I have an unpopular theory that I want to run by the rest of you autists. Can you convince me that owning a pet is not slavery? I'm not saying that slavery is bad, just that owning a pet is akin to slavery.
It also strikes me as extremely hypocritical to be a ''zoophile'' and at the same time have pets locked in your apartment, confined of their freedoms and shit for your amusement.
>pic unrelated
Pets are not forced to work
Pets are not sentient as far as we know
Our cats are not locked in the house, they are free to leave whenever they grab someone's attention to let them out.
also, I'm Pretty sure Zoophile means Bestiality-doing person
>Pets are not forced to work
I don't think work is a necessary component for 'slavery'. You can still be 'owned' by someone and not do any work.
>Pets are not sentient as far as we know
I'm pretty sure vegans will disagree with you. Doesn't that mean a vegan must not own pets?
>Our cats are not locked in the house
Maybe not yours. Most people I know that have cats almost never leave them out. Ever. And dogs always on a ''leash'' of course (what does that remind you of).
>I'm Pretty sure Zoophile means Bestiality-doing person
Maybe, I just meant the greek word for 'those who love animals' (in a non sexual way).
A lot of pets are evolved and bred to live in captivity. At this point you do have choices tho. You can either set them loose like a tard and they will be killed either by other animals or through their inexperience with surviving outside. Or you can stop breeding them and watch the species in question die out all together.
It is an interesting question I will give you that. But the short answer is that no. It is not immoral to create animal life lived in captivity for human benefit. To think so is to attribute human qualities given to humans by god to animals that simply do not have them. A cow is happy to stand and eat as it is all it knows and has the mental capacity to understand, until it is released outside and starts enjoying this. In which case you should give the cows traditions as well as we do with pets. This I consider to be good on the chance they have the ability to enjoy them. And certainly cows do dance around and jump (for joy) when released in spring time for example.
We can argue this further if you want to just specify something.
Hush.
More like I'm going to rape that bunny if it keeps teasing me.
What job does your pet rabbit do?
A better comparison would be keeping a prisoner, but that all depends upon how you treat them I guess. I'm pretty sure that a rabbit would rather be living in a cage with a bunch of food and let outside when the weather is nice on to chew some grass/run around than actually live in the wilderness where 30 different other animals want to kill him.
Sure he won't get to hump females, but other than that he's living the rabbit dream.
Does it really matter? Would you prefer the alternative of freeing every cat and dog into the wild where the cats kill off the local wildlife instantly?
>A lot of pets are evolved and bred to live in captivity
That's one of the main arguments I thought of myself. Most pets evolved to be pets indeed. But then again, even slavery can be 'learned', can it not? Just because someone enjoys the state of being a slave (protip: even SENTIENT human beings often enjoy being slaves. Consciously and everything) it's not hard for an animal to learn it through extended periods of time.
Like I said in my first post, I'm not against it. I just can't see why it's not classified as slavery. I find it hypocritical.
>It is not immoral to create animal life lived in captivity for human benefit.
Again, I'm not arguing the morality of the whole thing. 60 years ago some people thought it's ok to hold human slaves. I'm just saying that it's not really any different.
>A cow is happy to stand and eat as it is all it knows and has the mental capacity to understand
Oh and like I said here If we take this argument for granted and knowing that vegans disagree 100% with it, is it hypocritical for vegans to own a pet?
This made me spit out my drink. My sides.
Geeze. There are allot of really fucked up retarded people posting threads on Sup Forums these days.
>What job does your pet rabbit do?
(I don't own any pets)
It doesn't do anything, it just lives for my entertainment so I can show it off and have fun with it while it's confined.
>A better comparison would be keeping a prisoner, but that all depends upon how you treat them I guess
Good point. Prisoners are treated amazingly in Finnish prisons; I'd say some have it much better than pets.
>other than that he's living the rabbit dream
Except the main problem with these arguments is the so called ''we think that others think just the same way as we do''.
We can't even judge other humans based on our own set of life principles, let alone animals. We can't currently be 100% sure what's their preference.
>Sister had a bird
>Fed it, kept it safe
>It kept trying to escape
>One day found it dead for no reason
>Does it really matter?
Not really I guess
>Would you prefer the alternative
Perhaps the alternative is worse, I have no problem with slave owners either. Just want to see if anyone else can consider them slaves as well.
THICC
Dogs, like humans, are too domesticated to return to nature. Cats have always done what they liked.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
If anything I'm slave to my cat. Feed n Healthcare for free. Free lodging. He goes out at night to come back @ 5AM to eat n knock the fuck out as me n the rest of the family gets out for work (730-4 for me). I come back this nigger just wakes up and eats more n just kinda chills till it's time to go out again.
I'm jealous of his life.
Pets are property.
Slaves are property.
The only difference in law between a slave and an animal is that a human can be released from slavery and thereby gain the position of a human, something a non-human animal is inherently incapable of.
In addition there are conditional forms slavery, like serfdom, were special rules apply as to what a slave is and which rights the owner has.
We already have abolished slavery and upgraded animal ownership to be conditional by establishing laws to protect them. This is as good as it gets for animals in regards to the law until an animal gains the higher thought processes required to consciously fulfill its duties to society, which none have shown any tendency to.
If you wish to consider pet ownership slavery, you will also have to consider that slavery is the only condition in which animals can peacefully coexist with humans in human societies. To release an animal from "slavery" would be to release it into the state of a wild animal, with no rights or protection, a state of permanent war with mankind and we are vastly better equipped for that.
>What job does your pet rabbit do?
forgot to add that you can consider its job to be ''my entertainer''.
>Dogs, like humans, are too domesticated to return to nature
Yep, like I mentioned in a previous post that's maybe the strongest argument.
>I'm jealous of his life.
I know what you mean, my best friend has 4 cats and says stuff like you. Yet, sometimes we 'envy' someone's life but we don't REALLY know what it feels like to be them.
I see that with humans vs humans a lot too, they often think person x has it so much better when in fact person x is actually suicidal or etc.
And we 'supposedly' understand humans better than we do cats.
Yes pets are property. There is nothing wrong with that.
>you will also have to consider that slavery is the only condition in which animals can peacefully coexist with humans in human societies.
Now change animals to 'niggers' in your sentence and realize how many people claim the same thing. Unironically way too many.
>To release an animal from "slavery" would be to release it into the state of a wild animal, with no rights or protection, a state of permanent war with mankind and we are vastly better equipped for that.
I see your point, yet in a way it reinforces my theory. A slave owner DOES offer protection to their subjects, a slave owner prevents conflicts between subjects and masters, for which the slaves are not equipped for.
Let's not forget that it wasn't black slaves who freed themselves. It was the superior equipped whites that did.
Long story short; I am not in favor of releasing an animal from it's ''slavery''. I just think it should be recognized that that's what it is.
What did nature say Sup Forums
>There is nothing wrong with that.
Finally a yes. Thanks for the input. I've also said that in many of my posts.
Pets became domesticated thru a mutually beneficial relationship. Domesticated animals need humans. And now they just get to eat sleep and play.
Livestock could be called slavery, if you want to be a faggot about it.
>for amusement
it's for companionship you autistic fucking retard
_ ____ __ ____ ____ _____
FLUFF
>Livestock
Even pets have a LOT of the characteristics of 'slavery'.
>Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of the owner and are bought and sold as commodities.
They are considered property and many are bought and sold as commodities.
True, we cannot know 100% what the rabbit wants, but we can infer as to what the rabbit wants based upon what we know about rabbits through scientific study.
Either way though, I think we can say it is not slavery and more like keeping a prisoner. So end of thread?
Brb, freeing all my declawed fat kitties who have never caught a mouse in their lives.
My dogs like to work. They are couch potatoes in the warmer months but go crazy in the fall/winter when the coyotes are active. They are guardians of my ducks and chickens, always a few feet away from them no matter what.
Domesticated dogs are made to work for man. True working dogs love to work and live long healthy lives guarding/herding live stock and removing pests on a farm.
I don't want to be one of those cunts that compare pets to kids, but doesn't that make kids slaves too? You make all their decisions, you are responsible for everything about them and it's illegal to mistreat them.
Nope. The solution is stopping the degenerate pet obsession.
Americunts would rather save a dang dog than another human.
Also, the pet industry jew is pushing pet ownership to grab the sheckels from you.
The solution is, if you have a cat, or any other pet, make it your last. And stop being all triggered when your feefees get hurt when you learn about shelters that euthanize.
cats drool dogs rule
It's slavery. But they're not human. So no fucks given.
>If anything I'm slave to my cat
What a fucking retard. Wasting resources on a non sentient being that shits inside your house and spreads its shit on your countertop.
>owning a pet is akin to slavery
In the same way having a kid is akin to slavery. It is different because the entity you "own" is generally not capable of autonomous existence, at least in context.
what kind of kitty is that?
Dat ass gave me an instant hard on!
I now have a new fetish.
Pic very related
>People say bad things about blacks
Has no relevancy on this.
You are forcefully trying to create a false equivalency by using the word slavery, which is defined as ownership of a human, for the word for ownership of non human animals. There is no reason to do this beyond trying to elevate the status of an animal to that of a human. You are merely muddying the definition of a word. The reason you do so is most likely because you wish to use the bad reputation of the word slavery in our modern culture to provoke feelings of guilt in others who do not know the historic or legal context of the word, which in turn suggests you are following a hidden agenda.
...
>End of thread?
You're free to go :DDD thanks!
>Domesticated dogs are made to work for man.
I can stand behind that comment. Dogos are ''meant'' to be the slave for man and perhaps through this mutually beneficial agreement slavery is elevated to best friendship.
Besides it doesn't even go against the laws of nature. There's no equality between species really and the dog understands life is great when it just serves his master and best friend.
...
...
>Pets are not forced to work
Dogs used to be work animals, argument could be made that having a job is good for them psychologically. Kinda like teenagers.
we work for them
I've thought of that as well. There are some similarities but kids seem to be a little different than pets considering you nurture them for a decade or two then they are FREE to pursue their life as they wish.
Also you never 'own' a kid and usually you cannot 'purchase' one.
>inb4 flesh trade and/or adoptions
>declawing your cats
You sick fuck, that's like surgically removing the last bones in all your fingers
Neither are niggers but keeping them as slaves is 'wrong'
My dog eats, sleeps, does what ever he wants and I pick up his shit. Who is the slave?
ebin
>The solution is stopping the degenerate pet obsession.
I agree with that fully. Also pets have started to 'replace' children in many families but... that's another story.
Slavery is ok
jesus christ i thought i knew Sup Forums...
here
Pets are pets. Slaves are slaves.
>I don't think work is a necessary component for 'slavery'. You can still be 'owned' by someone and not do any work.
These rhetoric can be apply to your own children or adopted children too right?
>24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
>26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis Chapter 1
>You are forcefully trying to create a false equivalency
No I'm not doing anything forcefully. The word 'slavery' is defined for humans specifically, yes. But the definition covers a lot of the characteristics between owner + pet as well.
>which in turn suggests you are following a hidden agenda
Nah. You're reading way too much into this.
For fuck sake
No they're not "slaves"
They're domesticated
Don't even try to argue around this
Anyone who does is literally mentally fucked
nah
I think she's a persian, but who knows when it comes to cats.
I wouldn't do it if they didn't naturally have an urge to scratch shit up.
If I free my dog to pursue the life he wants he's going go out eat shit and get worms that he can't cure from, maybe fight some other dogs and then get hit by a car or die in the woods.
You also need to consider dogs were made by people. You can't undo that. Side note, this is why the crazy extremist at PETA want to kill all dogs.
Oh brother. Yeah we should let them roam aimlessly to get hit by cars, mutilated by niggers and psychopaths, and if they survive that, they can die of disease. Get over your ignorance.
Is it good to snip and neuter teenagers?
>have a fully flighted birb and a dog
>have taken them outside many times with no restraints
>they've stayed on their own accord
Sounds like they enjoy free food, shelter, and daily scritches to be honest my dude, they're free to leave if they want to fend for themselves.
REPEAT AFTER ME: ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS.
Animals cannot consent or sign a social contract. The social contract is the fundamental piece of rights.
Animals do not respect the rights of other animals. They hunt and kill, sometimes to survive, sometimes for pleasure.
Those of you you get their feefees hurt because the pound kills unwanted animals are falling for the jew trick of pet obsession.
This animalism (and veganism too) is a big part of the cultural marxism. Must be rejected.
Humans have been using animals for production. Dogs, cattle, sheep etc. That is tradition.
Your great grand parents would be horrified by how you elevate animals to human status.
Pet owners are degenerates.
It would be if staying intact increased thier chances of cancer 10 fold.
Pets are animals and therefore exempt from the notion of human rights needed to sustain society, even a single human individual could have a lasting impact on the existence of said creatures be that by controlling their population or by anihilating them if they ever become a hyndrance.
depends
you give pets what they need
goldfish aren't needy and stupid so you give them bowl, some stones and some food and there you go, it's happy. if you're a nice guy you give it a bigger place with better room design and bitches to fuck.
birds: finches are same as goldfishes, just smarter, so give them a swing or something and a bitch to fuck, and occasionally let them fly around, bigger birds are going to need attention, time outside of the cage and yummy foods
cats get to roam around and be pet, dogs are part of the family
there, if you atleast do this to your pets you're a good guy. considering slave owners or not, we treat them well and love them. they get food, they get warmth and occasionally sex (even with us if the males are lucky enough some crazy bitch will allow herself to be mounted)
so yes they are slaves, but they are Uncle Tom kind of slaves
Friendly reminder that house pets tend to live longer than their wild counterparts.
What could be better than more life, right?
Kill yourself
getting to fuck bunny pussy
>not bunny cunny
user you disappoint me.
>does not get any work out of pet
>feeds pet
>houses pet
>pays pets veteranarian bills
Yeah sounds exactly like slavery.
Yes, yes it might (and probably will) do all these things indeed. I'm not arguing your good intentions for knowing what's best for the dogo. But so did many slave owners. They considered what they did was for the best of their subjects who are way too stupid or irresponsible to ... live?
>You also need to consider dogs were made by people. You can't undo that.
Yea I haven't really figured a counter argument for that yet, I mean you can say that ''it's like we made a living robot to work and keep us company'' but it doesn't sit very well.
>Pets are animals and therefore exempt from the notion of human rights needed to sustain society, even a single human individual could have a lasting impact on the existence of said creatures be that by controlling their population or by anihilating them if they ever become a hyndrance.
Yes. My thoughts exactly.
IWTFTB
If you research almost all breeds of dogs, they serve a purpose, and they serve their purpose pretty damn good. When a dog is doing what it's been bred to do, you'll see they do it damn well and are happy to do so.
Whippets and greyhounds LOVE tearing up rabbits on farms.
Yorkies love chasing around rats.
Shitbulls love being nigger fighting dogs.
Kangals love ripping the faces off any animal that threatens their owner's livestock. They were made for this, Kangals never get "trained" to protect livestock, simply let them roam on a farm and their natural instincts kick in.
Meet someone that relies on a dog for their daily operations on their farm. They are far better providers, companions and caregivers to their dogs.
>Animals have the rights - I - decide they have and not the rights - I - have.
Get over your hypocrisy.
>>does not get any work out of pet
>>feeds pet
>>houses pet
>>pays pets veteranarian bills
>Yeah sounds exactly like slavery.
Sounds exactly like stupidity and a waste of money.
slavery only applies to humans
if you choose to apply it to other creatures then where do you draw the line?
mammals? = kill the meat industry and revert to pre hominid?
plants? = starve to death
only pets? = why? pets are the best treated animals on the planet
>Can you convince me that owning a pet is not slavery?
The rhetorical implication is that it is the same thing, which, as I explained, it is not. In theory, owning a slave, owning an animal and owning a desk stand is the same thing. In practice each of these things are treated differently due to the nature of the item that is owned, with slavery being the one that is so fundamentally different that we have a specific, well known word for it to seperate it from other forms of ownership.
Again, attempting to say slavery=pet-ownership is the kind of thing PETA and their ilk try so they can abuse the false equivalency to ask for the abolishment of "pet slavery", which would automatically elevate animals into the status of humans.
yes, we can enslave only humans, everything else is just a resource, if you're going by that logic then owning a plant or breathing an oxygen enslaves plants and planet, so fuck off
>Animals enjoy domestication
Never said the opposite really. I'm sure most of them do, they're conditioned to do so. Also check
lol
That would require the pet to be productive. Unless you have trained a marmot to do your job for you its much more of the pet is a rent free resident in a magic land where all its needs are provided for, the human even shovels its shit.
:(
Check'd.
OP literally BTFO by God.
Why no response, buddy? Could it be because you've been completely and unequivocal BTFO of your own thread?
Does Factual Falcon live again?
animals are like better women that you can't legally fuck (i said legally)
Dirty vegan
Having children is slavery... so what? As long you properly care for them and don't abuse them I see no problem.
>doesn't know the definition of sentient
Flag, of course.
>Pets are not humans
I'll also ask you something that I don't think I have gotten an answer yet. Your argument considered, is it hypocritical of those who disagree with you to own pets? Because there's a group of people who consider animals our equals and at the same time think they love them by ''keeping them slaves'' ('' '' = my interpretation).
That's a rabbit i'd fuck, I raise you mine !
Pets have a purpose though. Cats catch mice. Retard.
Nice! Is his rab pucci tight?
>You give pets stuff and they're happy
Good comment. Nigger slavery was similar. A lot of owners provided a fantastic life for the negros who came from Africa where they could die on a daily basis from other negroes or diseases like this ''enlightened'' user described Now they had a nice home, food, shelter, safety, all in exchange for ''work'' and obedience.
This is why I argue it can be called slavery.