Pericles,

Yes, objectively I can appreciate your argument:- by what right do we consider we are entitled to take dominion over all the beasts?

However, Antiseptic emphasised that he only kept dogs that originated from the Pound. I too only have dogs that would otherwise be put to death.As did my mother before me once the perfidies of various Kennel Clubs and Crufts etc. made her realise they would not change thier standards.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but haven't I read you speaking up for Evolution? In which case, no matter their original wild state, dogs are very social animals, and thousands of years of contact with humankind have led them to become domesticated. Whether this is wrong or right is an esoteric matter I consider divorced from the reality of the fact that millions of unwanted, domesticated dogs are put to death or die of neglect every year.

If people like Antiseptic (and I) undertake to feed, respect, shelter and offer love to our fellow creatures I reject the analogy with slavers who removed creatures from their native habitat, neglected their health and welfare and did not make them objects of love and communion.

If however, I am wrong and you support Creationism then surely you accept the teaching that Humans were put in control by god?

To the Pericle’s poster

Thanks for your response. We are now in the 21st century and this topic concerns the ridiculous cruelty (because they can) to domesticated animals.

“That's pure invention, Protagoras. There is nothing in my anti-animal-slavery stance that leads to extinction.”

Again please advise the proposal you have for banishing pets if not extinction. Do you plan to kill and burn them, eat them, or will you release millions of domesticated animals to the wild, thus increasing the feral populations around the planet? A brief answer will suffice.

Alas, not only are many humans cruel to domesticated pets, they are also cruel to wildlife, marine life and even the animals they eat (or sell) which, if one must address your irrelevant topic, are also enslaved.

Not satisfied with the cruelty man inflicts on the above, sadistic man also enslaves and ill-treats his fellow-man.

Therefore, since the issue for you is "slavery" (and very selective I daresay) where you propose a mandate to ban only domesticated pets, when do you intend lobbying for a ban on the other areas I have listed above?

Fair question, Protagoras.

>>Again please advise the proposal you have for banishing pets if not extinction. Do you plan to kill and burn them, eat them, or will you release millions of domesticated animals to the wild, thus increasing the feral populations around the planet? A brief answer will suffice.<<

The brief answer - which has in fact appeared on OLO before - is simply to ban the trade of animals as playthings. Working animals would of course be exempt.

There will be no need to kill, burn or eat the ones currently kept, or even release them into the wild. Simply making illegal the supply of new ones will achieve the necessary result.

>>Therefore, since the issue for you is "slavery" (and very selective I daresay) where you propose a mandate to ban only domesticated pets, when do you intend lobbying for a ban on the other areas I have listed above?<<

One step at a time. Deliberate cruelty to animals is already illegal. And I am not proposing that we should discontinue eating meat.

Think of the mental gymnastics you have to go through, to kid yourself that keeping animals for your personal gratification and pleasure is anything but a selfish, thoughtless act of enslavement of another living creature.

Looked at objectively - which pet-lovers appear to find impossible - it is nothing short of barbaric.

Incidentally, the concept of fishing as a sport or pastime has always amazed me. Man, taking on the challenge to subdue a foot-long creature with no arms or legs, while at the same time placing himself in no physical danger whatsoever...

That's a "sport"?

You don't fish, do you Protagoras, by any chance?

Pericles, the most obvious difference between having pets and owning slaves is that slaves are human and pets are not. We do all sorts of things to animals that we wouldn't dream of doing to humans - like eating them, for example.

Besides which, why is a working dog not a slave when a pampered pooch purportedly is?

You aren't a vegetarian, are you Pericles, by any chance?

CJ,

I'm also a bit puzzled by the distinction. Surely forcing a creature - whether human or canine - to work for no remuneration other than food and often dubious shelter; with no mandated days off; no mandated returement; and confining them to the workplace at all times unless accompanied by The Master fits the definition of slavery? How then one wonders, unless this a complete wind-up, does it get an exemption

Your proposal still doesn't cut it Pericles.

"The brief answer - which has in fact appeared on OLO before - is simply to ban the trade of animals as playthings. Working animals would of course be exempt."

Are you proposing that every bitch or canine male "plaything" on the planet be sterilised? If not, what do you envisage happening to unwanted pups?

Did you know that used up, working greyhounds in Australia are packed off to Asia - often to be skinned alive as are all sorts of enslaved animals in various countries, where it is perfectly legal to torture other species. In China, they throw enslaved, live cows from trucks to be devoured by lions - a most distressing sight to witness where the terrified, hapless victim endeavours to outrun the predators whilst the human spectators cheer wildly when the beast is brought down.

Have you ever witnessed the plight of the enslaved, working donkey in Egypt? Why do you seek an exemption? I can assure you these donkeys would prefer to be a "plaything" for some kindly human.

"Deliberate cruelty to animals is already illegal."

No it is not Pericles and food animals are the most abused on the planet and it is perfectly legal in this country to enslave and torture livestock.

Nevertheless, I would hope that humanity is ascending to a higher vibrational level - the intelligent development of homo-noeticus, though I understand that you can not yet give the less enlightened homo-sapien more than what they are ready to receive.

But "thank you for bringing humour to the proceedings" Pericles.