Nice logic, dickie.

>>I take it then you are a vegetarian, Pericles?<<

As I understand you, if you eat meat, it is also ok to keep pets. Or is it the other way around, it's ok to be carnivorous if you also keep pets.

To conflate the two is to miss the entire point. Which I am sure is your intention - if you can't think of a logical rejoinder, change the subject.

How about we both agree on one thing - that cruelty to animals is a bad thing.

Are you OK with that?

Now, in my opinion, keeping pets is a highly visible and commonplace form of cruelty. I don't necessarily expect everyone to agree with me, in fact very few do. Nevertheless, it is a deeply felt conviction of mine that keeping pets reflects very badly indeed on our so-called humanity.

In much the same way as PALEIF keeps battling on against the cruelty involved in animal slaughter, I will keep throwing in my twopenn'orth when the topic of pets rears its head.

What puzzles me is the vehemence with which my views are opposed by folk who label themselves as being on the side of animal protection. I could perhaps understand a "the time is not yet right" response, but hardly the vilification directed towards me in a sequence of straightforward, ad hominem attacks.

So, if you want to make a point about keeping pets being a perfectly acceptable facet of our makeup as human beings, by all means go ahead. I have heard many, by the way, and so far they all seem highly loaded with emotion, and very light on objective thought.

But there's always room for another opinion, isn't there?

Pericles

We actually have something in common.

I too have never sought or bought an animal in my life.

Nor have I ever not had an animal.

That is my contribution to preventing on-going cruelty to the animals that have been or are now under my care.

The list is endless....dogs, cats, goats, rabbits, birds.

Should I have ignored the cruelty that had been perpetrated on these animals?

I shall reiterate the question, Pericles:

What has your contribution been to this dilemma and what would your "objective" recommendations have been to MY dilemma?

Yes Cuphandle, ban the cat. And stop beating up on children.

Pericles, as much as I love my dog and he me, I tend to agree with your arguments here.

Firstly, I resolutely refuse to do the doggy bag thing. He might start thinking he's the one in charge.

Second, I regularily challenge my mutt to go out and kill something. But he just wags his stupid tail whatever I say. In fact the more I mock him for his domesticated ways the more excited he seems to get.

Parli

You wouldnt use a doggie bag at the beach.

Its the law.

Anyway what sort of owner would leave doggie poo for someone to walk in on the beach. If all owners were like you the council would Ban people taking their dogs to the beach or walking them on the grass or road all together.

Pericles
I see- I think.
Yes we can agree that Animal Cruelty is wrong. Sorry if I got a it agro.
We are pretty impressed with Dickie and her efforts.
I think what `you` are saying is that it makes you so sick to see how some pets are kept under the umbrella of the laws that you personally would rather see `all` pet owndership banned.

Is that right?
Interesting.

In the last few weeks another poster on a thread said well if we dont do this and that those Animals will be extinct.

I replied- Considering they are hunted down and thrown into trucks and shipped off in old boats in 50 degree heat without water or shade to a barbaic death- "That would be a good thing".

All hell then broke loose and we were accused of having no regard for conservation so the kids could one day visit a Zoo and see a - Whatever.

Put that way I addmitt to be guilty as charged.

Rather there were no animals to suffer if people cant treat them properly. As for domestic Animals. Many dogs are a member of the family and treated well.
Others not.I wouldnt judge every owner badly.
Although I think I am starting to follow your line of thought.
Its different- Almost extreme but I think I follow your logic.
Its not mine of course.
Enjoy your Sunday.

Dickie if you wish to get this out for pigs re ACCC and the Rudd Petition etc would you please email us or call.

Other wise I will just have to forget it as we cant do the whole lot ourselves and Nicky[ Suzzanne] made no reply.

BTW Good Luck with the settlement.

That too is an avoidance strategy, dickie:

Dickie: "I too have never sought or bought an animal in my life"

Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman."

It is a chicken-and-egg situation, is it not?

If the starting point was that keeping pets is illegal - and it will be, let me assure you, in the fullness of time - then there wouldn't be animals to "save" in this fashion, would there?

>>What has your contribution been to this dilemma and what would your "objective" recommendations have been to MY dilemma?<<

As I said before, my contribution is simply to continue to point out the anomalous behaviour of people who regard themselves as animal-lovers, when it comes to the topic of pets.

I really can't help you with your dilemma, except to point out that your protestations that the doggies and kitties are being well looked-after echo those of slave-owners in the southern United States, before the abolition of slavery.

Take a look through Orlando Patterson's "Slavery and Social Death". You'll find many familiar phrases in the pro-slavery team's view of their place in life. Or check out George FitzHugh's "Cannibals All; Slaves without Masters" - he nominated socialism as the "new slavery", because in his view it made the working man worse off than the slaves:

Part of their argument rests on the premise that the landowners looked after the slaves' welfare, and setting them free would force them into a world where they had to compete for jobs, and therefore their livelihood. I have heard remarkably similar excuses from pet-owners - the dog/cat/hamster/rabbit depends on me for food/shelter etc., how would it survive out in the wild?

Are you starting to understand the logic? I don't expect you to agree with it, of course, but perhaps one day you will start asking the questions of yourself.

And you might just be surprised at the answers.

Interesting thread. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think that my own position lies not so much between the extremes expressed here as equidistant from them but on a somewhat divergent trajectory.

Firstly, I think that Pericles would be correct to describe the relationship between pets and their owners as "slave-like", rather than actual slavery. This is because, as a humanist, I regard other species of animals as having lower intrinsic status than H. sapiens. I think that our law and culture agree with me, since infringements against animals typically incur lesser penalties and disapproval than do those against people.

This doesn't mean that I don't love animals - rather, it means that I have a very different kind of relationship to animals, particularly those that I own, than I do with people. For a start, I own some domestic animals, eat others, and regularly hunt wild aquatic animals.

As we have a small acreage, the conditions under which my pets live is somewhat different to those experienced by urban pets. I have a dog, who is free to roam the property and occasionally visits the neighbours, then returns of her own volition. She is quite welcome to eat any of the occasionally numerous rabbits that also like to call our place home, but for some reason she prefers the tucker I provide.

We have a few sheep whose job it is to eat excess grass in summer, and whose feed I supplement in winter. They would be somebody else's tucker by now if I hadn't bought them from a farmer whp breeds them for that purpose. We have a couple of ducks who come and go as they please, but never stray more than about 20 metres from our house dam. They eat grubs and weeds around the garden, which we supplement with corn and the odd slice of bread or some lettuce in winter. They too would probably have been on somebody's menu if we hadn't bought them.

[continued}