It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Owning' Animals

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I gotta say, I don't feel entirely comfortable with the term 'owner' in terms of pets. It just seems messed up to me. You don't own another living being. I understand it's kind of like that, you usually pay for it, and then you get to keep him around. And I don't know of any other term to use. But, I do think there should be another term. I don't like it. Saying you 'own' another living being, like it's property. And don't misinterpret me, I am not at all a 'politically correct' person. In fact, many people would often find themselves offended by my sense of humor. Nonetheless, I do not really feel comfortable with this term. Not that it's a huge deal really or anything...just a general thought I've had...
edit on 28-12-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I have two dogs. I don't think I own them. I take care of them. They're my furkids. If anything, sometimes I think they own me. They have me wrapped around their little...paws.
edit on 28-12-2014 by Skid Mark because: spelling



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
The cats Ive had always just showed up and stuck around .. got my cormorants that fish after treated a patient .. my miscreant macaque was given to me by owner of inn at hot springs ..



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

People do tend to consider their animals as property...

There should be laws about "animal ownership"... And IF said laws are broken or you are found to be an unfit "owner"... said right should be revoked..

Its a privilege to have a pet... Not a right...




posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

View mine as friends .. even have conversations with them ..



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TheJourney

People do tend to consider their animals as property...

There should be laws about "animal ownership"... And IF said laws are broken or you are found to be an unfit "owner"... said right should be revoked..

Its a privilege to have a pet... Not a right...



Yea, property implies being simply an object. People can do whatever they want with their property. A living being is not an object, and cannot be property. Thus you cannot own one.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Expat888
a reply to: Akragon

View mine as friends .. even have conversations with them ..


Yea, I was thinking myself that friendship was closer to the relationship than ownership.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
My cats are my children. Their well being and happiness is my greatest responsibility. It is the responsibility I assumed when I made the choice to be the one to adopt them.

edit on 28-12-2014 by CraftBuilder because: of grapes.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Yep .. they choose to grace us with their presence .. cats are particularly choosy in who they associate with ..



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I think it was CS Lewis wrote about the essence of the possessive:

- my boots
- my dog
- my wife
- my God

My dog does not mean the same as my boots.

My boots are something with no intrinsc moral value of their own. I can do whatever I please with my boots. I have no ethical or moral obligation to my boots.

My dog has a certain intrinsic moral ramification. It is a living being, and when I took possession of it, I accepted certain moral and ethical obligations. I see my dog as my possession, but not like I see my boots.

If I wish to teach my dog to sit or to heel or to fetch or roll over or hunt, I may do that. But I do not have an intrinsic moral right to abuse or mistreat my dog (whereas, if I abuse or mistreat my boots, there is no moral implication).

The idea of my wife takes many a step further from my boots and my dog. In terms of possession, there is an element of belonging to one another that is an intrinsic part of this relationship, and the burden of moral and ethical obligation is yet heavier.

However, I do not have the liberty to make demands of my wife as I would of my dog. My wife is a different order of being than my dog (or my boots, for that matter).

When I speak of my God, there is still an even greater gulf between the other three. If my God is n omniscient creator, then I am His creation and - in effect - His possession.

Depending on my theological construct, I may believe that my God may or may not have accepted some obligation on my behalf, but He is clearly not my possession.

This was written on-the-fly, late at night, on my cell phone, and over a hastily prepared tuna sandwich, so please be kind. [/I]



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv
I think it was CS Lewis wrote about the essence of the possessive:

- my boots
- my dog
- my wife
- my God

My dog does not mean the same as my boots.

My boots are something with no intrinsc moral value of their own. I can do whatever I please with my boots. I have no ethical or moral obligation to my boots.

My dog has a certain intrinsic moral ramification. It is a living being, and when I took possession of it, I accepted certain moral and ethical obligations. I see my dog as my possession, but not like I see my boots.

If I wish to teach my dog to sit or to heel or to fetch or roll over or hunt, I may do that. But I do not have an intrinsic moral right to abuse or mistreat my dog (whereas, if I abuse or mistreat my boots, there is no moral implication).

The idea of my wife takes many a step further from my boots and my dog. In terms of possession, there is an element of belonging to one another that is an intrinsic part of this relationship, and the burden of moral and ethical obligation is yet heavier.

However, I do not have the liberty to make demands of my wife as I would of my dog. My wife is a different order of being than my dog (or my boots, for that matter).

When I speak of my God, there is still an even greater gulf between the other three. If my God is n omniscient creator, then I am His creation and - in effect - His possession.

Depending on my theological construct, I may believe that my God may or may not have accepted some obligation on my behalf, but He is clearly not my possession.

This was written on-the-fly, late at night, on my cell phone, and over a hastily prepared tuna sandwich, so please be kind. [/I]


No, good post



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
My cats are my children. Their well being and happiness is my greatest responsibility. It is the responsibility I assumed when I made the choice to be the one to adopt them.


That is the sweetest picture!!!!!!

WE care for our pets and they are family/friends.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

I agree. I find the concept of owning animals repulsive and only invoke it when it comes to protecting them from others and being responsible for them. It's high time that they have the right to legal "'personhood".



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
We don't own cats.
We are their staff
.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I think you are getting caught up in semantics. The word "owner" is more about our legal rights in regards to a pet or livestock than anything else. You can beat the hell out of your car, but not your cat. However, no one can legally steal your car or your cat.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I think you are getting caught up in semantics. The word "owner" is more about our legal rights in regards to a pet or livestock than anything else. You can beat the hell out of your car, but not your cat. However, no one can legally steal your car or your cat.


It is semantics. But semantics doesn't mean useless and meaningless. Yes, owner does convey what you are saying. But, I do not like it as a word describing the relationship between a pet and pet-parent. Its overall feel I find distasteful.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv
I think it was CS Lewis wrote about the essence of the possessive:

- my boots
- my dog
- my wife
- my God


It helps immensely if you don't believe in god, don't have a wife, and don't have a dog.

I have boots though.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

The term ownership is because of the way the law looks at 'pets'. Pets fall into the same legal category as livestock.Therefore the laws are set up for compensation of said livestock. Its not a real good set up and recently a case has been successfully made over a pet being a companion with due compensation as such.

www.gvma.net...

I know I and most other people look at their dogs and cats as part of their family. You just can not replace one with another of the same breed. They like people have their own personalities. My son's dog is my 'grandpuppy'. My little 5 lb mini doxxie is my baby.And my 35 lb. Basset/Terrier mix is my child. They aren't my 'pets'. They are my family. My kids are grown and left my home. All I have left is my siblings (of which only my brother lives with me)my kids,and my babies. As I said in other posts,when my Boston Betty died that terrible night,I went into shock for 4 days before I could even cry. It was so sudden and heart wrenching for me. These are not pets.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

while i may say an animal is "mine" and that i "own it", that is more an artifact of my legal obligation. No amount of philosophy is going to protect me from legal liability.

Most animals we have in our lives are "domesticated". We have affected their ability to survive in the wild. A horse, for example....it could be released and likely survive. But not in Houston, where there isn't room or any other mustangs to run with.

With dogs and cats, it has as much to do with protecting the community. Legal ownership means that dogs are required to be leashed, and that if your child is mauled by one you have legal recourse against a human who did not tether their animal.

All that said, between be and my dogs (Sasha and Lillie), I don't own them. They are my companions, my family members. I keep them from running loose for legal reasons, but also because the condition they are in when they come home is the condition that I have to deal with.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
We adopted Daisy. We are her parents. According to the law we own her and are responsible for her. But really, we are family. Here's a picture of Daisy sleeping on my garden box on the back porch -





top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join