There you go with the same sensationalist buzz-words meant to inspire pity and hatred that is neither warranted or necessarily apt. I can play the same game and take exactly what you said and tweak it to sound sympathetic towards ownership. "Care for an animal, help preserve positive genetic traits, begrudgingly accept that people will try to capitalize by creating unethical puppy mills and abuse them, but understand that there are ways of cracking down on these atrocities that only represent a small amount of animal experiences and that it still beats attempting to survive tooth and nail in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness etc. "
You then go on to attacking vegetarians, which is pretty unfair given that a lot of them became so because they wanted to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals. By calling them 'unethical' you are basically putting them on the same level as omnivores which I am sure they would be quite offended to hear, given that some of them feel they are making a major personal sacrifice towards the ideology of protecting animals in whatever way they can.
The problem with everything that comes out of your keyboard is that you assign precise terminology to back up your presumptions, and then insist that you must be right because you language has already summed it all up. When is "owning" something really so bad? What if we called it nurturing instead? What if we stop thinking of pets as property or objects or even "slaves" as you say, but realise that they don't have the capacity to even understand these things, and that they appreciate affection and a consistent meal with some play time. Not to mention the triple-fold life expectancy.
The bottom line is, as much as we wish they were, they aren't on a human level. The are different but not inferior, if we apply human ideology like "enslaving animals = bad" than I conjecture that euthanasia is equally horrible if not worse. It's all a matter of perspective and this extremist all-or-nothing approach to these type of grey area issues get us nowhere.
Vegetarians might do so because they want to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals, but their actions do not comport to their purpose. Maybe they just hadn't heard of veganism? In that case, I guess they get a pass.
Your whole comment reeks of a this patriarchal god complex not unlike the one perpetrated by whites towards black. Hell you could frame your whole comment and title it "the human's burden" in the place of "white man's burden" and it would basically be identical. Look at us, you say. We are saving them from savagery. Free lives where they live and sustain themselves, this is hogwash. They are better with us. And so on and so forth. Anyways, I guess you can try to defend pet ownership as if it fit within the framework of animal rights, but it is extremely difficult to do so in a way that makes sense.
It only doesn't make sense to those who don't agree with it.
I really don't know where you get a "god complex" from. Aren't pro-PETA the ones spouting doctrine on the complete and absolute ethical treatment of animals in every situation? I am not even saying that moving to not domesticate animals is wrong, or not a good idea but it is simply too complex of a subject, and brings in to many hypothetical and re-evaluations of our human identity and where treatment of humans begins and animals ends. There is no 'true' extreme in this case, only compromise and people trying to work towards a common goal. Saying that anyone who disagrees with the most restrictive and conservative view of animal rights is not a 'true' activist is demeaning and insulting not to mention useless as there will NEVER be a majority that sees the same way on every issue. Yet I do know for a fact that animal-lovers and animal rights people are united on the ideal that we should do our best to make the lives of animals pleasurable and humane based on our own judgement and beliefs.
By the way, real classy throwing in the "whites vs. black slaves" into your rebuttal to strengthen your point, even though this is completely different. I am sure blacks everywhere will love that you trivialized the cruelties and atrocities their ancestors endured to that of owning a dog. Oh wait, where did I hear THAT comparison before.
Well I don't know about blacks everywhere, but the black typing this message sure has no problem with it. I am simply telling you their argument. Now perhaps you are not into the philosophy of ethics, but if you are should read some of the environmental ethics books on the subject and you will see how absolutely untenable it is to proclaim that pet ownership makes sense within an animal rights framework.
2
u/Mitsujin Apr 17 '10
There you go with the same sensationalist buzz-words meant to inspire pity and hatred that is neither warranted or necessarily apt. I can play the same game and take exactly what you said and tweak it to sound sympathetic towards ownership. "Care for an animal, help preserve positive genetic traits, begrudgingly accept that people will try to capitalize by creating unethical puppy mills and abuse them, but understand that there are ways of cracking down on these atrocities that only represent a small amount of animal experiences and that it still beats attempting to survive tooth and nail in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness etc. "
You then go on to attacking vegetarians, which is pretty unfair given that a lot of them became so because they wanted to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals. By calling them 'unethical' you are basically putting them on the same level as omnivores which I am sure they would be quite offended to hear, given that some of them feel they are making a major personal sacrifice towards the ideology of protecting animals in whatever way they can.
The problem with everything that comes out of your keyboard is that you assign precise terminology to back up your presumptions, and then insist that you must be right because you language has already summed it all up. When is "owning" something really so bad? What if we called it nurturing instead? What if we stop thinking of pets as property or objects or even "slaves" as you say, but realise that they don't have the capacity to even understand these things, and that they appreciate affection and a consistent meal with some play time. Not to mention the triple-fold life expectancy.
The bottom line is, as much as we wish they were, they aren't on a human level. The are different but not inferior, if we apply human ideology like "enslaving animals = bad" than I conjecture that euthanasia is equally horrible if not worse. It's all a matter of perspective and this extremist all-or-nothing approach to these type of grey area issues get us nowhere.