Think of all the resources lavished on something that isn't your offspring and will in many cases replace it. There's a good case to be made that pets are parasites that hijack the parenting instincts.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Is pet ownership a maladaptive behavior?
This is Calhouns behavioral sink in Effect. An ever increasing number of the population will abstain from having children, just as the rat utopias showed. Until it’s too late
Pets ensure high value people reproduce to create high value children and dissuade low value individuals from making the mistake of filling the world with more of their spawn
Give every moron and criminal a big ass extremely friendly horse and tell them to never marry
why the frick would i want a child that's a lifetime commitment when I could have a swag beast that I don't need to watch 24/7 instead? My ball python is chill. So is my cat.
pets are a lot easier, less intensive and less of a commitment than children, not to mention cheaper and I don't have to worry about having to change their diets around bc they're fine eating the same thing day after day.
do you really want a bunch of insane Waufners being parents?
There are so many things humans do that makes no sense and is horrible for our own wellbeing, reproduction and survival. We are the most schizophrenic species on the planet.
and pets are none of those. well, maybe shit like parrots, lizards, and fish are. but a cat, can, at the very least, calm you down and alert you to the beginnings of a rodent infestation (but it will never get rid of it for you). the smallest dog deters crime and just living around them reduces your risk of coming to harm*, calms you down like a cat, is better for pest elimination, and can help you hunt even if it's a 20lb basenji or spitz. larger fowl and sheep are great for your survival as well. they produce a steady supply of eggs, milk, and raw materials for use in clothing and bedding.
*except for pitbulls, which should not be dogs any more than dogs are wolves...
>Imagine all the resources spent on lavishing women with comforts and stolen valor despite them not being as industrious or even capable of defending the nation. LOGICALLY we should lock them up in factories to pump out babies 24/7
True but you should also shoot your dog
>bringing up a kid in current year
>completely out of control in the coming tech addict dystopia
nah, I think not
Letting your genetic legacy disappear up a dog's gross butthole.
Aside from this being a shitty climate to bring a kid into, my genes are fricked, I'm nearly infertile, and even if I were to go through the treatment I'd have to in order to have kids, the seizure meds I'm on increase the risks of birth defects to an unacceptable degree.
Owning a dog instead is just the socially responsible thing to do.
Also when my dog dies I can skin it, taxidermy it, and display it in my living room and no one is going to arrest me.
That's a cucked mentality. You should have moronic deformed babies to own libs epic style.
>this is how anti-doggays actually think
>You should have moronic deformed babies to own libs epic style.
I know you're joking, but what a nightmarish thought. A child like that could be my responsibility for the rest of my natural life.
A dog, at least, is guaranteed to die after about 10 to 15 years.
I'm anti-natalist, so I would have to disagree.
lol no.
Even a shit toy breed is an effective alarm system.
But also, being happy is useful because it makes you healthier and live longer. If a dog makes you happy he is being useful to you.
Being healthy and happy doesn't mean much if it comes at the cost of spreading your genes.
How fricking moronic are you if you think owning a dog is "the cost of spreading your genes"
At this point I think you are a closeted dogfricker. You literally can not imagine having a dog without spending all day fricking it, apparently.
This is why people don't like "guys who don't like dogs". There's always something wrong with them.
>some other tard:unrelated thing
>you:Uhhh ur cum in dog butthole
Seriously.
How many modern couples adopt a dog or cat as a substitute baby?
The ones that can afford an animal that costs $50 a month but not one that costs $10,000 a year. Do you know what they did before this? They had a dog AND a kid AND another kid AND another kid. And then you lost one kid, and another, and now another, the dog is seriously next as the cheapest thing and they're going to tell you it's "for the planet" (dogs don't pay taxes, so they will tax you for owning a dog).
Dogs are not an issue here. You need to look past your FETISH. Yes, FETISH, you keep finding excuses to sneak sex with them into the conversation. The issue is there is a nepotistic social class of genetically, mentally, and physically divergent individuals who are actively destroying our native culture.
First, they decided that mothers would not raise children. They would work. Now someone they have approved will raise your children. Then, they decided that they would make more money relative to the value of it, and those people having children would make less. And less, And less.
And then, they decided that the people raising everyones kids while both parents work increasingly long hours for increasingly little pay would start telling their kids that it was not just okay, but desirable, to be a genetic dead end and have sex with the same sex or sterilize themselves, even if they were perfectly healthy.
The discussion you want to have is not about dogs
Unless, you mean that as an analogy, and it's one kind of dog
how does a dog, a pet so cheap that it's basically free and starving cavemen had them, come at the cost of "spreading your genes" (saying that is cringe because the words themselves smell like cheeto dust and gamer chair)
fricking idiot
Because babies are a lot of work and cost a lot of money and therefore people adopt dogs or cats and anthropomorphize them.
How does having a dog create an obstacle to having a child
it does not come out of the mothers woman nor from the fathers loin. The man will still be driven to frick the woman. Throughout history people have had both pets and children. Only now, following some meddling in the social and economic order that forced mothers to work, fathers to be more absent, and children to be indoctrinated into insanity, have the children gone absent but not the dogs. First, they told you to stop reproducing for the planet after making it so undesirable (but they didn't tell anyone else that, just you, your people). And soon...
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/environmental-activist-says-we-should-give-up-pets-to-save-planet-b2183768.html
It costs $50 a month to feed a dog
I have $6000 in stuff that could fit in a duffle bag
Not counting repairs from a breakin, potential arson, assault, rape
If a dog prevents one thief's haul just by being there and barking once every 10 years it's already paid for itself
>urban youth tries door
>BARKBARKBARK
>runs away
>never seen again
>probably went to Wauf to talk about dog fricking and how he hates pets
Your opinion is reddit as frick and probably planted in your head by NWO homosexuals who hate anything that doesn't contribute directly to the GDP. Pets are parasites of the elites, but not us, because they are eating but not paying taxes or holding jobs that funnel 90% of the value generated to the pockets of a longnose.
Now maybe cats are parasites, because they don't really contribute anything or even get rid of pests, but just living in a neighborhood with dog owners reduces your chances of being a victim of violent crime by 80%. As does owning one yourself. Just avoid the big 3 (pitbull, rottweiler, german shepherd) so you don't get injured anyways but even they are statistically similar to the dangers of flatscreen TV ownership.
Pets are also a huge sexual selection thing, in signifying your wealth, resource acquisition abilities, personal hygiene, and empathy level (did you know that pet owners are more likely to be married), and aid in social self-regulation by tempering ape-like social urges and allowing humans to be together 100% intentionally rather than just because they're lonely and bored.
>IS WEALTH PARASITE? NO HAVE WEALTH. ONLY WORK. WEALTH IS WASTE. NO NEED. ONLY WORK. SHARE WHEN NOT NEED. ONLY HAVE KIDS. FOLLOW WAY OF PARTY. -OP, basically
the dog does generate value
all of the value generated goes directly to me
even the most stubborn husky will gladly track a deer and finish your hunting trip in a day instead of 3-4
Dogs are kept by every culture because cultures that keep dogs outcompete cultures that do not. The same is true of horses and cattle.
Working or hunting dog =/= furbabies that have no practical purposes other than serving as substitute children. The latter represents the vast majority of pets today.
Muslim moment.
Dogs are unique pets in that they domesticated themselves as humans were domesticating themselves through culture and civilization.
Dogs unlike other animals are less of a pet or utility animal and more of a communal species that integrated itself into human society. Probably because we have very similar social structures and hunting styles at the base of it. Group hunting large mammal prey.
A wolf pack and human tribe are similar. Male-female pairs with offspring that take a lot of parental investment and aunts/uncles and older kids that stay around until they are old enough to make their own packs. Dogs just showed up and inserted themselves in people packs to share kills.
It’s a pistol shrimp and goby setup
There is a reason we can read dog language so well and they can read ours
Not every single human should reproduce.
Pet ownership is the sign of an extremely successful society that has scraps to spare. At this point in human development, the relationship involves an innate empathetic response towards frmer work animals and treating them any differently is used as part of the diagnostic criteria for criminal insanity and can weed out some dangerous weirdos. It persists indefinitely, as pets gain a different, more complex role: mediating necessary human interactions. Because you can only create and maintain such a society by being gregarious and cooperative to a point, the society can only persist if people have an inborn need for companionship. But, people have to be violent and selfish to a degree to defend the society and its individual units, so interacting with people is always a risk, especially the high-tests who make up the aggressive defense forces and legal immune system of the human superorganism. Every risk you take requires a benefit, and the insatiable social appetite of man can easily become his undoing, and even the undoing of society, should a rebellion or cult form as people seek more more MORE social interaction. How does this self-regulate and maintain stability? An organism that provides social interaction with no risk. The pet. The pet replaces the useless and potentially dangerous friend.
I've had many dogs and cats and never thought of any of them as my child.
I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on this dog over the last 12 years. Seethe, spendlet
Children are a waste of money
no