"Pets" - Which of these statements do you agree with?

[Greenboy]

Re: the vegan/non vegans keeping pets aspect is one that really grates with me, as how can non vegans say they love animals, while sitting with their pets eating a bacon butty ? (them, not the pet)

I have a rabbit, and have often questioned myself over this, but my rabbit is well looked after with ample space to roam about, he is not locked in a small hutch with no space to excercise, he is taken to the vets regullarly for check ups and injections, and seems generally happy. (he does look lonely sometimes, which gets to me) but basically he doesnt suffer in any way, and surely at the end of the day, as vegans, that is what we are aiming for.

Vets, how can vets eat meat ?? It just doesnt equate.

[paddyfinnsmom]

Maybe just have a poll that asks "do you have a pet?" I have 2 dogs and my rationale is that they could run away if they wanted, unlike a fish or caged animal. Of course, could they really run away (or have they been too domesticated) and if they did would they survive? I don't know, but they seem to like me and I dig them. I bought them from a nice farm lady. Boy, that sounds bad now that I think about it - "bought them". I do feed them regular meat dog food just because I assumed it's what they needed and I haven't researched yet whether a vegan diet would be good for them. I feel I have had my hands full just reassuring myself that my kids will be healthy. I obviously need to look into it though.

[LuC]

I never really thought about having a pet from this perspective before and I also thought being vegan was about animal rights, protection, and compassion. Part of me being vegan is loving animals and that means having them in my life in some form.

I have a cat, whom I rescued from a shelter and two guinea pigs that I rescued from a lab and I care for them dearly. This idea has already mentioned by others but we have a mutual relationship. I don't own them perse, we just live together and care for each other. My cat comes and goes as he pleases but insists on sleeping next to me each evening. The guinea pigs have substantial freedom (I let them out each evening and they have a large habitat that I built for them) and they absolutely adore following us around.

I guess when I think about it I believe in rescuing domesticated animals and offering a loving home. I don't agree with breeding programs or owning an exotic pet, including reptiles. Our homes provide unnatural habitats for animals like snakes. If we need to invest in special gear, like heating lamps, I think we are doing those animals an injustice. I also think that animals in zoos and other confined arena's are not ours to exploit. An elephant should have miles to roam and should not be doing tricks under a tent.

[rianaelf]

What about non vegan dead meat pet food?
This poll looks like it could be a minefield!

lol yeah, good luck with it, Korn!

my thread on whether people agree to neutering pets or not
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13426 certainly caused a lot of mayhem !!

i must say, this forum has some well serious topics !!

As for keeping pets, well i guess it's not really the right thing to do but some animals keep us, like cats for instance, for whom we are their devoted slaves

[Klutz]

Yes, I've wondered how someone can claim to be vegan if they feed their companion animals meat or meat-based food. Or food with meat by-products in it. Basically, anything with the tiniest bit of dead animal corpse. Isn't part of being vegan NOT supporting industries that support the slaughter of animals? And not BUYING animal products? I think that if you are feeding it to your animal companion, you are endorsing the slaughter of animals. How can anyone go on about animal rights and how terrible it is that animals are so cruelly slaughtered and then turn around and buy some of their flesh to feed to the animal living in their house????

[LuC]

I know a dog can thrive on a vegan diet but can cat's be vegan?

[Holly78]

Just to add - I don't think a distinction can necessarily be drawn between a caged animal like a rodent or a non caged animal like a dog. The fact is that both have been domesticated by humans and there is no difference between keeping a mouse in a cage, a dog in a house or a horse in a stable. Space wise - relative to the size of the animal - it may be that the mouse has more space!

Regarding feeding a meat based diet - I do not think it can be vegan to do this as it would mean supporting the slaughter of animals for pet food.

[Charlotte]

Yes, I've wondered how someone can claim to be vegan if they feed their companion animals meat or meat-based food. Or food with meat by-products in it. Basically, anything with the tiniest bit of dead animal corpse. Isn't part of being vegan NOT supporting industries that support the slaughter of animals? And not BUYING animal products? I think that if you are feeding it to your animal companion, you are endorsing the slaughter of animals. How can anyone go on about animal rights and how terrible it is that animals are so cruelly slaughtered and then turn around and buy some of their flesh to feed to the animal living in their house????

The argument I can see for this is that being vegan is a moral choice, most non human animals do not have this capacity for moral choice; should we force our moral choices on to them if they live with us?

Personally I think the obvious decision here is not to live with animals that would normally be carnivorous or omnivorous.

But I have problems with decisions being forced on others.

[Klutz]

But, if you are an omnivore feeding your dog meat, aren't you then "forcing" your choice on the dog? Really, no matter what, YOU are choosing the food for your dog and no matter what it is, it is YOUR choice. It's not like the dogs are going up and down the aisle in the supermarket saying, "hmmm, I think I'll have some of this tonight."

Anyway, I am certainly not forcing food choices on my dogs. If they refused to eat it, I certainly wouldn't shove it down their throats. They LOVE what they eat. I think their diet of a wide variety of whole foods is a lot better for them (and more delicious to them ) than the kibble the average person feeds their dog.

[Kevin2]

I feed my cat meat-based meals. Well, I consider this a good opportunity to get some feedback, and to more fully think through it...

I am aware of meatless food for cats but have not actually seen the product. Has anyone here successfully, exclusively, fed a meatless diet to a cat? I have seen claims from the producer of a particular food that all will be well doing so; my vet disagrees. It would be nice to hear first-hand from someone, whatever the result, who has tried a meatless diet for a cat. Anyone?

Had Snowboots not adopted me, I wonder how my viewpoint would differ.

On the one hand I would not then have feelings of possible wrongdoing through my purchases of meat products; on the other I hope anyway I would consider how desperate she was and how, unquestionably, her life has benefited from our companionship.

What that is getting at is that I (and this is most certainly just my thoughts as I am a new vegan and wouldn't anyway likely want to project my views) don't think of being a vegan in terms of NOT - - NOT supporting industries that support the slaughter of animals or NOT buying animal products - but rather in terms of DO - DO help animals in need and DO support industries that avoid the killing/exploitation of animals.

Cats eat meat, by nature. Obviously, the conditions of the animals used to produce catfood are not natural. Does this mean that cats therefore are to not eat meat? Is it a vegan solution to simply not live with an animal companion? I viewed it, when the situation struck me, that to do so would have been more an avoidance than a solution.

So, should a stray cat, for example, dart inside a house, obviously in need of care, what is the vegan solution, beginning to end, for the occupant of the house?

[Monday]

Hi Kevin2

I have 2 cats, when I was vegetarian they ate meat - I didn't know about alternatives. They received tinned and dry food. They threw up a lot due to bolting the canned food and so we put them on just biscuits. About a year and a half ago we found out about vegan cat food and after much careful thought and research we decided to try. We changed them over slowly and the cats were fine - it was just the same as changing from one biscuit brand to another. The cats like their biscuits very much. They seem fine on them - they are fit and healthy. Recently Benevo brought out a canned food and we bought some of these so we could give the cats a treat occasionally - they quite like this as well. They aren't interested in other food stuffs put on their plate but they will sometimes hang around and lick our dinner plates when we have finished!

I feel that cats do not eat beef, lamb etc naturally anyway and certainly not in a biscuit form and so this is no more unnatural a choice than feeding meat to my cats.

It is difficult and I think you just have to make a decision you feel comfortable with and just know that you are doing your best in the situation you are in.

Monday x

[RedWellies]

Kevin2, if you join the Companion Animals area, you will see there are threads about that topic there. To join go to your User Control Panel, click on Group Memberships, then Join Group.

[emamaly]

This may be a bit obscure.. but, anyways..

I can't see why my living with animals could be considered as wrong. I love my cats and though their life may not be entirely a life of freedom, i.e. I cannot let them out due to the neighbourhood I live in.. I don't outwardly see my animals suffering due to their life with me. And .. in an obscure note.. me.. as a human :

I didn't ask to live, but now that I am living I am happy to be alive. My life is constrained by SO MANY FACTORS its ridiculous.. I have to deal with media, people, expectations.. life.. we all know how difficult it can get, but I would still rather choose to be ALIVE. My cats do not suffer impending slaughter, I do not hit them.. hurt them..
I play with them, they have many toys, get fed well (regular cat food .. eepp.. but that will be changing soon).. and most of all, I love them unconditionally.
Anyways, if I didn't agree with the life of a pet in a GOOD home.. I couldn't agree with myself living either. I don't know if that makes sense... but.. I didn't choose to live.. my life is clearly not a bed of roses as I am living in a world that is apparently against my morals but I still have to play into society in order to get along. In order for me to GET OUT of society and to live a life more environmentally friendly I would need additional finances.. but in order to get those finances I ultimately have to play into society. Get a career, etc.. make some money.. who knows. I just think that if I am going to say that the life of a 'pet' is wrong because they are being outwardly controlled by humans.. well .. the life of ME as a human is wrong because my whole entire world is controlled by humans. Im not sure if this is where this post should be.. and its alittle obscure.. but.. thereya go.

[dreama]

Just to add - I don't think a distinction can necessarily be drawn between a caged animal like a rodent or a non caged animal like a dog. The fact is that both have been domesticated by humans and there is no difference between keeping a mouse in a cage, a dog in a house or a horse in a stable. Space wise - relative to the size of the animal - it may be that the mouse has more space!

I disagree. My dog gets at least 2 hours worth of walks every day. Although tecnically speaking my rats live in a cage, the cacge door is open. They can usually come and go as they please except when I am out or there is visitors.

Unfortunately my chinchilla's have to spend more time in their cage. They have a 3ft x 6ft floor to ceiling cage and I let them out when I can but they are unwilling to get back in their cage sometimes so they can't always go out as I often need help in catching them.

I think 'caged' animals that can be alowed to free range such as rats are no worse off then cats and dogs (and may even be better off then some). However, exotic animals are nearly always caged. Often people who keep exotic animals seem to justify keeping them in very small cages. Chinchilla's need at least 3 times the amount of space that rats get but most chinchillas get far less. I've seen a parrot in a cage I wouldn't have considered big enough for my rats. Also snakes kept in a container the size of a lunch box. Yes, the more common 'pet' animals can also be confined, like confining dogs to crates, and cats to small rooms, but it seems to be done less frequently then it is done with Exotic animals.

[veganlinda]

This may be a bit obscure.. but, anyways..

I can't see why my living with animals could be considered as wrong. I love my cats and though their life may not be entirely a life of freedom, i.e. I cannot let them out due to the neighbourhood I live in.. I don't outwardly see my animals suffering due to their life with me. And .. in an obscure note.. me.. as a human :

I didn't ask to live, but now that I am living I am happy to be alive. My life is constrained by SO MANY FACTORS its ridiculous.. I have to deal with media, people, expectations.. life.. we all know how difficult it can get, but I would still rather choose to be ALIVE. My cats do not suffer impending slaughter, I do not hit them.. hurt them..
I play with them, they have many toys, get fed well (regular cat food .. eepp.. but that will be changing soon).. and most of all, I love them unconditionally.
Anyways, if I didn't agree with the life of a pet in a GOOD home.. I couldn't agree with myself living either. I don't know if that makes sense... but.. I didn't choose to live.. my life is clearly not a bed of roses as I am living in a world that is apparently against my morals but I still have to play into society in order to get along. In order for me to GET OUT of society and to live a life more environmentally friendly I would need additional finances.. but in order to get those finances I ultimately have to play into society. Get a career, etc.. make some money.. who knows. I just think that if I am going to say that the life of a 'pet' is wrong because they are being outwardly controlled by humans.. well .. the life of ME as a human is wrong because my whole entire world is controlled by humans. Im not sure if this is where this post should be.. and its alittle obscure.. but.. thereya go.

I feel exactly the same. We give each other unconditional love so are both v lucky, but I think my life is more caged than hers is (my cat is able to get out and about), because I am constrained by having to think about her needs so I can't just leave everything and go wandering off and have to conform to the 9-5 consumerist norm.

[emamaly]

I feel exactly the same. We give each other unconditional love so are both v lucky, but I think my life is more caged than hers is (my cat is able to get out and about), because I am constrained by having to think about her needs so I can't just leave everything and go wandering off and have to conform to the 9-5 consumerist norm.

I agree! I don't know how many times I've said to myself that I wish I could be one of my cats. All three have been napping for hours.. and they don't seem to worry that they are supposedly wasting their day away.. not doing more constructive things. Ahh.. I can only dream, I don't think that could even be possible for me to do!

[veganavenger]

I watched a TV programme a while ago about an animal shelter in the USA which, somewhere down the line, realised that one of the dogs in their care was particularly intelligent, and would perform tricks when the volunteers came round. They quickly realised that the dog was attracting a lot of attention, and soon they were incorporating all kinds of other dogs into shows, charging people to come and see performances, in order to raise funds to keep their shelter going.

What are your views on this? On the one hand, it allowed the shelter to expand and take in more homeless animals, but on the other hand, the original dog will probably never be put up for adoption to get the home he should have had.

Just goes to show that not all animal rescues are as clear cut as all that.

Personally, I don't have a problem with adopting rescue animals, particularly ex-racing greyhounds who are dumped in their thousands every year. I'd never, ever buy a pet from a petshop or breeder, but I honestly think that as long as the needs of an animal are met, then adopting a poundie is one of the kindest things a person can do.

[Kevin2]

Hi Kevin2

I have 2 cats, when I was vegetarian they ate meat - I didn't know about alternatives. They received tinned and dry food. They threw up a lot due to bolting the canned food and so we put them on just biscuits. About a year and a half ago we found out about vegan cat food and after much careful thought and research we decided to try. We changed them over slowly and the cats were fine - it was just the same as changing from one biscuit brand to another. The cats like their biscuits very much. They seem fine on them - they are fit and healthy. Recently Benevo brought out a canned food and we bought some of these so we could give the cats a treat occasionally - they quite like this as well. They aren't interested in other food stuffs put on their plate but they will sometimes hang around and lick our dinner plates when we have finished!

I feel that cats do not eat beef, lamb etc naturally anyway and certainly not in a biscuit form and so this is no more unnatural a choice than feeding meat to my cats.

It is difficult and I think you just have to make a decision you feel comfortable with and just know that you are doing your best in the situation you are in.

Monday x

Thank you, Monday. I overlooked this reply previously and just want to say now that I appreciate your expressed thoughts on this matter. I have decided against a vegan diet for Snowboots, but, I do appreciate your thoughtful response.

[hazelbunny]

i know that there are a lot of vegan cats but some cats seem to have a problem turning to a vegan diet, that's one of the reasons to why i couldn't keep a rescue cat.


I maybe wouldn't worry too much about this. Most of the cats I've known would not stick to the vegan diet anyway..

[hazelbunny]

You all seem totally against pet breeding. Obviously, as with all business it should have to be handled ethically and I do appreciate this may not be easy to achieve. But I cant help feeling they perform a valuable role. If all pets were neutered and pet breeders all gone, where would we get our pets from?

It is of course better to rescue a pet as opposed to buying one from a breeders, but I dont think they should be demonised.

On the subject of the poll, I agree with keeping some pets but not others. For example, it is never okay to steal a bird out of the wild and cage it for our amusement, but many animals, cats in particular, choose to live with humans. And where would they be without co-habitation with us? We are after all slowly taking over the world.

[sugarmouse]

In an ideal world IW ould not agree with pets being kept. And I certainly disagree with breeding. think how many animals are put to sleep each week because nobody wants them
. But I beleive responsible and kind pet owners are essential in contemporary society in order to house those pets irresponsibly bred, unwanted presents, neglected or treated badly. I am here for those animals.

[Mr Flibble]

You all seem totally against pet breeding.

yes, this is a vegan forum

But I cant help feeling they perform a valuable role.

And that's what exactly?

If all pets were neutered and pet breeders all gone, where would we get our pets from?

If all farms stopped breeding animals, where would we get meat and eggs from?

Other than sickos that go snatching them from the wild, no where. That's the point isn't it?

And where would they be without co-habitation with us?

Damn vegans and not drinking milk. Do they not care about cows? They explode if you don't milk them you know.

Sorry, that's overly flippant even for me. What I'm trying to highlight is the obsurd notion that non human animals in some way need humans; that they lived and evolved for millions of years before domestication through some sort of fluke. Unless you believe that god created us all 437 years ago of course, with animals as our slaves and fossil fuels for our 3 litre engine cars.

We are after all slowly taking over the world.

That's a problem that we need to address ourselves, not use as an excuse for questionable practises we wish to indulge in.

[Cattmogg]

If you do decide to have a companion animals that been rescued or you want to take in, the most important thing is to make sure you you can look after them properly. They actually demand a lot of time. My dog needs to be walked for nearly two hours a day, its a big commitment in the winter months when you have to get up at 6 to do it and its still dark. Then there are vets bills... if they are ill it costs a lot of money to make them better, I spent 70 quid on a vets bill last week. He's completely worth it but make sure you have the time and money before you take in an animal or

[harpy]

Breeding animals to sell seems a bit like slave ownership to me, and certainly not justifiable when there are older animals in refuges that would like a good home.

Unlike some people here I don't think it's necessarily cruel to live with e.g. cats and dogs so I suppose I might support some form of non-commercial breeding, but only in the unlikely event that there weren't any unwanted animals already needing homes.

[hazelbunny]

yes, this is a vegan forum

And how is pet breeding not vegan exactly? Have you invented a new definition I dont know about?

And that's what exactly?

Would you prefer animals just bred willy nilly in the street? Dont you think that would lead to even more unwanted animals?

If all farms stopped breeding animals, where would we get meat and eggs from?

I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous argument. It assumes that pet-keeping is wrong and myself and I'm sure plenty of other vegans dont agree with that. The co-habitation of humans and animals can be wonderful thing and benefits the "pet" animal every bit as much as the human animal, maybe more so. Very often animals will choose to live with humans. Cats are a prime example. Most of them could more than survive without us, but they choose to take advantage of warm houses and food and affection on demand.

Other than sickos that go snatching them from the wild, no where. That's the point isn't it?

Where there is wildness, that is fine of course, but there are no wild places left, certainly in the uk, that dogs can roam in packs. Until we live as part of the natural world rather than dominating it, dogs co-habitation with humans is the best way forward imo.

Damn vegans and not drinking milk. Do they not care about cows? They explode if you don't milk them you know.

Sorry, that's overly flippant even for me. What I'm trying to highlight is the obsurd notion that non human animals in some way need humans; that they lived and evolved for millions of years before domestication through some sort of fluke. Unless you believe that god created us all 437 years ago of course, with animals as our slaves and fossil fuels for our 3 litre engine cars of course.

I agree animals could look after themselves, but for the way we live. We'd all like to live in a utopian garden of eden where animals (including humans) live wild, the way nature intended, but until that day comes and humans and pets are liberated, we all have to compromise.

That's a problem that we need to address ourselves, not use as an excuse for questionable practises we wish to indulge in.

I dont believe pet breeding is questionable, provided it is done with the welfare of the animal in mind. It keeps animals in the world and that is where they want to be

[Mr Flibble]

And how is pet breeding not vegan exactly? Have you invented a new definition I dont know about?

There is no universally accepted definition of vegan. Generally speaking vegans extend the rights that they wish humans to have to other species.

What if we treated humans under the same rights that animals have in the 'pet' trade; castrating male children, denying humans the right to their desired social structure, to procreate, to articifially breed them with characteristics desirable to people who want to pay money for them etc etc (I'm sure I don't need to continue listing). Would that be acceptable to a vegan?

Would you prefer animals just bred willy nilly in the street? Dont you think that would lead to even more unwanted animals?

'unwanted'? It's not about us and what we want!

As I've already stated animals are capable of living without human intervention. There's plenty of animals that live on our streets quite happily - birds, rats, mice, foxes etc. Certainly the ones that we've imported from other climates and those that have been purposely bred through hundreds of generations to not be able to survive life without humans should not just be released onto the streets if we were to suddenly just end the ownership of animals - much like if the same were to happen with farm animals. All vegans (i hope) believe this about domesticated animals bred for food, why are domesticated animals bred for amusement any different?

"If all farms stopped breeding animals, where would we get meat and eggs from?"

I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous argument.

How so? All I've done is change the wording to something directly comparable. Whether you breed animals for food or 'pets' you're still breeding animals.

It assumes that pet-keeping is wrong and myself and I'm sure plenty of other vegans dont agree with that.

Indeed. Korn: when is this poll coming?

Where there is wildness, that is fine of course, but there are no wild places left, certainly in the uk, that dogs can roam in packs.

OK, so dogs that roam in packs can't live in the UK anymore. That's our fault. Other canidae (such as foxes) exist in the wild here just fine (except when the bumpkins are out compensating for bedroom problems). With all the extra open land we're going to gain when we stop breeding animals for food (and the crops that they need to survive) there will be more space for animals that can survive in the UK to exist in the wild. Who knows, maybe dogs that roam in packs will be able to survive here again then?

We'd all like to live in a utopian garden of eden where animals (including humans) live wild, the way nature intended

Actually I'm quite happy living in the world today. Work sucks sometimes, but I think humans in the UK have life a hell of a lot better than we did 10,000 years ago.

but until that day comes and humans and pets are liberated, we all have to compromise.

Yes, which is all the more reason to do something about the situation we're in, not premote a trade in it, thus extending the problem! The two are a complete contradiction.

[hazelbunny]

"There is no universally accepted definition of vegan. Generally speaking vegans extend the rights that they wish humans to have to other species."

I was under the impression that a vegan is a person that doesn't eat or use animal products.

"What if we treated humans under the same rights that animals have in the 'pet' trade; castrating male children, denying humans the right to their desired social structure, to procreate, to articifially breed them with characteristics desirable to people who want to pay money for them etc etc (I'm sure I don't need to continue listing). Would that be acceptable to a vegan?"

Most vegans seem to neuter their pets, are you saying this is wrong? And procreation is breeding!. As for denying them their social structure, cats are loners for the most part, and our social structure is very similar to a dogs. A fox is a very different animal to a dog. Having packs of dogs roaming the streets in the uk is just not practical.

I do agree with you about artificial breeding though, it should be banned! that's why I said pet breeding with the welfare of the animal in mind.

'unwanted'? It's not about us and what we want!

Unwanted means no pack, nowhere to live except a shelter or worse. I agree its not about what we want, but the way things are at the moment pets have nowhere to go except to live with us.

As I've already stated animals are capable of living without human intervention. There's plenty of animals that live on our streets quite happily - birds, rats, mice, foxes etc. Certainly the ones that we've imported from other climates and those that have been purposely bred through hundreds of generations to not be able to survive life without humans should not just be released onto the streets if we were to suddenly just end the ownership of animals - much like if the same were to happen with farm animals. All vegans (i hope) believe this about domesticated animals bred for food, why are domesticated animals bred for amusement any different?

I actually think farm animals would fare a lot better in the uk countryside than the average dog. Domesticated animals such as cats and dogs are not bred for our amusement, they are bred because we love living with them and they love living with us. The connection and co-dependance between man and dog goes back a very long way. They are not caged, they go out and come back of their own accord and are part of the family.

How so? All I've done is change the wording to something directly comparable.

I dont see how you can possibly compare responsible pet-breeding to the meat and dairy industries. I am lost for words here

indeed. Korn: when is this poll coming?

Dont assume till you've seen the poll, most people seem to be erring towards the yes options.

You are dreaming! It is never going to happen unfortunately And what are the poor dogs supposed to do in the meantime?



[ quote=Mr Flibble;303900] Yes, which is all the more reason to do something about the situation we're in, not premote a trade in it, thus extending the problem! The two are a complete contradiction.

I dont think it is extending the problem though, contact with animals is part of what makes people go vegan . Living with them helps us learn that they think and feel the same as us, it teaches us to empathise with them. And if noone bred dogs they may disappear altogether eventually!

[Mr Flibble]

If anyone else reading this would prefer that hazelbunny and I continue this via PM then let me know, I'm continuing to post here as it may be of general interest

--

Unwanted means no pack, nowhere to live except a shelter or worse. I agree its not about what we want, but the way things are at the moment pets have nowhere to go except to live with us.

I agree, I've not stated in this thread that I do not believe that humans should rescue abandoned animals that cannot exist without humans. Rescue is a short term solution however, it isn't a solution to the overall problem - why animals that cannot exist without humans are still being created by us in the first place.

Most vegans seem to neuter their pets, are you saying this is wrong?

No, as a temporary solution to a problem that we created it is and unfortunate thing that we must do.

And procreation is breeding!

Not in a natural sense. You can't artifically inseminate or stick a randy male in a room with a female and let him rape her so you can sell the offspring, then call it natural procreation. My reasoning for mentioning it in the first place however was about the offspring that are destined for people's homes. I appologise for not being clearer on this.

so dogs that roam in packs can't live in the UK anymore. That's our fault.

Having packs of dogs roaming the streets in the uk is just not practical.

I've already agreed with you on this matter, and explaned why.

And what are the poor dogs supposed to do in the meantime?

Not be bred! I've already stated about the ones already alive. I'm in danger of going round in circles here.

The connection and co-dependance between man and dog goes back a very long way.

Domestication of dogs goes back less than 20,000 years. This isn't long in evolutionary terms (55 million years for canines, 10 million for those that closely resemble today's).

They are not caged, they go out and come back of their own accord and are part of the family.

Yes, it's called institutionalisation. It isn't a good thing.

And if noone bred dogs they may disappear altogether eventually!

Beyond your emotional attachment; logically what is the problem with domestic animals that cannot exist without humans ceasing to exist?

we love living with them and they love living with us.

As there's potentially kids reading this thread I'm not going to post what reading this sentence reminds me of. Let's just say it's an argument used by other groups of people as justification for what they do that most find highly disturbing. Certainly something I can post is the simularity with what you say and those that claim the same about animals bred for food. In both instances we're talking for things that can't talk, but based on self serving emotion not logic.

I dont see how you can possibly compare responsible pet-breeding to the meat and dairy industries. I am lost for words here

I dont think it is extending the problem though

And until you can see why human controlled breeding of animals is the same whatever our desired purpose for them you will not.

[Marrers]

Dont assume till you've seen the poll, most people seem to be erring towards the yes options.
. . . .
And if noone bred dogs they may disappear altogether eventually!

As far as I can see most people have said they feel it is acceptable to offer homes to abandoned animals from rescue centres, for as long as there are still abandoned animals in need of homes. I agree with this.

I do not agree with continuing to breed animals. I would like to see no breeding of animals and no pets. That may mean certain species die out.

People often say to me "if we were all vegan there would be no cows and sheep in the fields" and I say "Fine". If animals cannot survive without human intervention they will die out like many other species have and continue to do. It is sad that humans have over time bred animals that are unable to live alone but that is not reason to continue to do so.

[hazelbunny]

If anyone else reading this would prefer that hazelbunny and I continue this via PM then let me know, I'm continuing to post here as it may be of general interest

--


I agree, I've not stated in this thread that I do not believe that humans should rescue abandoned animals that cannot exist without humans. Rescue is a short term solution however, it isn't a solution to the overall problem - why animals that cannot exist without humans are still being created by us in the first place.

No, as a temporary solution to a problem that we created it is and unfortunate thing that we must do.

Not in a natural sense. You can't artifically inseminate or stick a randy male in a room with a female and let him rape her so you can sell the offspring, then call it natural procreation. My reasoning for mentioning it in the first place however was about the offspring that are destined for people's homes. I appologise for not being clearer on this.


I've already agreed with you on this matter, and explaned why.

Not be bred! I've already stated about the ones already alive. I'm in danger of going round in circles here.

Domestication of dogs goes back less than 20,000 years. This isn't long in evolutionary terms (55 million years for canines, 10 million for those that closely resemble today's).

Yes, it's called institutionalisation. It isn't a good thing.

Beyond your emotional attachment; logically what is the problem with domestic animals that cannot exist without humans ceasing to exist?

As there's potentially kids reading this thread I'm not going to post what reading this sentence reminds me of. Let's just say it's an argument used by other groups of people as justification for what they do that most find highly disturbing. Certainly something I can post is the simularity with what you say and those that claim the same about animals bred for food. In both instances we're talking for things that can't talk, but based on self serving emotion not logic.


And until you can see why human controlled breeding of animals is the same whatever our desired purpose for them you will not.

I think we might have to agree to disagree about our companion animals. You are assuming animal breeding is selfish, but I think it benefits the animals more than it does the human. Animals may not be able to talk, but you can tell what they are feeling cos its obvious.

You say dogs have been institutionalised into living with humans. But according to experts, dog and human packs merged naturally, one relying on the other. Sometimes different species do work together, to each others mutual benefit. Dogs have always been happy to live with humans in one big extended pack. Nowadays, in our dog wardened, food-free, concrete jungle, dogs rely on kind-hearted, animal lovers for their continued existence. Do you really think dogs would rather be extinct than live as part of a happy, loving pack, that often includes other dogs?
I dont, not for one second.



"They love lving with us and we love living with them" posted by Hazelbunny.

"As there's potentially kids reading this thread I'm not going to post what reading this sentence reminds me of. Let's just say it's an argument used by other groups of people as justification for what they do that most find highly disturbing. Certainly something I can post is the simularity with what you say and those that claim the same about animals bred for food. In both instances we're talking for things that can't talk, but based on self serving emotion not logic." posted by Mr. Flibble


I'm not at all sure what you're trying to imply here and I've no idea what other groups you are talking about. I also have no idea how anyone could ever claim that an animal would love to be eaten.

[Mahk]

I want to dispel a recurring myth I'm reading throughout this thread: "But animals need us to take care of them." No they don't! Cow’s udders won’t explode if we don’t milk them. Just like humans or any mammals they only give milk after they’ve given birth; Leave their babies with them, instead of turning them into veal and cheddar cheese (rennet) and you have very good, natural “milking machines”.

Unfortunately, I agree with Marrers (a couple of posts back) that certain breeds of especially dogs wouldn’t do too well out in nature because of how they’ve been bred to be non-aggressive and just expect food to magically show up everyday in their food bowls. Cats I’ve lived with, on the other hand, all seem very keen on “the hunt” and would probably do much better if kicked out of the house. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there’s an easy answer to all of this and I’m certainly not advocating that we should all kick our dogs and cats out on the street. I do, however, want to point out that wild dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigs, sheep, and chickens, exist in nature right now. Don’t picture stray dogs and cats wandering the city streets. That’s obviously not their natural environment. Picture them more in natural environments like in these following wild animal photos:


(Is that wild horses at the beach shot not the coolest thing? I'd love to see that in real life. Magical.)

They all get along quite well without any human intervention. [I googled images of “wild x” where “x” is your animal of choice.] Are they all 100% genetically identical to our domesticated versions? Probably not, but I wanted to make the point that all these different animals not only can but do get along just fine without us.

[hazelbunny]

What wonderful pictures Mahk!

[magpie]

Pretty pictures don't mean anything though, the fate of tens of thousands of animals living wild will be to become extinct in the next few decades.

If animal species are kept alive in reserves then thats a technical cage, they certainly aren't free to roam and they aren't free of human intervention and culling.

Just as one instance the UK wild horse population suffers mass culls, sure the problem can be solved by putting wolves in there to tear them to pieces and restore the natural balance but wolves are still disliked by most people and close proximity to man of large wolf numbers or wild dog packs will mean dead kids eventually and then they'll be gone.

I see all too often on here the notion expressed that its better that animals go extinct rather than live as pets and it leaves me shocked to say the least. The human species won't be around for very much longer, disease will get them eventually , but in the meantime all other species will suffer, wilderness will disappear and wild living animals will be gone from this earth forever and yet there are some that would rather see animals die out than survive the human plague. Living as pets or living in zoos is all thats left for alot of species and some would take that away!!!

I know that someone will say 'make sanctuaries' or similar but the Indian tigers had sanctuaries and now they're all but dead, I'd far rather see tigers living as pets or in zoos for a hundred years and then surviving the next 50 million years than die out because the vermin that humanity is allowed them to become extinct. Sanctuaries are not unfortunately going to offer much protection to most species because as human numbers grow to 10 billion and then 20 so any sanctuaries made today will be destroyed.

As far as people living with pets goes and in particular dogs, I'm minded of the feral kids who have been taken in by dog packs and grown up as a dog in all but name, not only does it prove that dogs have a strong connection with humans ( after all its hardly necessary for a dog to take in a human child) but it proves that humans are very close to dogs and that the bond that connects them is a two way thing. The tales of wolves and bears and a host of other animals bringing up children are well documented.

Truthfully I reckon many people could learn alot from dogs, they aren't as stupid as some make out, those feral dogs didn't say 'oh look a human child , lets not take it in, it wouldn't be natural, lets let it die, it'd be better off that way'. No instead they followed their hearts and took a human in to live as part of their pack and they did that because its natural for them to do that, just as its natural for humans to take in dogs.

Humans are meant to have close connection with other animals, we do after all live in a world surrounded by them, people seek it out and some animals seek connection to humans. Certainly we could make a world where humans live in isolation, seeing animals from afar, a world where humans would become even more detached from nature and driven insane because of their sterile lives, but that world isn't worth having, its an unnatural world one born of the human mind not of the heart and not of mother nature.

[twinkle]

It seems to me that this thread is losing perspective here.

We all know that vegans make up a tiny percentage of the population here. Whether we believe animals should be kept as pets or not really isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference at the moment! Let's start worrying about all the "pet" species disappearing when we make up the majority and our opinions actually have an impact!

(I'm not saying "shut up, y'all", I'm just saying there's no need to get quite so heated about this just yet).

[harpy]

That's true, Twinkle - mind you, it seems to be slightly easier to talk people into getting rescue animals than it is to persuade them to become vegan

[Marrers]

Blimey - the board will get very quiet if we stop discussing / argueing about all the hypothetical stuff that we'll change when vegans rule the world!!

[Mr Flibble]

Blimey - the board will get very quiet if we stop discussing / argueing about all the hypothetical stuff that we'll change when vegans rule the world!!

I agree

Damn vegans and not drinking milk. Do they not care about cows? They explode if you don't milk them you know.

Sorry, that's overly flippant even for me.

I want to dispel a recurring myth I'm reading throughout this thread: "But animals need us to take care of them." No they don't! Cow’s udders won’t explode if we don’t milk them.

Recurring, or did you skim read my post and not notice the context and heavy dose of sarcasm in what i said?

The human species won't be around for very much longer, disease will get them eventually

the vermin that humanity is

I don't think I even need to comment about how absurd and self hating that sounds

Certainly if this is the case we definitely shouldn't be breeding animals that rely on our existance and cannot cope without it, whether it comforts us in our final days or not.

Humans are meant to have close connection with other animals

says who? That's surely a personal view. Most poeple in the world say that humans are meant to eat animals. Most christians claim I'm going to hell. None of these statements hold any weight or will cause me to loose any sleep tonight.

Living as pets or living in zoos is all thats left for alot of species and some would take that away!!!

Yep, that's me. I don't believe that breeding for slavery (slavery being a state where you don't have the same rights as your master) is ethical. No debate about that (at least, I'd be extremely impressed if someone even made a dent on that belief). It isn't ethical to breed human children to be slaves and it isn't for non humans. I want children, but if I had the choice between having children born with the rights we give to 'pets' or not having kids then I'd choose not to. I'd rather my family died out than subject future generations to that kind of treatment (whether their 'owners' claimed they loved them or not). If aliens enslaved the earth and there was no hope that humans would ever be anything but slaves to them, would you happily want to have loads of kids? I'm not shocked (not many things shock me these days), I am disturbed however at the amount of people who care more about what they want (pretty animals to look at and live with) than the lives of individuals. At no point have I stated that I do not believe in rescue for existing non humans that have been bred by selfish humans to rely on them, but if species were to regress over my lifetime to the point there were at 20,000 years ago (a blink of the eye in terms of evolution and at a stage where they require no human interaction) then it would be (in my view) a fantastic thing for AR going forward.

[Cattmogg]

You are going to hell Flibble. You are.

[Mahk]

Recurring, or did you skim read my post and not notice the context and heavy dose of sarcasm in what i said? .

Yes, I got that you were being sarcastic. I didn't feel the need to quote you on this because as I said I've seen this before as a recurring myth. More accurately, I guess I should have said throughout "the forum" instead of throughout "this thread". I believe the first instance I read about omnis' fear of "EUS" (Exploding Udder Syndrome) was from a conversation Gorilla overheard on a bus, quoted in this post:
"one girl said, "yeah well he's a vegetarian but he doesn't drink milk, and i was like, what's up with that? i mean, milking a cow doesn't kill it!" and the other girl said, "yeah, doesn't he know that cows, like, EXPLODE if you don't milk them?!!" first girl: "i know, it's so stupid i used to try and argue with him but now i just ignore him!"

I like reading your extreme views Mr. Flibble. I don't always agree 100% completely, but it does make me think.

In "vegan utopia" are humans allowed any interaction with animals whatsoever? For example, is one allowed to feed or pet wild ones found in the park or forest? If you stumble upon an injured one are you allowed to give it aid? I don't think it's entirely correct to call all pets "slaves". At least not ones that are given the opportunity to runaway any time they choose. Animals in nature sometimes have symbiotic relationships with each other where neither one is "the slave". They live in a relationship called "non-obligatory mutualism" [I just learned that term 10 seconds ago from wikipedia ] Are we not allowed to have symbiotic relationships with any animals?

[Marrers]

I don't think it's entirely correct to call all pets "slaves". At least not ones that are given the opportunity to runaway any time they choose.

They only stay cos they're suffering from Stockholm syndrome!!

[Mahk]

They only stay cos they're suffering from Stockholm syndrome!!

HA! *ROTFLMAO*

[harpy]

Yes, it's hell here. We've been brainwashed into thinking it's OK to share a filing cabinet when we should obviously have one each.

[harpy]

On a more sombre note, there seems to have been an increase in the number of cats in refuges lately:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrigh...064864,00.html

[magpie]

Yep, that's me. I don't believe that breeding for slavery

And yet you said that you would rather see a species become extinct than rely on human beings, so what you're suggesting is that it would have been better for human slaves to have become extinct than to endure slavery. I can't imagine that it would have been or is a popular view amongst human slaves and their descendants. Life determines that we endure, individually and as a species we are meant to survive. Personally I can't imagine many greater crimes than to make a species extinct.

To liken pet keeping to slavery does cheapen slavery imo, had white plantation owners bought/taken in/rescued black slaves because they wanted companionship, had they pampered them, fed them, given them toys and treats and tended to their every need, had they loved their company and lived all too often as group inferiors to their pet human, then the analogy might be correct. Slaves were instead bought and sold with no more care than dog muck, in many instances kept in dire conditions, beaten and worked to death.
There are things wrong in the way humans are currently caring for animals but those errors are personal to individuals, not a collective error in the idea of pet keeping. Pets end up abandoned because of bad care by a few, and ineffective rehoming and carer tracing. The vast majority of pet carers have a well cared for pampered companions, a pet that is very apparently happy.

Human have yet to go through what animals endure, Hitler gave us tiny a taste, aliens might take us all the way, but to be bred in conditions resembling hell on earth, to be fattened and abused in a short miserable life, then murdered in some industrial house of horrors before being eaten by some creature that doesn't care at all about your suffering , a creature that cares only what you taste like and tosses your flesh away as if it has no worth, that might give a taste of reality . The meat industry might compare in some ways to slavery but pet keeping and its issues pale into insignificance compared to meat eating.

You state that you would like to see species regress to where they were 20000 years ago. I wonder where humans would be without what they have learned from animal contact, why does it have to be that humans are oh so important. I don't see that animals have changed, put nearly any pet outside and they can cope, they're killing or grazing and getting on with lifes struggles after a short while, its people who can't cope.

There is no regression for pets just geography and whether they have easy street or to deal with the tough rigors of life in the raw. Do you think that people should go back in time as well, back to being brutish hunter gatherers hacking out a life in a world where the very question of whether we should eat meat might seem completely absurd as we look out on our cold icy world. Don't all animals live in a very different world today, most animals don't have anywhere to go back to, and even if fairy stories are true and all the world went vegi/vegan there would be fields of crops and millions of rabbits deer and insects munching on them. If crop farmers encourage foxes and the like to stop all their crops being eaten wont they be technical slaves by your definition, working and killing that you might eat.

You question whether we are meant to have close contact with animals, a tick is an animal and so is a flea, some of them definitely want contact with us, any animal that perceives a benefit from human contact will seek us out, meateaters will attract scavengers, seed growers birds, crops rabbits and predators, its impossible to be free of animals, the natural world is full of them. Its fairly hard for us to not have close contact with animals unless we live in a bubble, but then most of us are in bubbles already divorced from and deviod of nature, what we humans gain from animals is what people have lost, contact with naturalness, honesty, nobility and truth.

Strange to me you think it absurd to describe humanity as vermin, they breed like humans ( I would say rats but its unfair to rats) they spread/create disease, they destroy the world around them, they make monstrous creations, see themselves as gods, murder other species and each other without a care, seek to alter the fabric of life and are cruel often for just for cruelties sake. Self loathing? Species loathing? or just accurate?

As for going to hell... are you sure you aren't already there?

[AbFab]

I am not a fan of keeping animals in human homes. They belong in the wild. How much nicer for them to be seen as nature intended. Is it natural for them to lounge around and have their food made for them? First off, as has been mentioned, unless you are feeding this animal vegan food, you are contributing to the many deaths of all the other animals that go into making petfood. I don't think it is natural for a cat to be a herbivore, so to force it to follow a vegan diet seems wrong to me. Dogs, maybe, though don't they have more in common (physiologically) with omnivorous 'wild' dogs such as wolves and dingoes, and therefore, should also eat meat?
Another issue I have, is all the money you fork out on these animals – does your heart not go out more to the millions of children (and adults) dying of starvation all over the world??? No, before you ask, I don’t send every spare penny out to underprivileged nations, but it seems more humane to do that then sustain a cat or a dog. And primarily because YOU get something out of the relationship. It’s about what they give YOU back – warmth, licks, slobber, whatever.
And to the person who said she likes her three dogs because unlike humans, they aren’t cruel to animals, you only have to watch the news every now and again and there’s yet another story of how a dog has mauled a human child to pieces.
I also have a real gripe with irresponsible owners who don’t clear up after their dogs. As for cats who come and go as they please, and leave faeces in gardens, I don’t appreciate that either.
I LOVE seeing animals in their natural habitats, doing whatever they do. I admire nature and the glorious creations the planet has. I just don’t think we should domesticate any of them. There’s my alternative vegan view.

[Heartsease]

I'm kinda understanding the people who have animal buddies in their hooses. I 'adopted' a butiful couple of bunnies a few years ago...to live inside my hoose with me. I tried to anticipate their 'needs' and I established a very close relationship with them. I was connected to them enough to understand that they were prisoners of sorts. It sucked that they could'nt choose how to live. It hurts me still to recall seeing either of them sitting about looking unfulfilled/bored...because that's what they occasionally were. Inbreeding led to their early deaths (and to various disomforts during their lives) and now that they are both gone from me I imagine them running wild and free in the softest tastiest green grass and dandelions with the breeze blowing softly thru their shiny coats. Digging and scratching about under the brambles....

If one wants to learn from animals how to empathize it is not neccessary to have domesticated them. I have been face to face with many wild animals, including a grizzly bear (okay....so there were a few metres separating us) and have a lot of affection for the toads and deer that visit my garden. I feel warm when I turn a corner and find two otters playing....when one winter's day I stroll along the shore and suddenly out pops the head and soulful eyes of a seal. We seem to stare at each other with equal wonder!

We can love animals without depriving them of their autonomy. I don't like the human-directed (deliberate) breeding of animals. If it did'nt exist and rescue centres were empty....that would be for the good.

[Mr Flibble]

And yet you said that you would rather see a species become extinct than rely on human beings, so what you're suggesting is that it would have been better for human slaves to have become extinct than to endure slavery.

no, human slaves are not in the same category as they are not domesticated (they can survive without their masters) and have not been purposely bred to have characteristics that are beneficial to their masters over that of their own needs.

Personally I can't imagine many greater crimes than to make a species extinct.

We're talking about subspecies here, ones that have been human bred in the first place, ceasing to exist. I'm not suggesting that all dogs go extinct, think of it more in terms of strains/families.

Here's an example. Humans purposely bred a strain of monkey with a 20% life expectancy of normal, is extremely useful for research but suffers hideous amounts of pain through hemorrhaging and internal organ damage from an age of 2 weeks. Would you think it a crime to stop breeding that strain, or would you rather they were stopped and that sub species become extinct? This is an extreme example, but the principle is the same.

I can't imagine that it would have been or is a popular view amongst human slaves and their descendants.

To liken pet keeping to slavery does cheapen slavery imo

I explained my use of the word slave, both in animal and human sense, the rights that they do and don't have, and think it is appropriate. At no point did I mention or was referring to the treatment of human slaves in modern history and the rights they did and didn't have. If you can suggest a seperate word that describes an individual with lack of rights, who is owned, castrated/unable to breed naturally, removed from it's family and forced to live with another species etc then I'd be happy to use it.

Do you think that people should go back in time as well, back to being brutish hunter gatherers hacking out a life in a world where the very question of whether we should eat meat might seem completely absurd as we look out on our cold icy world.

No.....how does this relate to the topic?

If crop farmers encourage foxes and the like to stop all their crops being eaten wont they be technical slaves by your definition, working and killing that you might eat.

No, I think you're missing my definition here.

I'll reply to the rest of your post tomorrow

[magpie]

no, human slaves are not in the same category as they are not domesticated (they can survive without their masters) and have not been purposely bred to have characteristics that are beneficial to their masters over that of their own needs.

As I said in the post, put virtually any pet outside and it happily adapts back to its natural state, wild dogs pack are quite capable of surviving, cats are virtually wild. Sorry to burst the bubble but pets are wild animals living with humans, they might get fat and lazy, but they can still hunt, stalk, kill, graze, breed and drink just like they do in the wild

We're talking about subspecies here, ones that have been human bred in the first place, ceasing to exist. I'm not suggesting that all dogs go extinct, think of it more in terms of strains/families.

Here's an example. Humans purposely bred a strain of monkey with a 20% life expectancy of normal, is extremely useful for research but suffers hideous amounts of pain through hemorrhaging and internal organ damage from an age of 2 weeks. Would you think it a crime to stop breeding that strain, or would you rather they were stopped and that sub species become extinct? This is an extreme example, but the principle is the same.

Wild dogs in most parts of the world are now living with humans and are not in the wild, so those strains you're happy to see die are the dog species, there isn't another. I find it odd that you say pets are treated like slaves and then you advocate the death of families and strains. When did it become ok to talk about the death of animals and their families.

A lab monkey is honestly not a pet, its as reasonable to liken a lab monkey to a pet as to liken an innocent person on death row to someone queuing at a buffet, the two are completely unrelated.

I explained my use of the word slave, both in animal and human sense, the rights that they do and don't have, and think it is appropriate. At no point did I mention or was referring to the treatment of human slaves in modern history and the rights they did and didn't have. If you can suggest a seperate word that describes an individual with lack of rights, who is owned, castrated/unable to breed naturally, removed from it's family and forced to live with another species etc then I'd be happy to use it.

The word that you're looking for is 'pet', a slave is a very particular thing, a working pit pony might be likened to a slave, a human forced to work under the dominion of another for little or no pay might be a slave, but a cat sleeping on a cushion, free to come and go as it pleases, possibly neutered and fed high quality tasty meals is a 'pet', there's no point calling it a slave because it just isn't one.

[Mr Flibble]

As I said in the post, put virtually any pet outside and it happily adapts back to its natural state, wild dogs pack are quite capable of surviving, cats are virtually wild. Sorry to burst the bubble but pets are wild animals living with humans, they might get fat and lazy, but they can still hunt, stalk, kill, graze, breed and drink just like they do in the wild

If that is the case then it's fantastic. I'd happily be wrong on this one, as what you appear to be saying is that if we were to stop breeding animals to be owned as pets then the living ones could be set free and live quite happily without the need for rescue. If this is indeed what you're saying then I've a feeling many may disagree, not just me.

Wild dogs in most parts of the world are now living with humans and are not in the wild, so those strains you're happy to see die are the dog species, there isn't another.

First of all, I didn't say I was 'happy' for a strain to die out. As for the rest of your sentence, I'm slightly perplexed as to what you mean. I'm talking about breeds/strains/sub species, not the whole species. A labrador is not a wolf is not a poodle is not a fox. They are all dogs, but distinct sub species/families of the whole canine family. If i didn't make that clear enough then I appologise.

I find it odd that you say pets are treated like slaves and then you advocate the death of families and strains. When did it become ok to talk about the death of animals and their families.

At no point have I talked about the death of animals....I've talked about ceasing to artifically breed. You can't call someone a baby killer who decides not to have children. The word family is with regard to sub species, not living offspring.

As for when it became OK to talk about contraversial topics, provided it's done in a sensible, polite manner and isn't illegal it's always been OK. Is free speech a bad thing? Certainly most vegans wouldn't be so if someone hadn't been able to contraversially explain the reasons for being so to them.

A lab monkey is honestly not a pet

I didn't state what experiements the hypothetical strain I refered to would be involved in (kept as a 'pet' and observed to learn about psychology or kept in a lab and toxicity tested), or indeed any (it could be used for as a control) - I simply mentioned the word research.

its as reasonable to liken a lab monkey to a pet as to liken an innocent person on death row to someone queuing at a buffet, the two are completely unrelated.

I don't agree that the 2 are completely unrelated. In both cases the animal has restricted rights, is owned and most likely subject to something it wouldn't choose (such as castration). Granted one is more extreme than the other.

If you'd prefer, I'll change the example to a strain of cat with the same charactistics but instead of being useful for research looks similar to a cartoon figure and is very popular with the buying public.

The word that you're looking for is 'pet', a slave is a very particular thing, a working pit pony might be likened to a slave, a human forced to work under the dominion of another for little or no pay might be a slave, but a cat sleeping on a cushion, free to come and go as it pleases, possibly neutered and fed high quality tasty meals is a 'pet', there's no point calling it a slave because it just isn't one.

The first recorded use of the word slav (1290) was in the context of "person who is the property of another" (link). A very long article about the history of the word and the context it's been used in can be found here. It states in summary "In the strictest sense of the word, slaves are people who have no rights" and "The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..."

The word slave does not imply forced labour, it's just the obvious thing to use them for if you have them. Take the example of women sold/kidnapped as wifes into polygamous marriages and held captive so their husbands can rape them when they fancy and force them to bear children. Are they pets because they as they aren't forced to work, or slaves because they have no (or restricted) rights and are owned?

Strange to me you think it absurd to describe humanity as vermin, they breed like humans ( I would say rats but its unfair to rats) they spread/create disease, they destroy the world around them, they make monstrous creations, see themselves as gods, murder other species and each other without a care, seek to alter the fabric of life and are cruel often for just for cruelties sake. Self loathing? Species loathing? or just accurate?

Able to breed....spread disease....fight with rivals....fight with other species....take from their environment what they want with disregard for future generations or other species.... Name me a species that doesn't have these traits - they sound pretty common to me. All omnivores kill other species without a care. The others your list cannot be quantified for other species (how can you rate how godlike a species thinks it is?). Do you know any people who think they are god, kill other humans without a care and are cruel for cruelties sake? I'm not sure I want to meet your friends is the answer is yes . These aren't standard human traits, they are ones that an extremely small minority exert.

As far as I'm concerned vermin is simply a specisist derogatory term for a species that humans dislike for whatever reason. Personally I don't dislike or disriminate against any species, humans included.

As for going to hell... are you sure you aren't already there?

If you seriously believe you are living hell then can I respectfully suggest you consider seeing a psychiatrist? Personally I'm very happy with my life. I've countless things to be happy about and practicing mindfulness allows me to realise them on a regular basis. I could write an essay about all the fantastic things have happened in the past 24 hours and why I'm extremely lucky to be sitting here writting this post right now. Chances are that if you know what a computer is and have access to this forum you've also a lot to be thankful for and aren't living in hell.

[hazelbunny]

.
Personally I don't dislike or disriminate against any species.

Except pets .