by BlisteredWhippet » Mon 09 Nov 2009, 20:26:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jotapay', 'I') find this post to be ridiculous. Dogs were made to accomplish feats which humans could not. They are tools by extension. To suggest that we would be better off without them is anti-human, IMO.
Well, if I must reiterate previous posts, I think there are exceptional cases, and they are not the majority.
We need bomb sniffing dogs at the border.
We do not need poop-sniffing dogs barking in the middle of the night at the border to my property.
People covet what they see (hear, or read) every day. What propaganda are you referring to anyway? The incessant chorus that to be happy, we need pets? Or that pet owners are happy fulfilled people? That a child needs a pet to learn "responsibility"?
Because the recent statistical and scientific analysis by two individuals certainly isn't propaganda. Its simply research. Its
facts. The qualitative inference might be goddamn pinko communist, but quantitatively, you can't touch it.
Furthermore, if you think that dogs are tools by extension you reinforce my prior contention that humans tend to view animal life as objects as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Therein lies the seeds of our whole existential dilemma which presents itself as a resource/population problem.