My cat literally does NOTHING for me. He simply lives here and comes and goes out of the house as he pleases.

That's not slavery. The only thing I'm getting is an awesome friendship with a great cat.

---

I told him what you said about him being a slave, he started licking his own ass.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Slavery is commonly understood to mean the enslavement or indentured servitude of other humans. If you're trying to say that the way we treat animals is similar to the way we treated slaves, even if I agreed, that would only make it "like slavery." If you intend to imply that it is immoral in the same way that slavery was immoral, you need to point to more than similarity; that some behaviors are similar doesn't imply that the morality of the behaviors is similar. Failing that, this just seems like a non point.

(March 26, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Release your cat! End the slavery!

LADIES! SET YOUR PUSSIES FREE!

Quote:You own the cat.

You've never had a cat, I see.

(March 26, 2014 at 1:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Humans value their freedom and self determination, traits that our greater mental capacity allows us to conceptualize. Meanwhile, the majority of domesticated animals seem just fine with sticking around the humans; in fact, that's an evolutionarily beneficial trait for them.

Can you support this? Things like barns and fences and cages obviously indicate that the enclosed animals are not just fine with sticking around.

(March 26, 2014 at 12:57 pm)alpha male Wrote: Humans routinely limit the movement of members of other species, force them to do certain things, and claim ownership of them. To do these things to other humans is called slavery. Is out treatment of animals slavery? If not, why not? What's wrong with the position that people who own animals are slavers, and people who eat eggs or dairy products or go to the circus are promoting slavery?

I think this is a complicated ethical question that deserves to be taken seriously.
I differentiate between pet ownership and domesticated livestock, animal experiments and so on. I think most pet ownership is a type of symbiosis, and that's probably how it came to evolve.

I once ended up at a seminar about animal ethics, partly by chance. In the end one of the panelists expressed the view that we have the right to exploit animals, because we have assumed the right to do this. (Well, that was the gist of it. He had more explanations, but I won't tire you with them here)

I found this very disturbing, but in some ways it was one of the few arguments expressed during the seminar that made any real sense to me. I suppose you could call this an authoritarian view. I've often felt that rights aren't something you just receive -- they have to be fought for in some way, even if its your ancestors or someone who is sympathetic to you who once did the fighting.

(March 26, 2014 at 2:28 pm)sven Wrote: I once ended up at a seminar about animal ethics, partly by chance. In the end one of the panelists expressed the view that we have the right to exploit animals, because we have assumed the right to do this. (Well, that was the gist of it. He had more explanations, but I won't tire you with them here)

Like I said, convenience. To the extent that humans can ease the suffering of animals, we do so... as long as it doesn't deprive us of something we want or need (food, clothes, entertainment, plowed fields, etc). I don't think of it as slavery because when I think of that term I think of people acting against people, not animals. But you could make a case that it comes down to us deciding that we're sufficiently above other creatures so as to treat them in such a manner.

Quote:Like I said, convenience. To the extent that humans can ease the suffering of animals, we do so... as long as it doesn't deprive us of something we want or need (food, clothes, entertainment, plowed fields, etc). I don't think of it as slavery because when I think of that term I think of people acting against people, not animals. But you could make a case that it comes down to us deciding that we're sufficiently above other creatures so as to treat them in such a manner.

Yes. It is somewhat to disturbing to me to think like this, but I agree.

If someone thinks exploitation of animals is a form of slavery and they want to fight for animal rights within the confines of democratic principles, I personally see nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't want to be the legislator who decides what 'human' rights animals should have if they win, however.

(March 26, 2014 at 2:18 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(March 26, 2014 at 1:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Humans value their freedom and self determination, traits that our greater mental capacity allows us to conceptualize. Meanwhile, the majority of domesticated animals seem just fine with sticking around the humans; in fact, that's an evolutionarily beneficial trait for them.

Can you support this? Things like barns and fences and cages obviously indicate that the enclosed animals are not just fine with sticking around.

What did the cow say to you when you asked it where it would like to travel on holiday?

Your stomach I bet.

Besides, doesn't your holy book basically say that animals are here just for us to fuck around with as we see fit?

My two cents: With freedom and rights comes responsibility and obligations. Animals have the right to a good quality life, as a technologically advanced species we humans have an obligation to not treat other lifeforms with cruelty. But to say that animals have any other right is ridiculous, because they have no responsibility to us or even themselves.