Feelings on "Pets"

I reject all of your points, "euthanasia", "slaves", "they like it"?~

If you bring any of your colonial attitudes with intent to practice these ideals of your's towards my "family", it won't be pretty for ANY of you.~

Considering my objection was towards abandoning adult pets, and mentioned euthanasia only as an alternative towards releasing house animals into the wild... practising my ideals towards your "family" would consist of rescuing them from the streets and feeding, housing, and loving them. Yup, pure evil colonialism over here.

I now propose we convert this thread into pet pics. Because let's face it. What else is the internet really for?

Here's one of my "slaves" going through obviously undue hardship.

f512339b_o.jpeg
 
Worked into exhaustion.

Yes. :) The arduous challenge of spending the evening curled up on Auto's lap, soliciting pets and chin rubs, and licking our ice cream bowls clean. Oh, her life is so hard.
 
The horror ... the horror ...
 
Patches, stealing my blanket while keeping me company on a sick day:
picture.php


Baby (otherwise known as Bubba), showing off his fangs during a belleh rub:
picture.php


He's the puker, but I love him anyway. :)
 
I went to my profile and added a public album, then uploaded the pics. Clicking on them once they're uploaded gives you a couple of links you can paste into your post.

Or, you can upload them to a different site and surround the link with IMG tags.
 
Well someone got the memo about my dysfunctional "Awww" feline fetish. I'm in kitty heaven here. The only drawback is I'm a-worried Rainee'll notice me swooning over these *other cat* pics and get all jealous and shiz. (Technically not a problem since housecats are renowned for their "convey desire for -- no, *demand* one's desired attention, and damn well get it!" talent.)

Ohhh the maltreatment ... the suffering ... the emptiness where "free from the shackles of arrogant humans and all their ugly artificial consumerist technology" should be. It's all so ... painfully obvious in these pics ...

But I'll admit, part of the perception problem here may be that cats are so darn good at "taking life as it comes, lovin' *all* the little pleasures, etc."

Awww ... a "belleh rub" ... a walk through the kitty's magic angel hair ...

I've figured out Bubba's prob: He gets so into this ecstasy thing that it actually turns painful ("oh hurt me hurt me") and he's just *gotta* puke it all out.
 
I've figured out Bubba's prob: He gets so into this ecstasy thing that it actually turns painful ("oh hurt me hurt me") and he's just *gotta* puke it all out.

BWAHAHAHA! Love it.
Nah, he just eats too fast. The oaf.

He'll eat his food, then try to intimidate Patches away from HER food (so I get to play cop for a while), then when she's done, he finishes her food, then paces between plates in order to clean up any remaining food molecules that aren't chemically bonded to the plate.

Then, sometimes, he just horks it up and wants to start the process all over again.

Yesterday, he hit the couch, the rug, AND the floor (at the edge of the rug). He's lucky he's so damned cute. ;)
 
"free from the shackles of arrogant humans and all their ugly artificial consumerist technology"

Which reminds me of the day I was watching "Nature" on PBS - something about bird migrations with lots of pretty pictures.

Both cats, I shit you not, were ENTRANCED by the TV. It was hysterical.
I remember reading once somewhere that dogs and cats had a tough time seeing the pictures on old CRT televisions due to the frame rate (think "squigglevision" back in the days of scrambled cable). Now with LCD and plasma TVs, they don't have this problem.

Not sure how true this is, but I have never seen cats riveted to the TV before. Luckily, they didn't hurl themselves at it in a hunting frenzy.
 
My "the other V arm" bro-friend is a hockey fan and a shutterbug (with a degree in photography no less), and one his funnest prizes is a pic of Rainee watching a hockey game on our evil big-screen TV. In the photo, she actually looks like she's sitting in the stands.

Re (from YouAreHere):
"He'll eat his food, then try to intimidate Patches away from *her* food (so I get to play cop for a while), then when she's done, he finishes her food, then paces between plates in order to clean up any remaining food molecules that aren't chemically bonded to the plate."

Heheheheheh ... that's good ... sigh ...

Re:
"Then, sometimes, he just horks it up and wants to start the process all over again."

Jeeezus man! He's got bulimia.

[shaking head]

Perhaps if he could lie on a couch in a psychiatrist's office, he could talk it all out. Poor guy.
 
Really?? Chubba Bubba? Crikey! Have you no heart at all? What about his tender feelings and his flagging self-esteem? Poor guy probably cries himself to sleep. "Oh God I'm so fat." Ya big bully you.

"Chubba" at the shrink's office: "It all started when I was a kid and my diabolical human slave-driver master refused to bring me any half-dead mice."
 
"It all started when I was a kid and my diabolical human slave-driver master refused to bring me any half-dead mice."

It's only because I haven't learned how to kill my own when Patches brings the dead ones upstairs for me. I'm a slow learner.
 
Awww, don't beat yourself up. Patches just probably needs a "Teach a Monkey to Hunt in Only 30 Days" training program.
 
Awww, don't beat yourself up. Patches just probably needs a "Teach a Monkey to Hunt in Only 30 Days" training program.

"I keep repeating step one and she doesn't DO anything! Where's the 'troubleshooting' section in this book?!"
 
A long time ago we Humans befriended non-Humans like wolves and it was a true friendship one of mutual agreement to stay with one another so that we may both benefit from each other.~

Like other animals, we Humans have taken other animals from the wild, killed them, and eaten them.~ Over time the time between taking them from the wild and killing them got longer until we started raising them out of the wild for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten.~

Both of these relationships were separate for a long time.~

At some point we stopped treating our 'non-Human friends' truly as 'friends' and instead they become some thing in-between what they once were "true friends" and what the animals we capture from the wild or raise from birth out of the wild to kill and to eat "are".~

I ask, "Why?"~

and

I ask another question, "Was it worth it?"~

I'm not sure why Humans did this, but every reason I've ever heard to 'justify' this is 'trivial' in my opinion.~



Your right, the damage has already been done.~ Perhaps cutting the genitals off and out of these "Property Pets" will help stop the overpopulation.~ Another question, "Why is this 'Justifiable' to force upon non-Humans, but not Humans?" Aren't we Humans ourselves overpopulated on many parts of this planet?~ Is this a adequate solution for either non-Humans or Humans and if it is, is it a permanent solution to always be practiced?~


How do we get back to that: the times when a long time ago Humans and certain non-Humans were 'truly friends'?~


Is releasing all 'non-Human Pets' to go any where they wish to go the solution?~

Many Humans would most often refuse to face the truth, but the truth is many "Pets" that can not be allowed to roam without dying are a direct result of "horrible parenting or caregiving": they are often never raised to navigate the dangers of life in 'civilization'.~ So not only are many "Pets" not ever allowed to roam on their own, but if they ever to just happen to do so they have not been prepared for a world (civilization) they have often been born into.~ Would this be 'justifiable' with a "Human" child?~


What about the ones no Human is taking care of but have been captured and are put into cages at a 'pound'?~ Would it be best to release these 'surplus' 'Pets' into the wild?~ Not all of them would die in the wild, is that a better life than spending the rest of their lives in a cage made short when 'their time is up' because they have not been 'adopted' and are each for sure killed for circumstances taken out of their control?~

The reality of things and the truth of things may not always be pretty, but is any one even willing to even seriously think about these questions?~
 
Last edited:
You're just going to ignore the posts responding to your outsized reaction? Just gloss over that? Pretend it didn't happen?

I wrote my thoughts on the matter which you asked for in your original post. You had a reaction where you threatened people - who do not know you and have no idea where you live - with harm. You threatened people you don't know and will never meet because they disagreed with you. Do you not see how disportionate and disturbing that is? You have done this in other threads - had a disportionately angry response to something someone posted. That's a pattern, not a bad day.

You seem unable to not to take everything personally. You've written elsewhere that you have no boundaries. That may be why you cannot tell when someone is writing their own opinion in response to your thread and a personal attack. There was no personal attack in anything anyone wrote. People just disagreed with you and stated why they disagreed.

I hope you think about this and get some help. It's not uncommon to have no boundaries. Not healthy but not uncommon.
 
A long time ago we Humans befriended non-Humans like wolves and it was a true friendship one of mutual agreement to stay with one another so that we may both benefit from each other.~

[...]

At some point we stopped treating our 'non-Human friends' truly as 'friends' and instead they become some thing in-between what they once were "true friends" and what the animals we capture from the wild or raise from birth out of the wild to kill and to eat "are".~

Something in between companion and food? Which is what, exactly?

And how does "you perform for me and I will give you warmth and sustenance" equal friendship? If my cat stops mousing, does the agreement end? No, because companionship and affection has become part of that definition.

How is "you do nothing, and I will STILL give you warmth, sustenance, and affection" worse than that?

How do we get back to that: the times when a long time ago Humans and certain non-Humans were 'truly friends'?~

What does that even mean? The dictionary definition of friend begins with
a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard., not "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Truly affectionate, or using each other for benefit of some kind?

Do you feel "friendship" equals the relationship between humans and working animals (horses, sheepdogs, etc.), and not the companion aspect?

I believe we have both nowadays. You seem to not agree.

Many Humans would most often refuse to face the truth, but the truth is many "Pets" that can not be allowed to roam without dying are a direct result of "horrible parenting or caregiving": they are often never raised to navigate the dangers of life in 'civilization'.

Pointing fingers aside, what would you see as the solution? The damage, as you noted above, has been done. Who here is qualified to teach a cat or dog to hunt or survive on its own? Hell, who here is qualified to survive on his/her own without modern amenities?

It's all well and good to point the finger emphatically and say "BAD," but it does nothing to fix the problem, and alienates many who are doing their best to care for those animals who seem to WANT companionship.

~ So not only are many "Pets" not ever allowed to roam on their own, but if they ever to just happen to do so they have not been prepared for a world (civilization) they have often been born into.~ Would this be 'justifiable' with a "Human" child?~

Bad analogy.
Humans of the modern day ARE equipped to raise human children of the modern day.

Most humans of the modern day are NOT equipped to raise human children to survive without amenities such as store-bought food, running water, electricity, heat, etc.

Evidently, this is justifiable, as most first-world families have lived like this for decades.

What about the ones no Human is taking care of but have been captured and are put into cages at a 'pound'?~ Would it be best to release these 'surplus' 'Pets' into the wild?~ Not all of them would die in the wild, is that a better life than spending the rest of their lives in a cage made short when 'their time is up' because they have not been 'adopted' and are each for sure killed for circumstances taken out of their control?~

But not all of them die in a cage, either. Not sure what the statistics are, though, in comparing the mortality rate in shelters versus the mortality rate when turned out into the wild. Remember diseases will also contribute to this, although not immediately.

I do understand the heartache of shelters that need to euthanize their animals. I'm lucky enough to live near an MSPCA facility that can keep animals without having to do so. They also rescue and rehabilitate animals that have been mistreated (including farm animals and horses), so I would like to believe they are doing the animals a service, as opposed to turning them out to the wild (although wild horses in MA/NH would be pretty cool).

The reality of things and the truth of things may not always be pretty, but is any one even willing to even seriously think about these questions?~

Sure.

But, then there's this question:
You're just going to ignore the posts responding to your outsized reaction? Just gloss over that? Pretend it didn't happen?

Just as valid, no?
 
Back
Top