"Any actual intelligent discourse you'd like to add to the discussion of millions of pets dying, being abandoned, and abused because of this practice?"

Certainly, JessiKa, but framing pet ownership as “the new slavery” does not elevate the discussion; it derails it. Slavery was a system of systemic violence and forced human subjugation. Comparing this to caring for pets—often characterized by mutual benefit and compassion—trivializes historical atrocities and undermines meaningful discourse on animal welfare.

Your argument reflects a common flaw in critical theory: the tendency to see domination in every relationship. By focusing on extreme cases, you ignore the broader reality of responsible pet ownership, where animals are rescued, nurtured, and protected. Moreover, your speculative use of intergenerational trauma and epigenetics to link pet ownership to colonialist ideologies lacks evidence and reads more as ideological narrative than serious analysis.

If the goal is to address pet abuse and abandonment, conflating it with slavery is counterproductive.