Comments on: Against Pets

By: Pauli

Pauli — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:28:17 +0000

Might apply. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=614400

By: Steve Bodio

Steve Bodio — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:42:20 +0000

You might be interested in the (mostly approving) post by Matt Mullenix at our site here.

By: Stevan Grimes

Stevan Grimes — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:27:59 +0000

As an evolving society it can’t be so difficult to understand the evolution of the “Pet”. With the demise of work requirements and limitations on what once was considered a “Farm Animal”,it can be said that the lore of days gone by have led the most prominant of “Pet” owners to cottle and spoil a once scent driven hunting creature into the lap of luxury with fancy beds and polished nails.
Albeit the need to prove that one can control and domesticate such a powerful, potentially brutal creature, defines the pet owner. Pride in ownership leads to self esteem. Respect for the creatures potential develops self assurance. Sharing and showcasing the Pet becomes somewhat of a trophy for public display.
Had society evolved between Man and creature in the opposite direction it can not be hard to imagine that the local restaurant menu would read like the AKC roll call at show time at Madison Square Garden.
I too grew up on the farm and ate many pets after months of careful preening and it wasn until I read “Beautiful Joe” by Marshall Saunders circa 1892, That I realized Pets do have a vocabulary and it’s time we did some listening. They have so much to teach us.

By: SisterTaylor

SisterTaylor — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:31:07 +0000

As a small town dweller who grew up on a farm, (but sadly find it too expensive to buy property due to the lack of economic opportunity and the high cost of land), I keep a variety of pets in a simple manner, and have always done so. Even on the farm, we always had “pets”. Generally useless, except for companionship, these pets were not treated in a decadent manner, except that they were allowed in the house and were not eaten. Outside were the chickens, the horses (who were really pets since farming with them had gone out of fashion 50 years ago), the sheep, goats, hogs, pheasants, etc. The dogs that came and went, the barn cats, and the house cats. The house cats were the main pets, but my sister and I would spend a great deal of time outdoors with the various pet and/or feed animals.
While I cannot recreate this with my children, we do keep small pets. I find that it teaches my children responsibility, gentleness for non human creatures, and also gives opportunity for study of non human physiology and extrapolation on those biological differences to discuss other parts of our natural world. Pets can have utility in this fashion, and certainly useful companionship to the elderly, whose loved ones have gone.

By: Casey Khan

Casey Khan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:52:10 +0000

Mr. Stegall, being a good biblical Christian, I think you can find support from Christ in your fine argument against pets.

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, or pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Mat 7:6).

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:28:09 +0000

With the perfidy of this latest Calebist Manifesto, A Spectre Haunts the Front Porch. This Spectre is Herfordism. What now ye gawds…., with taunting the bourgeoisie and their pets, the next thing we will hear from the sturm und drang corner of Kansas is an attack upon the very foundations of the USA, the front lawn and in a kind of nihilist hysterical dialecticism, we shall hear that MAN, by force of mower will become Super Plower and verily subvert the debilitating life of stupefied obeisance to the Scotts Fertilizer Code of Applications and turn yon lawn into a rutabaga patch, thus bringing to a sordid conclusion the Hegelian conflict between the forces of Agriculture and the forces of Suburbia and in the process, perhaps bringing back full employment for sheep.

Abandon All Hope oh ye who enter, particularly if a bucket is sighted.

As to the etymological discovery, I take it on good authority from a certain Chinese Engineer I have the unalloyed pleasure of knowing that “Dog meat make you warm and monkey brain make you smaht.” And here I thought our Cambodian friends never shivered because they come from tropical latitudes.

By: Add Some Mushrooms, Some Carrots, A Bit Of Red Wine And Onion… « Around The Sphere

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:32:44 +0000

[...] the ball bounces to Caleb Stegall, who picks it up: “Pets” as a category are a symptom of the deeper rot and sickness of [...]

By: Empedocles

Empedocles — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:42:15 +0000

Caleb, don’t you know that you’re not allowed to criticize any behavior, no matter how moronic, in the US because we’re “autonomous individualistic Westerners”? Criticizing any behavior makes you into Chairman Mao.

By: Pauli

Pauli — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:12:27 +0000

The answer to the question of whether one can eat one’s own pet seems to be easily ascertained if one can provide answers to these: 1) Is it starting to annoy me? 2) Will it taste good? and 3) Is it microwave safe? I’d place a greater value on the answer to the truly moral question: “Can I bust a cap in my neighbor’s pet?”

By: Josh Ney

Josh Ney — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:16:57 +0000

Caveat: Most of the program reinforces Caleb’s central point (see the discussion with the inventor of technology which allows dogs to bark at their masters over a cell phone). Nevertheless, the discussion at the beginning of the program regarding the history of dog breeding provides historical support for the claim that our cultural pet fetish (“petish”?) is not only a “symptom of the deeper rot and sickness of conspicuous consumption in American culture and life” but also represents a direct assault on the dignity and health of the friendly beasts themselves.

By: Josh Ney

Josh Ney — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:53:54 +0000

Here’s a link to an interesting program from NPR’s Talk of the Nation on the genetic history of dogs, and the genetic disorders that have resulted from (in)breeding dogs for hyper-domestic characteristics rather than breeding for functional use (hunting, hauling, retrieving, etc.):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104183265

By: Webster

Webster — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:06:56 +0000

I am reminded of another agrarian communitarian who didn’t approve of the decadence of pet ownership – Chairman Mao.

Fortunately, Mr. Stegall is not in any position to do more than sneer at the masses of autonomous individualistic Westerners who spend some of our economic excess on ‘useless’ pets.

Shorter version – Hey Buddy, this is America – you don’t like it? Tough!

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:10:50 +0000

How much of this trend in treating pets like nice little people comes from a worldview which has lowered the status of man to just another animal?

Christianity, especially those of us in the Augustinian tradition holds a “low anthropology”–but still sees the image of God uniquely in people.

Certain other postmodern worldviews see us as basically no different from a chimp, rat, or pig–nothing special. Maybe the practice is not raising the pet up to human status, but a subconscious reflection that the pet is like the owner.

By: Caleb Stegall

Caleb Stegall — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:50:54 +0000

A worthy addendum:

“The author … points out the etymology of the English word ‘pet’. What he didn’t take note of is that the Latin word for ‘pet’ is ‘delicium’, the root of the English word ‘delicious.’ I’m sorry, but that just can’t be an accident.”

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:36:46 +0000

The good=the useful=ordinary bourgeois Lockean opinion–nothing to do with the French Revolution. A typical American excess, Tocqueville says. And sort of a joke in the context of pets or canine friends. I think mr. icr was joking too, maybe about the tendency of some to identify the modern with the radical, the gnostic, and whatnot. Pets are pretty much useless in any obvious sense friends, although only in the obvious sense: There’s a lot to learn from them. So I’m pro pet, although maybe I should give ‘em some chores.

By: Caleb Stegall

Caleb Stegall — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:54:17 +0000

That’s me, stinkin’ of the French Revolution! Love the smell of der Furher in the morning!

And if that was Peter’s point, he missed my point entirely, which would be odd since he’s such a smart guy. Note the title of the piece is “Against Pets” not “Against Man’s Best Friend”.

And of course utility is an aspect of the good (especially as defined over and against the literal meaning of a “pet” as a useless narcissistic accessory). Even the un-ed-ji-kated rednecks and clodhoppers know this. Perhaps they especially know this.

By: icr

icr — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:37:14 +0000

Most of us can’t live on farms, so (for some of us) having companion animals is a way to partially replicate the rural existence of our common ancestors.

P.S. Adding to peter lawler’s point, the term “man’s best friend” was around long before we existed in our current state of degeneracy.
“i thought identifying the good with the useful is some modern deformation.” Right, it has the smell of the French Revolution, National Socialism and Bolshevism.

By: Bob Cheeks

Bob Cheeks — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:10:22 +0000

Never name your food.

The neighbors named their bull “Binky,” so the neighbor’s kids were remiss about eating “Binky.” Me and mine had a lotta grilled “Binky.”