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.