Why owning pets might be low iq

[CorinthianLOX]

I had an interesting realisation a few weeks back. Because our pet animals have been bred to be loyal to us, it could very well be argued that owning pets is low iq.

Because in nature, animals only figth for their own kind’s survival, they instinctively fight against other animals for survival and food, even humans. This means that all our per animals in their natural state would be indeed very hostile towards us.

Like I mentioned earlier they have been bred to be loyal to us which means that all our pets aren’t really natural animals. Just eugenic experiments. They are basically programmed to be loyal to us which means that they didn’t have a choice in the first place.

 

[Eno]

But you’re a nigger

 

[CorinthianLOX]

@sub5outsider

 

[CorinthianLOX]

But you’re a nigger

I’m white

 

[CorinthianLOX]

Also many people delude themselves into thinking that owning pets can replace having children

 

[Eno]

I’m white

Niggers can’t be white so no

 

[LXR]

Hitler was low IQ indeed

 

[CorinthianLOX]

Niggers can’t be white so no

I’m not a nigger nor an ethnic therefore i’m white

 

[iamaincel]

I had an interesting realisation a few weeks back. Because our pet animals have been bred to be loyal to us, it could very well be argued that owning pets is low iq.

Because in nature, animals only figth for their own kind’s survival, they instinctively fight against other animals for survival and food, even humans. This means that all our per animals in their natural state would be indeed very hostile towards us.

Like I mentioned earlier they have been bred to be loyal to us which means that all our pets aren’t really natural animals. Just eugenic experiments. They are basically programmed to be loyal to us which means that they didn’t have a choice in the first place.

but cute

 

[Eno]

I’m not a nigger nor an ethnic therefore i’m white

But you can’t be white , you’re a nigher

 

[sub5outsider]

I think owning a pet is not natural animals should not be locked in a apartment . Also i dont understand adults that want a pet i only wanted a pet when i was a kid . Too much care , too much money .

 

[pentamogged9000]

This means that all our per animals in their natural state would be indeed very hostile towards us.

just like humans would be in caveman times. but we aren't wild animals anymore

Just eugenic experiments.

so doing eugenics experiments is low iq, got it.

 

[CorinthianLOX]

but cute

It’s also a blackpill in in in of itself. People choose the best looking animals every single time.

 

[CorinthianLOX]

so doing eugenics experiments is low iq, got it.

I never said this. I said owning pets may be low iq

 

[Rmperium]

I never said this. I said owning pets may be low iq

You haven’t actually provided a premise that connects owning pets to low IQ. You described domestication and loyalty breeding, but there’s no causal or correlational reasoning that ties those facts to intelligence. Right now, it’s just an assertion without a supporting argument. Now I DON'T inherently disagree with you here, but you never really elaborated on your premise. If owning pets is low IQ, then what exactly is the metric? Are you suggesting that engaging in ethically unexamined social norms = low IQ? Because if that’s your standard, it’d apply to nearly every aspect of modern civilization and not even just owning a pet. I think you raised a lot of good ethical questions on owning a pet and the culture around it yea, but why do u think it's low iq. I mean if we take a look at the earliest evidence of domestication (like wolves into dogs, around 15,000 - 30,000 years ago) it wasn't humans forcing animals into loyalty but a symbiotic relationship between two different parties for survival. I am referencing some of the studies from - ['CARLOS A. DRISCOLL,*† DAVID W. MACDONALD' and STEPHEN J. O’BRIEN† ] it BEGAN with natural cooperation that evolved into partnership, emphasis with BEGAN because it did originate with that, but overtime I do think ethically it did start entering eugenics, and led to us selecting animals for traits that fit our cooperative niches (straight ass btw lwk) though I do think it's important to consider how and why this happened (not that i'm really justifying it but i'm contextualizing it rather than solely scrutinizing it out of a vacuum) Humans are social mammals with attachment instincts and over time the fact that we bond across species (I came across some studies and found this being due to the fact that human brains are wired for caregiving and empathy.) So if anything, the capacity to form emotional bonds beyond species lines is a marker of advanced cognition and empathy, though when looking at it under scrutiny it does seem to be a little dumb owning pets with the ethical considerations and culture in mind and reflecting on it that I agree with you on. Selective breeding does cause suffering (e.g. pugs with respiratory problems absolutely sickening behavior from people btw and just fucked up). Domestication kinda.. hm honestly it really seriously does removes autonomy from animals. We’ve normalized ownership over beings that depend entirely on us like literally bred them to be dependent on us. I think this also does like reflect a lot of my deeper perspectives on this too bc of how I feel towards the culture and stigmatizations of pigeons EVEN WHEN they were the earliest domesticated animals, and just over quick societal perception shifts of what the cultural norms are when it comes to likeability, usage to the world, even when these are ENTIRE existing LIVING BREATHING animals.


Even when they were the earliest domesticated animals, just over time society completely shifted how we perceive them. Pigeons, were used for thousands of years across multiple cultures as messengers and companions. They were highly valued for their utility and even bred for specific traits, yet in just the past century they’ve largely been discarded, labeled as “vermin,” “trash,” or “plagues,” despite being the same animals that once held an important role in human society. I think this shift points out a very big broader hypocrisy in how humans evaluate animals. (which is what I agree with you on) We celebrate those that fit our aesthetic or social desires, dogs, cats, ornamental pets, while harshly judging animals that survive independently in environments shaped by humans. and breed them into these conditions and then push them into certain conditions. Pigeons and rats thrive in urban landscapes, eating scraps and navigating human waste, yet society condemns them for behavior that is merely adaptive. What's ironic is that their “disgusting” traits are literal responses to the ecological niches humans created lmfao.

In this sense, the ethical questions you raised about pets extend beyond domesticated animals and they also apply to how humans treat any animal whose survival depends on us or intersects with our society. Ownership, selective breeding, and abandonment all are all things that are examples of this contradiction with ethical considerations and morality and human desires compared to the natural behaviors of animals. I think rather than this simply being dumb though which I agree and disagree with you on this is more so an issue with an inconsistency in society, which can be low iq honestly.

 

[The Grinch]

Cats and dogs are naturally attracted to humans and the other way around. I don’t mean in a sexual way