• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle



  • Honestly? Fair point. I find it hard to not extend this to animals but it most likely isn’t something animals consider at all. I mean, dogs likely all have William’s Syndrome, so they are happy with how we treat them in most scenarios. But owning animals I think leads to a lot of secondary animal cruelty caused by breeders and abandoned pets.


  • Part of how I think about this is that the demand people have for owning animals creates the demand for breeders to make them. Simply not wanting pets would doom less to this fate.

    Of course, this perspective is too reductive to capture what’s really going on in reality. But I suspect it could prevent a good bit of animal harm.


  • dillydogg@lemmy.onetoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhats your such opinion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well, do they own the animals or not? I think ownership of other animals is part of my core issue.

    Owning the animals, then calling it another name is worse in my view. Especially animal friends, I think owning another living thing but calling it your friend is the foundation of a unhealthy relationship. You purchased the animal. I do not have friendships that begin with buying them.


  • dillydogg@lemmy.onetoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhats your such opinion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Sure, but I still think “well it evolved this way” doesn’t make something moral. A simple counterargument is that approach shouldn’t allow vaccines or clean water because we we didn’t evolve in the context of those things. I know this isn’t the argument you are trying to make, but I think the context in which we evolved to have a relationship with dogs is not beyond scrutiny in contemporary times. I think we have an extensive history with our pets, but the benefits of that relationship are no longer present, (except for the pets which do find success is passing on their genes, though that is mostly controlled). There may be a case that owning pets allows people to be more successful in reproducing but I do not think it is a requirement.

    Most people I know pick the dog they want to own based on how it looks. So it is an aesthetic decision that determines the life of the animal. I think this is where a lot of my issue with pet ownership derives. In a very trite way, the relationship is “this dog looks very cute, I want to own it”. Then this relationship is extended in a way to try to make it akin to a friendship. It is a different kind of relationship and ought to be treated as such. If someone tried to be friends with someone that they owned, I would find it disturbing.

    I know I’m in an extreme minority here but I think that’s what the post was looking for!



  • dillydogg@lemmy.onetoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhats your such opinion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    If we are making evolutionary arguments, I find dogs that have been bred in such a way that they commonly die from cancer or heart disease in 10 years to be exotic. But they certainly are successful in passing on their genes, so it is an increase in fitness. But at what cost?

    I also do not think that something evolving to be a certain way makes it a moral choice.




  • I have a similar feeling about it. I think I would prefer the customization of KDE, etc, but GNOME just works for me right out of the box. I don’t think I change anything except the monospace font nowadays (in Tweaks). It works great and gets out of the way. For people who do not like the GNOME workflow I suspect it would be horrific because there is far less customization.