Fractelle, the "reality of pet ownership" seems a little one-sided.

>>...many people who keep pets do so because of the companionship and the health benefits, such as walking the dog<<

I can see why this is of benefit to people, but I'm not sure it is much of a justification for keeping animals in captivity. It's a bit like saying "many people who export live animals for a living have young families to support". Am I supposed to feel sympathy for the people, or the animals?

>>Apart from people who abuse animals, which is why I support proper licensing, there is no evidence that pets suffer... The longevity of pets indicates that they are healthy and happy.<<

With respect, this is still the "happy darkies" excuse, beloved of Southern slave-owners.

It still didn't make slavery morally right.

>>You are arguing from a position of ideology<<

True. But I'm puzzled that you think that is a bad thing. Unless you start from a point that has some ideological foundation, no argument can survive for long.

>>The program of 'weaning' people off pet ownership is a dream<<

All change begins with the imagination, Fractelle. All I'm asking is "imagine a world where we don't keep domestic pets".

It will happen one day, I promise you.

>>I am perplexed by your vehemence on this topic<<

As indeed I am perplexed, that people who profess to love animals don't see the cruelty involved in keeping domestic pets.

>>some animal welfare activists try one's patience, however, like atheists, we are not a single homogenised group<<

This much is clear.

But I would have thought that there was somewhere a simple foundation of logic upon which all are agreed.

Such as "all cruelty to animals should be eliminated".

Not sure of the point you are making here PALE&IF.

>>working dogs are often not treated very well especially working farm dogs- some are. In general a working dog does it tougher than a dog sharing a household<<

So it was in nineteenth-century Louisiana. Slaves working the cotton fields did it tougher than those in domestic service. Did that make slavery acceptable?

>>There is nothing wrong with a partnership of friendship and trust between a person and an animals - be it a horse cow dog cat<<

Only one half of that partnership is voluntary. Which might it be, do you think?

>>We are all on the earth together BUT we need some laws!<<

Yup. And I think one of those laws should be that the keeping of animals for purely domestic purposes is illegal, on the grounds of cruelty.

>>I understand some animal lovers become a bit anti people... I am not sure if you fall under that or your an attention seeking poodle<<

Eh?

>>if you cant see the difference between Nicky`s dogs and sending dogs overseas to be eaten then you need help imop.<<

Of course I can see a difference. But only in the quantum of cruelty involved. From a moral standpoint, I see no difference. And no-one on this thread has been able to enlighten me as to the ethical difference that they apparently perceive.

Or, more likely, don't care to think about.

>>[Nicky's] raised an important issue here and imo we should be supporting her not dragging her off field<<

She has my full support in any action that reduces cruelty to animals.

Unfortunately, it is my view that the moral foundation for such activism is severely compromised by the blindness exhibited on the topic of domestic pets.

Pericles raised a hypothetical. That is, from January 1st, all pet ownership should be banned due to his perceived enslavement and cruelty to these animals by owners.

What is perplexing about this hypothetical, is that Pericles is not pushing for the same mandatory laws for in excess of 140 million commercial animals where institutionalized enslavement is inflicted on these creatures 24/7 .

If I locked my gate preventing my pets from entry, they would remain outside the gate until I allowed them in - days or weeks could ensue and they would not seek shelter elsewhere. Yet if commercial animals escaped from an intensive farming property, I doubt they would return to that property to seek further enslavement or to endure more despicable acts of cruelty.

Among the list of despicable acts of enslavement and cruelty on commercial animals are: castrations, tail dockings, mulesing, teeth filing, debeaking, ovarectomies and branding (all without pain relievers).

These surgical procedures are performed on enslaved animals. Many are caged so tightly they are unable to turn around. Battery hens are enslaved in areas no larger than an A4 piece of paper. They never see the sun. And let's not forget that Australia likes to enslave, torture and kill its animals in vivisection laboratories - some 6 million during 2004.

What does Pericles recommend for the greyhound industry where Australia is the main player in creating, promoting and encouraging greyhound racing in Asia. Countries such as Korea, China, Vietnam and Macau. Australia is exporting greyhounds to these countries.

There are no provisions made for these dogs when they finish racing in Asia and no chance of re homing. Countries such as Korea and China are notorious for their barbaric illegal thriving trade in dog meat for human consumption.

These enslaved dogs are killed in the cruellest possible ways as many Koreans believe that the rush of adrenalin through the dogs’ body as it dies in agony will increase human virility.

Millions of enslaved greyhound dogs each year are electrocuted, strangled, skinned alive or bludgeoned to death in China and Korea.

What really motivates Pericles?

I may be Robinson Crusoe on this, but the responses so far have not been particularly convincing.

dickie, instead of even attempting to answer the questions, you introduce red herrings.

>>Pericles raised a hypothetical. That is, from January 1st, all pet ownership should be banned<<

I was asked how I would approach the elimination of domestic pets. The hypothetical part is obvious - society simply isn't ready to be confronted with itself in this particular mirror. But once we are, at least someone has thought through the process, so no-one can say "it's impossible to achieve".

>>What is perplexing about this hypothetical, is that Pericles is not pushing for the same mandatory laws for in excess of 140 million commercial animals...<<

You seem to be perfectly capable of doing that yourself, dickie. I was simply providing illumination on the double standards that are operating here. Which, incidentally, you seem unwilling to accept.

Think of it this way. If we as a society had sufficient awareness to understand that keeping domestic animals is inhumane, think how much easier it would be for you to protest about commercial cruelty.

>>What does Pericles recommend for the greyhound industry where Australia is the main player<<

Ban it. It's barbaric. So is horse racing, camel racing etc.

>>What really motivates Pericles?<<

I would have thought it was pretty obvious, dickie.

But I will try to explain again.

While there may be differences in the amount of suffering involved, there is no escaping the fact that the ethical basis for humans to keep domestic pets in perpetual captivity is the same that excuses all forms of cruelty to animals.

Which is, we do it because we can. Animals can't answer back. We choose to kill them when it suits us - from drowning kittens in a sack to "putting down" dogs when they are too old.

My motivation is to highlight the discrepancy between one logic "exporting puppies is bad", and the other "keeping puppies enslaved for the term of their natural life is good".

Does not that make even the slightest sense to you, dickie?

"Does not that make even the slightest sense to you, dickie?"

Not in the slightest Pericles - particularly when you embellish and distort the facts to suit your own weird ideology.

Is there anyone else on this thread who agrees with Pericles?

Errr... that's an interesting allegation, dickie.

>>particularly when you embellish and distort the facts to suit your own weird ideology<<

Which facts have I embellished?

Which facts have I distorted?

And finally, what is the "ideology" that you find so weird?

>>Is there anyone else on this thread who agrees with Pericles?<<

I am not looking for support or agreement here, dickie. Far from it. I know very well the attitude of those who contribute to these threads, and to imagine I would find like-minded folk here would be unrealistic.

What would be useful, though, is for someone to have the courage to address the moral and ethical issues that I raise.

I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?

I have answered all the questions put to me on the subject, openly and fully.

It only remains for you, or Nicky, or PALE&IF, or Cuphandle, or any of your other camp-followers, to direct their attention to the issue instead of hiding from it.

You might learn something about yourselves in the process.