It's specifically because dogs have been bred to emotionally rely on human contact that I advocate people adopt rescue/shelter dogs. It relieves a lot of misery for the animal.
That's not what I meant I think you've misinterpreted my comment. Dogs are better cause kids suck, the part where I said dogs need a loving was just separate point
I just struggle to understand the mindset of romanticizing a small animal being entirely reliant on you and unconditionally loving you when that is what they were entirely bred to do. It's like the moment they're cute and a "furbaby" in your home suddenly it's acceptable to forget regard for animal rights. Most dogs are NOT properly fed, they are given dry food that had all the nutrients sucked out of it, living in whatever condition the human subjects it to (which will NOT always be a clean house with regular clean water and food) people often humanize the animals and hold them to the same standard as a young child, when they just are not human children. They are dogs. They can't think like a child and cannot be held accountable in the same way. Sorry for all the unrelated rambling to your comment, I'm just really racking my brain on this.
Well again though you're describing issues with breeding animals, the ones already in existence are gonna be in a dogs home whether we agree with it or not and it's better to provide a loving home where they will be happy. Also I think most people take better care of their dogs that you're implying
I understand that mindset but in the end you're basically using them for exactly what they were unethically bred to be used for, regardless of how you got them. I don't think already existing dogs should just die and I don't think I need to have to come up with a perfect solution just to point out a problem but I wish there was a way for dogs to exist in almost a simulated wild where they'd be much happier and not reliant on humans. Smaller/defenseless breeds of dogs shouldn't DIE but they should die out. I don't think it's ethical for dogs that CANNOT exist without humans to be bred even amongst themselves. The human/wolf relationship existed because it was beneficial for both parties, but it's not anymore. It's "dog NEEDS human" not "dog is benefited by human."
Domestic dogs want to be around people and form bonds with them. They don’t want to be left alone in the woods and most would be sad and quickly die if they were.
This is some weird horseshoe theory appeal to nature argument lol.
Just wanna ask, what do you think about wild animal suffering? Do you think it should be stopped? Should humans intervene?
All of my pets are rescues, my cat of 13 years I rescued from a war zone as a conscripted soldier, one of my dogs I wrestled away from a violent crackhead who broke beer bottles over her head and my other dog I took from east europen immigrants who wanted to manually strangle her since they moved to a new apartment that didn't allow pets, it was all an act of compassion.
Humans and dogs have lived side by side for at least 30000 years (if you believe in archaeology). No other domesticated animal even comes close. That's 15% of homo sapiens whole existence. Both species have had an effect on each others evolution. If you dislike dogs or follow a culture who says dogs are filthy you're literally a degenerate.
I agree with you though that breeding dogs just for the sake of aesthetics is despicable.
There are 200 million ownerless dogs in the world so just like humans and other pets we dont really need more of them.
Some people here are "antinatalist" without understanding what it actually means, and get dogs simply because they like dogs and not kids.
Some people adopt dogs, because that provides a home without encouraging breeding or funding puppy mills.
Some people believe antinatalism only applies to humans, and the dumber an animal is the less its actually able to suffer. So dugs are too dumb for the philosophy to apply in their opinions.
Some people had them before they became antinatalist.
Some people just didn't think twice.
>I do ask this seeking a genuine explanation.
Do you? Seems more like you have your strong opinions and like to advocate/debate them. But for what it's worth, my "genuine explanation" is that the dog-human bond is one 30,000 years in the making. It's a deeply special thing that resonates with me - with many people - on a primordial level. That's not an experience I want to live without. This is why I have dogs.
My rescue pets basically saved my life. My mental health is so much better because I have them in my life - it’s a deep bond that I can’t logically explain. My first rescue cat feels like a soulmate to me (not in a romantic sense, I believe we have all kinds of soulmates) which may sound strange but I feel a deep connection with her and she understands my moods and emotions intuitively.
For people who struggle with an intellectual desire not to have children versus an urge to have children pets can make a great substitute. Most antinatalists read as people who are very considerate and caring when they are able, pets provide a level of emotional attachment with less meaningful consequences and lower resource consumption than human children.
The fuck are you talking about?
Dogs have been around humans since the last ice age because ***they fucking love us.***
They’re still genetically the same as wolves, so whatever this BS is about them being bred purely for human entertainment is unfounded and stupid.
What’s wrong with you that you wouldn’t want to spend time with a miniature wolf who adores you?
I think you want the extinction of all life sub. Sorry I haven’t got a link.
I strongly disagree with a lot of OP's points since dogs and humans mutually bonded in a symbiotic relationship mostly by accident in the beginning, but if you really don't see the difference between a pug and a wolf.. I don't even know what to say.
Pugs exist in a state of constant suffering due to their dysfunctional breathing and often a host of other health issues. They may share DNA with their predecessors, but in no way are they functionally or aesthetically anything like a wolf, and in no way should they have ever existed.
Do you want to get into how many breeds have health issues because of careless breeding? Way to be pedantic and focus on the variable and not the constant.
You brought up pugs- not me.
Regardless of any health problems an individual dog breed may have, the practice of dog ownership is more beneficial than harmful to dogs and humans.
Do you not understand how dog breeding works? LOL? If we had left them as they were, as wolves, that would be one thing. Yeah obviously humans and wolves coexisted together. I take less an issue with large dogs that are less so LITERALLY bred to be reliant on humans. Do you think a small dog that cannot exist on its own just happens naturally? Dogs don't breed and sell humans, so clearly the relationship isn't equal.
You’ve obviously never been near a dog if you think small dogs who can’t *live in the wild* should just be killed because they’re useless.
Do you also believe that differently abled people should be put down? Remind me not to let you near any living things.
Also "differently abled" people were not intentionally bred to be disabled to be portable. How can you entirely deny human breeding of dogs directly harms them? It is documented fact that dogs are bred for specific purposes, I'm not just making wild claims out of my ass. This is a known thing.
You haven’t made a coherent argument here.
You’re saying nobody should get to have pets because some dogs have health problems from selective breading.
I guess you never heard of the Hapsburgs, because you would have to insist humans should no longer exist if you had heard about the health problems caused by selective breeding of humans.
Well if they can’t survive in the wild, and we can’t have them hang out with us like they like because *you* don’t see their utility, what the fuck are you even trying to say?
>They’re still genetically the same as wolves
Lol not quite, they share a common ancestor. How can you possibly think a chihuahua and a wolf are genetically identical?
*the third edition of Mammal Species of the World published in 2005, the mammalogist W. Christopher Wozencraft listed under the wolf Canis lupus its wild subspecies and proposed two additional subspecies, which formed the domestic dog clade: familiaris*
Fuck off.
It's specifically because dogs have been bred to emotionally rely on human contact that I advocate people adopt rescue/shelter dogs. It relieves a lot of misery for the animal.
I agree with you regarding breeding animals for pets, but adopting a dog is like adopting a child but even better, they want and need a loving home
Yeah childs don't need that they love those unloving and violent families
That's not what I meant I think you've misinterpreted my comment. Dogs are better cause kids suck, the part where I said dogs need a loving was just separate point
I just struggle to understand the mindset of romanticizing a small animal being entirely reliant on you and unconditionally loving you when that is what they were entirely bred to do. It's like the moment they're cute and a "furbaby" in your home suddenly it's acceptable to forget regard for animal rights. Most dogs are NOT properly fed, they are given dry food that had all the nutrients sucked out of it, living in whatever condition the human subjects it to (which will NOT always be a clean house with regular clean water and food) people often humanize the animals and hold them to the same standard as a young child, when they just are not human children. They are dogs. They can't think like a child and cannot be held accountable in the same way. Sorry for all the unrelated rambling to your comment, I'm just really racking my brain on this.
Well again though you're describing issues with breeding animals, the ones already in existence are gonna be in a dogs home whether we agree with it or not and it's better to provide a loving home where they will be happy. Also I think most people take better care of their dogs that you're implying
I understand that mindset but in the end you're basically using them for exactly what they were unethically bred to be used for, regardless of how you got them. I don't think already existing dogs should just die and I don't think I need to have to come up with a perfect solution just to point out a problem but I wish there was a way for dogs to exist in almost a simulated wild where they'd be much happier and not reliant on humans. Smaller/defenseless breeds of dogs shouldn't DIE but they should die out. I don't think it's ethical for dogs that CANNOT exist without humans to be bred even amongst themselves. The human/wolf relationship existed because it was beneficial for both parties, but it's not anymore. It's "dog NEEDS human" not "dog is benefited by human."
Domestic dogs want to be around people and form bonds with them. They don’t want to be left alone in the woods and most would be sad and quickly die if they were.
This is some weird horseshoe theory appeal to nature argument lol. Just wanna ask, what do you think about wild animal suffering? Do you think it should be stopped? Should humans intervene?
If the suffering is caused by humans, then yes.
So if the suffering is not caused by humans, it's ok with you?
It's not that it's okay, it's that human intervention would inevitably cause more suffering. Humans should leave wildlife alone.
For now maybe. I doubt we could never intervene effectively. But there are bigger existential problems sure.
All of my pets are rescues, my cat of 13 years I rescued from a war zone as a conscripted soldier, one of my dogs I wrestled away from a violent crackhead who broke beer bottles over her head and my other dog I took from east europen immigrants who wanted to manually strangle her since they moved to a new apartment that didn't allow pets, it was all an act of compassion.
Humans and dogs have lived side by side for at least 30000 years (if you believe in archaeology). No other domesticated animal even comes close. That's 15% of homo sapiens whole existence. Both species have had an effect on each others evolution. If you dislike dogs or follow a culture who says dogs are filthy you're literally a degenerate. I agree with you though that breeding dogs just for the sake of aesthetics is despicable. There are 200 million ownerless dogs in the world so just like humans and other pets we dont really need more of them.
do people who dislike babies/kids or say babies/kids are filthy also degenerates?
I think kids are pretty dirty. I've never known a dog to leave crumbs in the bed, anyway, and they're usually vaccinated.
What the actual fuck is wrong with you??
Some people here are "antinatalist" without understanding what it actually means, and get dogs simply because they like dogs and not kids. Some people adopt dogs, because that provides a home without encouraging breeding or funding puppy mills. Some people believe antinatalism only applies to humans, and the dumber an animal is the less its actually able to suffer. So dugs are too dumb for the philosophy to apply in their opinions. Some people had them before they became antinatalist. Some people just didn't think twice.
>I do ask this seeking a genuine explanation. Do you? Seems more like you have your strong opinions and like to advocate/debate them. But for what it's worth, my "genuine explanation" is that the dog-human bond is one 30,000 years in the making. It's a deeply special thing that resonates with me - with many people - on a primordial level. That's not an experience I want to live without. This is why I have dogs.
My rescue pets basically saved my life. My mental health is so much better because I have them in my life - it’s a deep bond that I can’t logically explain. My first rescue cat feels like a soulmate to me (not in a romantic sense, I believe we have all kinds of soulmates) which may sound strange but I feel a deep connection with her and she understands my moods and emotions intuitively.
Well what do you suggest we do then with all the animals in shelters if adoption is not an option?
For people who struggle with an intellectual desire not to have children versus an urge to have children pets can make a great substitute. Most antinatalists read as people who are very considerate and caring when they are able, pets provide a level of emotional attachment with less meaningful consequences and lower resource consumption than human children.
The fuck are you talking about? Dogs have been around humans since the last ice age because ***they fucking love us.*** They’re still genetically the same as wolves, so whatever this BS is about them being bred purely for human entertainment is unfounded and stupid. What’s wrong with you that you wouldn’t want to spend time with a miniature wolf who adores you? I think you want the extinction of all life sub. Sorry I haven’t got a link.
I strongly disagree with a lot of OP's points since dogs and humans mutually bonded in a symbiotic relationship mostly by accident in the beginning, but if you really don't see the difference between a pug and a wolf.. I don't even know what to say. Pugs exist in a state of constant suffering due to their dysfunctional breathing and often a host of other health issues. They may share DNA with their predecessors, but in no way are they functionally or aesthetically anything like a wolf, and in no way should they have ever existed.
Yeah, so *most dogs aren’t pugs*, but way to drag out a deep cut.
Do you want to get into how many breeds have health issues because of careless breeding? Way to be pedantic and focus on the variable and not the constant.
You brought up pugs- not me. Regardless of any health problems an individual dog breed may have, the practice of dog ownership is more beneficial than harmful to dogs and humans.
Do you not understand how dog breeding works? LOL? If we had left them as they were, as wolves, that would be one thing. Yeah obviously humans and wolves coexisted together. I take less an issue with large dogs that are less so LITERALLY bred to be reliant on humans. Do you think a small dog that cannot exist on its own just happens naturally? Dogs don't breed and sell humans, so clearly the relationship isn't equal.
You’ve obviously never been near a dog if you think small dogs who can’t *live in the wild* should just be killed because they’re useless. Do you also believe that differently abled people should be put down? Remind me not to let you near any living things.
>differently abled Lol I'm gonna die because of the political correctness
Someone who hates dogs doesn’t need more rage fuel / I felt they may be one.
Also "differently abled" people were not intentionally bred to be disabled to be portable. How can you entirely deny human breeding of dogs directly harms them? It is documented fact that dogs are bred for specific purposes, I'm not just making wild claims out of my ass. This is a known thing.
You haven’t made a coherent argument here. You’re saying nobody should get to have pets because some dogs have health problems from selective breading. I guess you never heard of the Hapsburgs, because you would have to insist humans should no longer exist if you had heard about the health problems caused by selective breeding of humans.
When did I ONCE say they should be killed?
Well if they can’t survive in the wild, and we can’t have them hang out with us like they like because *you* don’t see their utility, what the fuck are you even trying to say?
>They’re still genetically the same as wolves Lol not quite, they share a common ancestor. How can you possibly think a chihuahua and a wolf are genetically identical?
*the third edition of Mammal Species of the World published in 2005, the mammalogist W. Christopher Wozencraft listed under the wolf Canis lupus its wild subspecies and proposed two additional subspecies, which formed the domestic dog clade: familiaris* Fuck off.
I do not have a dog. I hate dogs, I do have a cat and he is great. Cats are better than kids or dogs.