Jump to content

homes sought for pets of returning Brits


Recommended Posts

[quote]Just out of idle curiosity, in what ways, precisely, are dogs and cats 'civilised'?[/quote]

They're not, Dick.  They don't even come close to being civilized - after all, they don't commit genocide, they don't mug old ladies, they don't bomb each other, they rarely hunt or kill if they're not hungry, they don't pollute the atmosphere, they don't cheat and lie and get praised for it, they don't experiment on people in order to produce comestics and oven cleaners, they don't kill each other for meaningless political or religious slogans....  Would you like me to continue?

Okay, now to satisfy MY idle curiosity - in what ways, precisely, are humans civilized?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you like it or not, Nick, we certainly were discussing humans - unless you, unlike the rest of our species, have now evolved out of the animal kingdom?

How we act towards other people is most certainly not "of no relevance" nor is it "entirely another subject".  From my own personal experience I have noted that people who truly care for animals also truly care for other people and vice versa.  It has also been my observation that the converse is usually true.  Despite the decrying, in some quarters, of people who are animal lovers on the basis that they don't care about starving and mistreated people I have never yet observed this to be true.

I am intrigued that "at the top of the food chain we have the right (by power of superiority) to make descisions about creatures below us. We have the right to (eg.) eat cows and sheep, ride horses and use dogs to lead the blind and locate explosives."  It is quite possible that I am younger/bigger/stronger/more blood-thirsty than you, for example.  Where would that place us in relation to each other on the food chain?  Am I now qualified to make decisions about YOU - or to eat you, for that matter?  The point is that the sign of civilization, be it in a society or an individual, is that it does not equate "power" with "right" and that it does not feel that, having granted itself "rights", it is now acceptable to use those rights to tyrannise other creatures which may find themselves in its power.  Even very recent history teaches us that that is a very dark road to tread.

As to "keeping of animals out of their environment is wrong" - how precisely would you define this?  More importantly, how would you achieve it, especially since the apparently praise-worthy creatures "at the top of the food chain" seem to be doing their very best to destroy the environment of all of us?

I have to agree with you on some points - there are people who, usually through ignorance or emotional or intellectual inadequacy, mistreat animals through what they perceive as kindness - the overfed Peke you cite is indeed a very good example.  The breeding of many pedigree animals to have "desirable" characteristics, like noses they can't breathe through, eyes they can't open properly, bone and genetic defects etc, is absolute anathema to me.  I have to admit also that lap-dogs are not my own most favourite creatures - to me, if I can't stroke a dog while standing upright then it's not a "proper" dog.  It is certainly true that if many animal "owners" were more responsible about neutering their animals and caring for them properly then there would be fewer strays, fewer dumped animals and fewer people having to strain every sinew to rescue and rehome them.  I also agree with you about dog licences - reinstate them AND make them much more expensive!

I don't think you have to worry that anyone might have mistaken you for an "ALF-er" or a "vegitarian", so you can rest easy on that score!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Whether you like it or not, Nick, we certainly were discussing humans - unless you, unlike the rest of our species, have now evolved out of the animal kingdom? How we act towards other people is most...[/quote]

OK, I'll claim the right of reply - just for once!

My opinion on humankind Ain't relevant to this discussion. I will not defend the actions of many of the Worlds' people or governments, as they are indefensible.

You don't have the right to eat me (or threaten or beat me) because my rights are protected by other means. This, broadly speaking, does not apply to "domestic" (as opposed to domesticated) animals. You are right, power does not equate to right (but see my comment above!). Of course I do not regard it as acceptable to tyrannise anything, but as is obvious from the original thread of this post, a problem exists to which we are all duty-bound to find a solution. To extropolate further; There are (or were) posters to this forum who bred "fighting" dogs, some of which, such as the Saffordshire Bull Terrier, are still legal. What is the reasoning behind these animals? Are we to believe that they were bred not to fight? What else do they do & why would one want one?

It is not for me to define the environment to which an animal belongs. However I understand that the Peke does not belong in a suburban flat or a Lab in a Home Counties cul-de-sac. A Labrador belongs at the front end of a shotgun, the Peke belongs ..... nowhere. I have no issues with hunting (for food) or the use of animals as food. Nowhere is there more cruelty to dogs (eg.) than behind closed suburban doors.

Apologies, but another example; My neighbour, here in Brittany, is a hunter (of whatever). He has two Bassett-like dogs that live 160 hours / week in a shed and are brought out 8 hours on a Thursday to hunt. Is that cruel? The dogs seem quite happy with their lot (and Christian spends all evening singing to them!) & I guess they were brought up to live like that - it is their environment, perhaps?

You & I are not that far seperated in conviction. However, I belive that the solution to the problems that you (and Christine) are trying to resolve are better served by making it much more difficult for idiots to own dogs - by whatever means!

Back to the subject of circuses - I saw some horrible cruelty when I was a youngster. It is interesting to note that most circusues (in the UK) don't include any animals. So we have made some progress.

Enough already!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human beings are civilised in many ways. First of all, and of course this gives us the word, they live in cities to some extent.

How else - the concept of rights for individuals (even other species) - you must agree with that, surely.

The scope of these rights, to freedom, to existence, to own property, to find happiness and fulfilment.

Of course I see the underlying thrust of your answer and question as you reply that animals are SO much better than us naughty humans. What an old cliche that is! Trotted out by the hard-of-thinking all the time. Animals are animals. Whether or not we treat them well may cause them physical pain, but they are not sapient. To assume they are is simply woolly-minded anthropomorphism. Non-thinking, but ooh, aren't they cute. Yeah, till they eat you or simply follow their instinctive agenda in some other way.

As Nick alludes to in his post, our treatment of animals should be respectful and allow them some dignity. These are not concepts which the animals would understand, of course, but the manner in which we treat all other living things reflects our own spiritual state, our karma if you like.

A while back I was asked by a man with a street stall to sign a petition against animal experimentation. I demurred and he demanded (really demanded) to know why. I told him that, distasteful though it may be, there were circumstances in which I thought animal experimentation was justified. He then pursued me down the streat screaming (really screaming) at me that I was a murderer (and I think he said I was a paedophile as well). Nice. Such pleasant people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Human beings are civilised in many ways. First of all, and of course this gives us the word, they live in cities to some extent."  That presumably makes termites and bees civilized, I assume?  It is hardly worth pointing it out but the concept of civilization has extended somewhat, at least in certain cases, to include rather more than congregating in specific areas.

"the concept of rights for individuals (even other species) - you must agree with that, surely."  Certainly, I do - have I given you the impression that I don't?  I suspect that, by this criterion, I may be able to claim to be more civilized than some....

"Of course I see the underlying thrust of your answer and question as you reply that animals are SO much better than us naughty humans. What an old cliche that is! Trotted out by the hard-of-thinking all the time. Animals are animals. Whether or not we treat them well may cause them physical pain, but they are not sapient. To assume they are is simply woolly-minded anthropomorphism. Non-thinking, but ooh, aren't they cute. Yeah, till they eat you or simply follow their instinctive agenda in some other way."  And here I was, thinking that sophistry was dead and gone!  Putting ill-thought-out words into other people's mouths is an art which takes some time to master, I fear. 

Your "hard-of-thinking" jibe, I trust, is simply a straw being grasped rather than intended as a well-reasoned thrust?  If you feel that anthropomorphism is inherent in the concept of animals being sapient then I assume you are using your own thought processes as a yard-stick, or do you feel qualified to speak for us all?  The whole point about how well we morally shape up against animals is, regrettably, not to show how much better than we they are but rather to remind you of how much worse we are than your rose-tinted glasses have managed to allow you to perceive.  The question is: are we morally justified in presuming to hand out or refuse "rights" to other animals, be they homo sap or any other species?

It will come as no surprise to you that I find animal experimentation both repugnant and unjustifiable.  It has given rise to many disasters and near-disasters and appears to have little, if any, scientific validity.  I oppose it even for the development of animal medicines, which would be the only conceivable justification for it - I imagine that, in the same vein, you would oppose human experimentation.

Are we to assume that you now equate anyone who is concerned with animal welfare with the chap who pursued you down the street?  I am certainly sorry that you have had such an experience but you have to accept that there are, after all, nut-cases everywhere...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of sympathy with what Nick says, indeed in so many cases it would be much better if humans did not keep animals. But that is totally impractical - what would we do for milk, eggs etc? So I think we have a responsibility to those animals which are here as a result of human activity, and that includes dogs, cats etc which for whatever reason are no longer, or have never been able to be, properly cared for.

Where animals are concerned, 'welfare' and 'rights' are two concepts which are frequently confused. Dick's experience with the petition demonstrates the consequences of that. Personally, I'm all for animal welfare but just can't accept most of what 'animal rights' stands for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I have a lot of sympathy with what Nick says, indeed in so many cases it would be much better if humans did not keep animals. But that is totally impractical - what would we do for milk, eggs etc? So ...[/quote]

Thanks for that, BUT;

I never suggested that the keeping of cows for milk, hens for eggs (or meat) or horses to ride, etc. Is wrong. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. It is simple evolution, we have developed away from the hunter-gatherer into farmers. We now raise our food, rather than chasing it as a (wild) dog or cat would.

To make the point again, the keeping of animals merely as ornaments is wrong.

Animals don't have (or shouldn't need) any rights. It is only us imposing human standards upon them. If a wild dog can no longer sustain itself, it dies & returns to the food chain. If a 15 year-old lapdog becomes diabetic, then (in the UK at least) someone will shell out £10/day for drugs. Why? Does the dog appreciate it? Or are "we" doing it for ourselves?

I know I said I wouldn't, but to pick up on a KJ point, experiments on animals are fundamentally wrong. However, the argument that there is no scientific validity in animal testing is specious, at best. Which makes it a dilemma - as we evolve, we need to progress, to (eg.) develop medicines that require testing. Expanding the food chain argument, what is the difference between a Neolithic man deciding that fox is not edible & 21st century man deciding that a cancer treatment needs testing. I'm all for testing on Humans - few will volunteer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Bill on the difference between rights and welfare, but I maintain that people who state that animals are 'better' than humans are thinking with something other than their brain.

As I get older I find it more and more tempting just to tell silly people that they are being silly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]" As someone who grew up in a circus & with a Daughter who is vet, I reckon I am qualified to say; " I can't speak for your taste in vino, Nick, but I would have to say that the rest of your post...[/quote]

'.........or when one is away from the keyboard of the PC and stone cold sober.....'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to stay out of this but on deep reflection I think I had better confess.

 

 

 

 

I am guilty of rescueing (you see I still have yet to come to grips fully with my crimes) kid catnapping 3 6 month old feral kittens.

I am guilty of having had them spayed and neutered.

I am guilty of providing them with an over warm, over comfortable and unnaturally dry  environment to live in.

I am guilty of taking them to the vets where he has regularly abused them by sticking needles in them and pumping them full of unnatural vaccines.  And on occasion has stolen their blood, simply to make nefarious tests that have in no way enhanced their natural lives.

I am guilty of ensuring that they have had regular food a water.

I am guilty of providing human comfort when they seek it.

 

 

I recognise that I should have left them in their natural environment,

to be teased by the local yobos

to run the risks of local traffic flattening them

to be half starved all the time

to run the high risk of a slow and painful death from feline enterisis or similar complaint

to constantly fight for territory with other abandoned (there I go again) wild cats and end up with untreated cuts and absesses.

to run the risk of them being caught and turning up as number 25 at the Chinese restaurant (yes they were prosecuted)

to run the risk of being burnt alive when the abandoned building they were sheltering in was torched.

and finally to interbreed and ensure that the following generations would enjoy the same splendid natural conditions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Andy, I've done that as well. It isn't the caring for the animals I object to, or finding great pleasure in them, as I do that as well, it's believing that they are somehow superior and we are inferior, of ascribing to them qualities which they don't have. Of seriously middled thinking.

 

Wasps, civilised?

 

Dictionary anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yes, Andy, I've done that as well. It isn't the caring for the animals I object to, or finding great pleasure in them, as I do that as well, it's believing that they are somehow superior and we are inferior, of ascribing to them qualities which they don't have. Of seriously middled thinking."

It's good to hear that you don't object to caring for animals, Dick - it sort of restores my faith in human nature!  I've no idea if I am the one to whom you refer as being guilty of "middled thinking" (presumably a Lib Dem thought process?) but I presumptuously assume that I am so honoured.  Just in case my language was too convoluted for you the first time round - let me state that I make no such suggestion per se.  However, in some ways animals are undoubtedly superior - they are much more likely to be able to survive in what remains of the wild than a human with only the weapons that he was born with and the much-vaunted intelligence which gives us our self-defined superiority is in lamentably short supply among the vast majority of our species.  We are all happy to take the benefit of other's work and intelligence without troubling to understand what it is, how it works and what hidden pitfalls may attend its use.  Our technological "superiority" involves us finding ever more efficient ways to despoil and pollute our own planet, destroy our own (and other) species, rob and cheat others - all whilst smugly congratulating ourselves on our cleverness.  Animals are too primitive to do this so far but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be equally as idiotic as mankind if they were to get the chance.  Truth to tell, they would probably have to go some to be simultaneously as evil, stupid and smug as we have shown ourselves to be. 

I'm well aware that it's not really possible to communicate on any meaningful terms with most animals but that doesn't make them inferior, it simply makes them different.  They have their strengths and weaknesses, exactly as we do but to define superiority in terms which only permit us to possess it and then claim this as some sort of logical imperative simply flies in the face of any form of rationality.  I am sure that you and I could agree on all sorts of topics but we will just have to agree to differ on this one; we are just different in this particular aspect and we should perhaps keep our own counsel as to whether anyone can claim the moral or intellectual high ground in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a question of who is inferior or superior, whether it be towards animals or other human beings.  The point is that if someone needs help, then it is better to do so than look the other way.

I took care of my mother-in-law for five years as she was suffering from Alzheimer and none of her real children wanted the burden.  I cannot describe the wonderful moments we spent together, despite her condition.  There was mutual trust and we lived "the moment", the only way to be with them.  It was not her fault and it is not the animals' fault.  We can only try to make the best of a situation, we cannot change the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I was going to stay out of this but on deep reflection I think I had better confess. I am guilty of rescueing (you see I still have yet to come to grips fully with my crimes) kid catn...[/quote]

Sarcasm is, as they say, the lowest form of wit.

Besides which, you aptly demonstrate exactly what I claim.

"People" should not be allowed to interfere in the lives of animals. You are not to blame for rescuing a handful of kittens (although I can't understand why you did). The guilty party is the person who allowed a pet to become feral. This is what upsets me. Common sense dictates that the whole colony should be rounded up & either rehomed (and sterilised) or destroyed, to prevent the further expansion of the colony. Stark truth, but practical.

Feral colonies in English towns are not the natural habitat if the domestic cat - we have the Egyptians to blame for domesticating them in the first place, and the Romans for bringing them here.

Me, I love cats - mainly because the are so ... enigmatic? We have a couple, both rescue animals, both from people who no longer wanted them. That makes them ********s, and me a mug. But not wrong, nor should I be the butt of ill-informed sarcasm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an excellent discussion. I appreciate and agree with most of Nick's views and his bxxxs for going against the 'PC' grain as it were. I also agree with Kayjay.

Much of mankind would be in Dick's camp I guess. Because animals cannot speak words they are considered inferior to man (and women). Personally I always thought non verbal communication required at least the same level of intelligence as humans.

I believe there was no missing link. The history of 'intelligent' White homosapians goes back hundreds of thousands of years. We have no natural connection to the animal world. We desire the unnatural keeping of animals as pets to give us a feeling of belonging to the earth. Dogs no matter how domesticated have to greater or lesser degrees a wildness in them. Cats a lot more so. We appreciate the differences within our safe domestic enviroment. Then of course we have the bad 'ownership' issues and the wildness is unleashed and quite literally bites us on the bum.

Pets are here to stay. Wild animals are in decline. The human virus continues it's destruction of everything natural. The best option in my opinion is the removal of the white human kind. This will not happen voluntarily.

Despite being 'top of the food chain' we have so many weaknesses and we will continue to mistreat domestic pets whilst others due to weakness will continue to mop up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, exactly how many creatures are there on this planet who knowingly destroy the environment on which they rely to survive.  Just the one methinks!  So, who is the more intelligent. My vote goes to the animals.  Somewhere along the way the human race lost it's ability to live in harmony with planet Earth.  Sad for us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Hmmm, exactly how many creatures are there on this planet who knowingly destroy the environment on which they rely to survive. Just the one methinks! So, who is the more intelligent. My vote goes to...[/quote]

Harley ".....Hmmm, exactly how many creatures are there on this planet who knowingly destroy the environment on which they rely to survive. Just the one methinks! So, who is the more intelligent. My vote goes to the animals.

"...Somewhere along the way the human race lost it's ability to live in harmony with planet Earth. Sad for us all. Sad for us all eh"

I would rather you didn't speak on my behalf, thanks.

And how many of us "humans" are deliberately destroying the planet ? Most of us and nearly all the people I know, simply have to live in the best way we can, rather like aninals in that respect.

Who are the most intelligent, well a human who can ask that kind of question, has to put the whole thing in doubt I guess..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Miki, I didn't realise I was speaking for anyone in particular and if my post in any way caused offence to you I am devastated.  I thought that I was in fact, stating the obvious.  As a race, we are destroying our planet.  You only have to pick up a newspaper, turn on the television or in some places, look out of the window to see that.  I don't personally think we are living the best we can.  I think, if we all put in more effort (and I include myself in this) then I think we could make vast improvements in our environment which includes taking better care of our (in some cases) long suffering domestic and wild animals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who are the most intelligent, well a human who can ask that kind of question, has to put the whole thing in doubt I guess.............."

You're absolutely right again, Miki - of course we are the most intelligent species on the planet.  We have to be, since we are the ones who define what intelligence is..... Maybe we now ought to stop congratulating ourseves on being grown-up and intelligent and start acting as though we actually were?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]" Who are the most intelligent, well a human who can ask that kind of question, has to put the whole thing in doubt I guess.............. " You're absolutely right again, Miki - of course we are the ...[/quote]

This old cliché about us all destroying the planet is quite true but emotions run high on who is to blame. Personally we have a wood burner, dodgy eh, we drive a car, dodgy again eh, and so on. All those that shout it out, inc no doubt people who say we are all ruining this planet, to a person, add to it and why, we can do so very little to change anything on a personal level. One day I guess, it is inevitable that something will destroy it all but my money is on something similar to what has just happened in the USA but even more catastrophic.

If you think you can change ALL the ways, the Chinese, the Russians and indeed the good old US of A from contributing massively to the problems we will (or indeed, perhaps see now) have no doubt have put upon us, then we personally, will as they say, be simply peeing in the sea in as much as the contribution we will be making to help !

"...You're absolutely right again, Miki - of course we are the most intelligent species on the planet. We have to be, since we are the ones who define what intelligence is..... Maybe we now ought to stop congratulating ourseves on being grown-up and intelligent and start acting as though we actually were?"

Again, it’s WE though ? I don’t ever congratulate myself on what has happened.

Lets not get emotional over this, I personally am just ONE person, and alone I can do almost zilch about anything really, nor can millions and millions of others “of singular persons” and before the old cliché is pulled in to this, about how we can ALL do something, yes sure, I take bottles, cartons and papers to the right place and I use the dechetterie for other stuff, that’ is more than our cats can do for a start !! And we don’t do thingy's all over the place either (“we” being our family, I cannot speak for all on here though)

So sorry but I detest the oh so moralistic lectures and what WE can all do, ALL has to be the majority or perhaps nearly everyone or perhaps it's true and we are just peeing.......

Oh, and Harley can you explain in more detail your line about "My vote goes to the animals"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure Miki, no problem.  I vote that animals may not be the "dumb" creatures that we keep treating them as, that's all.

It's so good to be able to have this discussion without anyone showing signs of stress or agression.  This surely puts us higher up the intelligence scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...