Can you help we understand the world of Housepets?

[D-Rock]

Well, there’s also the fact that Sabrina and Tarot were kinda right. When Keene made his intentions clear, it sort of set two camps. As for me, I sided with Tarot and Sabrina, especially as Keene was proving to be callous, reckless, and shortsighted, a viewpoint that wouldn’t even start to clear until the end of the arc, “My Life as a Teenage Squirrel.”

[Obbl]

Yes, obligate carnivores that are capable of conscious thought and choice. I don't get why this isn't getting through.

Hi, you've never spoken to me before this. I have never claimed otherwise. Please pay attention to who you're talking with or it's not going to be a very productive discussion. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here

They have less of an instinctual drive to change the circumstances around them compared to humans and thus tend not to push for change themselves.

That's debatable, considering I've seen humans both in-universe and real life that don't seem interested in improving themselves either.

This is canon, so not really debateable. (and statistics being what they are, yes, some animals will have more of a drive for change than some humans, but the overall trend will place humans ahead on that curve)

I'm not expecting an instant change, and I'm sure humans would respond to such sudden change with violence.

but the way Sabrina vaguely brought up a catastrophe in regard to Keene's endgoal and how she talked to Keene implies they're gonna be obstacles in any effort toward improvement.

How can I paint such opposition in any degree of benevolence aside from maybe Sabrina is being misguided by a paranoid, callous, overly-cautious, and arrogant deity?

From what events you were discussing, it seems like you're on Arc 63 Temple Crashers. Have you finished this arc? Sabrina clearly states that she agrees with Keene, but doesn't agree that the way Pete was going to do things was the correct way (which again, Keene also agrees with). Dragon and Pete are not in a war to make animals equal or not. They are two nerds having a duel over who gets to lead their U&U group with pets as their fighters. So, Keene and Sabrina are on opposite sides of that unrelated duel, but on the same side of pushing for animal rights. That's why I called your take shallow. It doesn't seem like you've quite understood everything here

[Keeperixx]

Hi, you've never spoken to me before this. I have never claimed otherwise. Please pay attention to who you're talking with or it's not going to be a very productive discussion. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

Okay, on that I apologize, D-Rock kept bringing up predations and carnivore instinct as an argument against viewing their sentience in the same regard as humans, despite me bringing up many times that contextual evidence in the comics proving those characters chose to eat sentient prey. When you brought up how many of them are still obligate carnivores, I was getting the impression no one seeing my point about the animals' instincts not hampering their sentience.

This is canon, so not really debatable. (and statistics being what they are, yes, some animals will have more of a drive for change than some humans, but the overall trend will place humans ahead on that curve)

I think you missed my point there, it's a trait that varies and is shared with their human counterparts, and therefore irrelevant.

From what events you were discussing, it seems like you're on Arc 63 Temple Crashers. Have you finished this arc? Sabrina clearly states that she agrees with Keene, but doesn't agree that the way Pete was going to do things was the correct way (which again, Keene also agrees with). Dragon and Pete are not in a war to make animals equal or not. They are two nerds having a duel over who gets to lead their U&U group with pets as their fighters. So, Keene and Sabrina are on opposite sides of that unrelated duel, but on the same side of pushing for animal rights. That's why I called your take shallow. It doesn't seem like you've quite understood everything here

it's that's true then I apologize again, but in my defense, I just read through Temple Crashers again and I couldn't find much in that arc that indicated Sabrina agrees with Keene other than saying that his compassion is admirable but misguided;

"I think what you're doing is good-- Compassion may be a virtue, but taking a stand is sometimes necessary." is what Sabrina said.

But if this rivalry Pete and Dragon put them on is unrelated to the animal rights situation, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that's better clarified in a later arc.

[D-Rock]

Hi, you've never spoken to me before this. I have never claimed otherwise. Please pay attention to who you're talking with or it's not going to be a very productive discussion. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

Okay, on that I apologize, D-Rock kept bringing up predations and carnivore instinct as an argument against viewing their sentience in the same regard as humans, despite me bringing up many times that contextual evidence in the comics proving those characters chose to eat sentient prey.

Wait, this Was the sticking point? When the literal first thing I said was that yes, they’re sapient?

[Keeperixx]

Hi, you've never spoken to me before this. I have never claimed otherwise. Please pay attention to who you're talking with or it's not going to be a very productive discussion. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

Okay, on that I apologize, D-Rock kept bringing up predations and carnivore instinct as an argument against viewing their sentience in the same regard as humans, despite me bringing up many times that contextual evidence in the comics proving those characters chose to eat sentient prey.

Wait, this Was the sticking point? When the literal first thing I said was that yes, they’re sapient?

Yes, you said that, but afterward you kept trying to dampen it by frequently bringing up their animal instincts in different ways like you think it holds back or overrides their sentience.

[Obbl]

This is canon, so not really debatable. (and statistics being what they are, yes, some animals will have more of a drive for change than some humans, but the overall trend will place humans ahead on that curve)

I think you missed my point there, it's a trait that varies and is shared with their human counterparts, and therefore irrelevant.

And you miss my point. It's a trait that varies but is canonically not shared with their human counterparts. One of the defining differences in humans in the Housepets! universe is that they see a problem and (as a general rule) seek a solution to make it better, whereas animals see circumstances as more or less the way things are and (as a general rule) seek to adapt to the circumstances rather than change them. This doesn't mean that animals should be treated as less than humans, but is the in universe explanation as to why they remain in much the same position as their non-sapient counterparts in the real universe.

You've also misunderstood Sabrina's quote: "I think what you're doing is good-- Compassion may be a virtue, but taking a stand is sometimes necessary."
The compassion that she speaks of is Dragon's. Out of compassion Dragon does not want to upend the current status quo, creating chaos and hard times for years before things settle. Compassion may be a virtue, but taking a stand as Keene is doing is sometimes necessary. Sabrina agrees with what Keene is doing, saying that he should just try to do it better than Pete would have (likely a snap of the fingers and let the chips fall as the may sort of deal)

[D-Rock]

Okay, on that I apologize, D-Rock kept bringing up predations and carnivore instinct as an argument against viewing their sentience in the same regard as humans, despite me bringing up many times that contextual evidence in the comics proving those characters chose to eat sentient prey.

Wait, this Was the sticking point? When the literal first thing I said was that yes, they’re sapient?

Yes, you said that, but afterward you kept trying to dampen it by frequently bringing up their animal instincts in different ways like you think it holds back or overrides their sentience.

Well, either my intentions were misunderstood or they weren’t communicated properly. I was just pointing out that despite everything and how they work, the real food web was still a thing the characters have to acknowledge.

[NHWestoN]

If not instinctive behavior, then could we call it "impulsive"? Such traits also exist among humans and seem at time to resemble "instincts" (but I am NOT stepping into the debate as to whether humans have "instincts"). Among the housepets cast - who are almost entirely carnivore or omnivore species - some "instincts" may survive but they are reduced to "impulses" that are usually controlled. Thus Zach Rabbit can live, befriend, and even have a love relationship with feral animals who would, were their impulses not channeled elsewhere, threaten his life and limb. Deer, on the other hand, do not enjoy this respect from wolves and pumas who nonetheless extend it to others.

Babylon Gardens is, after all, both a comic and a world in evolution. There are lots of unanswered questions but Rick would probably prefer to weave stories to submitting to interrogation. As Dayzee wisely noted, it's a comic strip - enjoy it.

[Keeperixx]

You've also misunderstood Sabrina's quote: "I think what you're doing is good-- Compassion may be a virtue, but taking a stand is sometimes necessary."
The compassion that she speaks of is Dragon's. Out of compassion Dragon does not want to upend the current status quo, creating chaos and hard times for years before things settle. Compassion may be a virtue, but taking a stand as Keene is doing is sometimes necessary. Sabrina agrees with what Keene is doing, saying that he should just try to do it better than Pete would have (likely a snap of the fingers and let the chips fall as the may sort of deal)

So it's talking about Dragon's compassion? toward humans? toward animals that may suffer from the vaguely described 'chaos' and 'hard times'?

At the risk of asking for spoilers, does Dragon in a later arc offer a gentler alternative or provide even marginal assistance toward the progress for animal rights?

If not, than I'm seeing less compassion and more bias in favor of humans.

I'm sorry, but the humans in that comic have yet to earn my sympathy. I can count the humans I've seen so far that treat sapient animals fairly with one hand. Even most of the pet owners that I'm supposed to view as "Good Parent" Owners were condescending, arrogant, and seemingly dismissive or apathetic of the human bias their Pets had to put up with. As if they're pets first and sapient beings second at best.

If not instinctive behavior, then could we call it "impulsive"? Such traits also exist among humans and seem at time to resemble "instincts" (but I am NOT stepping into the debate as to whether humans have "instincts"). Among the housepets cast - who are almost entirely carnivore or omnivore species - some "instincts" may survive but they are reduced to "impulses" that are usually controlled. Thus Zach Rabbit can live, befriend, and even have a love relationship with feral animals who would, were their impulses not channeled elsewhere, threaten his life and limb. Deer, on the other hand, do not enjoy this respect from wolves and pumas who nonetheless extend it to others.

Impulse by definition is still choice, consciously committing to an action simply because you know you want to do it. And I think we both know humans have impulses too even in this comic.

[Obbl]

You're allowed to feel that way. This comic is ultimately about pets that walk and talk. If that doesn't sit well with you, then it's not really gonna get any easier for you. I can't say I truly understand your way of thinking. There are plenty of freedoms lacking for pets that I would want to address living in that world, certainly. But even though their not always treated well, I don't see why them being sapient makes the treatement that much worse for you than what happens in our world. Bino got put in a shock collar which is pretty terrible, but why is it more terrible than putting a regular dog in a shock collar? Earl and Jill pretty much treat their pets like their children. I don't quite see what bothers you specifically about the situation the pets are in. The ferals get much more of my sympathy.
And I completely fail to see your viewpoint on Dragon. She's not against pets getting more rights. She's against Pete's method of snapping his fingers and making everyone perfectly equal in a society that isn't set up to handle everyone. The job market isn't prepared to take on that many new employees, the food industry isn't prepared to feed that many new mouths, the sudden lack of available meat would only exacerbate that issue... She's against the global catastrophe that would follow if Pete did his thing. And outside of that, neither Pete nor Dragon (nor Kitsune) are looking to do anything else to advance pet's rights cause that's not why they're there, and celestial beings are only really interested in the preserving the natural order of life and death and afterlife. Disliking Dragon in particular for not doing anything here is oddly specific.

Also can someone explain what point any person in this conversation on instict vs choice is attempting to make? It seems like everyone is completely talking past each other, but I can't even figure out what point anyone is even angling toward.

[Keeperixx]

I can't say I truly understand your way of thinking. There are plenty of freedoms lacking for pets that I would want to address living in that world, certainly. But even though their not always treated well, I don't see why them being sapient makes the treatment that much worse for you than what happens in our world.

It's a point I've been trying to make since my first post, the reason we humans treat animals in the real world the way we do is BECAUSE unlike the animals in Housepets, animals in our world aren't sapient. It doesn't make cruelty to animals in real life any less excusable, but doing it to anthros who are just as sapient as humans and acting like its just as justified seems a little more egregious.

Animals in our world can't talk, they can't learn human skills like writing or fixing cars, most real life animals aren't capable of self-awareness, and while they can form attachments, I have yet to see many examples of animals taking interest in books and TV like the Housepets Animals do.

Everything points to the Housepets animals being just as sentient as humans and being able to develop intellectually and socially to an extent that pretty much matches their human counterparts.

Which is why I have a hard time seeing the Housepets Animals as animals who happen to act like children rather than a marginalized group of anthros who possess sentience that most humans can't seem to respect.

And I completely fail to see your viewpoint on Dragon. She's not against pets getting more rights. She's against Pete's method of snapping his fingers and making everyone perfectly equal in a society that isn't set up to handle everyone. The job market isn't prepared to take on that many new employees, the food industry isn't prepared to feed that many new mouths, the sudden lack of available meat would only exacerbate that issue... She's against the global catastrophe that would follow if Pete did his thing. And outside of that, neither Pete nor Dragon (nor Kitsune) are looking to do anything else to advance pet's rights cause that's not why they're there, and celestial beings are only really interested in the preserving the natural order of life and death and afterlife. Disliking Dragon in particular for not doing anything here is oddly specific.

My criticisms of Dragon were fueled by the apparent claim you tried to make in previous posts that Dragon is meant to be viewed as the more benevolent of the celestial beings given your explanation of Sabrina's compassion line. Which kinda contradicts the condescending behavior she displayed toward King in her first appearance, but I'm sure that's another story.

If Dragon is actually meant to be viewed as a neutral character more concerned with maintaining natural order than the welfare of the inhabitants who are part of that order, seems at best a little odd to talk about compassion in regard to her.

Also can someone explain what point any person in this conversation on instinct vs choice is attempting to make? It seems like everyone is completely talking past each other, but I can't even figure out what point anyone is even angling toward.

It was a debate I've been locked on mainly with D-Rock. It was an attempt to bring up that many of the the Housepets Animals are still carnivores that still follow the food web, but the way they brought it up in most previous posts made me think it was attempt to convince me that the bias against them from humans is justified by virtue of the theory that the animal instincts were in some way dampening the sentience of the Housepets Animals in a way that's beyond their control even though the comics have shown it clearly isn't.

[Obbl]

My criticisms of Dragon were fueled by the apparent claim you tried to make in previous posts that Dragon is meant to be viewed as the more benevolent of the celestial beings given your explanation of Sabrina's compassion line. Which kinda contradicts the condescending behavior she displayed toward King in her first appearance, but I'm sure that's another story.

If Dragon is actually meant to be viewed as a neutral character more concerned with maintaining natural order than the welfare of the inhabitants who are part of that order, seems at best a little odd to talk about compassion in regard to her.

Um.... no? No to everything here, and I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

Actually you seem to have a really hard time giving almost anyone a fair read. You make completely and totally fair points that the pets are treated as lesser beings by people, but then you go on to say that "even the 'good' owners are condescending and arrogant", or that Dragon was "condescending" to King in her first appearance, which is just completely incomprehesible to me. Who are these supposedly good owners who are consdescending and arrogant to their pets? How is it even possible to read any of the extremely limited words Dragon had about King in Dog Days of Summer as condescending? It takes all of your legitimate points and makes them into something that feels utterly unreasonable.

Or how you managed to read my post saying that Dragon had compassion in one specific instance and extrapolate from there to assume I meant that she is "the more benevolent" one. Or your apparent view that if she is neutral with respect to the status quo that somehow disbars her from having compassion? It just feels like any attempt at a nuanced discussion is going to be fruitless.

And it's still entirely fine to take issue with the way animals are treated in this world. And I again stress that if this is really going to bother you to the level that it appears from this thread, this may not be the right comic for you

[Keeperixx]

My criticisms of Dragon were fueled by the apparent claim you tried to make in previous posts that Dragon is meant to be viewed as the more benevolent of the celestial beings given your explanation of Sabrina's compassion line. Which kinda contradicts the condescending behavior she displayed toward King in her first appearance, but I'm sure that's another story.

If Dragon is actually meant to be viewed as a neutral character more concerned with maintaining natural order than the welfare of the inhabitants who are part of that order, seems at best a little odd to talk about compassion in regard to her.

Um.... no? No to everything here, and I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

Actually you seem to have a really hard time giving almost anyone a fair read. You make completely and totally fair points that the pets are treated as lesser beings by people, but then you go on to say that "even the 'good' owners are condescending and arrogant", or that Dragon was "condescending" to King in her first appearance, which is just completely incomprehesible to me. Who are these supposedly good owners who are consdescending and arrogant to their pets? How is it even possible to read any of the extremely limited words Dragon had about King in Dog Days of Summer as condescending? It takes all of your legitimate points and makes them into something that feels utterly unreasonable.

Or how you managed to read my post saying that Dragon had compassion in one specific instance and extrapolate from there to assume I meant that she is "the more benevolent" one. Or your apparent view that if she is neutral with respect to the status quo that somehow disbars her from having compassion? It just feels like any attempt at a nuanced discussion is going to be fruitless.

And it's still entirely fine to take issue with the way animals are treated in this world. And I again stress that if this is really going to bother you to the level that it appears from this thread, this may not be the right comic for you

Okay, on those bits I think you're right, I might've misremembered certain things from my first run of Dog Days of Summer, (though it my defense, that arc jammed alot more exposition than usual when talking about the celestial bureaucracy and Pete's and Dragon's game and was a little hard to go through)

But the bottom line on that is that I'm trying to make sense of how I'm supposed to view Dragon as a character.

As for for my claim that "even the 'good' owners are condescending and arrogant", well....

Looking back now, even I think I might've taken certain scenes more seriously than I should've.

There was a certain where Peanut, Grape, and their owners stopped by a gas station and the cashier told Mr. Sandwich that he can't serve pets and Mr. Sandwich responded by taking Peanut and Grape's collars off and running out, which caused Grape to freak out. Looking back, I know now that Mr. Sandwich intended for it to be just a joke and the comic does treat it as a mistake on his part.

But when I first read that part, I was left with the impression that even the good owners weren't above putting their pets through uncomfortable or degrading scenarios without bothering to ask for consent beforehand or give explanations for them afterward. Like they still see them as pets first and sapient beings second. And given the more legitimate examples of human oppression I saw prior to and after that scene, I originally thought what Mr. Sandwich did fitted all too well with everything else going on.

But I must stress that, again, even I think now I might've viewed those moments more harshly than I should've, so I apologize.

I also apologize if my soapboxing is distressing anyone here. I think I should clarify that it's not so much the human oppression on the Housepets Animals being in the comic at all that bothers me. I've read plenty of stories regarding prejudice and got through them just fine.

It's the idea that I'm supposed to strictly view it as okay or that I'm supposed to side with most of the in-universe humans in thinking it's completely justified that really bothers me.

But let me cap this off by saying I am still enjoying this comic despite my criticisms and concerns. It's currently getting better on me, I'm seeing more in-universe indicators I'm supposed to not be okay with the human bias, and I think I'm slowly seeing more examples of humans treating the Housepets Animals fairly, so hopefully my stance on the Housepets humans might change in time.

I thank you all for taking time to discuss this with me.

[Obbl]

But the bottom line on that is that I'm trying to make sense of how I'm supposed to view Dragon as a character.

Oh, don't worry, the forums went round and round on this for years. The "Heaven is Not Enough" arcs give a pretty rounded perspective on how to view Dragon, Pete, Kitsune, and the other celestials that can help to contextualize everything they've done. You may still not like it, but you'll likely be far less confused on how you should feel

I'm glad you're enjoying what you're seeing. The current overarching plot looks like it may be setting up to tackle this topic more directly, and that'd be really interesting to see