[netdevphoenix]

I would not necessarily call that friendship as your dog depends on you for its survival and is at your mercy. You are the one who defines the terms of the relationship. A friendship involves two individuals who are equally empowered to develop the friendship. A dog-human bond not so much. My two cents

[eyelidlessness]

I would not presume to define the parameters of friendship for others, as it can vary wildly between people and even between a given person’s friendships.

There is certainly an imbalance between dog and human authority/autonomy/agency, but that is not the only dynamic in the relationship. And it’s not necessarily the defining dynamic, nor is it consistently applicable.

[bloomingeek]

If my attitude toward my dog is that she depends on my mercy to survive, then I am a monster with no feelings or morality. (Yes, I am responsible for her well being as a responsible owner, and rightfully so.)

Whether she understands how we feel about her isn't the point or the definition. She seems happy and doesn't live in any kind of fear, and that makes all the difference to us. Anything else is just picking fly scat out of pepper.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Fortunately, dogs aren't cynics.

[jhanschoo]

Heh, I appreciate the pun!

[absurdo]

But nature is.

[stormfather]

Idk, my dad was my best friend growing up and I never fed him.

[munificent]

Your dad may have been your best friend, but that doesn't mean you were your dad's best friend.

The parent-child relationship is asymmetric in ways that are often not as visible to the child as they are a parent. There's a reason why for generations, parents have been responding to their childrens' arguments with "when you're a parent, you'll understand".

[micromacrofoot]

yeah but your dad wouldn't die as a result

[stormfather]

No, I (the child) am the dog that would die if it weren't fed in this situation. Sorry that was confusing.

[rightbyte]

Sure but does the dog understand that? The owner can somewhat argue that the dog think it is his friend.