Grace: are you inferring RF got his fish from a ghuppy-mill?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You seriously propose that out of the eight or nine fish in my aquarium, some are possibly captives and some are not?

And that their state of being captive or not...regardless they are all held in the same container under the exact same conditions....depends on something that transpired before they were placed in that container? ROFLMFAO!

That's a good one Grace. That I figured you would try it is why I used the aquarium example.

You understand that the author's point wasn't whether Vick's actions were "horrendous" or not?

His argument is that nobody has the right to force their arbitrary will on other people. You disagree. Fine. You are correct when you say lots of people agree with you. That's a large...perhaps the difference between libertarians and other people. Oh yes, libertarians will agree that people can force their arbitrary will on others. The fact they can is self-evident and part of libertarian evidence. But claiming it is a right just cheapens and diminishes the concept of rights and ultimately makes it meaningless. When people claim they have the right to force their will on others, they are in actuality claiming they have the power to do so. By that argument, a rapist has the right to toss a girl to the ground and have his way. And indeed, Vick had the right to do what he wanted with his dogs right up to the point someone else came along and claimed their own right to stop him. Ah, but then you will rise up and invoke the idea of The Law as the legitimate Will of Others that may be forcibly imposed. Fine...then admit that Muslims have the right to stone a 14 yo girl to death for going out on a date. Admit that the Japanese rapists running amok in Nanking had every right to do so. Admit that when dogfighting was legal there was a right to fight dogs that was subsequently infringed in a way not provided for in the Constitution.

RF

Totally.

RF

Laws aren't always right. In the case of stoning a girl to death I believe that was against the law there, which is why the police were looking for the culprits. Do liberatarians believe in human rights?

Of course laws aren't always right. There's a law against dogfighting, correct?

RF

Having a bit of experience with tropical fish, ahem, I can guarantee none of your Wal Mart fish were plucked from your nearest reef. ROFL. Which makes your argument..moot.

RF


But can you give an example of where a law wasn't right?

No it doesn't. You're just begging the question. I haven't seen you support your contention that only animals captured in the wild can be considered as captives. I don't think you can support that, given that it would include the startling idea that two fish can be kept in the same waterglass with one of them being a captive and the other not.

My fish didn't come from Wal-mart....but are you trying to say they were captive bred? LOL

RF
QUOTE
My fish didn't come from Wal-mart....but are you trying to say they were captive bred? LOL


Yes, they were were not wild caught. They are domestic pets. If you went to your nearest reef and caught a few baby octupi and lion fish, brought them home in a cooler and threw them into your salt water tank, you'be be holding wild ocean-going fish captive. It you went to Pet Stupid, purchased a betta in a cup, brought him home and threw him in your tank, you'd not have changed his lifestyle from wild and free to captive, regardless he's movements are restricted, he was farm raised and domestic, more or less.

And you'll have to support your contention that people who keeps pet cat's are holding them captive.

I am trying to teach you the difference between a wild animal and a domestic one vis a vis your "mistreatment" claim.

That was a struggle, wasn't it?

And you'll have to support your contention that people who keeps pet cat's are holding them captive.

Right. Why should I when you just described them as in a state of captivity? Too funny.

I wasn't claiming tigers were being mistreated. But I could see how some people would think their being held captive was mistreatment, due to their being a WILD ANIMAL.

Where did I describe cats in a state of captivity?

wasn't claiming tigers were being mistreated. But I could see how some people would think their being held captive was mistreatment, due to their being a WILD ANIMAL.

But you disagree with those people?

Where did I describe cats in a state of captivity?

You said people "keep pet cats."

Grace am I understanding that you believe the difference between the captivity being captivity and pet status is if the animal is domesticated or not? If it is bred to be a pet then it is ok for it to be a pet? But if it was not bred to be a pet then keeping it as one is cruel?

This is getting too convoluted. I was only challenging RF on his claim that I keep my pet cats captive and some might consider that mistreatment. Unless you're an extremist such as PETA types, keeping pets is not mistreatment. In answer to your last question, I don't condone keeping exotic pets, such as snakes, monkeys, tigers, fruit bats...years ago zoo's would take wild caught animals from the jungle for stock. Kill a mother gorilla and steal the baby. I consider that mistreatment. Wild animals should be left in the wild. I'm sure the chimp victim, Charla Nash, would agree. If she could.

Keep = to watch over and defend.

If everyone had always followed your "wild animals should be left in the wild" idea, you wouldn't have any cats.

Thanks for at least admitting that some people do consider that keeping cats captive as pets is mistreatment.
There's no significant difference between your position and theirs, but I don't expect you to admit that.

Rationality has no significance?

I'm waiting for you to rationally explain the significant difference that has two identical animals kept in identical situations such that one of them is considered as a captive and the other is not.

Hint: That one of them was born in captivity while the other was not, doesn't seem to make much sense.

Grace you are making no sense. I had a 125 gallon tank a while back. I had a couple of big oscar fish and a couple of wild caught bluegills. How is one set of fish being held captive while the other set are pets? Also do you restrict where your cats go and what they can do?

Sure you are keeping them captive. You restrict where they can go. You restrict what they can do. You restrict what they can eat. And the most heinous of all you remove their ability to procreate. But according to your argument that is ok because they are domesticated?

And in retrospect, my cats are free to hit the road at any time.

cap·tive
Pronunciation: \ˈkap-tiv\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin captivus, from captus, past participle of capere
Date: 14th century
1 a: taken and held as or as if a prisoner of war b (1): kept within bounds : confined (2): of or relating to captive animals <captive breeding>
2: held under control of another but having the appearance of independence ; especially : owned or controlled by another concern and operated for its needs rather than for an open market <a captive mine>
3: being such involuntarily because of a situation that makes free choice or departure difficult <the airline passengers were a captive audience>
— captive noun


Doesn't seem to say that only wild animals can be captives.

If I take one of your cats and put it in a cage at my house, am I not keeping it captive?

I never said only wild animals can be held captive. I was trying to drive a point when you claimed my domesticated cats were being held captive [by me]. And I couldn't for the life of me think of anyone who would 1) consider that I hold my cats captive; 2) it's mistreatment; 3) then I remembered PETA but even they wouldn't consider me holding them captive per se. Wild tigers being held captive could readily be considered mistreatment due to the fact they are not domesticated and not cut out for life with humans, as cats are. Then you bring up your fish. And again I had to illustrate (faceciously I might add) the difference between wild ocean going fish all of a sudden ending up in a 20 gallon tank. Some people might consider that mistreatment. Fish that were tank bred (domestic) and transferred to another tank by purchase, no change for them. It's all they know and they could thrive if well cared for. I do have some experience in that I had neighbors and friends in the past who did dive for fish and crustaceans for their salt water tanks. One guy caught a baby octupus and other salt water fish and in a matter of days or hours, belly up. Yeah, I think that's a waste of life and mistreatment. And no, your betta fish dying wasn't a waste of life and mistreatment. It was born in a cup.

And I do think you hold your cats captive. Nothing wrong with that.

I hold one of our cats captive all the time, and the other captive a great deal of the time. I hold our dog captive all the time.

Grace, you said you were not gonna get into the heinous crime of spay and nueter. You also compared child care with keeping your cats captive. Would it be safe to assume then that it would be acceptable to you to sterilize children? If the answer to that is no, then at what point does caregiver cross over to captor?

But if you are determining what they do and when the do it then aren't they captive?

You seem to be saying that you know what's best for the cats so your will being imposed on them is ok. But RF with a wild fish that he believes is fine with HIS will being imposed on it is cruel captivity?

If it is just supervision when does it cross over to being captivity? Are your cats altered? As a supervisor what gives you the right to determine to do that? You keep comparing it to raising kids. Why can't we "fix" our kids if it is the same concept?

We subject our kids to other medical procedures without their consent. It's called guardianship.

Its called being a parent. No one is a parent to an animal. They are owners. One of the problems with the animal rights industry and its followers is they believe they are right to force their bizarre morality on others just to satisfy their emotional wants. They don't want freedom or liberty, they want control.

rpedog

Your post comes off as hypocritical to me. I could also think your morality is bizarre and you're trying to force it upon me, or make me feel inferior because you believe people who treat their animals like family members are bizarre. Why is your morality right and mine wrong? I parent my animals. And I'm not alone in that regard. Many people consider their pets family members, not merely owners of property, which is one reason why the pet food industry, pet toys, veternary bills, etc. are to the moon in profits.

I think grace honestly believes that by resisting being dictated to, we are in effect dictating. Makes no sense to me.

Would you put $9000 into a 10 year old car? Not a classic or antique, just a regular run of the mill car. I can guess your answer is no. So, if pets are property, why did pet owners spent a total of $24.5 billion on veterinary care in 2006? That number has since grown as I just saw a piece on ABC news and the number was 65 billion I believe. There was a pet owner who'd spent $9000 on her family dog for a back procedure (disc or something which left him paralyzed, but now he is fine). This woman, by the way, was playing with her toddler in her living room so you can't use the stereotype that she's senile or has no kids and is projecting. She "wanted to do right" by her dog because he is a member of her family. Pets are "legally and technically property", but the reality is, pets are family members for the majority of Americans and the veterinary industry is growing by leaps and bounds because people care and love their animals. If a car needed 9 grand worth of repairs, you'd junk it. The vet care and pet industry is thriving. Every medical procedure that is available to humans, is available to animals. CAT scans, MRI's, oncology, orthapedic surgeons, etc. because there is a demand for it. Pets are not just property. Oh, maybe for a couple at this board, but you're head couldn't get deeper in the sand.

There was a pet owner who'd spent $9000 on her family dog for a back procedure (disc or something which left him paralyzed, but now he is fine). This woman, by the way, was playing with her toddler in her living room so you can't use the stereotype that she's senile or has no kids and is projecting.

There was a pet owner who'd spent $9000 on her family dog for a back procedure (disc or something which left him paralyzed, but now he is fine). This woman, by the way, was playing with her toddler in her living room so you can't use the stereotype that she's senile or has no kids and is projecting. She "wanted to do right" by her dog because he is a member of her family.

Pets are "legally and technically property", but the reality is, pets are family members for the majority of Americans and the veterinary industry is growing by leaps and bounds because people care and love their animals.

If a car needed 9 grand worth of repairs, you'd junk it. The vet care and pet industry is thriving. Every medical procedure that is available to humans, is available to animals. CAT scans, MRI's, oncology, orthapedic surgeons, etc. because there is a demand for it. Pets are not just property. Oh, maybe for a couple at this board, but you're head couldn't get deeper in the sand.