Oh, okay. Humans are a superior class of animal, and the only beings capable of psychological depth? You're insane, slave-owner.

    [–]BelaBartok42south of 4th isn't really kits 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    You're like the PETA people in that South Park episode.

    As far as insanity is the deviation from the norm, no, I am not insane.

    I don't see how there is any debate about which animal is superior. Humans are the dominant form of life on this planet.

    [–]natebxScooby Doo -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    So dominance allows one to do anything? Why can I not be dominant of you and force you to work for me?

    [–]BelaBartok42south of 4th isn't really kits 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    My dog doesn't work for me, you idiot.

    [–]natebxScooby Doo -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Does it really matter what I want to do with you if I claim dominance over you? If you feel it's immoral to make you work, I'll gladly just keep you captive, and enjoy playing with you when it's convenient for me. Sound good?

    [–]idspispopd 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Owning a pet makes you a slave owner, but slaughterhouses don't make our society Auschwitz?

    [–]natebxScooby Doo -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I said I have qualms with the way we (as humans) do that sort of thing.

    [–]pBoogie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    What about cats that are free to come and go as they please. They choose to stay because their human owner benefit them. They feed them, groom, keep them dry... even a cat realizes that the relationship between pet and owner is mutually beneficial.

    Nurturing is natural part of being a mammal, and cuteness is a survival mechanism. Mothering instincts are true of a lot of different species, including humans. If a cat mother dies and leaves behind kittens, and it is well within a humans abilities to save them, do you raise them and take care of them, or is that selfish slavedriving?

    Symbiotic relationships are prevalent through all levels of the animal world, and one type of symbiotic relationship is "commensalism" whereby one species benefits greatly while the other one is not significantly affected... Dogs that aren't being abused are not being significantly affected negatively. Dogs will live longer as 'property' get treated better, and (although it is hard to determine) will have a significantly higher quality of life as 'property'... any rational animal is choosing to be owned by a human.

    [–]natebxScooby Doo -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You clearly have not read what I have been saying. I have no problems with animals and humans co-existing and interacting. You outline an excellent example: cats who are free to come and go as they please. I am totally okay with this. But where do we draw the line? There might be some room for debate when a family takes a cat and moves them to another neighbourhood. Or forcing medical treatment/withholding medical treatment/euthanizing an animal when one can't afford the animal any longer, etc.

    I find this to be an interesting debate, especially because I get to see so many people wrestle with their own morality.

    [–]pBoogie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    But you also fail to see how pet - human relationship can also be mutually beneficial and is a ridiculous comparison to slave ownership...

    Honestly, I have cats LOCKED UP in an apartment that were orphaned, without their mother. I treat those cats better than myself. They see the doctor more than most individuals, they eat organic single source protein food, they drink from a filtered (chrome) water fountain. They are scared of outside, because they know how good it is inside.

    If I just said that these cats weren't my property, than I'd be doing them a disservice as beings. A cat on the street has like no rights, someone could stomp their heads in. But by registering my cats 'as my property' they have more legal rights and I can ensure their survival even more.

    I think that 'pet ownership' and agency is an interesting discussion. But comparing it to slave owning is absurd and does not serve the discussion whatsoever.

    [–]natebxScooby Doo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This is still not moral. This is the exact same argument slave owners used to rationalize slavery. This is why it's entirely applicable to equate pet ownership with slave ownership: the psychological rationale is the same. Keep in mind I use the term slavery in the general sense, not in the narrow american view of black slaves in america, though I do sometimes use that as an example. There is human slavery happening today, and it looks very much like pet ownership.

    Actually, I will concede one point: slavery DOES usually (and maybe exlusively) refer to forced labour. This is not the strict definition, though. All that is required is a slave and a master, regardless of what the master commands for the slave.

    [–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

    If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / Contact)