- News anchor: The animal rights activists also demanded the release of all farm animals and pets, stating that humans had no right to deny animals a life in natural surroundings.
- Woo: But what’s freedom worth without someone to give you tummy rubs?
|
|
Currently on hiatus :-(
 S&W in German/auf DeutschGaia (my fantasy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
| Sandra and Woo is supported by our patron Medinoc. Thank you very much! |
|
![[0463] Freedom](/comics/2013-03-14-0463-freedom.png "[0463] Freedom")
[0463] Freedom
└ posted on Thursday, 14 March 2013, by Novil
Click here to see the comments!
Sandra and Woo by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2008 – 2024 Oliver Knörzer
To the contrary, he is free to leave any time he want’s. No-one is locking him in.
(Also I would totally give up freedom for tummy rubs)
Farm animals and most pets are no longer capable of surviving in the wild. Millennia of adaption to our needs has made them our responsibility. Throwing them to the wolves is not an option. Feed them, shelter them, love them. How someone treats animals is a better way to judge their nature than how they treat people.
@ abowden:
And even if they DID lock him in, he’d probably get out anyway – this ‘coon is a tricky one, he is!
eddi wrote:
Exactly. If you release domesticated animals into the wild, they’re just going to get hit by cars, or get picked off by wild predators. They should be treated humanely, because they depend on us and we depend on them. Chances are that Woo will live a much longer happier life as a pet, because Sandra sees to his food and shelter, which he would otherwise have to struggle for in the wild.
Also, how someone treats animals is actually a good way to judge how they treat people. I believe Gandhi had something to say about this.
lol
sometimes people failed to see the fact that home animals nature is not in the wild. One easy example is that some times ago, i tried to shoosh a stray cat away from my office, but it keeps on coming back, and try to get in whenever no one see. Also when inside, the cat always try to hide on the corner where we have a hard time reaching it, simply refusing to be thrown back to wild.
So, i think those animal activist are not a real animal activist at heart, but a mere activist of what they prefer to see animals are in. In a way those misguided activist who says pets should be freed to wil are like saying we should set out our 10 year old child to the wild, without even considering what the child really wants. Human’s arrogance i say.
eddi wrote:
Not really. It just shows how they treat animals. If someone treats animals well, but is awful to people, there’s still something wrong with them.
This strip reminded me of something I read in a Gerald Durrell book – that animals need their needs fulfilled, and that it is not necessarily tied to having the “freedom” of their natural habitat – that, very often, the individual animals are actually better off in captivity because their needs are fulfilled more reliably there. Something to that effect. Definitely true for domesticated animals, as abowden said.
Here we see the domesticated raccoon in its natural habitat. Any of those other animals given the choice would probably like to be around people too.
It Is funny how you never see People Eating Tasty Animals, etc endorsing freedom for skunks, snakes or such.
Site note: your ‘Look’ ads seem to be eating the comment box.
… they may take our lives, but they will never take OUR TUMMY RUBS!!!!
Does Lily not give Woo tummy rubs?
I know it;s supposed to be comedic, but doesn’t this trivialise the abuses committed in the modern farming system? =/
I am not the ‘free’ willy stereotype’ and would prefer that the animals be raised free range instead of an indoors 4×4 enclosure with a grill floor. =/
Garrett Williams wrote:
As seen in episode 305 (Cuddling), Lily prefers rubbing another part of Woo’s anatomy… 😛
And, as Woo is well aware, there are few things more unnatural than a full stomach all year round.
Lily: So I just lie here and she posts the food into my mouth?
Woo: Or rubs your belly. Your choice.
Freedom of farm animals and pets?
Woo is sly, he doesn’t need freedom, he can get out anytime.
Good ole’ Woo. 😀
All farm animals? Well, i hope they enjoy being eaten by wolves.
1. Everything made of matter is ‘natural’. As we can not create energy or matter from nothing, everything in the world is ‘natural’. As such, Humans and what Humans do is part of nature.
2. Trying to force your views on others is an invitation to war. If you don’t like something you are free to say so, avoid it, not buy it, etc. In the end, people will do as they want.
3. Ah, Woo is wise. Not much beats a free meal and someone caring for you.
4. There are cases where people should not be allowed to have custody… of kids, animals, weapons, and sometimes even themself. See Woo’s original owner? What can you do? I mean, these people are as persistant as internet trolls!
I would also like tummy rubs, but that would just get my blubber all a wavy and bouncing.
More tummy rubs?
Come to Africa?
@ eddi:
@ Frozenwolf150:
eddi wrote:
As I said in a previous reply…
come to Africa!
And see how Wonderful/Cruel is nature!
@ Zaff: I wouldn’t mind coming to Africa, I hear they have big cats down there that love to play tag…an animal is only dangerous if you threaten it, try to take its food, get between it and its young, or mess up their habitat to the point where they are forced to move…if you avoid doing all those then wild animals won’t attack you…just remember to bring LOTS of steak for the carnivorous ones.
@ Hana – Marmota:
I know that Life of Pi specifically commented on how zoo and circus animals are much better off in captivity and could easily escape if they wanted to.
Missed the actual “Sandy and Woo”, glad to see them in the same comic again
@ Kobrag:
True– domestic animals wouldn’t do well in the wild, but that just means it’s our responsibility to treat them as kindly as we can, now that we’ve adapted them for captivity. Tummy rubs are good. Being locked in a tiny cage all the time is not so good.
Kobrag wrote:
Idealy… butw just imagine the amount of “outside” necessary to feed current populace… Plus imagine the amount of “outside” to grow “bio” vegetables and fruits… hell even fish from seafarms would drain the ocean populace hellishly if we used that…
Human kind has to feed itself by means of technology and additional energy and effective controled enviroments… This planet is too small for us “naturaly” already.
And well… there is no other planet capable of “naturaly feeding us” in this solar system, and so far Alcubieere drives (well… did a little digging- idea of that actualy first came in Starship Troopers… nicked “Cherenkov drive”) we don´t have. (though there is little idea to test the hypothesis in lab using few phase-synced free electron lasers), hyperdrives are no closer than when Asimov made them up, and well wormhole jump drives Nathan Rosen came up with we do not have either…
So either we eat less (which well… would probably help in Europe and US with health system) but generaly most planet can not eat less…
One sad thing is that the “unused food” usually can not be shipped to where it isn´t the amount of energy needed for that is too high.
It’s kind of weird how Woo’s talking is kind of just, there. There hasn’t been any real story, or use for it yet. Also, where has woo been the past few months? It’s been awhile since he’s came up. He’s kind of a side character at this point 🙁
@ naradan:
It’s not human arrogance, it’s just stupidity.
Besides the fact that adaptation has caused most hoe animals/farm animals to become incapable of surviving in the wild, how many farm animals and home animals are native to the locations that these activists are protesting in? Releasing pets and grazing animals into the wild would cause a massive ecosystem collapse.
@ Opal Eyes:
it’s human arrogance as in human always thinks and try to enforced the idea that they know better even when they’re not. and arrogance always lead to stupidity sooner or later.
so, arrogance and stupidity is actually close to each other, and they’re also close to ignorance. its because arrogance and ignorace are within one family called “stupidity leading ego”.
@ Paeris Kiran:
Actually, there’s more than enough arable farmland to generate enough food for the world population (if it was just managed efficiently), and while herd animals do use up a lot more space than crops, herd animals such as cows, chickens and sheep are multi-purpose resources, while animals like pigs (and guinea pigs if you’re in south america), can be fed the organic leftovers from human food (vegetable peelings, slightly off fruit and the like), and are thus a much smaller burden on resources.
Now, trying to farm enough animals so everyone can have a steak every weeknight, that’s beyond the ability of the planet to handle, but you should be eating more vegetables than meat anyway 😛
Frozenwolf150 wrote:
When you say “animals” there, I take it you not only exclude humans from the word… BUT that you’re not including the entirety of the kingdom Animalia.
Personally, I reckon THAT reveals a lot more about you than how you treat any given species.
.
Anyway… it wouldn’t work with me. I worship cats and hate humans.
naradan wrote:
And calling it “Human Arrogance” implies that most people are like that, which is simply not the case. Many people are pretty humble, freely admitting they’re not geniuses, and many people who have opinions on how things should be done can easily demonstrate the facts and logic used to reach their conclusions – it’s not arrogance to think you’re right if you can explain why. The people who obstinately insist they’re right when they clearly aren’t are a minority, albeit not so small a minority as we’d like.
SotiCoto wrote:
While I don’t worship cats I do like them and in general I do agree with what you’re saying, it seems to me that when people say animals in this context it seems to me that they are actually specifically referring to the phylum Chordata, while simultaneously excluding humans. Though if Agent Smith from The Matrix is to be believed then that may actually be an accurate exclusion.
WJS wrote:
No such implication. You simply assume too much. Tell me: what other species demonstrates the concept of arrogance as well as humans do? If you can’t then would it not simply make sense to assert that arrogance is more of a human trait than anything? Hence human arrogance. It doesn’t need to apply to everyone in order to be human arrogance, it just needs to apply.
You would have made a better point if you picked up on where naradan used the word “always”, because if something is “always” then something else is “never” which typically can be proven wrong by citing cases that stand against the implied “never” claim.
I know this probably looks like nitpicking but this kind of thing is exactly why they don’t give full marks in school for getting the right answer when you used the wrong method to come to it. If he hadn’t put the ludicrous “always” claim in there you would have been way off the mark in the end as well.
it DOES depend on the animal- domesticated cats, for example, are still close enough to wildcats to be able to survive in the wild ( its’ where feral cats come from- they’re either people’s pets that have escaped/been abandoned, or the descendents of the same)
On the other hand, it’s worth noting that many animals literally cannot survive in the wild- either because the domesticated varieties have had many of their evolutionary advantages bred out of them Cows, possibly sheep, most species of dog) or because they have lost the instincts that help a wild animal survive ( most other animals). The second one, by the way, is why reintroducing an animal into the wild that has been looked after by humans has to be done EXTREMELY carefully- and there are quite a few places that prefer to house former wild animals for life rather than go through the hassle of making sure the animal can survive in the wild.
As a final note, there is a reason why cats, in particular- which are perfectly capable of surviving on their own- nearly always return to their owner. If you had a choice between having to worry each day about finding food, water and shelter, spending most of the day hunting for food, if you get sick or injured, you are all but guaranteed to die ( either of the sickness, or of starvation) and be unable to do anything about any fleas that decide to take up residence or, alternatively, living somewhere warm, with food and water provided, if you get sick, you are given help to recover, and if you get fleas, something is done about it.
I know which one I would choose.
We’re not preventing them from experiencing their natural environment, this IS their natural environment. Most pets and farm animals have adapted over thousands of years to make a symbiotic relationship with the human race; dogs descended from wolves in order to provide assistance in many different means, cats have been genetically selected to hunt vermin and pests, cows, chickens and sheep were all bred to feed and clothe humans, and all in exchange for being taken care of their entire lives. The situation is beneficial to both of us, especially when you consider that these domesticated animals typically have much longer life spans- as well as being capable of more mental acrobatics, in case of pets- than their wild counterparts.