@KHAndAnime said:
For me to present my argument, we must find common ground on one belief - the belief that animals were meant to live in nature, free of dependence on humans. So despite our past dependence on one-another for survival (e.g. hunter+hunting dog), which is natural in nature and was mutually beneficial for both species, there is nothing to suggest that there's a good reason for humans to keep pets. They provide amusement and a sense of companionship. But is that companionship something substantial and real? Or is it actually a bit fake and a little sickening?
What is "natural" is irrelevant. Human kind has been breaking that barrier for thousands of years. It's not "natural" for humans to fly, but we still invented planes. Is it wrong for humans to fly just because we weren't initially designed to do so? Besides, "natural" is just a human concept, not a definite rule. The man-pet relationship developed out of nature. Also, how is the pet-owner relationship not beneficial to both parties? Humans get companionship, pets get food, shelter, and affection. Sure, they lose their "freedom", but that is a largely human concept, not something pets are too concerned about.
@KHAndAnime said:
People really like cats, and they really like dogs. So if people like cats and dogs so much, why do they give them names and keep them in confined spaces for the majority of their lives and beat or punish them when they behave in a way that's natural to them?
The same can be said about children. My parents gave me a name and kept me in a confined space (the house) most of my life. They also punished me when I urinated on the floor or broke things, even though this was "natural" for a child. Did my parents not love me?
@KHAndAnime said:
The first argument I hear from all pet owners can mostly be deduced to the same thing : "I saved my pet from a bad situation". Interesting enough - pet owners fail to acknowledge that the bad situation they saved the pet from was created from the status quo of pet ownership in the first place.
The second argument I hear is : "Well, we all eat meat anyways - it doesn't make a difference - it's not like I'm killing and eating my pet. Besides, my pet shows me affection and loves me." They act as if these animals have the freedom of choice. They don't. Meat eaters aren't disillusioned about what they do - I wouldn't kill a cow and pretend that I'm doing these cows a favor. I eat various types of meat and fish because I can and ultimately it's an effective staple of the diet. Do I need to eat meat? No. But based upon my experience - all vegetarians I've personally known for lengthier periods of time all have developed health issues that aren't common in non-vegetarians. The majority of pet owners I've met, on the other hand, act as if they own a pet because they're saving a life and doing a favor to another life form. Here's another way to look at it - pet owners enslave animals for their own amusement, purely because they can. Yet pet owners like to believe they have a "real bond" with their helpless pets.
I'm not really sure what you are arguing here. Yes, part of the "situation" we are saving our pets from is created because of pet ownership, but that doesn't make it any less real. Homelessness is created because of the status quo of our modern society, but it doesn't make it any less of kind act for a church to take in the homeless. One of my dogs was adopted from the pound, and would have been euthanized if we hadn't adopted her. you can argue the situational factors all you like, but the fact is my dog would have died if we hadn't adopted her. Is death really better than living with humans? Also, like it or not, there are dozens of types of dogs that cannot survive in the wild anymore. Yes, we created them through pet ownership, but that doesn't change the fact they exist. Should we just let every Pomeranian, Pug, Chihuahua, etc, die because it would be better than having them live in a house?
@KHAndAnime said:
Animals are domesticated through nurture upon birth and have no natural desire to be around you or me. For them to act naturally would cause them to get beaten and put away. I love eating cows, pigs, fish, etc. despite this, I like animals. I'm glad they exist - I just wish the ones that weren't designated to be eaten could at least experience a life that is natural to them.
A zoo at least attempts to provide animals with a recreation of their natural habitat. Cats and dogs get no such luck - most are left at home and sit in a box while their owners go to work and live their lives. Then many owners come home and beat them because they didn't pee in their designated spot. I'm inclined to believe that pet ownership is a very hypocritical thing and I don't ever think I would own a pet personally. Honestly, if I was enslaved by an Alien and they gave me the option to sacrifice myself for to provide their nourishment or the option to be their pet for the rest of my life, I'd probably take the least boring and less humiliating approach to the situation.
Do you think that there will be a point where animal life is valued beyond being mere food? Once we reach that point, do you think opinions on owning pets would sway?
Another kind of pointless argument. Every living creature has their psychology altered through nurture from birth to mold in with the greater whole. Kids are taught to play nice with others, wolves are taught to respect the pack leader, etc. Why is it so wrong when in the case of pet-owner relations? Besides, at least in the case of dogs, they naturally seek out a pack and a leader, whether human or otherwise.
I think your major problem is that you are imagining yourself as the animal. You have to remember that an animal has no real concept of "freedom", at least, not in the same way we do. If you had ever owned a pet, you might understand. I didn't beat my dogs into loving me. I took them home, and they sought my affection. Yes, I taught them not to pee on the floor, but my parents taught me that as well.
And to answer your question, no, opinions on owning pets will not sway. This relationship has existed for thousands of years, its not going to change just because a few hippies come along and think its wrong to confine "mother nature".
Log in to comment