One that has no natural predators and murders anything it can get its claws on. It may be more ‘ethical’ for the cat, but it’s incredibly harmful to native species.
Yeah, you think, and hopefully come to the obvious conclusion that life inside life for cats is a wonderful luxury compared to any kind of life in the wild.
Don’t get me wrong, I fucking hate cats. I never want one in my house, it’s not worth the stink and irritation. And there are plenty of bad choices for pets, and even more bad pet owners. But this whole ‘pets are slaves’ nonsense is peak ignorance.
Cats and dogs are not wild animals. They have no natural habitat outside of human cohabitation. They exist because they adapted to live with us. Would you prefer they simply be exterminated? That’s the only ecologically responsible option if pet ownership were to be outlawed.
Yeah, you think, and hopefully come to the obvious conclusion that life inside life for cats is a wonderful luxury compared to any kind of life in the wild.
A gilded cage, my friend.
Would you prefer they simply be exterminated?
Honestly neutering existing populations until they phase out naturally seems most ethical.
Cute metaphor. It’s very fun to romanticize life in the wild. This is the attitude of a person frustrated with the trappings of society and longing for ‘freedom’. Your ideas of how important ‘freedom’ is to an animal are based on anthropomorphizing them, and quite ignorant of the suffering that is the daily fight for survival.
If you think a house pet would prefer that life, why don’t you spend a month in the woods and see what it’s like? After all, the dog you want to release into the wild comes from a family line that’s been part of human civilization for as long as civilization has existed.
Would you call anenomes a ‘guilded cage’ for a clownfish? Would you force them from the environment they’ve evolved to fit?
The human idea of ‘consent’ regarding animals is peak anthropomorphizing and painfully ignorant of how privileged we are. The only reason we can even consider ‘consent’ as a concept that matters at all is because we have societal structures to enforce order, to prevent simply fighting and killing each other for what we want. While ‘freedom’ is an important concept, social structure must limit it by necessity so that others can be safe.
We can’t ask the animals which they prefer, but with any real consideration it should be quite obvious that losing some freedoms in exchange for safety and comfort is an easy choice to make, after all, that’s the choice almost every human makes in that position. Calling it cruelty is nothing but ignorance.
All pet owners are slavers
Outdoor cat keepers are the only exception; they simply provide food and shelter for a free, wild, and consenting being.
One that has no natural predators and murders anything it can get its claws on. It may be more ‘ethical’ for the cat, but it’s incredibly harmful to native species.
So cat ownership is either harmful to the cat itself (indoors) or harmful to other animals (outdoors)?
Really makes you think
Yeah, you think, and hopefully come to the obvious conclusion that life inside life for cats is a wonderful luxury compared to any kind of life in the wild.
Don’t get me wrong, I fucking hate cats. I never want one in my house, it’s not worth the stink and irritation. And there are plenty of bad choices for pets, and even more bad pet owners. But this whole ‘pets are slaves’ nonsense is peak ignorance.
Cats and dogs are not wild animals. They have no natural habitat outside of human cohabitation. They exist because they adapted to live with us. Would you prefer they simply be exterminated? That’s the only ecologically responsible option if pet ownership were to be outlawed.
A gilded cage, my friend.
Honestly neutering existing populations until they phase out naturally seems most ethical.
Cute metaphor. It’s very fun to romanticize life in the wild. This is the attitude of a person frustrated with the trappings of society and longing for ‘freedom’. Your ideas of how important ‘freedom’ is to an animal are based on anthropomorphizing them, and quite ignorant of the suffering that is the daily fight for survival.
If you think a house pet would prefer that life, why don’t you spend a month in the woods and see what it’s like? After all, the dog you want to release into the wild comes from a family line that’s been part of human civilization for as long as civilization has existed.
Would you call anenomes a ‘guilded cage’ for a clownfish? Would you force them from the environment they’ve evolved to fit?
The human idea of ‘consent’ regarding animals is peak anthropomorphizing and painfully ignorant of how privileged we are. The only reason we can even consider ‘consent’ as a concept that matters at all is because we have societal structures to enforce order, to prevent simply fighting and killing each other for what we want. While ‘freedom’ is an important concept, social structure must limit it by necessity so that others can be safe.
We can’t ask the animals which they prefer, but with any real consideration it should be quite obvious that losing some freedoms in exchange for safety and comfort is an easy choice to make, after all, that’s the choice almost every human makes in that position. Calling it cruelty is nothing but ignorance.
ok slaver
I can only hope you open your mind at some point. Good luck dude.