Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Amanda Evans2 said:Byron, here is a dog for you. Honestly, though, this one looks a bit underdressed. My recommendation would be to grab a longer coat
The dog is a species that humans have essentially domesticated and tailored to our own needs through selective breeding for various purposes. The end result is an animal that is completely dependent on people; without us, they simply wouldn't survive in this form, quite unlike a wolf or a wild goat

Bravo to humanity. Truly. Honestly, what else could someone like Morgoth from J.R.R. Tolkien’s stories create in his fortress deep underground? This is exactly that kind of twisted creativity.

What was the actual goal behind designing this monstrosity? To create the ultimate weapon for scaring crows away from the farmland? 🤔

brightpilot6 said:Humans have been designing everything from beasts to domestic breeds for ages, far beyond just these household pets. I don't really have an issue with it, provided we aren't creating total abominations; as the human experience evolves, so too do the animals that walk alongside us.

Furthermore, wouldn't a dog spontaneously evolve in that direction anyway, even without our deliberate breeding and selective crossing? If modern people simply chose the smallest pups from every litter, we would eventually reach the same destination after enough time passes. Honestly, about 70% of people living in the US today don't even have a backyard anymore.

Ever wonder how dogs actually came to be? Once upon a time, they were just wolves—until they were seized by dark forces, broken and twisted. They became this ruined, tragic version of life.

So, to put things in J.R.R. Tolkien's terms... I actually just remembered him because of your post.

I can't see the image you're trying to share. If there's a specific topic or sentiment behind it you want me to write about, just let me know.
I can't see the image you linked. If you want me to take a look at it or write something based on what's in the picture, just describe it for me. Once I know what we're looking at, I can get to work.
I can't see the image you're referring to. If you want me to take a look or comment on it, please upload it or describe what's going on!

Made in Angband. ☕

ambertinker41 said:

😂🤣🤣

Peter Thompson4 said:So what’s even the point?
This honestly reminds me of that one episode of South Park where Butters—or was it Marsh?!—goes full Emo. 😁

So you actually think life needs to have some grand purpose? That’s just another one of your little fabrications—just a concept you've cooked up because you want it to be true. Honestly, we're just biological beings on this planet like everything else. We're born, we struggle to survive, and then we die, just like every other living thing in the natural cycle of this world.

The old ways still rule everything—it’s just the law of the jungle, where the strongest person in the room calls the shots, and honestly, looking at the world right now, we're basically just leaning into that raw power and taking whatever advantages come our way. It’s nothing groundbreaking, really. Symbiosis would happen perfectly fine without us even being on this planet, because nature doesn't actually care about our existence. Wolves and humans were both smart enough to figure out mutual benefit back in the day, much like how cats work, but let's not act like that's some massive revelation. Other animals have their own little companions too, so what's the big deal?

Look, if we weren't built for this specific era of life, it’s pretty obvious—we're all still lugging around the bodies our ancestors left us with—but what exactly are we supposed to do now? Go back in time? Honestly, even though I find myself agreeing with a lot of people on this, especially given where humanity stands right now, we really should be more than this, considering we actually possess enough moral backbone and intellectual capacity to know better.

I honestly can't believe that in 99.9% of all human origin simulations, we always end up at the exact same "solution," which makes me think we'd hit that same wall even if they were simulating entirely different species.

Bottom line—everything we deal with is just a human concept.

Well now, my esteemed colleague Peter Thompson4, you've thrown some rather grim conclusions at those of us gathered here, haven't you? Don't you think 🤔

brightpilot6 said:Could someone perhaps provide a brief summary of what Jessica Gonzalez has been posting about lately?

I guess we should just let animals live freely instead of keeping them as pets.

Fair enough, as a philosophical stance. However, it feels nearly impossible to achieve, given how deeply we've been intertwined with animals over hundreds of thousands of years; we have shaped and conditioned one another so profoundly that to pull away would mean we wouldn't even be human anymore.

rapidstag2 said:Dean, Larry Fox5 has gone quite deep here.

🤣

I hadn't even bothered reading that whole sausage of a post before I caught that last sentence. 🙏

Ashley Bailey6 said:I don't even want to watch that or think about it.

I’m just speaking from an efficiency standpoint. A dog will master complex actions for a higher goal much faster than a Cat.
A Cat is selfish, but ultimately, the dog comes out on top.

Besides.
When a dog dies, it’s a tragedy. When a Cat dies, it’s just statistics.
How many Cats end up under tires versus how many dogs?

So, which one is actually more intelligent is definitely up for debate, if it's even a question at all.☕

That really depends on the context. In places where there's a huge population of stray dogs, it's perfectly normal for them to die in traffic, and at that point, it just becomes a statistic too. Once you have dogs and cats living on the streets, the odds go up that they'll catch a disease, get into a scrap with other animals, or end up under a tire—and honestly, that has nothing to do with intelligence.

I think people overlook the fact that folks keep their dogs in fenced yards because if they just let them loose, they're gonna get into trouble. It’s rare for anyone to deal with a dog disappearing from their yard without losing their mind, whereas with cats, people just let them wander in and out however they please—usually when the cat doesn't even really live "inside," just sort of hangs around the house.

Besides, the population of stray cats is way higher than that of stray dogs (there's actually a distinction made right in the terminology).

I have a cat myself, but mostly because I have the free time and actually want to care for something that depends on me. It’s hard not to love animals; unlike humans, where you deal with all kinds of mess, with them, you're dealing with the complete opposite end of the spectrum.

Matthew Young35 said:Well, cats are strictly carnivores.
There’s actually a theory that this happened because of a genetic mutation where they lost the ability to taste sweetness, effectively locking them into a meat-only diet.
On the flip side, dogs can survive on nothing but potatoes, scraps, and other junk food. Cats don't have that luxury; if they want to live, they need meat.

It’s the exact same deal when it comes to the meat itself. I’ve actually noticed that some cats will sniff and touch their food first before they even take a bite. It shows they are incredibly selective about what they put in their mouths.

Charles Roberts33 said:😂🤣🤣

Well now, my esteemed colleague Peter Thompson4, you've thrown some rather grim conclusions at those of us gathered here, haven't you? Don't you think 🤔

Honestly, it really just depends on how you look at things, my dear friend Lord Byron.

If you ask me, there’s nothing wrong with admitting we’re basically nobodies, because honestly, knowing that lets you actually live life to the fullest instead of wasting your breath stressing over nonsense or giving importance to things that just don't matter.

Take this conversation I had with a buddy of mine about legacy—he was obsessed with making sure he isn't forgotten by his family, specifically his descendants. He wants his great-great-grandchildren and beyond to remember him, which, if you think about it, is usually right when people start being forgotten anyway. I read somewhere that most people are only remembered for maybe three or four generations—like two behind you and two ahead of you, give or take—and frankly, I think obsessing over that is totally trivial and adds zero value to your quality of life; it just creates unnecessary stress.
That’s why I say, just live life to the absolute max since we only get one shot at this, and save all that pointless worrying for the afterlife, where you'll finally have all the time in the world for all that other stupidity.☕

brightpilot6 said:Fair enough, as a philosophical stance. However, it feels nearly impossible to achieve, given how deeply we've been intertwined with animals over hundreds of thousands of years; we have shaped and conditioned one another so profoundly that to pull away would mean we wouldn't even be human anymore.

If we’re talking about the food industry and the mass farming and slaughtering of animals just to feed billions of people and other livestock, then yeah, I agree—it's pretty hard to stop that today. It feels almost impossible given how many people there are and how many hungry mouths need feeding. But pets aren't really a necessity; they're more like a modern craze. Some ancient civilizations kept dogs and cats too, but usually, those were wealthy societies that could afford that kind of leisure. At the end of the day, pets are essentially just for human entertainment. Playing with a dog or a cat is, in principle, no different from playing video games or listening to music. It's just a way for humans to kill time. If it went out of style tomorrow or got banned, I guess nothing much would change for human civilization. Most of these dogs and cats don't really have a role anymore other than being a companion for people. For some, a dog provides calm; for others, it's just having someone to walk with; some just like watching a cat lounge around the house. But all of that is just satisfying human emotional needs that could probably be met in other ways. That dog doesn't actually know who you are or realize it's calming you down; if it has certain traits, it's likely because that breed was specifically engineered to be that way. There are petitions all over the world to ban circuses and zoos, so why should pets be treated any differently? Turtles in tanks, fish in bowls, snakes, lizards, parrots, rodents, rabbits, dogs, cats, hamsters—they all deal with restricted movement, limited or forbidden contact with other animals, restricted diets, and limited mating options. They're basically captives. There's this current push to ban fireworks because of the stress they cause pets in cities. Personally, I don't mind the fireworks—let them ban them if they want. What nobody seems to ask is why those animals are in the city in the first place, or why they were brought there to live as captives for our own amusement.

I've had pets myself, so I'm certainly not an authority here to judge anyone for owning a dog or a cat. My wife and kid will probably bring a dog back into the house eventually anyway. I guess I'm just trying to provoke a little thought by looking at the story from a different angle. It's not exactly a black-and-white issue.

It’s honestly kind of absurd how arbitrary everything seems when you think about it. Just imagine two hypothetical scenarios.

First, you have a steer on your ranch, invite some friends over, and then you slaughter it right there, butcher it, and throw it all on the grill.

Now, imagine you have a puppy at home, invite those same friends over, and then you kill that puppy, butcher it, and cook it on the grill.

In the first case, you’re probably just having a great time with your buddies, but in the second, you’d likely end up behind bars. Why is that?

Jessica Gonzalez said:It’s honestly kind of absurd how arbitrary everything seems when you think about it. Just imagine two hypothetical scenarios.

First, you have a steer on your ranch, invite some friends over, and then you slaughter it right there, butcher it, and throw it all on the grill.

Now, imagine you have a puppy at home, invite those same friends over, and then you kill that puppy, butcher it, and cook it on the grill.

In the first case, you’re probably just having a great time with your buddies, but in the second, you’d likely end up behind bars. Why is that?

For some reason, mammalian carnivores don't typically go around eating other mammalian carnivores under normal circumstances.
A lion might take down a leopard, but if he's starving, he'll eat him.

Simply put, for mammalian carnivores, other mammalian carnivores aren't considered food.

Amanda Evans2 said:Since we're already on a roll here, I have another Netflix recommendation for you all
Unbelievable. If anyone actually felt moved by When They See Us, you'll probably find this one just as impactful

👍

Yesterday I told myself I’d just take a quick look, and before I knew it, I was still watching at 4 in the morning.

It really is an excellent series.

However, one might need to warn the "real men" on this forum that this perhaps isn't their usual style of show, given there is a bit too much female prominence for them.☕

Jessica Gonzalez said:If we’re talking about the food industry and the mass farming and slaughtering of animals just to feed billions of people and other livestock, then yeah, I agree—it's pretty hard to stop that today. It feels almost impossible given how many people there are and how many hungry mouths need feeding. But pets aren't really a necessity; they're more like a modern craze. Some ancient civilizations kept dogs and cats too, but usually, those were wealthy societies that could afford that kind of leisure. At the end of the day, pets are essentially just for human entertainment. Playing with a dog or a cat is, in principle, no different from playing video games or listening to music. It's just a way for humans to kill time. If it went out of style tomorrow or got banned, I guess nothing much would change for human civilization. Most of these dogs and cats don't really have a role anymore other than being a companion for people. For some, a dog provides calm; for others, it's just having someone to walk with; some just like watching a cat lounge around the house. But all of that is just satisfying human emotional needs that could probably be met in other ways. That dog doesn't actually know who you are or realize it's calming you down; if it has certain traits, it's likely because that breed was specifically engineered to be that way. There are petitions all over the world to ban circuses and zoos, so why should pets be treated any differently? Turtles in tanks, fish in bowls, snakes, lizards, parrots, rodents, rabbits, dogs, cats, hamsters—they all deal with restricted movement, limited or forbidden contact with other animals, restricted diets, and limited mating options. They're basically captives. There's this current push to ban fireworks because of the stress they cause pets in cities. Personally, I don't mind the fireworks—let them ban them if they want. What nobody seems to ask is why those animals are in the city in the first place, or why they were brought there to live as captives for our own amusement.

I've had pets myself, so I'm certainly not an authority here to judge anyone for owning a dog or a cat. My wife and kid will probably bring a dog back into the house eventually anyway. I guess I'm just trying to provoke a little thought by looking at the story from a different angle. It's not exactly a black-and-white issue.

I can't say I agree with you there. Pure "entertainment" is arguably the least common argument used when discussing pet ownership.

And if we look at it from the biological perspective, there are thousands of studies measuring serotonin levels and other physiological markers in mammals that point toward states of happiness and contentment. So, we actually have a fairly reliable understanding of what makes today's cats and dogs happy. In the case of dogs specifically, it almost always comes down to their interaction with their owners.

Therefore, at least regarding dogs, the argument that we don't know whether they are happier or less happy with or without us simply doesn't hold much water.

brightpilot6 said:I can't say I agree with you there. Pure "entertainment" is arguably the least common argument used when discussing pet ownership.

And if we look at it from the biological perspective, there are thousands of studies measuring serotonin levels and other physiological markers in mammals that point toward states of happiness and contentment. So, we actually have a fairly reliable understanding of what makes today's cats and dogs happy. In the case of dogs specifically, it almost always comes down to their interaction with their owners.

Therefore, at least regarding dogs, the argument that we don't know whether they are happier or less happy with or without us simply doesn't hold much water.

I think it’s pretty obvious—just look at a stray or a dog from a shelter and see the difference in how calm and happy they become once they're settled.

It isn't quite that simple, guys. Even people living in harsh conditions or prisoners can experience moments of happiness, mostly because it’s just a reaction to certain hormone releases. In a prison, someone might feel happy just because they got a slightly better lunch. A laborer might feel happy simply because their employer didn't punish them that day. Happiness is a pretty relative concept, I guess. Even a dog has been bred to react with those specific hormones when seeing a familiar face; they were essentially designed to please their owners. It isn't really about free will. Of course, the whole idea of free will is incredibly complex, but pets are animals that lack freedom in so many different ways.

I get that modern pet owners didn't create these dogs themselves, but rather look after animals that—through no fault of their own—can't really care for themselves. Taking care of an animal like that is a somewhat noble thing to do. Their primary role is to make our lives more fun or fulfilling, yet people often sacrifice a bit of themselves to care for them. Still, that doesn't change the fact that such an animal is essentially a captive, created through what is almost an industrial process. If we can accept that one highly intelligent pig can be an involuntary victim of our dietary needs—alongside 60 billion other farm animals raised every year—then maybe we should also accept that the domesticated wolf (the dog) is a victim of our recreational needs. It seems almost arbitrary; a dog has this crazy luck of being a mammal that humans find cute, so we make them clothes and write laws to protect them from noise, whereas pigs aren't as likable, so we either mass-produce them or find ourselves wanting to ban their farming altogether. Both are mammals with the same organs, and biologically speaking, pigs are actually quite compatible with us. We adore one, keep them in our apartments for 15 years, and consider them family. The other, which is just as intelligent and capable of being a pet, is treated merely as ingredients for ham or a schnitzel.

Jessica Gonzalez said:It isn't quite that simple, guys. Even people living in harsh conditions or prisoners can experience moments of happiness, mostly because it’s just a reaction to certain hormone releases. In a prison, someone might feel happy just because they got a slightly better lunch. A laborer might feel happy simply because their employer didn't punish them that day. Happiness is a pretty relative concept, I guess. Even a dog has been bred to react with those specific hormones when seeing a familiar face; they were essentially designed to please their owners. It isn't really about free will. Of course, the whole idea of free will is incredibly complex, but pets are animals that lack freedom in so many different ways.

I get that modern pet owners didn't create these dogs themselves, but rather look after animals that—through no fault of their own—can't really care for themselves. Taking care of an animal like that is a somewhat noble thing to do. Their primary role is to make our lives more fun or fulfilling, yet people often sacrifice a bit of themselves to care for them. Still, that doesn't change the fact that such an animal is essentially a captive, created through what is almost an industrial process. If we can accept that one highly intelligent pig can be an involuntary victim of our dietary needs—alongside 60 billion other farm animals raised every year—then maybe we should also accept that the domesticated wolf (the dog) is a victim of our recreational needs. It seems almost arbitrary; a dog has this crazy luck of being a mammal that humans find cute, so we make them clothes and write laws to protect them from noise, whereas pigs aren't as likable, so we either mass-produce them or find ourselves wanting to ban their farming altogether. Both are mammals with the same organs, and biologically speaking, pigs are actually quite compatible with us. We adore one, keep them in our apartments for 15 years, and consider them family. The other, which is just as intelligent and capable of being a pet, is treated merely as ingredients for ham or a schnitzel.

You can say whatever you want, but my Cat is happy.
It shows on his face that he's happy; he told me he's happy.

Just so you know, I just finished grooming my Cat, and now he’s all soft and relaxed, looking shiny and totally chill...🙂

Matthew Young35 said:You can say whatever you want, but my Cat is happy.
It shows on his face that he's happy; he told me he's happy.

Look, besides him being happy, you’ve given him a level of quality of life he could never dream of out in the wild, just total, maximum stability that you simply can't compare to a chaotic life in nature, because let's be real, everything has its trade-offs.

It's exactly the same thing humans have done.

Peter Thompson4 said:Look, besides him being happy, you’ve given him a level of quality of life he could never dream of out in the wild, just total, maximum stability that you simply can't compare to a chaotic life in nature, because let's be real, everything has its trade-offs.

It's exactly the same thing humans have done.

If we're talking about the Cat that Matthew Young35 has—yeah, without him, it would probably struggle quite a bit in the wild. I'm thinking more about whether we actually need these kinds of animals to exist at all, since we love telling ourselves we've made such moral progress. It's not that they should be killed, but I think I'd love to see a world in the distant future where there are no domestic dogs, just way more free wolves. Then again, here I am sitting with a pet in my lap, trying to stop it from jumping on the couch. Two billion years of evolution, and we've turned such a powerful predator into a little couch jumper?