Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

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.

I don't follow you. In one post, you're criticizing people for not using specifically bred breeds for their intended purposes, and now you've moved on to the domestication of wolves.
Hardly anyone keeps a pig as a pet. One user might testify that they have a neighbor with a pet pig, but if you don't mind living alongside a pig and it doesn't bother the neighborhood, go right ahead.
I don't see any issue with certain breeds existing to perform specific tasks, whether that’s herding sheep, retrieving game, or guarding estates and livestock.
Similarly, many have become pets today simply because people discovered dogs possess other qualities.
My only issue is when people take breeds like Samoyeds or Malamutes—breeds that are completely ill-suited for the climates they end up living in.

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

Some might suggest you were buried under a mountain of work, but we all know you probably knocked it all out with just the tip of your finger. ☕

oh yeah, obviously I used my pinky too, just to clear out the little hole ☕

Jessica Gonzalez said: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?

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.

Susan Kim2 said:I don't follow you. In one post, you're criticizing people for not using specifically bred breeds for their intended purposes, and now you've moved on to the domestication of wolves.
Hardly anyone keeps a pig as a pet. One user might testify that they have a neighbor with a pet pig, but if you don't mind living alongside a pig and it doesn't bother the neighborhood, go right ahead.
I don't see any issue with certain breeds existing to perform specific tasks, whether that’s herding sheep, retrieving game, or guarding estates and livestock.
Similarly, many have become pets today simply because people discovered dogs possess other qualities.
My only issue is when people take breeds like Samoyeds or Malamutes—breeds that are completely ill-suited for the climates they end up living in.

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.

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.

Well, honestly, if we follow that logic, then wheat becomes your relative too, which would mean you're basically eating family at dinner.

Jessica Gonzalez said: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.

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.

Jessica Gonzalez said: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.

Look, I totally get where you're coming from and I hear what you're saying, but honestly, I can't agree with you for a million different reasons, and frankly, I don't even know what kind of response you actually want from me right now?
Look, here’s what granitefox10 wrote, and honestly, you can spin this however you want, but categories exist for a reason. Sure, nothing in life is purely black and white, but the way humans perceive the world, we've already laid out the rules to make sense of it all. These categories might be subjective, but they serve a purpose and draw those invisible lines that define everything, even if you're too stubborn to admit they're actually there.
I mean, if we’re all basically family, then we’re all just part of nature, and honestly, nature just does whatever the hell it wants anyway.

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.

I don't see what part of that isn't romantic. It might be brutal, sure, but as far as romance goes, it's pretty much at its peak. 🙂:

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.

anything good is wild and free 😉.

The security of a cage only comforts people and their tiny, encrypted, sterilized clowns.

GQ spoke plenty of truths—much of it holds water—but the role of pets is still vital for humans. They fulfill their purpose simply by softening their owners' hearts and making them gentler souls; it might seem trivial, but it really isn't ☕.
At the end of the day, pet owners invest their time, money, and everything else into caring for them, forming deep emotional bonds, only to receive nothing but the creature's companionship as a reward.
It’s not an ideal relationship, and it raises plenty of questions, but I think, ultimately, it makes people better.

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

So, Patrick Martin, who exactly do you consider an ICON? 🙏

What are the odds of getting a two-hour podcast where you just sit and talk about whatever comes to mind? What kind of chances are we looking at there? 🍿

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.

Charles Roberts33 said:So, Patrick Martin, who exactly do you consider an ICON? 🙏

What are the odds of getting a two-hour podcast where you just sit and talk about whatever comes to mind? What kind of chances are we looking at there? 🍿

Man, I just survived a total brawl with some thugs; I honestly don't have the energy left to die, let alone deal with anything more intense than this, my dear Lord Byron ☕

Jessica Gonzalez said: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.

Where do I sign?

Jessica Gonzalez said: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.

If the Barca fans managed to survive our descent into the depths of this forum, surely humanity can handle an advanced civilization.

Jessica Gonzalez said: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.

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?

Jessica Gonzalez said: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.

From what I'm hearing, besides the castration part, that sounds like your average marriage.

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.

William Gomez5 said:From what I'm hearing, besides the castration part, that sounds like your average marriage.

🤣🤣🤣

I’m watching this show on CBS about a woman rescuing dogs, and man, my head is spinning hearing all this nonsense. If we don't drastically toughen up the penalties for animal abuse, what are we even doing? It feels like half the people in this country grew up in homes where they were never taught basic decency, but that's exactly why the government needs to step in like a strict parent and beat some sense into them.

I actually have relatives like that in my extended family—people I had to completely cut off from the rest of the clan because of how they handle problems involving cats and dogs.🙄

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

Why is a dog or a cat considered different from a penguin, a snake, or a fish?
I honestly want penguins to be taken out on walks, dressed up in little winter coats, and given actual rights. We should ban keeping them in cages, and for goodness' sake, let's stop keeping fish in aquariums smaller than 500 liters...

Oh, and I also want the lions and all those other animals at the local zoo to be dressed in winter gear too.

And I want some show on a major network where someone rescues penguins that nobody else cared about, or maybe even a place where someone opens a sanctuary for turtles.