I don't have the time to address everything you said in multi quotes, but you're honestly terrible at arguing. You don't even address any of the points I make. Not only that, but most of the stuff you say (and obviously believe applies) doesn't have anything to do with what you're replying to and you claim I say many things I never once even hinted at.
Where the empathy comes from doesn't matter.
No, "we" weren't talking about occasionally putting a dog on a chain.
Like I said, my points revolve around empathy, not who is psychologically closer to humans. Even so, you can not find 10 species like you claimed. And why aren't you posting sources like I did?
Your definition of "natural environment" is quite different than, well, the actual definition. You're attempting to make your definition work, despite the fact that it's wrong.
You know what "redundant" means right? Since I never once mentioned the point you addressed other than once (initially), "redundant" simply doesn't apply.
"Just because a person doesn't take their dog to bed and bathe with it doesn't mean they "gain nothing" from owning an animal." -- That has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand and I never once said the contrary...