If even then.

I’m not sure why my comment in particular (the one you quoted) = wankfest, but I think the above ignores what I said just after the part you quoted:

I’m sorry – I shouldn’t have picked you out, in particular. I was just reading the thread, and copy/pasted that excerpt to illustrate that this whole brouhaha stemmed from a past that said, literally:

“I’m upstate on a weekend vacation and don’t have my camera wires up here to bring you any new pics, but I think you’ll enjoy the alternative. Monty versus the bone.”

My wonder wasn’t and shouldn’t have come off as directed at you personally. Again, I apologize.

That your cat doesn’t know/understand/comprehend/write theses about/blog about the moral status of humans or other animals doesn’t mean that we don’t need to make choices regarding the moral status of humans and other animals.

On the contrary, I’m quite sure that my cat understood every word. He just finds the pedantic quibbles of mankind far beneath him. (Church of Caturday Saints, anyone?)

(Or, I was being facetious, in an attempt to lighten the tone around here…. and, perhaps, to make a small but necessary point.)

On its face it is a correct statement because slavery is a simple word: existing under a condition of bondage.

So what exactly here makes something slavery as opposed to, say, pet guardianship? If the dog isn’t treated any differently based on whether one talks about owning it, being its guardian, being its master, what exactly is the issue here?

Even Jill’s post, though eloquent, failed to address the core assertion: that pet ownership via a breeder is slavery.

On its face it is a correct statement because slavery is a simple word: existing under a condition of bondage.

So why is it slavery when it’s from a breeder, and a-ok when it’s from a shelter? The dog’s life is very much the same, regardless of where the money changes hands.

My current dog is from a shelter, but her life is very much the same as the dogs my friends got from a breeder: each of them lives under a roof, is not free to leave, must be walked on a leash, and must submit to periodic medical examination and grooming, whether they like it or not.

Why would my friends’ dogs be slaves, but not mine?

Betsy Says:
And to answer Tony’s question (”isn’t there a point to be made by these people who claim animal breeding is a form of slavery?”): No. Check the dictionary. Slavery, by definition, is human bondage. That’s the horror of it. It would be like saying that eating beef is a form of cannibalism – no it’s not; by definition, cannibalism means eating people. It’s not that complicated.

Betsy, with all do respect, maybe you are the one who needs to read a dictionary.

can•ni•bal•ism /ˈkænəbəˌlɪzəm/–noun
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.

slav•er•y /ˈsleɪvəri, ˈsleɪvri/ –noun
1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.

(I don’t see human as a central part of the definition of slavery).

It is a red herring to immediately cry foul when someone compares breeding to slavery without addressing the core of the point.

Slavery is a condition of bondage. Now, if I were to say “having pets is a form of slavery,” I’d be making a valid argument if I could back it up. If I say “having pets is no better than stealing Africans from their homelands, working the men to death and repeatedly raping the women Thomas Jefferson-style,” I would be making an obscene comparison because I am equating animal slavery to human slavery. As Jill points out in a later post, that is flat out wrong and incomparable.

However, the first point, that “having pets is slavery” nonetheless remains a valid argument if people care to make it. By simply tossing in human bondage to divert attention from the core of the assertion without ever addressing it is a fallacy.

Even Jill’s post, though eloquent, failed to address the core assertion: that pet ownership via a breeder is slavery.

On its face it is a correct statement because slavery is a simple word: existing under a condition of bondage.

Take away the human connotation and how do you respond to the argument?