Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Tigers as Pets

I have never believed that owning a tiger as a pet was so dangerous that it should be banned or regulated. I believe it even less these days because the reasons given to ban or regulate are at best over-hyped. They are usually deliberately dishonest and come from the usual suspects who hate humanity and want the human race to live miserable lives (go to Hell) and die.

You can even see that pattern in the behavior of people who say that they want to preserve our lives who are not animal activists. They might not believe it themselves or think of it that way, but it is a negative tradition to continually attack another person's pleasures as health hazards and worse. They have done the Orwellian inversion really well. That which gives life these days is often cast as being worse than death. Both human and animal methods of propagating life are being condemned by social custom that has a lot more to do with self-hatred than with the kind of love of life and family that should be the basis for morality. The feelings are so soundly condemned that I fear to talk about them.

Negatives are granted way too much of our time and energy. This grant wastes our energies, our money, and for God's sake our time, time that I miss dreadfully, thinking now that my initiation to the big cat world was sixteen years ago and during that time the animal rights activists have caused massive damage to our rights. One animal demonstrated to me that there was so much love in the world and that a big cat could contain so much love that it was worth every misery that humans have contrived to inflict on ourselves and others. Imagine the fact that if a giant predator meets a human being who is new to him, he seeks that person's approval and affection, and if that person seems "just right" in some way, he showers that "destructive human" with love like few humans have ever known.

This is what the sociopaths of the world truly hate. How many of us in school have seen people work to break up young love affairs just to be doing it? That has to be jealousy. They might make contact and they might feel the current flowing through them, but they do not benefit from it the way that a normal human does.

You know very well that the "bully" or "sociopath" who wants to take away what we love or value can't tell us so. They have to disguise it as something else and themselves as fearsome warriors who will protect us from the evils that lurk in the dark woods. The darkness has to make us hide our lights under bushel baskets, behind veils, behind circumlocutory speech, so that the darkness can do what darkness does. The light always chases away the darkness and forces it to hide behind things. This metaphor is always true.

A predator is a creature of light. She does best with a population that is strong because she draws her strength from the creatures that she eats. Parasites are always sickly creatures because although they at least in part control the animals that they burrow into, by necessity, they always draw their sustenance by being less than those who they take it from. This metaphor is also always true. Social parasites always have to take something from you and make you less. A real predator has to make you more powerful to become more powerful itself, as predators are raised from below. Parasites eat away at the foundation of life. Predators have to nurture and protect their foundations to survive. Parasites live and prosper, insofar as they can prosper, in a constantly degrading world. That's why they become tiny worms that feed on the flesh of much larger and better creatures. Predators create and live in a world of constant improvement. Their prey improve and so do they. Their natural temperaments are consistent with this.

When I approach a tiger, I am attracted to life. Everything that we know about predators points to and illustrates the fact that a predator, as I just said, depends on supporting the life of its prey. More so with animals and less so with humans, that support is expressed as physical love. Humans do it too, or can. Predators and humans also, almost always, mentally mark those individuals whom they love as "not food." When pet tigers attack and kill, it is usually by accident. Humans also accidentally kill pets and loved ones. Also, even if it is usually not considered justifiable, humans who kill other humans or animals on purpose believe that they have a legitimate problem that must be solved by killing.

Compare and contrast, engage in weighty philosophical discussion for years on end, brawl online and whine and moan, and while the philosophy is enlightening and the brawling is social, it comes to me that the more people who simply decide that they want a tiger as a pet, the more they can find legal places and means to do it, and the more they can create legal places and means. In 1980 when they made the tiger a legal domestic pet in British Columbia, Canada, it worked mostly because that is what they wanted to do. These days tiger owners generally say "please don't hurt us too much." They actually want "regulations." When they do, how can they then object to the "more is better" approach to regulations? How can they contain the regulations and keep them from becoming destructive? It was a lot easier when regulations either did not exist or were extremely lax. "Strict" regulations are only good for acts of destruction. That is why social parasites love them.

If a tiger loves you, he or she will give you their strength free of charge. Because the emotional bond is symbiotic the tiger loses no strength in doing so. Shared strength is like shared warmth. When two creatures cling to each other on a cold night they are both warmer. This is literally sharing life. This is what the parasites want to stop us from doing. A strong animal's immune system sickens and kills parasites.

What I am saying about tigers is true of other animals. To me it is simple biology. It is also true that most animals are not as intense as the tiger and that a lot of humans have a strong compatibility with the tiger and are able to be full partners with the tiger. This kind of relationship is valuable in and of itself. People pay billions of dollars just for the slightest whiff of this relationship.

Who would even be willing to pick your friends and life partners for you? Even being willing to do that is a sign of mental illness. Being willing to use force is violently insane. Stealing your beloved tiger from you then treating it like junk, like the animal junkyard created near San Antonio by Ron and Carole Asvestas, is an even sicker act. Possession of the tiger in a very real way is possession of health. The taking of the pet tiger deliberately inflicts sickness on the victim by removing health. People have sickened and died shortly after losing their animals, be they dogs or tigers.

The cruelty of the methods of taking also contributes to the deaths of human beings and inflicts illness. That is the point of gaining the power to choose another person's friends and life partners. A compromised life is at greater risk of being lost altogether. This causes desperation, naturally. A desperate, weakened, compromised person is much easier to exploit. A strong person finds ways to remove the profit from these scams.

It is worth noting that parasites cannot live without their hosts. They die back after they have used too many hosts. When they get desperate they attack stronger people and they get knocked back. The program of the animal rights activists is to attempt to saturate the world with enough of their poison to weaken those who would be strong against them and they have just a few people who would kill those who would stand strong against them. If they do get obvious enough about the killing then strong people will find ways to kill them and that is an unequal war because strong people are smarter, can get away with more, and they will do a more thorough job of it. Good people are getting sick of a one-sided shooting war. Make no mistake about it. When they set things on fire, destroy cars and homes, vandalize, and release valuable animals, this is a shooting war.

The content of this essay reflects a lot of internalized abuse. One should, like Ralph Helfer, be able to talk about the desire to have a pet tiger or lion or other animal without even mentioning the damned animal rights activist or their antics.

People are afraid of the power of life, we really are. It doesn't seem to take much to tip that fear into self-destructive action and action that is destructive of other human and non-human animals.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

"The Ends Justify the Means."

I was browsing some of the entries at the Blue Dog State blog. In this entry the writer made a very pertinent and useful statement:

What kind of word games are these people playing?

It's all about the animals. [Not.]

cited, rarely clarified -- and often thoughtlessly uttered -- this statement needs translation. What it really means is:

The ends justify the means.
They really do act as if they are above the law and their actions remind me of a sequence in "Free the Animals!" (only buy used and if you must buy it, buy it from me, please *grin*). "Valerie" and her black-bandannaed friend are at a terrorist camp dreaming out loud and one of them says "think of the things that we will outlaw." There's a statement to make a real American try to get his legislators to impose some social justice upon their hides.

It seems to be working, doesn't it? When Scottlund Haisley terrorizes middle-aged ladies, when Bill Smith lies about pipes being shoved down the throats of dogs, when teenage children set cars on fire, they get what they want. Come on. There should be a natural intransigence against this kind of abuse.

Their kind of "the end justifies the means" involves the illegal and corrupt use of force against people who are engaged in legal activities. Often the people they use this force against are better for the animals than they are,not a high standard to beat. Often they kill the animals that they tear away from loving owners, or they put them in degrading conditions. That's the point of the exercise, to damage humanity first by destroying our animals. The word from Chicago and New York recently is that the animal control people are horribly abusing their own volunteers and the animals. This is a deliberate program of emotional and physical abuse.

Now suppose we took this "the ends justify the means" and look at it another way. Suppose that not the human participants in the program are more than willing? If the means can ever be justified by the means, when the means are most benign that's when. They're telling us that the environment is being destroyed at the same time that they work ruthlessly and maliciously to stamp out private breeding.

The "ends" include the maintenance of populations of animals that are of inestimable worth to the human race. Most of us are willing to contribute time, energy, and money to the cause. "Risk" seems to be an issue, as if only brown-skinned people should risk their lives to allow lions to be their neighbors. The push to erase risk is a swindle. If you look at the means that we sort of let slide, it becomes clear that there is less risk in a more or less properly contained pet tiger than there is in a spread of gasoline bombs in an otherwise quiet suburb.

The "means" are not just benign, but pleasant and life-enhancing. The animals take to it well. Happy animals reproduce and you know that an animal that showers you with love is in some way pretty happy. Animals are pretty easy to keep happy. Good food, good company, comfortable places to sleep, you generally have a happy camper.

What "means" do we want to justify? Burning down civilization or keeping a few pets that are somewhat more dangerous than teddy bears? That's my take on it. I don't know about you but I think that a house that is on fire is a lot more dangerous than a pet tiger.

Monday, September 13, 2010

What I do to fight animal abuse.

I give the animals adequate shelter, food, water, and medical care.

I endeavor to make the animals not just comfortable but happy and well socialized.

I check on them during extreme weather conditions, sometimes at a substantial risk to my own health and safety.

I continually seek to improve my care of those animals.

I do not cause unnecessary suffering. The phrase is always "unnecessary suffering."

What I do not do is manipulate people emotionally to get them angry at someone else who might be abusing their animals. I do not vandalize people's property for the "crime" of inconveniencing the animals.

I decide what suffering is "necessary" and freaky little immature twits from the A.L.F. can talk to my shotgun if they don't like it.

I take care of my own business because any responsible owner has their hands full taking care of their own business.

If you don't like what I just said, you can go and fuck yourself I don't really care.

Friday, September 10, 2010

My little declaration

When I touch a big cat I live. I'm a lot like the autistic boy who came out of his shell when he touched a cheetah. I know very well that it doesn't take "years of experience" just to be able to survive handling a big cat. If it did most of the people who handle them would already be dead.

I am not going to go through any years and years of "training" with so many months no-touch, so many years touching only through a fence, maybe ten years before flying solo. Some would think it suicidal, but with an owner's permission I would go into a situation where they give a few hours instruction and a few days supervised practice then allow me to be a handler. If there is a slightly increased chance that I would be injured and/or die, so be it. I think that anything beyond a few weeks training would be trying to put way too fine a point on it. Any increase in survivability would be too small to measure within the limits of error in that measurement. Doing the ten year stretch would simply be OCD.

When a person tries to have a life, he's screwed if he spends hours and hours of angst-filled introspection and lengthy philosophical discussion over things that can't be decided by the entire community with centuries to cogitate. (Guess how I know.) This is why at least hypothetically in the United States an individual is free to live in his own way. In practice even your best buds will lock you in a closet when in their opinion you are too free.

Since I don't want to do what they want me to do and won't be what they want me to be, the "professionals" of the exotic animal community will refuse to attempt to help me except to warn me that I am going to die. I'm sorry, the people who I have met online seem like decent people, but this ten years of ascension, with the permission of the guru, on a tightrope, is not my thing and I do not believe in it. It might impress the rubes but if it is an attempt to persuade people that their group of animal handlers (definitely not "we") is safe, they're missing some points.

One point is that everything that we do to try to impress the animal grabbers is wasted. They have a vested interest in doing things their way. You and I, if you are also interested in working with big cats, are "dangerous" unless we belong to their group, then we get a free pass on everything. As long as we are not caught with dropped trou in the town square we're fine. We would have to very very very blatantly embarrass the grabbers, which is very hard to do, and even if we manage that, they will just pretend that they don't know us. It works for the animal rights activists.

We simply don't know how to fight back. Too many people people started out trying to impress the cat grabbers in the beginning and the realization still doesn't seem to have sunk in, not in the right place in so many minds. The people who want to grab our animals away from us are going to tell any lie that it takes. They are going to negate any effort to impress them favorably by lying and by being the same sociopathic jerks that they always have been. Trying to impress them is spinning their wheels.

If this sounds like an appeal for someone to invite me to their home to play with their big cat, hey, I'd love it, I'd put my money and my tender body where my mouth is, but don't fall for it. If you as a responsible animal owner decide that I should be kept at arm's length, said arm ending in a hand resting on a keyboard, please do so. As everyone knows, if a person such as me benefits from any such idea, he is a selfish bastard who is manipulating things to get what he wants and that proves that his idea is of no benefit to anyone. Just tell yourself that you have my number.

They will use any "safety measure" to harass the exotic animal community. If they increase the required height of a fence from 12 to 14 feet and say that everyone has to "comply" it will cost tens of thousands of dollars at the very least per facility. They just claim that this makes things safer. It absolutely does not matter to them if we can prove that the savings in lives will be so few that they can't even be measured with any degree of certainty. As long as they can maintain a pretense, in other words, until the end of time, they will use that. People who believe in freedom, i.e. "suicidal idiots who are a danger to the community and should be Baker acted", are obviously wrong because 14 feet is safer than 12 feet.

And "our side" which I am not even nominally a part of wants to go them one or more better on training requirements. Does "our side" want to have enough members to fill a Suburban?

Because I am a selfish git in addition to being a suicidal idiot who should be Baker acted and who walks and talks funny anyway, I don't see the point of hanging on to something that is emotionally unrewarding. I want the joy of living with animals along with the work. This joy will not be happening. It will be ground out of me if I even reach the place where I am so lucky as to be in the grinder. Then I guess I won't be selfish anymore, anyway.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Just a couple of quick points

All of the "irresponsible" ownership of dogs, cats, or other animals does not cause as much problems as the rampant stealing by humane societies and owners of "scamtuaries" under color of law.

Our worst dangerous dogs and our worst dangerous animals of other species kill fewer people each year than almost any other cause of death and thousands of times fewer than mistakes made by doctors. Even without improvements in the sense of responsibility of the average human, we do not have a significant problem there.

A really strong bout of the Black Plague would overwhelm our medical system in modernized countries such as the U.S.A. The common housecat saved us from the plagues that decimated Europe. They save billions of tons of food from rodents each year. Small predators are necessary to prevent rats and mice from destroying homes, crops, stored foods, and bird populations. This means that we risk human and animal lives when we "clean out" feral cat colonies.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

It is impossible to underestimate AR

I feel relieved. I thought for a minute that the Animal Liberation Front wasn't going to say something ignorant about the shooter at Silver Spring Maryland, who took the violence of the animal rights movement to a slightly higher level not far from where Alex Pacheco lied to get Edward Taub in trouble with the police, the ASPCA, and Roger Caras.

Their headline: Environmental, Animal Activist James Jae Lee Executed by Police After Washington DC-Area Seige. I don't like linking to the ALF site and it's easy to find on Google.

I have been a pretty strong advocate against the death penalty and against tasering people who are handicapped by age whose crime is to talk back to crazy animal control people, but for crying out loud. They say "execute" like it's a bad thing when a crazy man is threatening a room full of hostages.

Even though Dr. Keith Ablow said on Fox News that the nameless idiot was "not a terrorist", come on. There are several organizations that have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that in some way the animal liberation and environmental groups are not terrorists. That vested interest includes the trillions of dollars that will be spent in the yet to be announced "war to save the environment" that will be launched as a profitable substitute for the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Chicago mob has been arranging for quite some time to control the bulk of those government funds, which will be no more carefully monitored than any other "superfund" or the AIDS billions that quietly disappeared. The thefts of all kinds of animals becomes much more understandable when you know that under the guise of "saving the environment" each animal will become a profit center worth millions, and the HSUS, the WWF, and others have banded together to create the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.

In spite of the fact that they hired known and convicted terrorist John Goodwin to a very cushy job as a reward for his terrorist activities for the ALF, the HSUS wants us to believe that they are against terrorism. Yeah, right, Goodwin's terrorist activities are his qualifications for the job. They want us to believe that they are not a sponsor of terrorism. I can understand that. If I were sponsoring terrorism I would want people to believe that I wasn't.

They want people to believe and disbelieve at the same time. Obviously the HSUS has a connection with terrorism. When PETA helps out Rodney Coronado and even one of its founders has been caught in overt terrorist activities, it has a connection with terrorism. Then when we want to nail them against the wall, they somehow wriggle out of it with denials. Something's missing here. What stays our hand? Is there interference from a cabal that knows that it is going to profit tremendously from the war to save the environment?

The Inquisitions were designed not to get at a few old ladies who had some cats and dogs and valuable real estate although that was a profitable sideline. The real thrust was social control by terror. If anyone is going to kick, that's the time. It is hard on people to see sweet old ladies being burned in bonfires. This also inflames the usual town lowlifes. Whoever protested found themselves accused and burned also. These days they do you in with political correctness.

The AR movements and the environmental movements need the terrorists. The leaders can't own these things without them. Some of us relax and go to sleep again because we think that they're fighting to save wildlife and the environment. We give them a pass. Most of us have such a tyrannical conscience over alleged environmental destruction that we let them abuse us. We even pay our dominators and dominatrixes for the favor.

Terrorists should be taken out and shot and their sponsoring organizations should be disbanded and the leadership jail for life. It's a fine line to walk when you're a greasy sociopath from Chicago who needs the terrorists, who needs to curry their favor, and who needs them to singe people once in a while. You all know which sociopath I am talking about.

So they just keep playing the game. They reward and help the terrorists with one hand and deny and "renounce" violence with the other sides of their mouths. We sort of sit still confused if we haven't decided that yes, the animal rights cultists and the environmentalists have been violent since the 1970s and this is a shooting war. To me it's a shooting war if my home, my car, or my workplace has been bombed or set on fire. It's a lot more of a shooting war if one of theirs straps on a suicide bomb and takes hostages. I'm glad that the police put a bullet in James Lee. They need to do it a lot more often instead of sucking up to them.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Negative versus positive

This is an issue that I've had and it's been building up inside me. The so-called humane people base their careers on the real criminality of just a very few people and the imagined criminality of the many.

Then they become hoarders and abusers themselves plus they beg and whine for and get the authority to "straighten things out" by attacking people as they see fit, which winds up with a lot of innocent people being mauled by their local law enforcement and a lot of animals being killed and given up to the theft rings.

That is the result of negativity. I've mentioned this here several times in the past two or three years. I'm convinced that all attempts at a humane system should be positive and constructive. What we have depends on killing perfectly healthy animals to get them away from "inhumane" treatment.

Negativity is like that. By its nature it cannot be handled responsibly. They get it upside down and see it as other people being unable to raise animals responsibly but since they are wearing negative-colored glasses they can't see it in any other light or lack of light. "So mad I can't see straight" is a common phrase. If you can't see straight, how do you fix things? You don't. You just make them worse.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

If the world suffered a catastrophic blow?

Could the vegans, AR nuts, and environmentalists survive if the world were struck a catastrophic blow, such as an asteroid strike or a supervolcano explosion?

Most likely we would have to kill or convert most of them if we wanted to survive. They take advantage of our complacency and sense of security to put in all their little "measures" and their hurts, and to continually reduce our standard of living and the value of our lives. I would rather not have to have the world reduced to a smoking ruin before I woke up to this. An ounce of prevention could save the human race, so please stop these people.

One of them just took a few shots at some human beings. I would just as soon forget his name. Its name. I'm glad that it's dead. I've read its manifesto and its a retard.

People who hate humanity are this sick. I guess we brush them off and don't think about it but now we have a good reason to stop and think. They will use singular examples of bad dog breeders, if they can pretend that one exists and make us believe it, to tar all dog breeders with an ugly brush, but no matter how many times they blow up houses and cars and drive people out of business with terrorist acts, too few people seem to wake up and smell the coffee. Did one of them actually have to shoot a person? Arson and bombs aren't enough? As usual, is someone effing kidding me?

You go to the Animal Liberation Front's website and click on "Press Office" and you can see that they have constantly been congratulating people who commit acts of arson which risk human deaths and should be considered death threats. I'm surprised that they have the wisdom to speak not one fucking word about this incident. It's a good time to remind people that John Goodwin of the HSUS has said that he was ecstatic when a family was run out of their home by an ALF arson. How many people here know that Ira Einhorn of "Earth Day" fame killed his girlfriend and kept the body in a trunk in his apartment? There is the constant clamor that we must curtail human reproduction and human activities, by deadly means if deemed necessary, deemed by whom I don't know.

Could this be the beginning of a wave of attacks? Now here we have a dilemma. No one on the side of the human beings wants to go around killing people for being environmentalists. They constantly attack our lifestyles, our freedoms, what we love, the way that we think, and our diets, and they constantly find ways to hurt us and actually compromise our lives. Yet somehow the "butcher of Baghdad" was more important although we have problems to take care of here at home, and our people went over there and killed a lot of people in the name of freedom. In the name of everyone's freedoms but those of Americans? And the freedoms of Americans have been labeled as "too dangerous" and thus we just give them away to the worst groups that exist in this day and age, groups that have murdered millions of perfectly good animals just to get them away from the people who love them?

They want to say that their calls for mass human genocide are "in the abstract" but the longer it remains "in the abstract" the more it seems to become set to become a reality, all at once, thousands of these people with guns charging into legal businesses, rather like a puppy mill raid but firing the guns as they go, like they did in the raid of Terry Cullen's business, killing two dogs. This is so very close to being the end result of a planned military buildup.

Rambling on: Pieces of our souls are held hostage when they take our animals. New York and Chicago are reaching a peak of keeping thousands of dogs in durance vile, as hostages, holding pieces of our souls in evil conditions, making them suffer long painful deaths. They lead the nation in stealing animals. Cook County (Chicago) deputies actually went out of jurisdiction to steal one woman's dogs. They have a hoard that they have stolen and the HSUS's projections about hoarding actually tell their own story, that they hoard on purpose, by stealing, in order to have an evil effect on humanity. Do not ever underestimate the effect of psychological warfare. They can use the animals to send messages of hope or they can send messages of despondency that paralyze us. The only defense is to stand up for ourselves, to think for ourselves.

And I was talking about ARs and environmentalists wanting us dead and shooting at us and setting our property on fire? Killing our animals is the same thing. The ALF takes credit for arsons, literally saying that they take credit for arsons. It's a small step to deliberate killings and if they haven't killed anyone yet it's dumb luck. There is that "Negotiation is Over" website. They are very open about advocating violence against persons. One Walter Bond complains about his likely fictional experience at a slaughterhouse. He likes to set things on fire so he just might be a turd.

They like to pretend that even before September 1, 2010, they didn't fire the first shot, but a lot of legal businesses have been destroyed by them, so it's a little bit vague, and a lot of people lead lives that were diminished by them. I don't know how many suicides their actions inspired. They talk like they're badasses until something comes along that can really land them in hot water, then they're talking chickenshit. All arson fires are a death threat. One fireman a few years ago in Bellevue Nebraska was killed by a ceiling collapse after the fire was out and that's how dangerous it is. When Walter Bond fails, through no virtue of his own, to kill anyone with his criminal use of fire, he's an ALF darling. Notice that the ALF, PETA, and the HSUS are saying "not one fucking word" on their sites and they don't know the Anonymous Turd. Say what? A legal business is burned and they give support to the terrorist. They pretend that the AR groups haven't crossed the line by disowning one of their own turds.

That's how people like that maintain an unblemished record. They just rewrite history the way they want it to look. If Anonymous had set a building on fire he would be their hero. Same turd, same shit, just juggle the rhetoric a little. And they want like anything to pretend that this never was a shooting war. This is a very good time for them to pretend that they are nonviolent and that this has never been a shooting war. Yet PETA has continually given aid and comfort to terrorists, including the one who screwed Edward Taub over at Silver Spring Maryland, ironically. (Spring is singular, no "s" at the end.) The HSUS gave at least one terrorist a cushy job, an action that speaks louder than lying disclaimers. The ALF does nothing but encouraging terrorism.

He Whose Name Shall be Written in Fecal Matter and Urinated On is more one of their babies than they are themselves.

But I've got to ask you all, whoever read down this far. We would "get" to shoot real bullets at them if any eco-terrorist or animal rights group gave vocal support to the shooter at the Discovery Channel, right? And all they have to do is keep their damn mouths shut for once? They can just suspend us that way? Think long and hard about that. The same thing keeps a lot of us from tearing them new ones in the legislative arena.

I've got an answer

Why would I want an exotic?

In my case, I have been kissed and touched by big cats and they are wonderful. They heal my spirit. They make me feel warm and good all over.

Every home that has a living animal is, obviously, one more viable habitat for that animal.

I don't believe the argument that private breeding encourages poaching. Who is going to go for an illegal supply when there is a legal supply that is much easier to obtain and runs no risks of being put in jail? That is one of the big lies of conservation.

Unlike SOME people I respect the need that people have to be recognized for something. I hear tell that it is a fair accomplishment to grow a healthy tiger from a cub.

Some people find an affinity for a particular beast and find that they have never been so much in love in their life. Being in love is always a desirable state.

Having pets helps us live longer.

What mistake did I make?

I allowed an animal rights twit to treat this as an open question, open for discussion with a Luddite who hates humanity and wants a lot of us to die, or even to never have existed.

The right answer is that I as an adult citizen decided that I wanted the animal. It was my decision and it is not subject to their review or approval or disapproval.