Pericles

On the surface this is indeed a perplexing issue but I suggest you’re looking in the wrong direction for an answer.

I would suggest that you consider the psychological motivation for individuals’ choices of pets.

As an ex-owner of pet shops I often saw links between the personality and their buying motive. I maintained an “our pet’s board “where purchases posted their pet photos. The purpose was originally commercial but I became intrigued the links.
The links between personality and choice were particularly observable when it came to the breed of either dog/cat.
This was further amplified by their level of anthropomorphism of the pet.
Believe it or not my staff and I became quite adept at picking the prospect to a breed.
Recent psychological research has come up with the theory that we as humans are hard wired (+/-) to respond to certain visual cues instinctively…big eyes, cute cuddly etc (babies) . When coupled with my observations above I simply think that certain people are acting on this stimulus.
Add to this desire for substitute, control, unconditional affection and ego all contribute.

It is interesting to note that after the initial stimulus comes some degree of anthropomorphism. Those that can’t maintain some level of this beyond the cute stage tend to be either bad owners or those who dispose of the inconvenient pet.

Another observation on dog breeders and showies is that those who see the pet as a means to an end tend to be those who regard the pet least.

One can then surmise those who form the extreme end of animal rights MAY simply be expressing a (+) end of that stimulus or ulterior psychological motives.

When I raised the issue of culture some simply see animals as food and are culturally desensitised in degrees to respond to respond to the cute (helpless) syndrome beyond their own family/tribe/clan.
The latter extreme is that which explains cultural canabalism.

Pericles

"Hi Bronwyn

>>Caring about animal welfare and being concerned about human suffering are not mutually exclusive.<<

I wasn't aware that I had suggested otherwise."

I'm sorry, I may have misread you to some extent, but the general tone of your posts and the following statement in particular do suggest to me that you are at least somewhat critical of the priorities set by animal rights activists.

"But it does - to me at least - make a substantial statement about the nature of our society, that we appear to spend a disproportionate amount of time pondering the inhumane treatment of cute furry creatures."

Banjo certainly thought so, and to be fair to you, I may have allowed myself to be unduly influenced by his reading of your comments.

"periciles,
You are absolutely right. It is the disproportionate amount of time, energy and money spent on animal 'rights' that irks me, when there is so much need to meet the basic needs of people."

I possibly should have directed my comments to Banjo as well, though I must say I view him as a bit of a lost cause when it comes to animal rights!

Jonathon

"On the negative side, I have blown two posts on explanations."

Sorry about that. I had read your first explanation but it still hadn't helped me!

And here I was getting all excited about this 'new' white knight in shining armour who'd blown in from nowhere to take up the cudgel for animal rights! I'm most deflated, but very happy to bump into you again just the same!

Yabby

"As to women in Africa, arn't you fortunate Bronwyn, that you can
choose how many children that you decided to have and to raise.
Why should women in Africa not have the same choice?"

You missed my point, Yabby. It's not that I don't agree with you. Of course women in Africa should have the same choices. It's just that I find your new found 'compassion', in light of your usual fatalistic, pragmatic and business-comes-first stance, oddly out of character and somewhat less than convincing.

Jonathon Byrd,

*We are both confident enough in our views to need no support. :))*
:) Love it!- interesting case angle to argue. Do I detect a background.

BTW- for sixteen grand I reckon that would buy more a than few bumpers on the back of garbage trucks or perhaps livestock ‘road trains'.
In case you haven’t heard that live animal export guys will do pretty much anything for a quid. Isn’t that right Yabby :)

Pericles,
There’s a difference between those who care and those who don’t do anything sitting on higher moral bottoms.
Take a look at this=
http://wheredopuppiescomefrom.com.au/australian-puppy-mills/queensland-puppy-farm-raids-cancelled-no-room-left-at-rspca/

We have been through your views which IMO mirror PETA many times before. Ok, let’s agree 'again' that we work towards everything you say.

Mean time why not take a pet from RSPCA or off the streets. Save it from labs puppy mills or animal experiments suffering and starvation.

Your friends ideas you mirror IMO seem to be on a par with that other famous fellow that didn’t like Dews.

So there’s another view on Hypocrisy.

Now if you will excuse me my new puppy wants a pee!

For one very simple reason, PALEIF

>>Mean time why not take a pet from RSPCA or off the streets. Save it from labs puppy mills or animal experiments suffering and starvation.<<

To do so would perpetuate, not alleviate, the problem.

In my opinion the problem, in case I hadn't made it clear enough, is that our society condones, even supports, the use of animals for human amusement purposes.

From the article you linked to:

"A puppy mill or puppy farm is a large dog breeding facility created to mass produce puppies for profit."

The reason that these places can make that profit is because there is a market.

The market exists only because it is legal in this country to i) keep an animal for personal entertainment purposes and ii) to export those animals, for whatever reason.

Banning ii) will not solve the problem.

Making both illegal will.

I hope that makes my position a little clearer for you.

>>Ok, let’s agree 'again' that we work towards everything you say.<<

Forgive me, but I can see absolutely no indication that you have any desire or inclination to do any such thing, particularly given that you have not so far even been able to understand the logic behind it. So I can only conclude that you put that in in an attempt to humour me.

In the meantime, has it ever occurred to you that I take the position that I do, precisely because I actually like and respect animals?

>>Your friends ideas you mirror IMO seem to be on a par with that other famous fellow that didn’t like Dews. So there’s another view on Hypocrisy.<<

Given such a pathetic attempt at a killer put-down, clearly not.

>>Now if you will excuse me my new puppy wants a pee!<<

I'll resist the obvious response to that..

Have a great day.

Pericles,

Out of respect for the rules of four posts per person in a 24 hour period, I will leave this one until tomorrow (Friday 23rd). By having two handles in this thread I could technically get away with posting now (Thursday 22nd) just after yours.

I have no desire to hang you.

“...the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself” This is a part definition.

An accurate definition is in the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary for hypocrite, which is, ‘simulation of virtue or goodness: dissimulation, pretence.’

Note the words, ‘pretence’ and ‘dissimulation’. They mean to intentionally pretend one thing and do another or deceive. Or, as I have said, consciously lying! People favouring certain animal are no more lying than those favouring companion animals over non companion animals. If you like, we could discuss your ‘rationalisations’ in the latter case.

And further down the page in Wikipedia on hypocrisy, which you apparently missed it states.

“It is a common fallacy to accuse someone of being a hypocrite to disprove their argument. This can be known as an ad hominem attack.”

Throwing the hypocrite word around unjustly is a frequent ploy utilised when all else fails.

I’m really not hurt, nor have I reason to be hurt, but you have. Also, hurt unfairly are those labelled with such an inappropriate, unnecessary and intentionally provocative word. Playing semantics with the feeling of others is not cool.

It would be a prudent course of action to admit such derogatory language a mistake and we all move on and forget it. Sorry isn’t that hard a word to say.

examinator,

I personally have no wish to own pets and know many people with similar views. Equal consideration for other creatures isn’t about pet ownership or anthropomorphised human substitutes. It is a stance chosen on the intellectual assessment supporting empathy and compassion for suffering capable animals. It also concludes that because we can kill at whim is not reason good enough to kill.

Jonathon

I'm bemused that the fate of all companion animals has been decided on this thread. Astonished that some humans now see pets as slaves to humans.

Sure, in view of man’s abject cruelty, man needs to first obtain an “L” permit, then a “P” then a “D” class licence to own a companion animal.

Nevertheless man is too urbanised, too callous, too irresponsible to acknowledge that humans and animals have freely wandered around together for at least 100,000 years and still do.

Man is now too egotistical to understand that non-humans exist in an eco-sphere - unlike man in his ego-sphere.

Let us reflect on our perpetual stuff-ups. The European rabbit was introduced to Australia with the first fleet. From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, man’s introduced cat was released into the wild to control the plague numbers that rabbits had reached. It didn’t have any substantial effect on the rabbit populations, but it did have an increase of feral cat populations and a decrease of native animal population though the evidence for early impacts of cats causing major and widespread declines in native fauna is considered tenuous and unconvincing.

1080 baiting, bullets and man’s cruel traps are now the "solution." Huh?? Now we must slaughter the "slaves" too! Huh??

Today, men tell us that it is emotional claptrap to defend non-humans against animal abuse but that it is noble and just to defend humans against human abuse where humans kill other humans for greed or for no good reason at all.

Human beings have sacrificed animals in order to connect with the Divine. Eventually, rather than the connection with the Divine, the sacrifice of non-humans itself became paramount, and the result - as in the present day, is a global society of human beings who are eating animals obsessively.

Now, there is only the killing and the eating of the animal and the global propaganda that one must eat animals to acquire protein in order to survive - an absurd notion, exacerbated by perpetual spin.

And that is no more evident than on OLO! LOL!