4 ms·

100% agree with you. Keeping a "pet" locked on your home for the purpose of vanity and keeping you entertained for a few mins/day is outrageous. Praising animal

100% agree with you. Keeping a "pet" locked on your home for the purpose of vanity and keeping you entertained for a few mins/day is outrageous. Praising animal rights but choosing to ignore this is the ultimate hypocrisy.

borski 5y ago
Your assumptions are showing. There are a thousand reasons people keep pets that have nothing to do with either vanity or entertainment. Pets offer an extremely potent form of emotional therapy, and that is a very personal connection that has nothing at all to do with vanity or entertainment. Both of the latter are typically secondary effects, not primary.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  >Your assumptions are showing. Well, of course, I didn't type my comment by accident! Regarding your point: Number of service dogs in the US: ~500,000 [1] Number of dogs kept as pets in the US: ~76 million [2] It's not even 1%. I understand the argument you bring but in practice is literally a rounding error. The overwhelming majority of pets serve a function of vanity and/or entertainment. 1: https://share.america.gov/service-dogs-save-lives/ https://share.america.gov/service-dogs-save-lives/ 2: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-pet-ownership-statistics https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-p...
  - borski 5y ago
    Again, you are making assumptions here that are invalid. You are talking about service dogs; I am not. Service dogs do save lives, and are immensely important, but that is explicitly not my point. I am talking about the fact that many pet-owners do gain emotional value and support from animals. Emotional animal support can be extremely effective therapy for humans, but would not count as a service animal. However, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would argue that situation is a function of vanity and/or entertainment. And before you go try and find data: no, there aren't a lot of registered 'therapy animals,' because that is a hot-topic political issue, and people don't differentiate them well from service animals. Not to mention that society continues to think 'mental health problems' are mostly either made-up or to be looked down upon. There not being a lot of registered ones does not mean that the emotional support and stability gained by having a pet does not do absolute wonders from a therapeutic perspective. It has been formalized a bit[1], but has been going on informally for centuries, since animals and humans do form close emotional bonds. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-therapy https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-therapy
    - summm 5y ago
      Oh, I do derive emotional value from eating meat. Since when is this an argument?
      - borski 5y ago
        Since the parent tried to make the case that people only have pets for vanity. This is my point; there are lots of reasons people have pets, and the top one, usually, is an emotional connection. You do not derive the same emotional value from eating meat. One is sustenance, and the other has been bred for centuries to have an extreme emotional connection with humans.
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      Do you have any concrete data that could challenge the argument that pets are mostly a vanity asset? Because, ... >you are making assumptions here that are invalid ... I would really like to know which side of the story is the most plausible one.
ElijahLynn 5y ago
Yes, and we control their reproductive needs by shaming them for wanted to hump a leg every now and then, or keeping an opposite sex companion away from them, keeping them in isolation, never giving them the ability to have sex, a natural part of their species. Or we perform surgery on them to not have babies. Or we let them breed, but we pick their partners and then take their babies. If we did this to humans there would be outrage right?
- verall 5y ago
  It's fine to feel that animal husbandry is unethical, but considering that domestication occurred already, how do you propose the management of domesticated species? Just letting them free would be cruel, because the domesticated animals and surrounding ecosystem have not adapted to eachother. They will probably either hurt the ecosystem (cats and pigs) or die out after losing human care (cattle). It doesn't seem ethical at all to just pretend that domesticated animals are people and so need human rights. They need animal rights, which depending on the species may be completely different.
  - summm 5y ago
    No. We should just stop breeding pets altogether, and all these moral problems will just solve themselves in a few years.
saiojd 5y ago
Have you ever owned a dog? I think you underestimate how much dogs have coevolved with/been bred to like humans.

borski 5y ago

Your assumptions are showing. There are a thousand reasons people keep pets that have nothing to do with either vanity or entertainment. Pets offer an extremely potent form of emotional therapy, and that is a very personal connection that has nothing at all to do with vanity or entertainment. Both of the latter are typically secondary effects, not primary.

moralestapia 5y ago
>Your assumptions are showing. Well, of course, I didn't type my comment by accident! Regarding your point: Number of service dogs in the US: ~500,000 [1] Number of dogs kept as pets in the US: ~76 million [2] It's not even 1%. I understand the argument you bring but in practice is literally a rounding error. The overwhelming majority of pets serve a function of vanity and/or entertainment. 1: https://share.america.gov/service-dogs-save-lives/ https://share.america.gov/service-dogs-save-lives/ 2: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-pet-ownership-statistics https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-p...
- borski 5y ago
  Again, you are making assumptions here that are invalid. You are talking about service dogs; I am not. Service dogs do save lives, and are immensely important, but that is explicitly not my point. I am talking about the fact that many pet-owners do gain emotional value and support from animals. Emotional animal support can be extremely effective therapy for humans, but would not count as a service animal. However, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would argue that situation is a function of vanity and/or entertainment. And before you go try and find data: no, there aren't a lot of registered 'therapy animals,' because that is a hot-topic political issue, and people don't differentiate them well from service animals. Not to mention that society continues to think 'mental health problems' are mostly either made-up or to be looked down upon. There not being a lot of registered ones does not mean that the emotional support and stability gained by having a pet does not do absolute wonders from a therapeutic perspective. It has been formalized a bit[1], but has been going on informally for centuries, since animals and humans do form close emotional bonds. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-therapy https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-therapy
  - summm 5y ago
    Oh, I do derive emotional value from eating meat. Since when is this an argument?
    - borski 5y ago
      Since the parent tried to make the case that people only have pets for vanity. This is my point; there are lots of reasons people have pets, and the top one, usually, is an emotional connection. You do not derive the same emotional value from eating meat. One is sustenance, and the other has been bred for centuries to have an extreme emotional connection with humans.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    Do you have any concrete data that could challenge the argument that pets are mostly a vanity asset? Because, ... >you are making assumptions here that are invalid ... I would really like to know which side of the story is the most plausible one.

ElijahLynn 5y ago

Yes, and we control their reproductive needs by shaming them for wanted to hump a leg every now and then, or keeping an opposite sex companion away from them, keeping them in isolation, never giving them the ability to have sex, a natural part of their species. Or we perform surgery on them to not have babies. Or we let them breed, but we pick their partners and then take their babies. If we did this to humans there would be outrage right?

verall 5y ago
It's fine to feel that animal husbandry is unethical, but considering that domestication occurred already, how do you propose the management of domesticated species? Just letting them free would be cruel, because the domesticated animals and surrounding ecosystem have not adapted to eachother. They will probably either hurt the ecosystem (cats and pigs) or die out after losing human care (cattle). It doesn't seem ethical at all to just pretend that domesticated animals are people and so need human rights. They need animal rights, which depending on the species may be completely different.
- summm 5y ago
  No. We should just stop breeding pets altogether, and all these moral problems will just solve themselves in a few years.

saiojd 5y ago

Have you ever owned a dog? I think you underestimate how much dogs have coevolved with/been bred to like humans.