• Rodeo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember thinking they were happier with their freedom, even though it meant their lives were short.
    I know better now.

    You can be trapped in the most luxurious palace, with your every want attended to, but you cannot leave.

    Or, you can be free to go where you please, still have your wants attended to, but there is a chance you will die young and the last hour of your life will be spent in terror and excruciating pain.

    Which do you choose?

    Honestly a bit of a tough question. I’m not sure, myself.

    • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Easily freedom for me, but the issue is that their freedom terrorizes the local ecosystem. The problem isn’t cats per se… it’s the practice of pet ownership. You can give them a poor substitute of nature, or put them in a position where they destroy the balance of everything around them. I might just rather not be born than to be reduced to those two choices.

      (Not because being loved is awful, of course, but just because it would seem to be better for the natural harmony of everyone already living.)

    • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Interesting concept but cats don’t have the sapience to understand the risk involved with being outside. You could say the same thing about children, but because adults know better we don’t let them do whatever they please.