At first, pro side looks impossible: Noble is human. Dog is not. So con side wins, right? Well, not necessarily.
- Nobles are warlike
- Nobles were expected to conduct and prepare for war
- every noble must be the "vassal" of some "lord."
In fact, the ONLY thing nobles and single men have in common is that they are expected to act chivalrous to women, and even then, is being single really necessarily being kind to women? This could potentially be misinterpreted as a romantic notion in modern society, and as such, it would be unwise to have a single man act similar to noble (kissing women's hands or such) As you can see, being single is very very different from being a noble.
2) Living condition.
states, 80% of dogs are free to wander the wild, unrestrained by relationships or otherwise (unless in mating season, lol). It is widely known that at the very least, dogs have basic survival ability
and thus we can reason that they have food, drink, shelter. The poverty guideline is vague, but this article
says " In 2017, this line was set at $12,060 for a single person", so let's assume it's right, and the "dog's bare minimum for survival". As Pew Research center
shows, "those making more than $118,000 make up the upper-income bracket". Great. We established the dog, and the upper class. However, the average income capita of
worldwide s actually *lower* than even the Dog's necessity for survival ($10,298)! Hence this is far more similar than being a dog than being a noble! Indeed, looking upon how many people in the world are homeless and wandering around for need of food and survival,
it is becoming more and more clear that being single is more like a dog than a noble (as married people need to have enough resources to sustain both of them, and hence you would not see people in relations very often in developing countries, where people act like dogs).
3) Low political status.
Consider that America has not had a unmarried president since 1884
. This clearly goes against the traditions and definition of "noble". Dogs have no political status and this only goes to confirm this.
"Figure 1 indicates that a majority of middle- and upper-class Americans are married, whereas only a minority of working-class Americans are married. " (from here
) Enough said. Okay fine, I will try to avoid Texas Sharpshooter fallacy by explaining the reasoning behind this. Washington Monthly states
, "The endurance of marriage among elites—and, it seems, elites alone—is important not just as a cultural anomaly. As the class divide in marriage grows, elites are compounding the advantages of their status, especially for their kids. Since the release of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s now-famed report on the breakdown of black families in 1965, researchers have amassed a growing mountain of evidence that family structure and marriage matter. Compared to children living with single parents, or even with parents who are cohabiting, kids raised in married-parent households are much less likely to grow up in poverty, more likely to do better in school, and more likely to move up the economic ladder even if they start out poor."
As you can see, the nobles/upper-class just keep extending their impossibility to be related to be single.
Conclusion: I understand how dirty my arguments seem, considering I can I BB likely only considered Chinese people, but this is a very vague topic so I made it worldwide instead. After all, nobles are a European standard with feudalism, and as such I feel like it would only be proper to include all cultures' people and how they are much too far from being a noble, and far closer to being a dog, especially if you are single. Vote for pro.