LizardKing

I agree with every word of that, except the first line. My point is that OP cannot possibly know if owning pets will provide them the same satisfaction as having children because they've never had children.

No one here is actually disputing what I actually said, because what I actually said is correct. I made a statement, and everyone threw their strawman arguments at me.

Holding someone else's child is completely different from holding your own child that you created and gave life to. OP has never held their own child, and therefore cannot possibly say that pet ownership gives them the same satisfaction.

Op is talking about holding their pet, an experience they have had, and holding their child, an experience they have not had. Therefore they absolutely cannot try to compare the two.

All OP can say is that having pets gives them the same enjoyment as holding someone else's baby, which is most likely absolutely true. But that's not what was said. They tried to equate pet ownership to bringing and nurturing a life into this world and I'm sorry but that's fucking ridiculous, period.

Okay and my great uncle Fred took a dump that he insists was as difficult to pass as a human child. Since he's talking about his experiences, not anyone else's, he must be right, right? By your logic my uncle Fred genuinely knows what childbirth feels like, correct?

Or does the fact that he has never experienced childbirth exclude him from making such comparisons?

A childless person saying "I can get the same hit from cats and small dogs" is like a cis man saying "I can get the same experience as childbirth by performing a large bowel movement".

But most men never want to experience childbirth, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with not wanting kids. But pets absolutely cannot replicate actual children, just like a bowel movement can never replicate the experience of childbirth.