[ekianjo]

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true?

You don't consider that animals provide emotional comfort? And make owners exercise, as well, since you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?

[k-mcgrady]

>> "since you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?"

If you don't want to go for a walk the pet isn't going to make you. If pet requires walks you're now a bad owner but you aren't forced to exercise with your pet.

[Xylakant]

That's not entirely true. I specifically notice that owning a dog structures the day in a specific way. The dog does not force me to go, but one effect of owning a dog is that it needs to go out multiple times a day, so I do. Even on days where I'd ordinarily not feel like, when it's raining, when I'm tired. I go for a longer hike every weekend, things that I'd not do or prioritize lower if I had no dog. And I don't think that respecting and caring for my pets needs by performing acts that I'd ordinarily not do makes me a bad owner.

[icebraining]

you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?

Only for a very restricted definition of "pets"; my turtles never asked for such thing :)

[ikurei]

Both are valid perspectives. I think we are using each other, which might be common to most social interactions.