You are using a motte-and-bailey switch right now.

Nobody was talking against the self-domestication point. That one is your bailey argument: A simple, easy-to-defend stantement that means very little and is largely correct.

The motte argument that everyone was contending was that domestication equals captivity. That one is a garbage claim that just doesn’t hold up.

You lead with the domestication equals captivity point and when you got called out on it you are now trying to switch from your motte argument to the bailey argument, claiming that this was what you were saying all along and not acknowleding that you switched arguments half-way in between.

And yes, equalling domestication and captivity is a moral, ethical, ‘should-be’ claim, and you repeated doing so in this last comment of yours as well by equalling the cuman condition with animal captivity while bringing up slavery in the same line which actually is quite close to animal captivity. The general human condition in 2025 does not equal slavery.

The only way you would seriously make that argument is if you either have no idea what slavery is (which I doubt) or if you want to claim that slavery is not “some kind of moral, ethical, ‘should be’ type” of problem.

And if you can’t see problems with slavery, we might have a bigger issue at hand.