Vermin as pets...Why?

FearlessLeader2

FearlessLeader2

Fundamentalist Loon
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Messages
4,271
Location
Standing atop the K-12.
(Transplanted from closed Scorpion sting thread, as this question seems valid to me.)

Man domesticated Dog to help him hunt and to use their keen senses to warn of danger. He brought Cat into his home to shut Woman up about the mice. He brought Songbird to hear its pretty call.

Can someone explain why Vermin and Reptiles were added to that list? Pets are supposed to be companions valued for their usefulness, beauty, companionship, or some combination of the three. Why are creatures that exhibit none of these traits invited into people's homes?

Some have said that curiousity is a factor. To them I would say that curiousity is what compels us to touch dangerous things, and experience is what prompts us to keep them far far away in the future. So, again, why do people choose to ignore the experience of others and keep potentially lethal animals and vermin as pets?
 
Because hamsters are sooo cute! Why else!
I'd like to know which bright spark thought drinking from a cow's udders was such a great idea? How on earth did they come up with that idea? :lol:
 
What makes "vermin" more "lethal" than cats or dogs?

Why do Americans eat factory farmed pigs yet cringe at three day old roadkill (that's probably much fresher than their pork)? Why do people love to feed the birds but hate to feed the resourceful squirrels? Why don't people have monkies as pets?

It's all just a matter of preference and cultural conditioning. Personally I like cats and dogs better than rabbits and mice but I hold no grudge against someone who might feel oppositely.

- Narz :king:
 
On a side note : FearlessLeader, I like your occupation (from your profile). You wouldn't happen to need a partner (or "fill-in" :lol: ) would you?
 
I own a bearded dragon... she's extremely beautiful and very comforting. She even likes hanging from my shirt like a tie! She also keeps the moth and cricket (and mouse, though they're more rare) population around here down. Though granted, less intelligent/pastille lizards and insects may not be as socially adapted, but it all depends on the person.
 
It seems your question is based on either irrational fear, ignorance or both. I'm guessing that when talking about potentially leathal vermin, like most people, you think of the black plauge which, as everyone knows, was caused by those nasty little rats & their fleas and had nothing to do with the fact that the idea of sanitation at the time was something along the lines of 'Faeces goes outside'. All fine & dandy for remote farming communities, but take that attitude into the towns and sooner or later the local drinking water will start to have quite undesirable effects on the consumer.

Sorry if it seems as though I'm making a personal attack on you Fearless, believe me I'm not. I'm just sick of the ignorance 95% of the population has towards the animal kingdom. You are more likely to recieve an ailment from a shopping trolly than a non-human member of the animal kingdom.

As for keeping venomous creatures, it's not the creature that's potentially dangerous. It's the keepers knowledge (or lack there of, more likely) of the creature, that holds the potential danger (e.g. If you cradle a taipan to your bosom, expect to die painfully, sort of thing).

Instead of looking for answers from other people, you should try finding the answers yourself. Get yourself a rat or something, It will give you your own personal answer, the only correct one there is.
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
Pets are supposed to be companions valued for their usefulness, beauty, companionship, or some combination of the three. Why are creatures that exhibit none of these traits invited into people's homes?
Click to expand...

Then you fail to realize that people have very varied definitions of these three reasons.

I must say that I have never found greater pets than rats. They have strong personalities, are clean if kept right and are cuddy and extremely smart. Way smarter than some dumb dog!
 
Knowze Gungk said:
It seems your question is based on either irrational fear, ignorance or both. I'm guessing that when talking about potentially leathal vermin, like most people, you think of the black plauge which, as everyone knows, was caused by those nasty little rats & their fleas and had nothing to do with the fact that the idea of sanitation at the time was something along the lines of 'Faeces goes outside'. All fine & dandy for remote farming communities, but take that attitude into the towns and sooner or later the local drinking water will start to have quite undesirable effects on the consumer.
Click to expand...
If hygiene was the deciding factor, how come that the Arab world was hit harder by the Black Death than Europe, where hygienic standards were, on the whole, lower?
As for keeping venomous creatures, it's not the creature that's potentially dangerous. It's the keepers knowledge (or lack there of, more likely) of the creature, that holds the potential danger (e.g. If you cradle a taipan to your bosom, expect to die painfully, sort of thing).
Click to expand...
Your conception of "potentially dangerous" seems to differ alot from mine. Would you consider dogs potentially dangerous? Guns?
 
How could you not find these guys adorable?

cosmo.jpg


skink.jpg


Yes, both of those are mine, although the one on the bottom is currently living at my father's work as a company mascot. I also have a Boa Constrictor that I don't have a good picture of.
 
Well, my snake is a very loyal and beautiful animal, and I'll never in a million years class reptiles as "vermin".
*Glares at FL2*
 
Seleucas,
Clearly your lizards are beautiful, and qualify for pet status. I can see where some might think hamsters are visually attractive, although having experienced their stench and noise, I will never regard them as fit for anything but snake food.

But I'm not talking about lizards with colorful scales or relatively harmless snakes. I'm asking why anyone would want something poisonous or capable of seriously harming them as a pet, especially if it cannot be trained not to do so.

A well-treated, well-trained dog is a loyal companion, and more than being merely harmless, can actually provide aid to a human. How precisely does one train a tarantula or a scorpion or a king cobra? Can you put a black mamba on a leash and take it to the park?
 
I think you have the wrong idea of the purpose of pets. There is no "qualifying" for a pet status. Pets do not need a "use." Say my cat, for example. I don't love him because he's harmless, thats just plain absurd. The cat is absolutely useless, and does nothing all day but eat and sleep. But still, I absolutely love him. There is no putting into words "why" or "how" I feel this way, and simply put, there is no reason to explain these things. If I can feel this way about my cat, I see no reason why someone cannot feel the same about a dog, a lizard, a hamster, or a tarantula or scorpion. People have different preferences, and that is just the way it is. I, for one, have never understood why anyone would want a rabbit as a pet, as those things just sit around doing literally nothing all day (cats at least meow, what sound does a rabbit make? Exactly), but I can still understand that people can still feel connections between themselves and their rabbits.

What you're trying to do is give every animal a specific reason why they can be pets. But pets don't need a reason or a use, they need love. And love between pets is just something inexplainable.
 
@TLC - :rotfl:

@Riesstiu - What a cute monkey. I don't even think that's a real monkey though, it's a little person in a monkey costume!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom