>Having compassion for another living, feeling, emotional creature means they must hate themselves?
Why is "I regret that we domesticated dogs" "compassion"?
It's just the naturalistic fallacy.
Wolves still exist. It's just that some of their babies hung out with us and over ten thousand years some of those babies hung out with us even more and we both changed to accommodate our relationship.
Why was it wrong to build legitimate companionship with other creatures? Why is it morally wrong to adapt over extremely long time periods?
> It's just the naturalistic fallacy. Wolves still exist.
No one here made the argument that because dogs exist, other species don't (or some other similar loss happened). At least, that's what you seem to be pushing back on.
In my OP, I made this observation about dogs. Much of the Family's independence and self-determination has been replaced with subservience to us.
I also shared how I personally felt about that. I hopefully did all that in a way that preserved desires to make dogs happy.
That's pretty much it - except for a sidebar about pets in general.
Why is "I regret that we domesticated dogs" "compassion"?
It's just the naturalistic fallacy.
Wolves still exist. It's just that some of their babies hung out with us and over ten thousand years some of those babies hung out with us even more and we both changed to accommodate our relationship.
Why was it wrong to build legitimate companionship with other creatures? Why is it morally wrong to adapt over extremely long time periods?