i know that today the tem slavery is refered to only humans but i want some opinions from considering and not considering this added part.
2006-06-24 13:23:33 · 23 answers · asked by Carson R. 1 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
"The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household."
That is the definition. Are they our property? Yes. Do they really have a choice? No.
So, by this definition, using animals for work is slavery. If they're just your pet though, then they're like one of the family.
2006-06-24 13:28:30 · answer #1 · answered by calivane07 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. And it's wrong to minimize what slaves went through. Animals do not get a foot disfigured for running away as slaves did.
Most animals have it better than many people do today much more than in the past.
2006-06-24 16:15:06 · answer #2 · answered by Jan H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. Quite the opposite. We could certainly be considered as slaves to our pets, senior citizens, the sick, disabled, etc., if you look at it that way. But, the word 'slavery' should not even be considered where the act of 'Love' is present, they simply cancel each other out. (Just think about it)
2006-06-24 13:43:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The term slavery in American terms meant a form of depleting a people of their god given rights.There was also abuse to keep the slave from thinking that they might find freedom other than what was allowed by their masters.The slave had to be degraded in every form possible(physically,mentally,emotionally,spiritually,and sexually) in order for him to loose his true identity.
So if your pets are treated this way,there is a good chance that you could be right technically!
2006-06-24 13:37:24 · answer #4 · answered by Urntrede frdtrut 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's just stupid. If you keep the pets inside, they stay fed, healthy and get attention. If you just released all the animals and let them run free, you'd have crap everywhere, an overpopulation of all sorts of animals, and mass panic. There wouldn't be enough food, a LOT of animals that can't take care of themselves would DIE, and it would be dangerous for both humans and animals. That is why God put us in charge of looking after animals, and eating them when needed.
2006-06-24 13:30:25 · answer #5 · answered by tankgirl190 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How is that slavery? How can you even pay an animal and if you did, how would they spend the money? The owner provides free room and board, isn't that good enough?
2006-06-24 13:27:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a slave to my dogs! They are the queens of my house, no doubt about, case closed, end of discussion! Whatever they want, they get. I serve the food, draw the royal bath, fluff the royal pillow and tuck their highnesses in for bed at night.. Usually in my bed with their heads on pillows and under the covers! The day they start doing that for me, I'll call them slaves!
2006-06-24 13:33:42 · answer #7 · answered by Aria 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not if u treat an animal with respect..if ur making the animal work and ur not really taking care of it or not rewarding it than i guess u can call it slavery
2006-06-24 13:26:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A dog is a companion, just lie one of your friends. Do you make your dog cook and clean for you, and refuse to pay him a salary? That would be slavery. We are a slave to our dogs. We feed them walk them, clean up after them, spend huge amounts of money on them for vets, food, toys, etc.
2006-06-24 13:27:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, I think that if I have a pet and force it to work a LOT, that is slavery, but I just love pets and treat them like royalty.... no slavery there
2006-06-24 13:26:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋