Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cracker_Mom said:
And sometimes those labels indicate a certain lack of charity.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Indeed, but I would suggest that this works both ways. It depends upon whether you consider it charitable to oppress, exploit and abuse more than half the sentient life on the planet, just as a matter of principle… :hmmm:
 
Sair said:
Indeed, but I would suggest that this works both ways. It depends upon whether you consider it charitable to oppress, exploit and abuse more than half the sentient life on the planet, just as a matter of principle… :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Abusing animals was not the original subject.
It was whether funds should be used for animal charities when there is human need.
Oppression refers to human beings.One could say pets were “oppressed” into servitude at that rate.All livestock is “exploited” for human use in some form, otherwise there would be no practical benefit in keeping them.
And as far as “sentient”…:confused:
There’s likely a place in these forums for a whole different thread on the subject.
 
Cracker_Mom said:
Abusing animals was not the original subject.
It was whether funds should be used for animal charities when there is human need.
Oppression refers to human beings.One could say pets were “oppressed” into servitude at that rate.All livestock is “exploited” for human use in some form, otherwise there would be no practical benefit in keeping them.
And as far as “sentient”…:confused:
There’s likely a place in these forums for a whole different thread on the subject.
Click to expand...
True. There is proably enough material here for half a dozen threads, at least. But to give a brief summary: Mutually beneficial relationships are neither exploitative nor oppressive; massive commercial farming operations are both. Nonhuman animals are sentient. Simple as that. Unless you think humans are the only species that matters, and want to try to justify your position. Such arguments generally start to sound like the arguments used against the Abolitionists and the Suffragettes.

The original issue was also comparatively simple, and answerable in sensible ethical terms. Of course it is moral to spend money alleviating the suffering of animals, particularly when it has all been caused by humans. Supporting human charities and supporting animal charities are not mutually exclusive (as has been several times pointed out on this thread) - they are only so in the minds of those who seek to take a holier-than-thou attitude and uncharitably condemn the honest good intentions of others.
 
It is a horrible injustice and a serious sin to abuse any animal. This is Catholic teaching. This does not mean that humans and animals are equal. Animals are part of God’s creation made for the benefit of humans. No one may abuse God’s creation with impunity. Included as part of this creation is the hierarchy that God placed in this world. Like I tried to kindly say… if one does not believe in this heirarchy of creation, then there is no common ground upon which to further this discussion.
 
Sair said:
True. There is proably enough material here for half a dozen threads, at least. But to give a brief summary: Mutually beneficial relationships are neither exploitative nor oppressive; massive commercial farming operations are both. Nonhuman animals are sentient. Simple as that. Unless you think humans are the only species that matters, and want to try to justify your position. Such arguments generally start to sound like the arguments used against the Abolitionists and the Suffragettes.

The original issue was also comparatively simple, and answerable in sensible ethical terms. Of course it is moral to spend money alleviating the suffering of animals, particularly when it has all been caused by humans. Supporting human charities and supporting animal charities are not mutually exclusive (as has been several times pointed out on this thread) - they are only so in the minds of those who seek to take a holier-than-thou attitude and uncharitably condemn the honest good intentions of others.
Click to expand...
We’d have to start a Catholic “livestock farming vs animal rights” forum because there is no way from an animal’s point of view-(if they had one)-that being confined, bred according to best human use of offspring & by products,etc.,etc. is beneficial to the animal. To humans, yes.Cows, no.
If we didn’t feed them they’d not have much to do with us.
 
Cracker_Mom said:
We’d have to start a Catholic “livestock farming vs animal rights” forum because there is no way from an animal’s point of view-(if they had one)-that being confined, bred according to best human use of offspring & by products,etc.,etc. is beneficial to the animal. To humans, yes.Cows, no.
If we didn’t feed them they’d not have much to do with us.
Click to expand...
I guess in the age of massive factory farms and agribusiness, it’s hard to imagine a human-animal relationship that is not exploitative. This is why it makes me very happy to see the growth of organic, small-scale farming practices - keeping animals in a manner that respects their quality of life and allows them to engage in natural behaviours, including mating naturally. Their benefit is that they are kept in safety and comfort, our benefit is that their products - eggs, milk, meat, wool - can be made available for our use. I’m more than happy to spend extra money to buy organic meat - sure it means I don’t eat meat every day, but going vegetarian more often than not is a small price to pay for supporting farmers who care about the lives of their animals.

You’re right. This should be a discussion on another thread.
 
I think that perhaps most of us (myself included) are not aware of what goes on in the big mega-business farms. All of us have probably visited a local farm where there are maybe 50 cows being milked, or 100 chickens being used for eggs, but I assume the reality is most of our food comes from farms that are many times larger than this. Animals are meant for our use… but not abuse. I agree that someone needs to start a thread about lifestock and farming.
 
Sair said:
Indeed, but I would suggest that this works both ways. It depends upon whether you consider it charitable to oppress, exploit and abuse more than half the sentient life on the planet, just as a matter of principle… :hmmm:
Click to expand...
what? you still have no evidence that there is any sentient life on the planet but us. you cant expect the rest of us to form our principles on your opinion of what is sentient, especially as in the last posts you gave a specific possible reason that aqnimals dont feel emotions, the forebrain. you just desire to have the opinion, nothing more.
 
Cracker_Mom said:
We’d have to start a Catholic “livestock farming vs animal rights” forum because there is no way from an animal’s point of view-(if they had one)-that being confined, bred according to best human use of offspring & by products,etc.,etc. is beneficial to the animal. To humans, yes.Cows, no.
If we didn’t feed them they’d not have much to do with us.
Click to expand...
The truth. If you didn’t feed the pet, how much would you see of it? 🙂

If you think your dog is loyal…
 
Sair said:
The original issue was also comparatively simple, and answerable in sensible ethical terms. Of course it is moral to spend money alleviating the suffering of animals, particularly when it has all been caused by humans. Supporting human charities and supporting animal charities are not mutually exclusive (as has been several times pointed out on this thread) - they are only so in the minds of those who seek to take a holier-than-thou attitude and uncharitably condemn the honest good intentions of others.
Click to expand...
i uncharitably condemn the honestly good, but misguided intentions of abortionists too. wrong is wrong and there aint no two ways about it. you know, golden rule and all.
 
40.png
warpspeedpetey:
i keep telling my friend to keep her cats fat, so they fry up better when we have to eat them
Click to expand...
Will fried roomba also be on your menu?
 
40.png
Sair:
Of course people should not treat other animals like humans, because they are not humans. They have different needs, just as dogs have different needs to cats, elephants, whales or monkeys. We should appreciate all creatures for what they are, not as substitutes to humans or intrinsically inferior to humans. They are just different animals, and to treat them as humans diminshes their nature just as much as it twists our own.
Click to expand...
And in the same way different humans have different needs - eg depending on their age, their personalities, their situation. By treating everyone the same, some people do not have their needs met.

Same applies to animals who are companions to humans - some are more adventurous, some like to be out and about, some like to spend time with people and others do not. This needs to be taken into account.
 
Shin said:
The truth. If you didn’t feed the pet, how much would you see of it? 🙂

If you think your dog is loyal…
Click to expand...
Actually, abused animals often behave in much the same way as battered wives. Staying with the abuser is not rational, but they do it anyway.
 
Salonika said:
Will fried roomba also be on your menu?
Click to expand...
well, as they dont ‘feel’ emotions,and i supposedly dont feel emotions either, im not sure that its ethical. to follow a somes reasoning.

how about this, we could solve the problem this way, animal rightists can eat only roombas, and be personaly ethical, i can eat only animals and be personaly ethical, see, its a win- win.!
 
Sair said:
Actually, abused animals often behave in much the same way as battered wives. Staying with the abuser is not rational, but they do it anyway.
Click to expand...
my cats lick their rear ends, rationality isnt the hall mark of an animal
 
Many of the liturgical prayers of the Church give an interesting perspective compared to the one of putting animals above or equal to humans.

The Roman Ritual has many blessings for animals. It has them for farm animals, cattle, fowls, for horses, for bees… There are even blessings for silkworms, that they may make good clothing…

I love the one for the bees:

*BLESSING OF BEES

P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
All: Who made heaven and earth.
P: The Lord be with you.
All: May He also be with you.

Let us pray.
Lord God almighty, who made the heavens and the earth, and all
living things in the air and on land for the use of mankind; who
ordered, through the ministers of holy Church, that candles made
from the industry of bees should be lighted during the solemn
mystery in which the most sacred body and blood of Jesus Christ,
your Son, is confected and consumed; send your holy blessing +
upon these bees and these beehives, causing them to multiply and
to produce and to be kept from harm, so that their yield of wax
can be turned to your honor, to that of the Son and Holy Spirit,
and to the veneration of the blessed Virgin Mary; through Christ
our Lord.
All: Amen.

They are sprinkled with holy water.*

There are also liturgical deprecatory blessings for mice, rodents, insects… or rather, they are called ‘curses’. . .

*DEPRECATORY BLESSING AGAINST PESTS

(mice and rats, locusts, worms, etc.)

The priest vests in surplice and purple stole, and coming to the
field or place infested with these creatures, says:

Antiphon: Arise, Lord, help us; and deliver us for your kindness’
sake.

Ps 43.1: O God, our ears have heard, our fathers have declared to
us.

All: Glory be to the Father.

P: As it was in the beginning.

All Ant.: Arise, Lord, help us; and deliver us for your kindness’
sake.

P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
All: Who made heaven and earth.
P: Lord, heed my prayer.
All: And let my cry be heard by you.
P: The Lord be with you.
All: May He also be with you.

Let us pray.
We entreat you, Lord, be pleased to hear our prayers; and even
though we rightly deserve, on account of our sins, this plague of
mice (or locusts, worms, etc.), yet mercifully deliver us for
your kindness’ sake. Let this plague be expelled by your power,
and our land and fields be left fertile, so that all it produces
redound to your glory and serve our necessities; through Christ
our Lord.
All: Amen.

Let us pray.
Almighty everlasting God, the donor of all good things, and the
most merciful pardoner of our sins; before whom all creatures bow
down in adoration, those in heaven, on earth, and below the
earth; preserve us sinners by your might, that whatever we
undertake with trust in your protection may meet with success by
your grace. And now as we utter a curse on these noxious pests,
may they be cursed by you; as we seek to destroy them, may they
be destroyed by you; as we seek to exterminate them, may they be
exterminated by you; so that delivered from this plague by your
goodness, we may freely offer thanks to your majesty; through
Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.

Exorcism

I cast out you noxious vermin, by God + the Father almighty, by
Jesus + Christ, His only-begotten Son, and by the Holy + Spirit.
May you speedily be banished from our land and fields, lingering
here no longer, but passing on to places where you can do no
harm. In the name of the almighty God and the entire heavenly
court, as well as in the name of the holy Church of God, we
pronounce a curse on you, that wherever you go you may be cursed,
decreasing from day to day until you are obliterated. Let no
remnant of you remain anywhere, except what might be necessary
for the welfare and use of mankind. Be pleased to grant our
request, you who are coming to judge both the living and the dead
and the world by fire.
All: Amen.

The places infested are sprinkled with holy water.
*

Have to love it. 🙂
 
"Almighty everlasting God, the donor of all good things, and the
most merciful pardoner of our sins; before whom all creatures bow
down in adoration … "

A dumb beast is hardly of a mindset to bow down and worship the almighty everlasting God. Or is he? If the Church adheres to the above-referenced view of the animals of this earth, in doing so the Church appears to agree that all creatures are sentient, thus endowing them with emotions and the ability to feel and recognize tactile stimuli and interpret such as positive or negative.

From “sentience”, Wikipedia: **“Advocates of animal rights argue that all animals are sentient in that they can feel pleasure and pain, which entails the presumption of certain moral rights and ought to entail some legal rights.” **

Consider:

*"Some people criticize the amount and cost of care given to pets. People are more important, they say. Care for poor people instead of poodles. And certainly our needy fellow humans should not be neglected.

"However, I believe every creature is important. The love we give to a pet, and receive from a pet, can draw us more deeply into the larger circle of life, into the wonder of our common relationship to our Creator.

“Kevin E. Mackin, O.F.M., is a Franciscan of the Holy Name Province”
Some folks are content not stepping into the larger circle of life. That’s not a problem for me as long as their behavior doesn’t become a game of neglect, abuse or contempt. There is no sense in attempting to explain the pet connection to a non-sentient (by choice) human being. So best to let it lie and proceed with dedicating our time, resources and love in the manner in which we individually see fit.

Limerick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top