Posts by Jessica Gonzalez

I feel like there’s a bit too much spectacle surrounding his passing. Even the biggest news outlets seem to just be curating whatever people are posting on Twitter. It feels a little morbid, I guess, but I suppose that’s just how things work nowadays. Deaths of celebrities always trigger huge reactions, but this whole social media frenzy seems to be on a whole different level.

Honestly, accidents and sudden deaths happen all the time. No one is immune, whether they're struggling on the streets or living as a multi-millionaire. Tragedies like this can strike anyone, so maybe we should just try to enjoy life while we can.

Maybe they should go save some pigs or veal. Or a lamb—though I guess our savior is actually called the Lamb. Pretty wild.

darkseal9 said:Man, deep... that's deep. Like, do you hold him gently by the beard while you're locking eyes, and what kind of cologne is he wearing?
Who's the Cat rooting for?

For Dinamo Chicago.

Matthew Young35 said:My Cat is free; he’s happy and doing just fine with me.
His window is open (I live on the ground floor) and he hasn't gone anywhere for years.
In the winter, he doesn't leave the bed except for five minutes outside to do his business and to jump on something a hundred times a day. In the summer, he's never home except to come in and eat five or six times a day; otherwise, he's in the yard.

Cats never lived better than when the Egyptians "domesticated" them.

This glorification of life in the wild is misplaced.
Do you actually know how wild animals live in the wild?
Those animals that serve as prey live in constant, 24/7 fear that some Cat, crocodile, or Wolf might eat them, while Cats live in a state of constant hunger agony—except perhaps for Lions, for a week or two when idiots like wildebeests charge into the slaughter.
And don't even get me started on disease.
Do you really think a wild cow in India has an idyllic life? Hell no. Go into the jungle and try your best not to be eaten by a crocodile, a tiger, or a leopard; try not to be bitten by a venomous snake, or attacked by a swarm of killer bees, or trip on a branch and get an infection, only to have scavengers start eating you while you're still alive.

This romanticization of life in the wild is truly fascinating.

We basically romanticize the way life functioned on Earth for almost its entire existence, excluding just the last 15,000 years. Out of two billion years of life on this planet, 1.999999 billion of those were spent in the wild—but I guess that doesn't matter because animals get cold and scared now. For 1.999999 billion years, they were apparently just waiting around for you to come along and buy them treats from a pet store. It’s a pretty incredible level of self-absorption, honestly. Congratulations. 🙏

We could basically set up a little cell for you—complete with a couch, a ball, a TV with a Premier League subscription, and fast internet. Every day at the cafeteria, there’d be meat on the menu, and we’d probably have to neuter you since you wouldn't stand a chance out there anyway. You'd have plenty of clothes, all your meals, heat, and a bathroom. Plus, you could head out to the yard to play a few times a day. We’d even provide security with long pipes just to make sure you don't try any funny business. Would you volunteer for that? Out here, you have to work, pay bills and taxes, cover the heating, and hunt for women while dealing with all sorts of nonsense. I guess it might actually be better for you to just stay in that cell.

Let’s look at a different scenario. Suppose those sci-fi prophecies actually come true and an advanced alien civilization arrives—predators from some far-off world—and they take a liking to us, much like hunters viewed wolves 15,000 years ago. If they said, "Come to our planet; you can be our livestock and our pets," what would you do? Would you push your friends and family to be first in line for "domestication"? Would you tell them that life on Earth is just too primitive and dangerous, and that on their planet, they’d enjoy a cozy life as pets, being sent after a ball and filmed for some alien YouTube channel? I guess if you think chasing mice is crazy, just imagine that level of madness.

It’s easy to philosophize and play the relativist when you’re looking down from a position of power. That Cat you have at home is actually a descendant of wild animals that never needed anything from a pet store; they didn't need to come back to your house because they just used what evolution gave them, living and dying as free beings. Wild animals don't really understand the concept of "dangerous" the way we do. What you call "dangerous," they just see as "reality." What you perceive as "fair" or "unfair," they simply see as "reality." Any wild animal is infinitely more alive and present in the moment than we are. They truly use every physical and mental ability they have just to survive in nature. If they don't, they die. Honestly, most people wouldn't last more than a few days in the wilderness without clothes and food. So, I guess it's worth asking why anyone thinks they have the right to be a master over another animal. If your Cat suddenly lost its mind and started attacking people around the house, what would you do? You’d probably do everything in your power to handle it, acting as the one in charge, without much thought for the animal's perspective. We usually sedate aggressive dogs because we hold that power over them. I think Peter Thompson4 might have a better grasp on this, since he seems to realize that people often act the way they do simply because they have the strength to do so. I tend to respect that kind of view more, because it admits that we aren't perfect. This whole self-important idea that "it's cold in the wild anyway" feels a bit much to me.

Peter Thompson4 said:But hey, humans are at the top of the food chain or whatever, so maybe we have a right to mess with things. Is it fair? From certain angles, absolutely not, but nature isn't exactly "fair" either—it’s just balanced. Even your dog, after another two billion years of evolution, would probably just end up subduing some other "alpha" in a pack and call it a day.

I'm all for being against forcing animals into living conditions that make no sense. That's both a rational and a moral stance, but if we're looking at this through a "natural" lens, we probably have every right to do whatever we want.
As for anyone giving an animal maximum love and attention, I really don't see a huge problem there, neither from a human perspective nor from the animal's.

I suppose saying that is "fair" is about as reasonable as saying owning people was fair. And not too long ago, that’s how things were. Having horses for riding and slaves for the heavy lifting was considered practical and desirable. You have parents, which is one generation back. You had grandparents, which is two. Everyone related to those people is your kin. If you go back thousands or millions of generations, that dog is your relative. That pig is your relative. That cat is your relative. It all just depends on how far back you look in the family tree. Humans just arbitrarily decide where the line is drawn—where a relative becomes a beloved friend and where they become ingredients for sausages. Not so long ago, people decided that certain Homo sapiens were "real" people while others were just slaves. You can try to spin this by saying "it's not the same," or "you're taking this to extremes," or "but my cat is happy." That’s not just my take; if we pretend to hold ourselves to high moral standards and condemn violence against humans, yet also condemn the lack of rights for certain groups, then I think it's fair to ask if my distant, hairy relatives have those same rights. If they don't (and they don't, just look at what's on your plate), then the whole concept of human rights feels a bit hollow. They seem like human inventions and criteria that shift every year. We put a person who kills another person in prison, but we celebrate the guy who kills a pig as a master of the grill? If you start spinning all those combinations, your head might spin, but hey, maybe that's needed sometimes.

I guess I’ll say it again: I’m not expecting to win this argument or have everyone agree with me, because I know they won't. I'm just trying to broaden the perspective on a topic that isn't black and white. Humans are the masters of domesticated animals, and those animals don't have freedom. They are human property. I wonder if any of you would actually want to be someone else's property? Maybe just think about that next time you look into a dog or cat's eyes and feel convinced that everything is perfect and that there's just pure, mutual love. That street is a one-way street.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Matthew Young35 said:Try explaining the lack of mice to my Cat.
He probably hunts by instinct alone, bringing home expensive little "gifts" consisting of the neighbor's sparrows and canaries.
Right in the heart of Washington, D.C.
Trust me, there are plenty of mice around here.

Well, yours is in that lucky 5% and actually spotted a mouse.

Larry Fox5 said:Even 15,000 years ago, your ancestors had that exact same "intelligence"—just hunting and scavenging to stay alive.

You're comparing a wolf's survival instincts in the wild to actual human cognitive abilities. It's not about how much animals act like us—it's about the capacity for logical thought. Those are two totally different tools.

You ask about the purpose of a dog waiting half the day for its owner, but what about the purpose of people sitting on their couches all day watching mindless garbage on TV? Or staring into nothingness... or living like plants in nursing homes, serving life sentences in prison, or just existing in the grave-like cells of their own lost souls?

I think you’re a smart guy, and maybe you realize you actually answered your own question. The idea of what it truly means to be alive or to live is pretty twisted these days. Most people—myself included, I guess—live in a bubble of illusions, surrounded by rules, customs, and methods that have absolutely nothing to do with being a living human being. Most things society believes today won't even matter in a hundred years. A century ago, hardly anyone had pets, and most people thought it was perfectly rational to kill them on a whim. It was the same people, with the same supposed intelligence and logical reasoning.

The way pets are domesticated and forced to live within four walls surrounded by mundane nonsense is the same way humans live. People haven't always lived this way; for most of our biological history, we lived quite differently. Our minds and bodies evolved for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, not to spend all day watching Netflix or sports on TV, or reading books. Both animals and humans have highly developed logical reasoning skills because they need them to survive in the wild. Some PhD at Max Planck doesn't need to prove that dogs can think. That institute, that research, and what they measure are all human inventions that don't serve much purpose other than helping people kill time in the emptiness of modern life. And honestly, we don't have to bother poor dogs with all that nonsense. They already live where we tell them to, eat what we tell them to, go to the bathroom where we tell them to, and mate only if we allow it. We have dogs because we enjoy it; they fill some void in our lives, yet we never ask those dogs or cats for their opinion. We don't ask cows, goats, pigs, or poultry anything either before they're processed in factories. That’s the plain truth regarding animals. Humans are the ones who claim the right to create and shape these animals to suit our needs. Whether that need is food, leather, or a toy after work doesn't really matter. Animals aren't consulted; they're just tools for our convenience.

Most people don't keep cats around to deal with mice anymore; they just want something to play with when they get home. I guess saying they're for pest control is a stretch, since maybe 95% of city cats will never even spot a mouse in their lives. It's kind of like saying dogs exist to help people hunt, when probably 99% of them have never caught anything more significant than a tennis ball. I suppose the whole process of domesticating these animals started for reasons that just don't apply to modern urban life. Nowadays, pets are really just a way for us to have some fun.

brightpilot6 said:In that case, there’s really no point in you wasting your breath discussing it on some random forum.

Just let us be in peace while we flirt with the local stray Cat.

Well, keep playing with them if you want, though cats don't really serve much of a purpose. A trained dog might actually save someone or help guide someone down the street (even if they don't quite get what they're doing, they're still useful to us), but cats mostly just mess around and scratch everything. I guess we all just indulge ourselves; these animals are basically just a way for us to pass the time so we aren't staring at a wall all day. It seems like we try to shape other animals to fit our own domesticated lifestyles.

Larry Fox5 said:I already posted this a few years back—about that Max Planck study in Leipzig where they actually proved animal intelligence for the first time using a domestic pet. It was a Border Collie named Rico.
The dog knew all ten of his toys, which were laid out in a circle. When given a command to fetch a specific toy, he’d go straight to the exact one. Then, they threw a completely new toy into the mix and gave it a name for the first time. Using simple elimination, the dog figured it out and brought the new toy right over. They kept shuffling the toys around so they weren't always in the same spot, and he still nailed it every single time.

He even managed to memorize the name of that new toy after a few months.

Until then, science basically assumed that kind of "rapid identification" through logical reasoning was strictly a human thing.
Rico proved there's an intelligence there that's—honestly—on par with a three-year-old kid.

Scientists think canine intelligence evolved specifically because of how closely we’ve lived alongside humans. Unfortunately, by living with us, they picked up our diseases too. As for cats, they couldn't develop those same cognitive skills as dogs simply because that deep connection just isn't there.

That’s exactly why dogs are used in search and rescue, rehab centers for kids with special needs, police work, the military, helping the blind... you get the idea. You just can't compare a dog's role in our society to a cat's. And that’s not just true today—it’s been that way for the last 3,000 years.
Denying all of this is just plain stupid.

I feel like this is all a bit much; it's like discovering air instead of hot water. Dogs descended from wolf-like animals that lived in groups for thousands of years—communicating, hunting, eating, sleeping, mating, playing, and everything else. They have the bodies of hunters and led very dynamic lives with psycho-physical qualities sufficient to make them apex predators in their territory. Now, some institute full of people who need to write doctoral theses wants to measure their intelligence by having them pick toys in a circle. These animals have the intelligence to hunt you down and eat you, not to pick out toys. We are trying to measure human-like behavior in non-human animals; I guess what we call "intelligence" is just something we invented to measure exactly what we're looking for. I think I've mentioned this on the forum before, but in California, there are pine trees that are 5,000 to 10,000 years old. They don't know how to pick toys or solve crosswords, but they'll outlive anyone who does. That's their "intelligence." Even after 50 years of studying dolphins, humans still can't communicate with them because we insist on them talking to us, when dolphins don't see "communication" or "conversation" the way we do. They are aquatic animals with a totally unique lifestyle, way of thinking, and method of communication that evolved to suit life underwater. But some institute really wants them to talk to us—I guess why?

Joseph Clark37 said:Animals are truly in a league of their own. Life with them is just so much richer and more engaging...🙂

Your life might feel more interesting to you, but maybe ask a dog if their life feels that way. Since we’ve had a pet before and will probably get one again, I definitely love animals too. Still, I sometimes wonder if they suffer or if there's actually any purpose to their lives if they're just here for our entertainment. Working animals at least have a role, even if they don't fully grasp why they're doing what they're programmed to do, so there's some logic to investing in them. Our dog mostly just spent half the day home alone while we were at work, staring blankly at the floor or the couch. It seems kind of absurd that an animal can spend such a huge chunk of its life without any real function or engagement. Dogs, especially, come from pack animals that lived active lives in nature, yet today millions of them are just lonely pets stuck in apartments waiting for owners. They almost seem more like toys than living beings. I'm moving soon and thought about getting a large aquarium, but I decided against it. I guess it doesn't make much sense to have a few fish swimming aimlessly in a glass tank just so I can have a slightly more sophisticated decoration in my living room. I don't know, I suppose there are two sides to every story.

There's a bit of a shift happening here; instead of the usual debates about WWII factions, someone has decided to bring Harmon into the mix. It’s quite an interesting pivot, I guess. Maybe just keep it going.

Happy New Year, everyone! I guess this year we’ll be painting everything in red, white, and blue—the only white things left will be our floor rags.

That was easily the worst funeral I've ever attended, and I buried my own father not too long ago. This one felt much heavier, just pure depression. The guy was a huge fan of the local baseball team, so they played their anthems while he was being laid to rest. Then I get home feeling completely drained in the evening, only for my wife to tell me she's pregnant again. I guess that’s just life; you just have to keep moving forward and try not to sweat the small stuff.

This time of year is really meant for people to take a break from all these divisions and debates, regardless of where they actually stem from. Hanging out with family, exchanging gifts, decorating the Christmas tree, Advent—it’s hard to find a single downside to these traditions. If you have any reason to enjoy life during these days, maybe just lean into it and embrace some of those religious customs, even if they're just part of the festivities. It seems a bit strange to me that someone on the doorstep of 2020 thinks they're being extra clever just because they believe religions are inventions. Even the Church itself knows it's a construct; they essentially created themselves. It’s kind of like trying to explain to a magician that his tricks aren't actual magic. Religion acts as a social tool, a collective fantasy that helps bring large groups of people together. It has positive effects too, and I guess Christmas is one of them. Since the beginning of time, people have always needed celebrations and rituals. Unless you have a truly devastating reason to be miserable at the end of December—and I certainly hope you or your loved ones aren't suffering—just try to enjoy life. Many people can't. I was at a funeral just the day before yesterday for a good friend who took his own life by jumping in front of a train, leaving behind three young kids. For me, getting through these Christmas fairy tales is probably the least of my worries.