Why are we as a society so behind on this fact?You're forcing an animal out of it's natural environment* and making it's entire life and wellbeing your responsibility.Every reason for pet-ownership can be substituted with something healthier.I found an interesting article recently listing off the reasons for and against pet ownership: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1686751/The top 3 reasons for owning a pet all have to do with alleviating isolation and loneliness.Why are you forcing an animal to do this for you? It's completely unethical.Pets are just one option to combat the health effects of loneliness and social isolation.Excluding medical treatment, exercise and human-human connection accomplish the same goal, if not better.Looking at the article again, we can determine that 81.5% of people want pets, 10.25% of people don't want pets, and 8.25% of people aren't sure.Isn't that insane? I know this doesn't account for global statistics but it's comparable to first-world countries.We are the shepherds of the earth, and it is our duty as the dominant species to respect the other species that walk among us.*The only natural environment for a dog is with a human, unfortunately. They were bred to require humans to take care of them.Even street dogs can only survive off of human garbage.Quite frankly, this shifts the definition of a dog away from animal and towards brood parasite, feeding off of a host and draining their resources.Horrific, really.
>>5153845>You're forcing an animal out of it's natural environmentNature is cruel. A warm house with infinite food is much better.>and making it's entire life and wellbeing your responsibilityOnly an issue if you can't handle that responsibility and the animal suffers.>Every reason for pet-ownership can be substituted with something healthier. Not if the reason is simply "I want a cute dog in my house".>Why are you forcing an animal to do this for you? It's completely unethical. How is it unethical if the animal is happy and healthy?>Pets are just one option to combat the health effects of loneliness and social isolation. >Excluding medical treatment, exercise and human-human connection accomplish the same goal, if not better. Exercise by itself doesn't help. I also don't want human-human connection.>Isn't that insane?Why? Pets are cool. Makes sense a lot of people like them.>We are the shepherds of the earth, and it is our duty as the dominant species to respect the other species that walk among us.Why is pet ownership not respectful?>The only natural environment for a dog is with a human, unfortunately.What's unfortunate about that? >this shifts the definition of a dog away from animal and towards brood parasite, feeding off of a host and draining their resources. How is it parasitic if the human chooses to get a dog? That's just a symbiotic relationship.
>animals belong in the wild because i hate paying taxes and following lawsYou’d hate having your intestines broken loose from your abdomen for eating out of turn even more. Why is every ARAs argument basically>WELL I, AS AN ENLIGHTENED LIBERAL ATHEIST WHO READ THOMAS HUME, WOULD NOT WANT TO BE IN THAT POSITION, SO IT IS WRONG TO IMPOSE THAT UPON AN ANIMAL, OR WE CAN NOT HAVE LIBERALISM WITHOUT BEING… HYPOCRITES! BIGOTRY OR SOMETHING! THUS LAWS AND RIGHTS CANT EXIST UNTIL WE STOP THIS!You idiots do not live in realityIt is a dogIts happyIt barks at black peopleIt keeps you happy and reduces social neediness, which keeps you away from manipulative, exploitative, and lowly people. Dog owning societies are safer and higher IQ on averageDog owning societies ironically have fewer deaths from rabies and dog attacks (MUCH fewer, like 30 pitbulls over 800 million people vs 50k deaths a year) because anti-pet societies all gave up on animal controlPet cat societies have fewer mice and rats (almost none) than working cat societies because we rely on technology for pest control rather than having faith that a predator will idiotically eradicate its food sourceWe also have fewer cases of toxoplasmosis, ie: america has almost none compared to traditional working cat societies like china, germany, and indiaIt may just be that only stupid people are against pet ownership and leaving animals outside is just how stupid people cope with the difficulty of living with an animal and not abusing it dailyStupid people tend to abuse dogs MKultra style (trauma bonding for control) for lacking lock step obedience and terrorize cats into hiding over minor annoyancesIs pet ownership the problem, or our refusal to treat low IQ as a genetic disorder that negates reproduction privileges?
>>5153845Every leader in history that wanted pets gone was also a tyrant that hated that pets enable self sufficiency and make normal non-autistic people more resistant to cults/mob mentality/propaganda
>>5153845Go live in the woods for a few years and see how you feel. If the natural environment was so great we wouldn't have built societies to get away from it.
>>5153845Human-human connections are objectively bad for you and society if not carefully crafted. Everything that improves our lives centers on making human-human connections less impulsive and more regulated. Whenever we cut back on such regulators human/human pairings are formed and broken impulsively which drives poverty, injustice, and crime.Pet ownership simultaneously regulates human/human (less need, additional filter that hard blocks low empathy and irresponsible people) and human/animal (introduces basic moral standards, puts a human in charge of each animal which makes animals much safer) relations and has been a massive improvement over the alternative. Which is being eaten alive by iraqi street dogs. Maybe some pet owners are shit but without their pets you’d never know how shitty they were as people until it was too late, and they’re still happier than they would be in the wild. Everyone wins. Go balls deep in the concept. Only trust people with friendly well cared for pets. Eventually the shitty people wont even bother with animals or will try to be nice to them and become less shitty. >average wild animal life: starving and struggling to get food while sick, injured, and full of parasites>average wild animal death: eaten alive while dying of illness
>>5153872>How is it parasitic if the human chooses to get a dog? That's just a symbiotic relationship.It is when the dog has a practical use but not when it's a baby-substitute (which is most of the time nowadays).
>>5153897All dogs have some use and change your life. A brood parasite is cluelessly raising an ugly baby that flies away. Like an unneutered outdoor cat instead of a pet cat. You’re clearly focusing too much on economic contribution (“is the dog used to make money doe?”), which means you are actually parasitized by something yourself. It’s a subconscious meme-entity called mammon. It is the self replicating belief that currency has ceased to be a mere abstraction of labor and resources and now represents, and is, a fundamental moral obligation that justifies your existence, one so powerful that power over men can be had and passed along by trading in debt… and even borrowing against debt and abstracting it further as long as the financial instrument is a legally valid contract in your present jurisdiction.
>>5153900Also you won’t fully get this if you’re dumbIf you have a case of the mammonism, having less, just giving stuff away, and not making your money back or making a profit is seen the same as being robbed. Immoral. Hence mammonist>if the dog eats but is not making money it’s a parasite/thiefVs natural>of course the dog eats, they are my friend, and I benefit from their presence
>>5153902Nothing to do with money accumulation for its own sake. But the dog-human relationship started out as symbiotic because dogs allowed humans to become better hunters or better sheep herders. Nowadays people increasingly get them because they're a lower-commitment form of children.
>>5153904Revionism. Early humans didnt have knowledge of genetics and heredity. They could not have purposefully domesticated an animal with a purpose in mind. They just fed friendly wolves because they were cute and friendly and make better friends than low tier humans. Any purposeful domestication would not have functioned for 10,000 years. People just made up the “purpose” later just because someone asked why. You weren’t meant to make a moral out of it and roll it into profit-or-parasite mammonist morality. Dogs are just nice to have around. If anything there may have been a religious component way, way before the first working dog, based on early european dog burials basically just being wolf skeletons. Also see: egyptians. They just liked cats. It wasn’t a rodent control thing. Before that, were associated with good luck and a myth about ra killing a giant snake.
>>5153904people get them because it hard filters psychos, autists, muslims, etc from your life and you dont need a ton of friends just for company, so you can live more purposefully. just owning a dog improves your life a ton. they also naturally distrust the few evil retards that push further. with a dog:you only meet good peopleyou only need good peoplekids are the opposite they actually attract bad people. hence civilized man has always wanted 3 kids and a dog since mesopotamia and akkad.
>>5153907Yet, you dont need to be aware of this, want it, or need it, to enjoy having a dogIt just means the miserable pet hating dweeb will be a bit less successful in life
>>5153907Autistic people love pets though.
>>5153912tard autists do but the dangerous autists either hate them or get boners when they see them (your dog will let you know)
It is the duty of man to take stewardship of nature. Teaching, commanding and guiding a dog companion means coming closer to God.
Idk my cat seems to be very happy that I exist.She hates going outside. She rolls around inside like a goofball.I think she's aware that outside is dangerous.
>>5153845Fuck me you clowns are insufferable. Nature sucks, most pets have good lifes. Deal with it.
