And the question was 'do you think animals should be treated as property'. You went off on your own personal tangent, & didn't answer the actual question.
My answer was to THAT question, so it was correct in that case. No need for your reply in that instance.
I said that I agreed with Damien (did you read his response?) and then elaborated. If you reply to someone's comment naturally they're going to think you are talking about their comment because if you are responding to the question you would logically just post an answer.
I tried mine more like flatmates, but for legal reasons animals are property. If my dog bites someone I am responsible for that because I'm the dog's owner. If I don't own him, does that make him responsible for biting? What would happen to him? It's not like he can protect himself, thus my ownership of him is beneficial to him.
People who mistreat animals should have their ownership revoked, it goes without question, but I don't see ownership as a bad thing. Having said that I totally agree with your sentiment, and that's why mine are flatmates in my eyes, but owned in the eyes of the law.
I don't a different category needs to be made for animals. They should have rights, whether that means they are no longer considered property, I don't know, but what most of the world has in place regarding ownership of pets doesn't work.
Oooooh. Loaded question. My dogs, cats, horses and others have always been my friends as opposed to possessions but I can see that the word "possession" might at least mean a degree of protection for them in certain cases. The question opens a can of worms though.