examinator

I think you're facilitating an interesting discussion here as you always do, but I also consider Protagoras and Pericles to have made relevant contributions. I sometimes think that after a certain number of posts a topic often needs to be broadened out a little or it can start to go round in circles. :)

Pericles

I agree with you that a lot of pet ownership constitutes animal cruelty, but I also think that many pets experience good lives. If pets are given plenty of space and freedom to move, are given the companionship of others, are fed good quality food, are provided with shade and warmth as required, are given periodic vetinary check-ups and exercised and played with regularly they truly do have a good life. Not only that, but they greatly enrich the lives of their owners and others who interact with them.

Protagoras

I will always appreciate the information you provide here on OLO, no matter how much you beat us over the head with it at times :), and will always love and admire your absolute passion for animals.

OK Exam so I’m a nark but I actually thought I’d come back on topic.

I had considered apologising since I realise that it was you who raised the thread and you’re a bit miffed that you have no control over what information “ranters” and “ragers” provide. That was until your dig on “animal rights” – the age old arsenal used to gag and demean those who endeavour to defend the defenceless – “Puppets of Peta!” What would you call P/Piper who is passionate about defending the defenceless and deserves a medal for her efforts – “infant righter?”

In fact I have offered suggestions for your “submission” but as yet, you have not responded. Clearly you are seeking a clinical appraisal on the stark realities of animal breeding so if it’s clinical you want, then I suggest you liaise with the industry – particularly the large proportion who view sentient beings as a commodity.

There remains an ongoing failure by these recidivist offenders to address the issue of animal welfare. The following video on Crufts UK was produced in 1985, a clear indication that the industry doesn’t give a fig and once the current public outrage abates, they’ll be back to business as usual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5RMa7AW5u8

If you seek a balanced appraisal on the whole spectrum of dog breeders Exam, you can give us the good bits and I'll give you the bad bits for which *you* can offer the solutions:

Australia:

“Victorian council report revealed yet another puppy farm operating in the state, with 100 dogs "unfit for breeding:”

http://www.dogslife.com.au/dogs_life_articles?cid=9450&pid=150261

“Biosecurity Queensland deputy chief veterinarian Dr Rick Symons says the dogs were living in cramped, filthy and substandard conditions on the property near Wondai:”

http://www.petrescue.com.au/article/721

The protests of Grandma Sicko of Rutland Manor Victoria and her “debarking” programme:

http://www.govegan.com.au/puppies/?page_id=123

Oops – apologies - that one was from one of those unwashed “animal rights" authors though were it not for their endeavours, which are constantly sabotaged by the powerful and the greedy, we'd all be falling for those cute puppies in the window and paying big bucks for inbred, deformed canines.

Pericles: "I am very aware that my opinion on this subject is widely regarded as oddball."

If it were just about anyone else Pericles, I wouldn't bother asking this question, but it's you and I can't resist.

How on earth do you rationalise away your enjoyment of munching on Fido's distant relatives, while at the same time condemning keeping Fido as a pet with slavery? I am not asking why you feel this way - there may well be no answer to that question and I don't think it is any of my business anyway. But I do wonder what logical segue you use to get from "eating Fido is OK" to "keeping Fido as a pet is not OK". Surely, you have one?

If actually makes logical sense I'll be really impressed. I confess to thinking such logical gymnastics would be beyond anybody here but maybe, just maybe, not you.

A fair and reasonable question rstuart.

>>How on earth do you rationalise away your enjoyment of munching on Fido's distant relatives, while at the same time condemning keeping Fido as a pet with slavery?<<

You are looking for logic. I have none to offer that sounds remotely convincing, even to myself.

If I were to choose to take a negative attitude to the question, I might point out that my stance is as logical as that of a vegetarian pet-lover, who gets snippy about meat-eaters but is blind to the absurdity of keeping an animal in captivity, purely for personal amusement.

But the politeness of your enquiry deserves more than that.

So I can only say that in an ideal world (that would I guess be "Pericles' new world order" in Protagoras-speak) we would neither eat them nor enslave them.

But while eating has to do with the human instinct of food-as-survival, which has been inbred in us I guess since cave-man days, keeping pets has to do with human self-indulgence at the expense of dumb animals.

Of the two, I suggest it might be easier first to wean ourselves from the selfish, self-indulgent stuff, than go cold turkey (sorry!) on eating meat.

That's the closest I can get to logic, I'm afraid.

But I will also take the opportunity to confess that I do very much like dogs, they tend to like me for some reason, and I absolutely hate to see them being mistreated.

Pericles: "You are looking for logic. I have none to offer that sounds remotely convincing, even to myself."

Ah, so it really is a religious thing. Fair enough.

Hmmm, I just did a quick check to see if the meaning I attach to "religious thing" is industry jargon. It appears it is, as I can only see used the way I do on computer sites.

A "religious thing" is a belief so strong, you can not cede it - not to authority, not to your friends, not even to logic. Obviously religion is the stellar example and that is where it gets its name, but a "religious thing" can be a belief about anything. My stubborn belief that any utopia must necessary be an open and transparent is one, Bronwyn's refusal to let any man made organism enter her body (be it GM food or vaccines) is another, and now we have you equating pets and slaves.

It is rare for people to admit something is a religious thing with them, so kudos to you for that. You usually find out by starting a discussion on the subject, which develops into an debate, which then becomes a heated, passionate argument, followed by a screaming match where all logic is abandoned; and finally, after everyone is exhausted, you realise the entire exercise has been a complete waste of time because nothing has changed. At that point you know the odds are you have been discussing a religious thing.

Most long time OLO's should have no trouble recognising this progression as OLO has the best collection of them I have seen on the web.

Although I have described them in negative terms, our religious things a candidate for the most important thing about us. They are at our core; the beliefs that are hardest to change and slowest to do so. An atheist might say they are the closest thing we have to a soul. So when we argue about our religious things, we are baring our souls for all to see. Way to go, Perciles ...

"I confess to thinking such logical gymnastics would be beyond anybody here but maybe, just maybe, not you."

Bravo RStuart - you have managed to expose more of Pericle's theatrical and ambiguous inkblots. Allow me to provide you with another of Pericle's seeds of deception:

Posted by Pericles on OLO Monday, 22 August 2005 11:35:49 AM:

Pericles: "Meredith, you make a good point":

Meredith: >>"Last year SA, Victoria, legislated against the consumption of cat and dog meat. This is a horrendus practice."<<

Pericles: "Absolutely. The practice of legislating against perfectly nutritious foodstuffs is clearly "horrendus", and should be stamped out forthwith."

Have a go RStuart. I used such logical gymnastics to work Pericle's theatrics out long ago.