I think that it is wrong just to have animals put down because the owner refuses to pay for treatment. I strongly suggest new laws be put in place for this. These are basically being disallowed to have any future pets or a potential jail sentence.

Why not solve the problem by addressing the root cause, JLK2707?

>>I think that it is wrong just to have animals put down because the owner refuses to pay for treatment<<

Of course it is wrong.

But instead of waiting until the pet owner has tired of paying the vet's bills, or even just running around with a pooper-scooper, why do we not simply outlaw the owning of animals for recreational purposes?

I need a license to drive my car, before which I need to pass certain tests. If we were to apply the same principle to pet-owning, we could limit the exploitation of dumb animals to only those folk with a genuine need. Blind people, for example, who need the assistance that the animal can provide, and who therefore have an employer/employee relationship, rather than a master/slave one.

Because as with any form of slavery, the owner feels they have permission to do anything they like. Including, as you point out, terminating their existence.

One day, I hope, we will realize how primitive - barbaric even - is the practice of owning an animal, purely for our own selfish pleasure.

Dog's have masters, but cat's have slaves.

The cure for terminaly ill animals only costs 22 cents.

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

I guess JLK2707 is one of those Namby Pamby, Politically Correct, Greenie crybabies. If they were a sick dog....

to murder any living thing
kills that part of gods living essence
sustaining that life to live

that we do to the least
or allow to be done upon the helpless or dumb
we do to the most

death demeans us all
only for food..or in the care to end suffering
not convenience

what about animal testing?
or dicecting animals to inflict pain and suffering
[there is a vivisectionist level in hell..where they get theirs

the only problem being rule one
that we do[even to them]..we do to good[god]
sustaining even the most vile..their very lives

to stand back and do nothing
means we share their guilt

just like allowing wars/murder/child molestation
or our leaders to be lied to..[or lying to us]

*just ignoring it
is as bad as doing it

doing nothing credits no-one

to murder anything..is vebotten
[and the law reads murder..not just...'kill']

there is no such thing as a just kill
once you know..your obligated to act
doing nothing is not an option

I had my dog euthanised.

I would also like the choice for myself when and if the time comes.

Hahahaha Jayb, great stuff.

I'm with Pericles. In fact I'm generally against this humanising of animals, and the total inconsistency and hypocrisy of eating some animals and wanting to save the cute ones and killing 'vermin'. I find it really amusing we feed cats cows milk and we feed dogs dead cows. I find it really strange when people get upset at the Chinese eating dogs and cats or the Japanese eating whales. Maybe it's just racism.

I might start a movement for rat's rights. I wonder how many greenies would join me. Or Roach Rights! I want bring out a line of Tuna Friendly tinned Dolphin.

Then again, it happens with humans too. You see people comment on a death of a little girl, saying how it's even more tragic because she was so beautiful.

I reckon there are thousands of ugly little kids that get abducted that you never hear about.

We have an abortion industry, an environmental industry, a religous industry, a medical industry, a science industry. We don't need an animal euthanasia industry. Being a dog lover I will be more than happy to pay for the bullet and my gun licenced friend will do the job when the time comes.

I really don't know what the solution is.

I see Pericles point about licencing pet owners, after they have done a course, but that involves another buruecracy.

We don't need to do a course or need a licence to breed kids and plenty of them are abused. How about everybody read the 'Little Children are Sacred' report, again I hope, to get the pet thing back into perspective. I cry when I read of little kids having ear infections, lice and STDs. Being filthy and hungry. How can we allow that?

We certainly need euthanasia available for terminally ill animals, just as we should for humans. We are at least humane to the suffering of animals. It's a start anyway.

I believe that if we take responsibility for an animal, then we should care for it's health until the day it dies, preferably of old age.

We can't make it illegal to euthanase animals because we would then have more idiots with guns, knives or whatever, trying to do the job themselves, leading to more suffering to animals than they already have.

As far as killing animals because we can't pay the vet bill, I think we should look instead at the veterinary organisations and ask why the bills have to be so high?
I think we need an investigation into the true cost of medications and consultations in our vet surgeries.

After spending thousands on my last dog, and then $125 for the vet to give him one injection to euthanase him at the age of 14 earlier this year (sob!), I took out pet insurance for our new pup.

It's been very handy indeed!

Houel:” I might start a movement for rat's rights.”

The snake owners are gonna spew on you. I have a pet rat, they’re great little vermin and very clever. Clever as any dog I ever met/enslaved. I did feed a dead mouse to my eels, it was dead cause I killed it first. Ummm….

Runner:“Being a dog lover I will be more than happy to pay for the bullet and my gun licenced friend will do the job when the time comes.”

Pay for the vet to come around and use the other kind of shot. It’s quick and very peaceful. Francis of Assisi would approve I reckon.

Pericles:”One day, I hope, we will realize how primitive - barbaric even - is the practice of owning an animal, purely for our own selfish pleasure.”

I know you are absolutely right Pericles, I just can’t resist the primitive selfish and barbaric side of myself. I’m never gonna be vagan but I know I should be. And along with Suze I want to know what is up with vet bills. I paid over a grand for an exploratory op for a dog – they were told to ring if it went over 500.00 but they just go ahead anyway since you aren’t watching and then present the bill. Worse they make out you are the worst dog owner if you don’t subject them to more and more tests. Actually same thing happens with children and doctors here.

I’m with Banjo let’s sort the Kids before the animals. It should be easier.

What a silly subject.
And some of the answers are at best generalizations.
I have always had dogs, not the pink hairy poorly bred beggars that fools miss use.
And not to bark unless some thing is wrong, wander the neighbor hood, or threaten any one.
Gard dogs Gard fools and weaklings.
My desexed foxy cross females are much loved by every one and do no harm.
Yes some should no be able to have dogs, kids too for that matter, but not every one not every dog.
Why however the cocern for pets, ever watched a butchers kill yard

Belly: ever watched a butchers kill yard.

It's a Slaughter Yard or Abottoir & they are Slaughtermen not Butchers. Buchers cut the carcus up after it's been slaughtered.

I grew up on a Slaughter Yard. My dad was the Potsman, making tallow & feeding the residue to the pigs. We killed Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Chooks & Ducks. Oh & the odd dog & cat (but not for eating);-) It was always humane & quick, mostly with a bullet or hammergun for the Cattle or a knife for the Pigs & Sheep. We used a cane knife on the Chooks & Ducks. Bullet for the Dogs & cats.

Just for the those Namby Pamby, Politically Correct, Greenie crybabies. ;-) He he he... Squirm you sorry wusses, squirm.

Had a sick horse once. Parted its hair and changed its name to Pal.

Jewely,

"I have a pet rat."

...surely you mean a filigree Siberian hamster....

What a stupid, stupid idea.

I don't quite agree with Pericles and Houellebecq that having pets necessarily means 'humanizing' them and that it's an antiquated concept.

Our ancestors used them practically for hunting. People with pets tend to suffer less stress and live longer. For those who live alone, a pet is a logical, economic way of alleviating feelings of loneliness, regardless of whether they're human. Pets can bring joy. That's about all the logic I need.

I do agree however, that protecting the 'cute' animals and the hypocrisy of eating some animals and not others is foolish. The only basis I have for discriminating about what animals I'll eat is whether they're endangered and whether they taste good. I won't contribute to the decline of an animal that's already rare, but I'll happily eat cute animals.

I've tried dog. I don't eat it anymore because it tastes awful. Those who were protesting against eating horses are silly fools. We happily eat bacon and pigs are as intelligent as any dog, perhaps more so. A horse has a whole lot of meat. Eating them seems like a great idea.

In regards to the topic of the thread, I can't help but wonder if the author has any experience of the issue at all. Animals are put down for the following reasons:

A) They are in pain.
B) They have no owner.
C) They have an owner, but treating their health issue is too expensive.

A) is a kindness. B) is a practicality. The alternative is releasing them on the street, allowing them to go feral or starve, which results in them either killing other animals, contributing to dangerous unsanitary conditions with packs of wild dogs, or ultimately, cruel to the dog.

Don't get me started on the damage feral cats can wreak upon our native environment.

As for C) it's an unfortunate situation. Most owners would stump up the money, but some can't and a small percentage don't care to. In this situation, we then revert to situation b).

That is the reality. Moaning about it doesn't change things.

Jayb I don’t think you’re making anyone here squirm. We aint poncy poodle owners… err, actually I do own a poodle. Damn.

[cough] jes et hamster Poirot, only one en shop he make special price.

Hmm... Let's see what have I eaten. Cattle, buffalo, Horse, Pig, Sheep, Chooks, Ducks, Pigeon, Flying Fox, Turtle, Crocodile, Fish, Shark, Clam, Crab, Prawns, Monkey, Dog, I'm sure I eaten Cat, Rabbit, Hare, Snake, Deer, Dik Dik (sort of miniture deer), Wallaby/Kangaroo, Bandicoot, Possom. It's all good edible meat. There are a few more I'd like to try before I die, like Whichety Grub. Oh, Grasshopper & Ground Crickets are very crunchy. If it's food I'll eat it.

I think that where the problem lies is that some people think that their pets are a human part of the family. Their pets are all the family some people have. These people think that everybody should be like them. "It ain't gonna happen."

Some people are airy fairy, some people arn't, but most people are inbeteen. It depends on the circunstance at the time as to how they act.

I have a dog and she is my companion on walks, exercise that I probably wouldn't get except that she needs it.
She is my hunting companion and gets really excited when I bring a gun out, she knows what is coming.
She and I are hunters (and gatherers when the blackberries are on, she eats them too), we are both meat eaters and killers. She sets rabbits well and has retrieved them also, she is the product of a pedegree Rhohesian Ridgeback and a roaming German Shepherd who could climb fences and was seen escaping after the deed was done.

She has helped by smelling out foxes and has been partly responsible for the demise of some hundreds of the thousands that I've killed.
At home she does duty as a watch dog and during the day keeps a special watch on the chickens giving the alarm when any birds of prey are around, she barks at crows, magpies, hawks etc., but ignores galahs and cockatoos (how does she know?).
When she becomes terminally ill and is suffering, as she may one day, then I shall do the right thing by her and kill her myself, quickly and humanely, with a bullet to the back of her head.
I shall undoubtedly shed some tears, we've been mates for twelve years now, but she'll get the ultimate relief from my hand, it goes against the grain to pay someone to do it.

The true meaning of animal euthanasia:

...“There was once a time when humanity was freely rewarded with a bullet for lack of loyalty (sigh)”

Over confidence jayB.
Bit older than you, history in very small country towns.
Even now , may not be legal but butchers have kill yards, 2 or 3 head once a week.
I have killed and cleaned at least 80 head myself,home kills are an every day thing.
Wanted only to highlight death is part of life.
I have had to shoot dogs, put broken ones down.
Never did it without it hurting me.
But still find the thread stupid, reality is no other way exists sometimes.

This subject is a bit of a furphy. Animals are mainly euthanased to avoid a painful death. Wish that humans had that option. That is what people do when they are responsible for an animal whether one agrees or not in the idea of animals as pets. TRTL has already spelt out the consequences of the other options based on financial means.

However, there is a lot of hypocrisy rising out of cultural norms related to animals. Why is killing an intelligent animal more cruel than a dumb one, or a cute one as opposed to an ugly one. Do we assume that an intelligent animal is more like 'us'? At least the vegetarians/vegans are consistent.

Human beings can also play a part in protecting endangered animals and fostering the humane treatment and farming of animals. There are many organic suppliers of meat now who compare well financially with the supermarkets and the farmer gets to keep most of the spoils for their hard work.

Our chooks are sort of like pets but they supply eggs and poo for the garden. They are also great for weed control and ploughing out old vegie beds ready for the next crop.

I have tried asking them to ascertain if they would prefer to live in the wild out in the bush rather than in their run and back yard but I don't understand their replies. It all sounds the same 'book' 'book' 'cluck' 'cluck'.

Pelican

Spot on post, although I prefer to eat the eggs and keep the poo for the garden.

;)

...My vote for sentiment is awarded to “Belly” and “Is Mise”. The lesser among us here admit, under their own forms of disguise, their consideration of the irrelevance of animals “per se”, and their indifference to the plight of animals.

...I personally consider the fact proved that humanity has the total responsibility towards all animals, to treat them humanely, and when necessary, to dispense with them compassionately when the need arises.
I know nothing gives me greater pleasure and meaning in my own life than to be in the presence of animals in their natural environment; I consider the loyalty of my personal pet dog a huge privilege and one of life’s rare endearing joys.

Well I was gaing to comment on this but Jayb has pretty much summed it up for me.

Just a passing thought.

There are around two billion people world wide who will have nothing to eat tonight.

Which do you think should take priority!

rehctub,

That's a bit like when I was a child and didn't want to eat the food that was put in front of me: "The starving children in India would like to have such nice food" (or words to that effect).
The reply that Mum could give it to them didn't wash.

There are distribution problems and having worked in the dry pet food industry I know that there are problems of hygene and food being fit for human consumption.
We could hardly have a double standard and argue that overseas food relief should use the meat, chicken left overs (as chicken autolisate),second grade grain, blood and bone etc., that goes into the typical dry pet food.

There is one pet food manufacturer who can, at the flick of a switch by the control computer, change the makeup of their product to being fit for human consumption (plus about one hour cleaning portions of the production line) however this provision is only for national emergencies as market and other research has shown that the product would not be acceptable as an ordinary food, particularly by the Governments of recipiennt countries; there is a centain stigma to eating pet food that would have political repercussions.

We used to produce some of the emergency food for breakfast on the night shift; just making sure that the system worked of course.

*There are around two billion people world wide who will have nothing to eat tonight.
Which do you think should take priority!*

There is plenty of food out there to be bought, Rehctub, it
just needs somebody to write the cheque. Care to volunteer? :)

All those euthanized dogs & cats should be recycled into pet food or minced for people in poor countries with basic hygine standards of course. Such waste should be utilized one way or another. Maybe fertilizer.

Belly: I have had to shoot dogs, put broken ones down. Never did it without it hurting me.

I sympathize Belly. I've had the same experience. My dog knew what was going to happen, he came & lay beside me & licked my face then turned around & lay down facing away from me. Yes, I cried like a baby for days but I wouldn't have let anybody else do what had to be done & I feel he knew that.

<All those euthanized dogs & cats should be recycled into pet food or minced for people in poor countries with basic hygine standards of course.>

These animals are used to produce rendered fats, which has uses including a flavouring for pet foods. But remember that such a practice has been suggested as the cause of mad cow disease in England.

http://www.mad-cow.org/~tom/scrapie_human.html

Odd to see pet ownership described as a barbaric practice. If this were so then barbarity would correlate with pet ownership. I have seen studies showing a positive correlation of violent crime with animal cruelty, but the only correlation of pet ownership and violence I know of is the increased pet ownership of victims of domestic violence.

http://cfhs.ca/athome/human_animal_violence_connection/

Fester: but the only correlation of pet ownership and violence I know of is the increased pet ownership of victims of domestic violence.

Ah Ha! So now we know why so many men have dogs for mates.

Fester:“Odd to see pet ownership described as a barbaric practice. If this were so then barbarity would correlate with pet ownership.”

Barbaric has primitive as a meaning so it probably wont be understood until future humans look back and call us such. I reckon they will be correct; Pericles is just way ahead of most of us.

Besides that yep there has been an identified correlation between cruelty to animals and domestic violence or child abuse. That’s why I think RSPCA and child welfare services around the world are hooked up. Either that or there just happens to be money to be made.

I can’t see euthanised pets making good pet food because you’d have to test each animal for disease and that would probably affect the price of recycled pet. Could do it with dead humans though – usually they’ve had health checks beforehand or cause of death is tested anyway.

<Barbaric has primitive as a meaning so it probably wont be understood until future humans look back and call us such>

So does this mean that a man hunting on a horse is more primitive than a Neanderthal chucking rocks at a woolly mammoth?

I am somewhat perplexed as to how having a pet is barbaric.

Not sure why, Fester.

>>I am somewhat perplexed as to how having a pet is barbaric.<<

If Jeweley is right, then it's perfectly natural that you would be perplexed.

>>Barbaric has primitive as a meaning so it probably wont be understood until future humans look back and call us such<<

Makes a lot of sense to me.

Fine, Pericles. I cannot find evidence that pet owners are more violent, and I was of the opinion that human animal interaction has become more sophisticated with the development of civilisation, not less so. Nor am I aware of evidence that pet owners are less intelligent than people who dont have pets. So what reasoning will these people of the future use to determine that pet ownership is barbaric?

Fester: I have seen studies showing a positive correlation of violent crime with animal cruelty, but the only correlation of pet ownership and violence I know of is the increased pet ownership of victims of domestic violence.

I cannot find evidence that pet owners are more violent, and I was of the opinion that human animal interaction has become more sophisticated with the development of civilisation, not less so. Nor am I aware of evidence that pet owners are less intelligent than people who dont have pets. So what reasoning will these people of the future use to determine that pet ownership is barbaric?

People who don't like pet ownership will find that it akin to Domestic Violence. Those who like pets will find that pets & their owners receive a mutual benifit.

Like the Rock Man said to Oblio, "You sees what you want to see, & you hears what you want to here."

I'm glad you ask, Fester.

>>So what reasoning will these people of the future use to determine that pet ownership is barbaric?<<

It will be precisely the same reasoning that civilization eventually employed to realize that keeping human slaves was a pretty tacky idea.

The majority of slaves, as you well know, were well treated. They didn't have their freedom, of course, but at least they were kept well fed, if only to ensure they could work efficiently. Properly housed, so they could bring up their families without having to worry about earning wages. And given plenty of exercise, so that they remained healthy and productive.

Just like pets, in fact.

Except perhaps for the raising families part. Not many pet dogs are allowed to do that. Unless of course they happen to be adult animals in a puppy farm, when it is compulsory.

http://www.rspca.org.au/how-you-can-help/campaigns/puppy-farms.html

That's a pretty sad process too, when you think about it, designed solely to keep up with the population's demand for their doggy product.

Barbaric? To me it's a no-brainer. Keeping animals for the amusement of humans is the very antithesis of civilized behaviour.

<It will be precisely the same reasoning that civilization eventually employed to realize that keeping human slaves was a pretty tacky idea.>

Slavery was ended on the basis that human beings should not be bought or sold. Do you think that animals should not be bought or sold?

<The majority of slaves, as you well know, were well treated.>

Were they? Are they? Low paid workers in India get about 15 cents for making a garment, or about 14 cent an hour for picking cotton. That, to me at least, is appalling exploitation. And if I gave my pets freedom they would face a miserable existence, whereas a freed slave may enjoy a far more comfortable life.

As for puppy farms, I agree that they can be barbaric, but breeders mistreating animals in such operations are breaking the law. In contrast, commercial production of eggs or pork entails animal abuse which rivals the worst puppy farms, yet they are legal.

<Keeping animals for the amusement of humans is the very antithesis of civilized behaviour.>

Pet ownership tends to increase in populations with increasing levels of education and prosperity. In fact, it is a consequence of civilisation, not its antithesis as you claim.

Pericles: Low paid workers in India get about 15 cents for making a garment, or about 14 cent an hour for picking cotton.

Now here's an arguement I love. You obviously forget that an Indian can live reasonably well on about $A75 a month. When I left the workforce 12 years ago I was getting $A26 an hour & doing very well, in Australia. In India at a road side stall I could get an entire months food for $A26. Another example I just love to quote is. When they have floods in India we are bombarded with call imploring us to donate, "Just imagine a flood washing your home away." We all look around at out 4/5 bedroom, 2 lounge & 2 garages & pour our hearts out for these people. BUT... they don't live in the above. They live in a little one room mud daub structure with a straw roof. That's the realith. Not our McMansions. They just collect the bits & peices washed down from somewhere else & put the house frame up again then daub the walls with the mud that the flood has left lying around & the're happy again.
It's the same with 15 cents an hour. To an Indian that is reasonably good money. Yes they do work harder than us & in very poor conditions, but that is their way. GOD I dislike bleeding hearts who live in airy fairy land. They make me bloody sick.

Fester:”And if I gave my pets freedom they would face a miserable existence, whereas a freed slave may enjoy a far more comfortable life.”

The demise of pet ownership wouldn’t be about giving our animals freedom I don’t think, it would simply be about no further breeding. I suggest we start with cats.

Fester:”Pet ownership tends to increase in populations with increasing levels of education and prosperity. In fact, it is a consequence of civilisation, not its antithesis as you claim.”

I think that indicates people have a problem so maybe when civilisation looks back and calls us primitive they will by then have some kind of artificial pet replacement to prove how educated and prosperous they are.

Fester:”As for puppy farms, I agree that they can be barbaric, but breeders mistreating animals in such operations are breaking the law. In contrast, commercial production of eggs or pork entails animal abuse which rivals the worst puppy farms, yet they are legal.”

Yes, money talks which is also barbaric.

Jay:”To an Indian that is reasonably good money. Yes they do work harder than us & in very poor conditions, but that is their way.”

It might not be their way they might lack choice?

I think we're getting closer, Fester.

>>Slavery was ended on the basis that human beings should not be bought or sold. Do you think that animals should not be bought or sold?<<

Abso-bloody-lutely I do.

With the exception, as I mentioned before, of animals who provide a rewarded service, such as guide dogs for the blind or working farm dogs. While it is true that these animals are not given a choice, at least they are not being kept for their entertainment value.

And Jewely is right, it's not about suddenly freeing all the pets to live in the wild - that would be stupid, and counter-productive. Instead, if you make the future acquisition of a domestic pet illegal, except for those with a "productive use" license, the habit will die out within a generation. Our current preoccupation with them will quickly move to the realms of "you did what, grandpa?"

>>Pet ownership tends to increase in populations with increasing levels of education and prosperity. In fact, it is a consequence of civilisation, not its antithesis as you claim.<<

The same claim may be made - as it undoubtedly was in the early nineteenth century - about human slaves.

And you could also argue that the Roman Empire's preoccupation with gladiators in mortal combat for the people's amusement was also "a consequence of civilization". Didn't make it right, though.

And for the record, jayb...

>>Pericles: Low paid workers in India get about 15 cents for making a garment, or about 14 cent an hour for picking cotton.<<

...that was Fester.

And no, I didn't understand how it connected with the discussion either.

...Yes but, the “rock man” says to oblio, “You don’t have to have a point to have a point”… Get the point? Lets point this discussion in the right direction and keep comment pointed! Or maybe..keep the pointed horse before the pointed cart and keep an eye open for the “pointer” gun dogs: A euthaniser expert, they just maybe dangerous in this pointless world where animals are euthanized and people aren’t (unless you are Mexican of course).

...Actually all this discussion has me thinking; should we euthanize white pointers? Life would be safer

Jewely: It might not be their way they might lack choice?

No. That's just the way they live, where they live. Nothing to do with choice.

Pericles: And for the record, jayb......that was Fester.

Opps! Sorry mate, & you're right. "And no, I didn't understand how it connected with the discussion either."

Pet & Humans have a mutual benifits going for them. Even now as they did in distant past. In the past they provided Man with warning of predators, helped in the hunt & kept the area clean of food scraps. Now they provide primeraly companionship & the pet gets fed & kept healthy.
Well mostly. There are people who shouldn't have pets, or children for that matter. These people are in the minority. Thank God.
Most people look after their pets to the best of their ability. Thank God.
Should pets be banned because of a few decrepid people? No, I don't think so. In my opinion, to keep the Gene Pool clean the decrepids should be euthanazed. But then again I'm not a PC Person. ;-)

Jay:”No. That's just the way they live, where they live. Nothing to do with choice.”

So no choice which kinda makes me think the way they live has everything to do with that lack of choice. If given the choice would they choose differently – I suspect they would. Bit like our pets.

Jay:”Should pets be banned because of a few decrepid people?”

It aint a few people it is all pet ownership, it’s wrong. I do it and I know it’s wrong.

Owning an animal for the sake of owning an animal is selfish and stupid and wrong. But once we have them sometimes the reality is we have to have them put down for different reasons. I’m not sure why we’d want it to be illegal.

But JLK2707 didn’t like it for the “owner refusing to pay for treatment” reason. Suzy mentioned pet bills being rather costly and I agreed and wanted to know why they are. You can’t make it illegal or vets would have a field day. Animals paying for human selfishness again.

Diver Dan: ...Yes but, the “rock man” says to oblio, “You don’t have to have a point to have a point”… Get the point?

But like the Tree Man said. "A point in every direction is like, no point at all."

For those who don't know. This is from "The Point" by Nillson. Something everyone should watch & take note of. It's a poient bit of animinated Comedy with a point.

*or working farm dogs. While it is true that these animals are not given a choice,*

Pericles, that is actually not so in some cases, such as mine.
I have 3 working dogs. A mom and her 2 daughters. What I call
them working, for them is playing. They were bred that way, they
would not do it, if they never had the natural instict to love
doing what they do. No sheep dog will round up sheep, unless it
wants to. In fact most of the time they are bored, as I don't have
enough for them to do. So they are either chasing wild parrots,
rabbits or the odd wild cat, or they have actally invented a little
game with stones, quite amazing.

The three of them are also free. No chains, not even collars.
No fences to keep them in, they could leave tomorrow. Just a bean
bag each, a doggie door to come and go. Dinner at 5pm, a midnight
snack and breakfast when I get up.

They have never roamed either. I once lent one of them to a
neighbour do to some sheepwork. Within half an hour she cut for
it, back down the road, heading for home.

So they are not really slaves in any sense.

The only mistake I've made is not applying for the baby bonus,
when mum had a litter of pups :)

.

Jayb:
“I think we’ve reached the “point” of no return! Anyway...A song.
...

“Think about your troubles”…or maybe “After euthanasia what”?

...Sit beside the breakfast table. Think about your troubles

Pour yourself a cup of tea and listen to the bubbles.

You can take your tear drops and drop 'em in a tea cup.

Take 'em down to the river side, and throw 'em over the side.

To be swept up by a current, then taken to the ocean to be eaten by some fishes,

who were eaten by some fishes and swallowed by a whale,

who grew so old, he decomposed.

He died and left his body to the bottom of the ocean.

Now everybody knows that when a body decomposes

the basic elements are given back to the ocean.

And the sea does what it ought to, and soon there's salty water--

Not too good for drinking. 'Cause it tastes just like a tear drop.

And you run it through a filter, and it comes out from a faucet.

And it pours into a teacup, which is just about to bubble.

Now think about your troubles...oblio's song.

Ah! diver dan: As Melenie said, "You... You know, don't you."

I first heard "The Point" abot 30 years ago then 20 years ago I saw the video. That little story has guided my life ever since. & yes when I think about my troubles. Pfftttt! I now have the DVD & I show it to my Grand Children & we sing the songs together.

A happy pet is a pet with a friend just like Arrow.

<Abso-bloody-lutely I do.>

Very interesting, Pericles. I take it that means that you think animal trade should have no place in a future civilisation? This would drastically change Maccas and KFC, and I agree that civilisation would be better for this alone.

But doesn't that seem a bit defeatist? I see civilisation as a quest to overcome problems, not to bury them. Just as we may be able to reduce or eliminate the barbarity in producing eggs or pork, might civilisation not also be able to ensure that pets are not produced in barbarous circumstances?

And I am also interested in how you think that animals could take part in a working capacity in a future civilisation, yet not be able to be bought or sold? Surely something with an economic function has a monetary value?

festers wrote/note..""And I am also interested
in how you think that animals..could take part
in a working capacity in a future civilisation,""

indispensable
what other 'commodity'[fungable]
is not fungable[a tradeble commodity]

recall the gift of the god sheppard offering god the fat
[was pleasing to god]..better than that made from fixtures[plants;anything affixt to or part of the land

""yet not be able to be bought or sold?""

fungables are a tradable commodity

in being living things..
they must be accorded respect

*the basic respect..any life has due it
for reason...unto the one god...[good]..
sustaining all living..into life..

but with respect to minimise suffering
they are yet the higher of fungables
[with the added advantage of giving good increase

a minimum...is a new born beast
unlike grain which can return a hundred fold
regardless if fixture or fungable...all have their price

""Surely something with an economic function
..has a monetary value?""'

in the end all the money in the world
cant make a single life to be born

who values life abouve money
gets nearer the truths

[a note on slavery]
barbarick /hurtfull /injurouse slavery is just not on
but the master who honours and respects his servant
has not a slave..but an equal...
sharing his with his own..

for are we not our brothers keeper
if clearly he has failed

a slave..free in his mind
is not slave

yet the master
bound by his heart
is enslaved[bought/sold]

There's no point in trying to change the topic, Fester.

>>I take it that means that you think animal trade should have no place in a future civilisation? This would drastically change Maccas and KFC<<

The topic is keeping animals for entertainment purposes. Even human slaves weren't traded for their food value.

While related at the conceptual level, vegetarianism is a whole different ball-game. The opening topic focussed on "animal euthanasia" in the pet-owning arena - if you would like to start another discussion on the treatment of animals by humans in general, go right ahead. I'd be fascinated to hear where you stand.

You make a good point, though...

>>...might civilisation not also be able to ensure that pets are not produced in barbarous circumstances?<<

As has been previously pointed out, the puppy-farm already treads a very fine line with existing cruelty laws. Chasing the practice even further underground by instituting more draconian measures to deter abuse is unlikely to change behaviours. The people who presently run those businesses clearly don't see animal welfare as their concern, so any form of crackdown will simply raise their costs, which will be passed onto the consumer anyway.

Far more effective to close off demand, wouldn't you think, if puppy protection is your goal?

>>...how you think that animals could take part in a working capacity in a future civilisation, yet not be able to be bought or sold? Surely something with an economic function has a monetary value?<<

You missed reading this part:

"With the exception, as I mentioned before, of animals who provide a rewarded service, such as guide dogs for the blind or working farm dogs."

Quick summary: we're talking pets, here. Animals kept for the amusement and entertainment of humans. Yabby's farm dogs, it appears, have the life of Riley, compared to the one in Paris Hilton's handbag.

<There's no point in trying to change the topic>

Not at all, Pericles. I was interested on your view of utility and entertainment. You seem to see the utility of animals as civilised, but their use for amusement as barbaric. Are you suggesting that people of the future will value something for its utility, and not its amusement? Primitive human life was mostly about practicing the skills of survival. Modern life has a much greater place for entertainment. People even pay to see Andre Rieu, so I think it likely that pets will continue to kept by their human owners for the pleasure they bring. But will pets satisfy this need in the future? This article might shed some light on this question.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6808173.ece

Dawkin's article seems to support an analogy for pet ownership more akin to Yabby's pets than yours of the defeated Africans sold off to slave traders by the victorious tribal patriarch. And this brings forth yet another point that your view seems to go against the grain of evolution. Look at how quickly dogs have been bred to satisfy a need. Do you not think it will continue to be the case that pets will be bred to appeal to humans?

You bring up the subject of puppy farms again, but does this really make the ownership of puppies barbaric? It would seem akin to regarding clothes as barbaric because some of them are made by slaves. The production of clothes will always entail some exploitation, but I think it unlikely that wearing clothes will be abandoned as "all too hard" anytime soon. Would you agree that the downside of pets, as with clothes,must be weighed against the value that people see in them?

I can accept that, Fester.

>>I was interested on your view of utility and entertainment. You seem to see the utility of animals as civilised, but their use for amusement as barbaric.<<

Correct.

>>Are you suggesting that people of the future will value something for its utility, and not its amusement?<<

Not as such.

But if we had continued to view the use of slaves for their utility, we would still keep them, would we not.

What I am suggesting is that we will eventually come to regard the keeping of domestic pets for their amusement value, in the same light that we came to regard the keeping of slaves for their economic value.

>>People even pay to see Andre Rieu, so I think it likely that pets will continue to kept by their human owners for the pleasure they bring<<

Andre Rieu can choose to "entertain", or not. We can choose to be entertained by him, or not. Only one of the dog/human pairing has a choice.

(Loved the imagery though. I wonder if there might be a statistical correlation between pet-lovers and people who listen to Andre Rieu. There's a doctoral thesis in there, for sure)

>>Dawkin's article seems to support an analogy for pet ownership more akin to Yabby's pets<<

That's an interesting interpretation. The way I read it was that the dogs first "adapted" to the presence of humans:

"...natural selection had already sculpted wolves into self-domesticated 'village dogs’ without any human intervention... Village dogs are scavengers that frequent middens and rubbish dumps"

We first became part of their feeding world. Only later did we decide they should be adapted to fit into Paris Hilton's handbag.

>> Do you not think it will continue to be the case that pets will be bred to appeal to humans?<<

Only until we come to our senses. As we did with slavery.

>>You bring up the subject of puppy farms again, but does this really make the ownership of puppies barbaric?<<

I didn't link the two. But just for clarity, do you support the existence of puppy farms?

*"...natural selection had already sculpted wolves into self-domesticated 'village dogs’ without any human intervention... Village dogs are scavengers that frequent middens and rubbish dumps"*

That's the official line which I sometimes read, Pericles. Methinks
there is another plausible explanation. Humans hand reared a baby wolf
or two which they found. Wolves are social creatures, adopt their
new "tribe" and join in the hunt. They are soon found to be far
better at hunting then most humans, so more then earn their keep.

My three mutts have no trouble catching rabbits or anything else
that moves. They will bale up even the wildest sheep and only not
sink their fangs in, because that's how they are trained. They would
have no trouble hunting wild goats, wild sheep or anything else,
when they work as a pack. Some people hunt wild pigs with dogs.

So adopting a few young wolves would have been a major strategic
hunting advantage for human hunter gatherers.

Jewely: So no choice which kinda makes me think the way they live has everything to do with that lack of choice. If given the choice would they choose differently.

Hmmmm must lead a very insulated life. That's the way their ansestors lived , so that's the way they live. Not PC, but most of those people are primitive by our standards. If you don't know that you have a choice (bound by your cast) then you haven't.

Yabby: So adopting a few young wolves would have been a major strategic hunting advantage for human hunter gatherers.

One would have thought that these primitave people would have had enough trouble feeding themselves let alone extra mouths. But then again theres the scraps & they could eat the pups once they have grown big enough. I suppose a few escaped being eaten & hung around for the scraps, then the primitaves found them useful in providing early warnings of predators & warmth in the winter. It's adapting to the conditions which is what we humans do. Or die out.

*One would have thought that these primitave people would have had enough trouble feeding themselves let alone extra mouths.*

Err Jayb, the idea is that these animals are far better hunters
then you or I with a spear. They can kill far more food then they
need, leaving a surplus for the humans they have bonded with.

If I set you and a couple of my mutts loose in the wilderness,
you would most likely starve without their help of catching food
for you.

“Hmmmm must lead a very insulated life. That's the way their ansestors lived , so that's the way they live. Not PC, but most of those people are primitive by our standards. If you don't know that you have a choice (bound by your cast) then you haven't.”

Not PC? I don’t know if PC matters, I’m not sure how my ancestors lived is what I should be doing either. The Caste system is known to keep people in their place but I think India has moved on a bit from that now.

So these immigrants that we’ve been getting from India for many years now... what is up with them?

Me lead an insulated life... dude I live in a drain pipe in South Africa and dig holes for a potty and do all my grocery shopping at the local tip. Thank the gods my kids sponsor from New York City sent enough dosh for the family lap top. We’d never afford the poodle grooming without the CUDVA (California underprivileged dog vision agency) stepping in with the odd donation either.

Jewely: I think India has moved on a bit from that now.

Definately living under a tree. No they haven't. We only see the higher casts coming out here. A hell of a lot of people in India are still living "BC."

Yabby: If I set you and a couple of my mutts loose in the wilderness,
you would most likely starve without their help of catching food
for you.

Well there you go. Yabby one thing I have learn't in life is not to presume to assume. It's something to do with being & old bushie & a little Specialist Training in the Army. See, "The Bear" & also, what I eaten, in another post. ;-)

*& old bushie & a little Specialist Training in the Army*

Ah there ya go Jayb, without specialist training and no equipment,
by dogs could keep me in food for the rest of my life.

You'd probably have a problem, as soon as you needed a knife.

<But if we had continued to view the use of slaves for their utility>(as acceptable)<we would still keep them, would we not.>

Most slaves were kept for their utility, not for the amusement of their owners. So why then regard keeping an animal for its utility acceptable, yet keeping an animal for amusement as unacceptable?

Further on the comparison of pets to slaves, the average intelligence of a dog is equivalent to that of a toddler, whereas a slave is our equal. Dogs are bred to enjoy their human company (a type of genetically modified organism), whereas a slave has the same aspirations as other humans. The life of a free man is generally much better than the life of a slave, but the same cannot be claimed for dogs.

As for Andre Rieu, yes, there is choice involved, but if future people choose to be entertained by the likes of him yet regard pet owners as barbaric, they make the call from a very tarnished pot indeed. And nor would I see any reason to deny people the right to patronise Andre Rieu if they so choose, so why deny others the right to choose to have a pet?

<Only until we come to our senses>

Again, this raises the question as to what you think future people will find barbaric about pet ownership? Presumably, future civilisation will have all sorts of measures of what is appropriate for the care of animals. So why couldn't such a civilisation produce a pet which meets those measures and appeals to people?

<I didn't link the two.>

You did.

<Far more effective to close off demand, wouldn't you think, if puppy protection is your goal.>

As I said before, I think that people weigh the value of pets against the fact that some pets will sadly be produced in poor circumstances.

Fester: Again, this raises the question as to what you think future people will find barbaric about pet ownership? Presumably, future civilisation will have all sorts of measures of what is appropriate for the care of animals. So why couldn't such a civilisation produce a pet which meets those measures and appeals to people?

They have. It's called a camogoochie, or something like that. If you don't feed it & play with it it dies. Kids have them. & some kids shouldn't have them either.

Jay:”They have. It's called a camogoochie, or something like that. If you don't feed it & play with it it dies. Kids have them. & some kids shouldn't have them either.”

I forgot all about those being popular for awhile, I used to babysit my kids ones during the day when they were at school.

But I think humans might need something cuddlier or more lifelike. I’ve watched documentaries on those adult women dolls some very intense seeming men keep as their partners and recently one about very real human baby dolls that similar intense seeming females keep as pseudo children.

And Jay I don’t know much about India and didn’t claim to but it would be nice if you stuck a cork in these silly little insults. The Indian peoples I’ve met overseas were not of a higher class but they were working very hard to improve things for their families. Where I lived they were considered good workers to have because they kept their heads down, worked hard, and sent just about everything back home again, probably so they could get out of the family mud hut. So given a choice I think they do choose to have a different life. I’ve seen countless little photos kept in purses and wallets of their children and partners that they miss so much but struggle on trying to improve the life they, and their ancestors, were born into.

We can agree on this at least, Fester.

>>Most slaves were kept for their utility, not for the amusement of their owners.<<

But surely it would have been worse, from an ethical perspective, if they had been kept merely for their entertainment value?

>>So why then regard keeping an animal for its utility acceptable, yet keeping an animal for amusement as unacceptable?<<

In the same way that you - presumably - would consider keeping humans as pets to be unacceptable, while happily taking them on as employees in your business, with all the concomitant responsibilities.

>>Dogs are bred to enjoy their human company (a type of genetically modified organism), whereas a slave has the same aspirations as other humans<<

An interesting perspective.

It would appear that your response to human slavery would have been, not to set them free, but instead to breed them to the point where they are able to enjoy their status, right?

That insight certainly helps me understand your position better.

>>And nor would I see any reason to deny people the right to patronise Andre Rieu if they so choose, so why deny others the right to choose to have a pet?<<

You are comparing the "right" to listen to Andre Rieu with the "right" to enslave a living creature, for no other reason than they both entertain you.

That's dangerous ground, surely.

>>So why couldn't such a civilisation produce a pet which meets those measures and appeals to people?<<

For the same reason that they should not genetically modify humans to enjoy being slaves.

Are you familiar with Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"?

>>As I said before, I think that people weigh the value of pets against the fact that some pets will sadly be produced in poor circumstances.<<

So you did.

But my question to you was "do you support the existence of puppy farms?"

Come to that, do you support the breeding of puppies so that they can fit into Paris Hilton's handbag?

Jewely: But I think humans might need something cuddlier or more lifelike. I’ve watched documentaries on those adult women dolls some very intense seeming men keep as their partners and recently one about very real human baby dolls that similar intense seeming females keep as pseudo children.

I think we are breaking into a type of mental illness there.

I, for some strange reason, seem to have an affinity with amimals & small children, or should I say, more to the point, they seem to have an affinity with me. I get ferocious dog come up & lick my hand & wild animals come up & sit close by me. I even had a dove fly into my hand exausted from trying to get away from a hawk. I can even pick up wasps & put them outside without getting stung. I do like amimals & I don't like to see them suffer or being harmed. My neighbours dog had a brain tumour. On the day he was put down my neighbour was putting him in the car when he broke loose & came & sat on me. He was a big dog. He laid his head on me & licked my face. He knew where he was going & he was saying goodbye. Yes, I cried & so did he & the neighbour.

On to dog breeders. Some of them should be put down! Some have very good arrangements for their breeding dogs. I have no problem with them.

As for owning pets. My opinion. No dog larger than 1/2 way up your leg should be in the modern house block. Hence the need for the Handbag type dog. Cats, all cats should be put down! Birds need least 4m of horozontal fly space & 3m of vertical. When pet are beyond help it is kinder to put them down

jb/quote

""seeming females
keep as pseudo children.

I think we are breaking into a type of mental illness there.

I, for some strange reason,""

mental illness comes to mind

YOU...""seem to have an affinity with amimals & small children,""

i think you obsess too muchabout children

but lets face it...
'woman..phesdo children''
you...''affinity with animals''

you affinity
with..''small children''

""or should I say,
more to the point,
they seem to have an affinity with me.""

and
they tell you this....how?

ps
the topic is euthanasia
not youth in asio

keep as pseudo children.

Under one God that was Jewely, not me.

Under one God I get a hint that you are sugesting that I'm a pedophile because small children & amimals have an afinity with me. Hmmm, coming from a God Botherer, that'd be calling the kettle black. ;-) The mention of mental illness arced you up. Sorry. I didn't know.

I was trying to show that I have feelings for animals & they seem to sense that, or so I've been told. If I see someone mistreating an animal or child for that matter, I'm in there waving a big stick. (that's just a saying, not literaly, for those who are a bit thick.) ;-)

Under one God: ps. the topic is euthanasia not youth in asio. "?"

Didn't you read my last 12 lines. Or was that too much to understand.

“As for owning pets. My opinion. No dog larger than 1/2 way up your leg should be in the modern house block. Hence the need for the Handbag type dog.”

Yep I’ve always thought the same, small dogs in cities – keeps everyone safe and I’m sure the pets are happier.

Watching the stuff about dolls being substitutes for the real thing it sort of reminded me of being young enough to believe my doll was real, I certainly treated her like she was real. My little sister if in a bad mood with me would go beat my doll up and I would have a bloody fit.

I’m not sure how grownups fill gaps with these life-like dolls but it seems a harmless mental illness if it is one.

One woman went to the States from Britain to get her new baby doll (amazing things really, they breath etc) and to bond with it for a weekend before bringing it home, I think it was day 2 of bonding when she saw the back of its head was cracked – it quickly got stuffed back in the box to be returned for a new one. Now that part I found slightly cold.

Similar to people getting rid of pets who are naughty or sick I suppose.

Jewely: when she saw the back of its head was cracked – it quickly got stuffed back in the box to be returned for a new one.

Hmmm. Pity ya couldn't that for real. ;-) Just kidding, just kidding. Gawd struth! Sorry U1G. Don't get yer Kuh-nickers in a kuh-not.

I support euthanasia for mentaly ill pets & humans. Humans because they frighten the bejesus outa me. Just to keep it on the subject. ;-) hehehe!

Jay:”Hmmm. Pity ya couldn't that for real. ;-) Just kidding, just kidding.”

For sure. My brother rang me when his wife got pregnant for the first time asking what to do if it came out “retarded”. I said that was unavoidable given the DNA but did add he can walk away and leave ‘it’ in hospital, he was so relieved. I haven’t even formed an opinion on that one yet.

And swerving even further off topic: My house stinks, over a block away some young dudes are pouring turps down their drain and my house reeks of it, the smell is coming out of all plug holes in my house. Plugs are in but the smell is killing me. Who in this “Lucky” (who the hell made that one up?) Country do I call now or on a Saturday morning?

Given the neighbourhood I live in and the number of unexplained illnesses and smells suffered over a couple of years in this house it wouldn’t surprise me if we’ve all been enjoying the byproduct of a meth lab or worse for a long time. An obvious turpentine smell coinciding with knowing what the people down the road are doing finally solved the mystery for me tonight.

Could I get some OLO advice? My pets are also obviously at risk.

Jewely: over a block away some young dudes are pouring turps down their drain. Could I get some OLO advice?

Drop into the local Fire Brigade. What they are doing is illegal & dangerous. It's a Bio Hazzard. They'll contact the Police. The Firies have an instrument that will detect exactly where it's coming from. Do it now!

Hey Jay, thanks for that - I’m less concerned about getting the dudes in trouble as I am about the dangerous fumes that have been exiting my plug holes for a couple of years now.

The boys have been stopped (in a friendly way) but it must have pooled or something in the sewage main drain next to my property. That can’t be how sewage works normally…?

Usually every couple of days for the last couple of years we’ve had this other smell that a person from the local council suggested was coming through the windows from a nearby sewerline vent pipe (no offer to fix it and local council said it isn’t their job). It hasn’t been an odour I can identify but it gives me instant headaches each time. It’s been a very long time with some pretty bad headaches, vomiting and other stuff by several members of the household and this turps thing tonight is foul but at least recognisable.

Do I go back to the people that send me my rates bill?

Again – Animal’s lives could be at risk here.

Pericles, my objection to slavery is that, by definition, it entails human beings owning other human beings. What purpose they are used for is irrelevant. My concern for animals is that they are well treated.

Your position I find puzzling, as you repeatedly liken pet ownership to slavery. Yet you find the exploitation of animals for their utility as acceptable, even though such exploitation was the basis of most slavery. The point is probably moot anyway, as slavery is exclusive to human beings.

So wouldn't it make sense to judge on the basis of how an animal is treated, rather than the use it is put to? You ask me of puppy farms, and my concern is with the treatment of animals in them. But would they be any more acceptable were the puppies barbecued and sold at the local supermarket instead of live in pet stores? I doubt that you would, and I also doubt that future people would either.

But if future people see the treatment of animals as more relevant than the use which is made of them, then what objection could they have to owning pets? Like Andre Rieu, I cannot see reason beyond the perception of bad taste, and I cannot see the demise of bad taste any time soon.

As for "Brave New World", the genetic modification of plants and animals has been a part of human civilisation for a very long time. Huxley was considering the hypothetical of humans having the capacity to genetically modify themselves. But had Huxley been alive to see the third world exploitation of today, he would have realised that the creation of willing slaves would entail nothing so sophisticated, yet be no less diabolical. The denial of contraception in these places ensures the birth of slaves with the very powerful motivation of starvation.

Puppy farms are horrible enough, but to see similar exploitation of human beings in the third world is in another realm altogether.

Jay the firies being able to track down smells... urban myth. They said the machine isn’t that good.

The fumes came back and it wasn’t the dudes down the road this time so we called the local council who said yeah fire peoples or a plumber. Yes it was bad the fire peeps said and added not to smoke in the house because of something ignition with the gas – then they left after also saying maybe call a plumber.

I should add my dog wet himself when they arrived.

So no result and I’m sitting here dizzy and with a headache in a house that is apparently filled with a flammable gas and there’s a damn puddle on the floor. If you don’t hear from me again please print this and send it to your local fire department.

Are you insured? If so take everything of value you own out of the house & the dog. then have a fag.

Sue the firies & the Council. Collect the insurance. It's a win, win situation ;-)

Surely not, Fester.

>>Pericles, my objection to slavery is that, by definition, it entails human beings owning other human beings. What purpose they are used for is irrelevant.<<

You consider that keeping them for the purpose of providing entertainment, is no more reprehensible than putting them to work? That's an odd slice of morality. To me it is, anyway.

>>Yet you find the exploitation of animals for their utility as acceptable, even though such exploitation was the basis of most slavery.<<

Not really. That suggests that all employment is a form of slavery. Which is a valid view, one that Karl Marx wrote about extensively in Das Kapital, but not one that I share.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/you-might-be-a-marxist-if-you-want-to-end-the-exploitation-of-workers/

"What distinguishes the various economic formations of society—the distinction between for example a society based on slave-labour and a society based on wage-labour—is the form in which this surplus labour is in each case extorted from the immediate producer, the worker."

In my opinion, using animals for a clear working purpose, one for which they are rewarded, is substantially more ethical than breeding dogs that fit into Paris Hilton's handbag, and is not, prima facie, a form of slavery.

But if you are unable to discern a difference in the two purposes, then I guess the point will be lost on you.

>>...had Huxley been alive to see the third world exploitation of today, he would have realised that the creation of willing slaves would entail nothing so sophisticated, yet be no less diabolical.<<

Huxley addressed this exact situation, albeit allegorically. So he was appalled then, and would be appalled now.

But that still doesn't excuse the keeping pets purely for their amusement value. Which, significantly, is a practice far less prevalent in your "third world".

In fact pet-ownership could almost be identified in itself, as a marker of civilization's journey to decadence, don't you think?

[Deleted for abuse.]

You have obviously been laughing so hard that you forgot to listen, jayb.

>>...what are we to do with all the pets that are now owned<<

My suggestion is that we need to do absolutely nothing about existing ownership, as I pointed out earlier

"Jewely is right, it's not about suddenly freeing all the pets to live in the wild - that would be stupid, and counter-productive. Instead, if you make the future acquisition of a domestic pet illegal, except for those with a 'productive use' license, the habit will die out within a generation. Our current preoccupation with them will quickly move to the realms of 'you did what, grandpa?'"

We'd have to prevent the existing ones from breeding, of course. But that's a once-off, and not exactly an uncommon practice even now.

So your snide sign-off is singularly irrelevant.

>>Goodness you have created a huge problem for "someone else" to solve, haven't you. I'll leave you with that. ;-)<<

But it is typical that you choose not to discuss the issue itself.

I can deduce without much difficulty that you are defensive of pet-ownership. But you don't - or cannot, it's difficult to tell - offer any rationale for it.

It wasn't that remark about dogs that fit into handbags, was it, that upset you? A little too close to home?

>>My dog knew what was going to happen, he came & lay beside me & licked my face then turned around & lay down facing away from me. Yes, I cried like a baby for days<<

As you would.

Those chihuahuas are so-o-o-o-o cute, aren't they.

>>My dog knew what was going to happen, he came & lay beside me & licked my face then turned around & lay down facing away from me. Yes, I cried like a baby for days<<

It was a Staffy, Cattle Cross, extremely dumb but loveable. It wasn't my dog even though he thought he was.

I really don't care if you own a pet or not. If you do, you have a responsibility to look after it. If it gets too sick then euthanasia is the proper thing to do.
I don't like people who are going on holidays & get the dog put down because it's too expensive to put in a kennel.
Dogs larger than 1/2 way up your leg belong on 5 Acres. Dogs up to your ankle in city blocks. None in appartments. Cats,any discription, in a bag & in the river.

Pericles: if you make the future acquisition of a domestic pet illegal, except for those with a 'productive use' license, the habit will die out within a generation.

Agreed. I have no problem with that. At least you proffer a solution to this problem. Somthing that is unusual amoungst some of the people who post here.

<In my opinion, using animals for a clear working purpose, one for which they are rewarded, is substantially more ethical than breeding dogs that fit into Paris Hilton's handbag, and is not, prima facie, a form of slavery.>

If you were referring to humans, there is no question that both constitute slavery. But we are discussing non-human animals, and non-human animals cannot be slaves.

And isn't entertaining people work? Is watching a play purely for enjoyment unethical? I think it very likely that future people will continue to value entertainment.

Also, what constitutes valuable work? A dog in a nursing home may do no more than amuse the residents, yet this will allow the staff to be more productive. So it contradicts your stance of an animal kept purely for amusement being of no value.

But far more important than your or my opinion is what do the animals concerned think about their situation? Does a working animal feel better for doing useful work? Does Paris Hilton's pooch feel ashamed for living an unproductive life in a handbag. If you could answer this question you might have a case for Paris Hilton being unethical. Perhaps in the future people will be able to answer these questions. But will they see this as a reason to ban types of animal ownership, or will they simply continue civilisations' trend of breeding animals suited for their use?

<But that still doesn't excuse the keeping pets purely for their amusement value. Which, significantly, is a practice far less prevalent in your "third world".>

Brave New World provides no insight on the ethics of pet ownership. You need to advance valid reasons why it is unethical to keep animals for their entertainment value.

<In fact pet-ownership could almost be identified in itself, as a marker of civilization's journey to decadence, don't you think?>

No. You seem to ascribe little value to things used purely for amusement. Dont you think our lives are better for the amusement we experience?

That's a bit bizarre, Fester.

I suggested that "using animals for a clear working purpose, one for which they are rewarded, is substantially more ethical than breeding dogs that fit into Paris Hilton's handbag, and is not, prima facie, a form of slavery"

You replied that "If you were referring to humans, there is no question that both constitute slavery"

Not in my book it isn't. Where I come from, "using humans for a clear working purpose, one for which they are rewarded" is called "employment". Working for a living.

It is true that Karl Marx called it slavery, but I'm not a Marxist.

>>Is watching a play purely for enjoyment unethical?<<

The animal equivalent would be circus animals. You wouldn't need to be a genius to divine my attitude towards that form of entertainment.

>>A dog in a nursing home may do no more than amuse the residents, yet this will allow the staff to be more productive. So it contradicts your stance of an animal kept purely for amusement being of no value.<<

I'd consider their work to be on a par with guide dogs. No contradiction at all.

>>what do the animals concerned think about their situation?<<

They might not be as impressed as you think. When I asked my next-door neighbour's dog how he felt he was being treated, he quite distinctly said "Rough".

Silly questions deserve silly answers.

>>You need to advance valid reasons why it is unethical to keep animals for their entertainment value.<<

Listen pal, my position is quite simply that future generations will look back on the practice of keeping pet animals in handbags as being barbaric. I think you are well on the way to proving my point for me.

>>You seem to ascribe little value to things used purely for amusement<<

Not things. Animals.

>>Dont you think our lives are better for the amusement we experience?<<

I'm sure the audience at the Colosseum were vastly amused when Secutor ran Retiarius through the guts with his spatha.

Didn't make the sport less barbaric.

Pericles,

Not bizarre at all. A slave may be well rewarded, but it is the fact that he is the property of another that makes him a slave. So for whatever purpose an animal is used, it is still someone's property. What stops it from being a slave is the fact that it is not human.

In the case of a dog at a nursing home, the dog's use is purely for the amusement of the residents. You have repeatedly claimed that it is barbaric to have an animal purely for the purpose of amusement, so yes, this example does contradict your stance.

<Silly questions deserve silly answers.>

It isn't a silly question at all. You have been looking at the question from your own perspective, not that of the animal. Dont you think it possible that Paris Hilton's handbag dog might be more contented than many owned animals that meet your approval?

<Not things. Animals.>

Aldous Huxley seemed to get quite a bit of amusement from his pet cats. Do you think they ever did anything useful for him?

http://danassays.wordpress.com/collected-essays-by-aldous-huxley/aldous-huxley-essays-sermons-in-cats/

So what makes using a thing purely for amusement more ethical than keeping an animal purely for amusement?

This is the end of the line for me, Fester.

>>So what makes using a thing purely for amusement more ethical than keeping an animal purely for amusement?<<

If you are unable to see the difference, then nothing I can possibly say will make any sense to you.

Have a great day.

You too, Pericles. And thank you. Dare I say it has been an amusing discussion in a perverse sort of way.