Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

I want a dog.

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby EndOfSewers » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 19:26:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drew', 'P')S my arm is her chew toy-for hours every day!

Mouthing your arm is absolutely not acceptable behaviour, especially in a nervous dog with an unknown history. Get some love and discipline happening right now to fix it or you could have big trouble down the road. A dog like that is a fear-biter waiting to happen and teaching her she placate herself by chewing on people is damn near the worst thing you could be doing. Shit, how can you think "mouthing" and "frightened of people" isn't a god damn time bomb no matter how cute she is?

Get her some real chew toys and when she puts teeth on you, no matter how gently, you make it clear it isn't acceptable, then give her something she's supposed to chew on and make it clear she's a good girl for doing so. Learn the kind of social cues a dog looks for, be a good pack leader and she'll start to lose that nervousness as she gains confidence in you.
User avatar
EndOfSewers
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu 20 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby threadbear » Sun 04 Mar 2007, 00:58:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'A')nyone who's wondering if they should get a dog I would highly recommend it, just choose the right breed for you and your personality - it makes all the difference.


I have an overly cautious, slightly introverted miniature schnauzer. Perfect for me and really ideal for my husband. I get them confused. :lol:
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Sun 04 Mar 2007, 05:54:59

HA!!
It's amazing how dogs become like their people or visa versa!
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Sun 04 Mar 2007, 15:53:52

I wonder how much a carbon offset you need to rectify a dog's impact on environment?

Displacement of Prozac prescriptions for the depressed? The irritation of one's neighbors by its incessant barking? Fecal coliform runoff? Pesticide residues from flea infestation vectors? Disease vectors from dog biology? Clogged vacuum filters and electricity? Industrial agricultural impact from dog food industries? The acid rain and pollution from factories making your metal dog food cans? Bureaucracies dedicated to tagging and licensing?

I would submit that perhaps its your own self-centered myopia that prevents your complex human psyche from finding creative avenues of rectifying serotonin imbalances without fleecing an animal and offloading environment costs on the rest of the planet.

The dog is a band-aid, a palliative for your symptoms but not a cure. A crutch, in fact. A red herring that will lead you farther away from any real fix for your mental problems. You have devolved into a poop-scooper. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Sun 04 Mar 2007, 16:51:23

BlisteredWhippet thanks so much for the laugh!

You've got a big case of dog-hating my friend, I'll postulate that you're as blinded by this as I am in love with my pup. It's obvious neither of us is objective, but in answer to your points.

My dog has practically nill direct impact on the environment aside from eating ground beef and veggies and the farming practices involved with that. I try to buy organic and local as much as possible and have her on raw food which means at least I'm not contributing to the mining and metal canning practices. She doesn't bark hardly at all and my neighbors are several acres away. My vaccum cleaner is fine - I've yet to get it clogged and while she does shed a little bit it's certainly not an issue. Her poops are quite tidy - off the lawn in the long grasses on top of the septic field in fact - something she does on her own amazingly. I leave it there as fertilizer for the flowers that grow there, the only time I have to poop scoop is at the dog park. My "complex human psyche" doesn't feel de-evolved (nice) at those times in any way, just as much as yours isn't when you clean your toilet bowl. Do the dirty dead then move on to your math problem.

As a working breed my dog has something extra to contribute to the world aside from her sparkling personality, and actually will be able to bring in the herd or gather a stray - very handy post-PO. She'll earn her keep by helping me on the farm, and when you watch these dogs you learn that they actually do "work" and take their jobs quite seriously. Not that the little dogs are any less valuable as I think they bring their owners a lot of love and joy.

As for my "seritonin imbalances", and you made me smile here, my PO depression wan't bad enough for Prozac or any other medication and hardly could be described as "mental illness", but even if it were I'd much rather cure my blues with a loving dog than a Eli-Lilly or Phizer product. I'm sure many people would agree with me. Dogs and cats are being used in hospitals and nursing homes for precisely that, their ability to cheer folks up. Now it may be true we're using them as "crutches" but they are also using us. My dog comes to me for comfort and cuddling, runs between my knees at the park when scared and is sad when I'm gone. I willingly cuddle her back. It's a very beneficial/symbiotic relationship that has lasted thousands of years.

Now you've obviously got a very negative opinion of dogs and owners BWhippet and not knowing the reasons for this I'd say that it might be you that needs to do some mental work overcoming this if it matters to you. I have a feeling it doesn't really and perhaps you're just having some fun taking some potshots. Practicing your impressive elocutional and argumentative skills in the relative safety of the doggie thread where we're all lined up like cans on posts. I have no problem with this as it is providing some counter-point in the thread and I do find your posts amusing!
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby lateralus » Sun 04 Mar 2007, 17:08:22

BlisteredWhippet is still upset over that great dane humping his leg in kindergarden.
lateralus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue 04 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Hockeyland

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby drew » Sun 04 Mar 2007, 20:02:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EndOfSewers', 'M')outhing your arm is absolutely not acceptable behaviour, especially in a nervous dog with an unknown history. Get some love and discipline happening right now to fix it or you could have big trouble down the road. A dog like that is a fear-biter waiting to happen and teaching her she placate herself by chewing on people is damn near the worst thing you could be doing. Shit, how can you think "mouthing" and "frightened of people" isn't a god damn time bomb no matter how cute she is?

Get her some real chew toys and when she puts teeth on you, no matter how gently, you make it clear it isn't acceptable, then give her something she's supposed to chew on and make it clear she's a good girl for doing so. Learn the kind of social cues a dog looks for, be a good pack leader and she'll start to lose that nervousness as she gains confidence in you.


I'll take your fears in stride. I had a vicious dog a long time back and Tora is nothing like that evil pure bred german sheperd of police dog stock. (I left it with the ex gilrl friend.) Still her biting can be tiring, and is possibly dangerous in the wrong situation. We have lots of chew toys too, which she uses constantly btw. At last count she has ate 3 rawhides and two large cloth bones in 2 months. Only her rubber tire has survived. Our problem with her lack of socialization stems from two factors, a huge back yard and our very private lives. We do not have to walk our dog because of our large yard, and we don't venture out with the dog at all in public so her exposure to people aside from my kids friends is almost nil. I would agree that obediance training would be a good thing since I fully intend to ride off road a lot this year with the dog. She will cross paths with lots of four legged friends where I ride since it is a popular place with the dog crowd too.

Drew
User avatar
drew
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu 22 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: canada

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby threadbear » Sun 04 Mar 2007, 20:26:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'H')A!!
It's amazing how dogs become like their people or visa versa!


Truly! The great things about her, besides the anal retentive Prussian temperment-- she doesn't shed, doesn't chew, doesn't bark, and has always been a bit of a couch potato....since I got her at 9 weeks.

Basically, she doesn't get on my nerves with incessant demands. I'm truly amazed at some of the behaviour people put up with in their dogs. I had a friend who had a couple of weirmeraners, who tore her house apart and raided the fridge whenever she went out for more than a couple of hours.(they learned how to open the fridge, no lie)

She NEVER walked them...and they were young dogs. She had a small run for them outside, but that wasn't enough, so they were full of pent up energy, all the time. Whenever they escaped from the house, they'd go kill a couple of the neighbour's cats and then come home. Yeccch.

Your dog is really sweet looking. Aussies are sometimes not great with kids. Is your's okay that way?
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby mercurygirl » Mon 05 Mar 2007, 02:42:24

There is more to domestic animals than the merely practical and biological, I'm sure.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he more I think of that Spot, the more I am convinced that there are things in this world that go beyond science.

From here, great story: That Spot
mercurygirl
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Mon 05 Mar 2007, 04:29:49

Threadbear, thanks for the nice words about River and yes, she's fine with kids now, but wasn't for a couple months. You're right that it's a breed trait but I think it's mostly because they are so velcroed to one or two people they're not too interested in anything else frankly. That and I suppose it's because we really didn't expose her to any truly little kids when quite young and she was a bit afraid of them when she saw them - barking and growing at them. We had some dinner guests who had kids over and she really surprised us with her carrying on. So we decided to use desenitization and leave her with a friend who has four boys and they played ball and fed her lots of treats, generally being boys with a young dog. She really responded to them now I have no problems with her, even when she see's a really young one running across the field.

We're lucky to have an awsome trainer who uses only gentle reward based methods which are best for cattle dogs who don't do well with punishment based training. I'd heard that and have learned since that it's true. They don't cower or respond like other dogs and I can see how people could really go wrong with this breed. Afterall they're bred to boss 500lb cattle around if the cow gives them any attitude they push back even harder. With these dogs you also have to be clever and outthink them because they will try to outthink you and they have very strong wills. I find I have to constantly vary her training and toys and have new stimulating exercises for her. I'm not kidding about the 2 hours solid exercise a day. I do thank God she loves learning and we got the basics down early. She's got an excellent down-stay and recall that has saved my butt on more than a few occasions.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Mon 05 Mar 2007, 04:35:58

mercurygirl, I loved that story, thanks so much for sharing it. That Spot seems very uncanny - I would have liked to have met that dog.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby davep » Mon 05 Mar 2007, 09:28:20

I got a new dog last week (at nine weels old). It's an Italian breed, Pastore Maremmano Abruzzese (a shepherd dog). She's already grown in the week we've had her (12 kg and counting).

Apparently they're one of the oldest dog breeds, and are used for guarding goats. I saw a story on t'interweb about a couple of them saving a wolf from certain death. Not a dog to be messed with apparently.

Anyway, here's ours:

<a href="snowball"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/411305829_cc85911ddd_m.jpg" width="240" height="180" alt="" /></a>

Gah! I'll link to it instead:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/4113 ... dd.jpg?v=0
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Tue 06 Mar 2007, 00:53:05

Aw, very cute! She sorta looks like a white newfie.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Thu 08 Mar 2007, 15:10:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', '[')b]BlisteredWhippet thanks so much for the laugh!


n/p. BTW, I don't "hate" Canis lupus familiaris. The "Hater" invective is the defense anyone holding any number of popular "status quo" opinions, and impotent in any logical sense. Yet, its used, simply because logic isn't needed in the spheres of personal affectation, politics, religion, rhetoric, etc. The lack of logic in personal decision making vis a vis dogs is evident by the number of Canis lupus familiaris getting euthanized every day in shelters. If people actually did the mental exercises necessary to cognate the ramifications of "owning" Canis lupus familiaris, less euthanizations would take place, but only if you assumed that those people were sufficiently ethical to make a moral judgement of that type.

Of course, most people do what pleases them and then justify their actions post hoc. Clearly a logical value system is not needed to enjoy ice cream. I argue that dogs are in fact enjoyed, much like ice cream. Ice cream requires a certain amount of commitment and provides a simplistic, animal sense of pleasure, much like dog ownership. Go to the mall, to a pet shop. What is the qualitative difference between people reviewing the selection of dogs arranged in cages along the wall and selection of books on the bookseller's shelves, or ice cream in a vendor's cooler?

When something is bought, or owned, it is a qualitatively distinct thing. No one wants to lease dogs, or ice cream. If it was true that the company of Canis lupus familiaris was sufficient to enjoy the company of an animal, you would expect some service would pop up to lease dogs. But the most people own the animal. I don't "Hate" dogs, I enjoy them. I also don't "own" them, and I consider that an aesthetic and morally superior position.

Lets assume everyone likes (to own) dogs, like cars. Then lets assume all 6 billion people on the planet eventually come to own dogs. You could argue any one dog has a negligible affect on environment. But the fact is that the mass of dogs do in fact have an effect. The pet food industry is huge. You could use similar logic to argue that personal ownership of (a) car isi similarly negligible. People who are overly enthused by their cars might similarly dismiss the community of people on this message board as "haters" of cars, and you can be sure they definitely do.

So without logic, humanity is essentially a conglomeration of special interest groups. I am a proponent of a different value scale, thats all. In the way the NASCAR message board's opinion on the impact and virtues of their hobby is arguably inferior to, say, a PO.com communal values surrounding the car, your argument for dog ownership shares a similar relationship to an argument against it.

My argument against dog ownership is part of a larger value system which places the constellation of nature on a balance. If it is the case that massive losses in biodiversity have and are occurring, the justifications for a specialized relationship with nature probably have a negative impact. For example, my observation is that most people have cats, or dogs (or birds, fish, reptiles, etc.) If you were to examine any individual's relationship with nature, by any objective standard you would be struck by the limited and concentrated nature of that relationship to a distinctly small number of species. Just as the "Modern Diet" is in fact dominated by a handful of species, the modern individual's relationship to the community or web of life as represented by its members is similarly concentrated.

It is my opinion that all these concentrations have distinctly negative effects on a person. The real reason for pet ownership, the invented justifications of their owners notwithstanding, is exactly the servicing of their own desires. The origin of these desires is a connection to nature and our animal cousins. In short, people get dogs (or other pets), because this essentially ancient connection has been alienated, truncated, severed, and denied. It is much like a sailor who purchases the services of a prostitute when at sea for months at a time. The disaffection and alienation that dog owners' feel alleviated by ownership is real, but it is also a epistemologically incorrect to assume that ownership cured anything. The original relationship, between human and nature, remains critically breached. The affect of dog ownership, over time, is the entrenchment of this extant alienation in biospheric terms, simply because their real need, a connection to animal nature, is supplanted by simplistic operant conditioning that a dog's presence works on the brain of a homo sapiens sapiens.

Like a meth addict who, for the sake of being unable to deal with reality, snorts more meth, the essential problem gets worse and the addict less able to ameliorate the original problem. How does a human being reconnect to the essential experience of animalia and nature? It involves physically going out and being a part of it.

Consider the qualitative difference of going for a walk in the woods alone, and then with a dog. Many dog owners, oblivious of their own ability to commune in the multi folded ways our naturally evolved senses allow, "relearn" the "joy" of walking in the woods, through the dog. Without the dog, these "lost" humans feel alone, vulnerable, bored in their dulled senses. Only through the dog do these people have a clue to a greater awareness. Ironically, this is as far as they get because of the qualitative difference of being with the dog. It is not a meditative state, it is an ownership mode, with the leash apparatus, the continual interruption of the dog's reactions, its poop, etc. It is a task. As much as the dog owner might want to commune with nature, the existence of the dog is a barrier. Any dog owner will dispute this, and I will reply that any dog owner probably doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Nature is being systematically destroyed by a thousand tiny cuts. Advocacy has been failing for years. Humans, incapable of the subtleties their power requires for continued existence within the living matrix of the biosphere, are eliminating themselves from the matrix of relationships that stood for millenia. It is in that spirit that I make a choice to not own a dog or any other "pet". When I walk in nature I hear my animal brothers and sisters and their voices of concern. They are scared and repulsed by the mutant creature created by contact with humanity, Canis lupus familiaris. The Dog and Humans that own them are part of a unitized biological entity, that has trampled and destroyed much of the planet, and shows no sign of trampling and destroying the what is left.

The despair, the depression, whatever you call the malaise that you experienced, was the sine qua non of your journey from "Human" to "Dog-Human". Creatures, with their sensitive antennae, will now recognize this difference. Even now, your immunological system is co-creating with the animal a sympathetic connection. What you call symbiosis is in fact sympathetic, at best. In many ways, the relationship is parasitic, something most dog owners can scarcely imagine since they tend to intensively anthropomorphize the dogs' reality. Your life, as a human being is now coming to an end. The depression you feel lifting is the cessation of your position as noble, wild, and free aspect of nature and its transformation into bipedal poop-scooper.

Everything we think and do changes us. And nothing more profoundly than what we "own". Since these changes occur outside the range of the typically dulled sensate and mental abilities of most people, the affect is transparent, and the effects are incorrectly identified. Dog-Humans give birth to and raise other Dog-Humans. Dog-Human society tolerates things like fecal coliform pollution, barking, dog food factories, euthanization, and are characterized by an alienation from nature, a radiating, destructive civilizational pattern, overpopulation, decimation of resources and habitat, declining biodiversity, changing climates, etc., but especially non-logical quasi-religions of personal affectation and thought.

In the maelstrom of cascading destructive affects are the voices of individuals drowning in the mass. Unconnected to their own humanity, unable to connect to animalia or nature, or each other, they gradually adopt more and more the prejudice and attitudes of the personal religion of self-gratification.

Therefore, I oppose it. I suggest that the ownership of animals for the sake of a human's "self-gratification" is simply symptomatic of a larger cultural movement. And where is the larger culture, the dominant culture, replete with "ownership" headed? Annihilation, in my opinion and observation. If not for humans and dogs, certainly many countless other species and niches. So is there an ethical or moral dimension to the question of ownership? Certainly. But I am realistic. What I am certain of is that people that own dogs will raise children that own dogs. In this way the alienation will continue down through human generations. They will pass on their alienation and the cultural disease vector like an heirloom.

My position is simply that there should be no "ownership" of animals. No "Dominion" in the Classical Judeo-Christian sense. That the alienation expressed in people be addressed in respect to original causes. Humans more than ever need each other, and real, authentic connections to nature. We do not need "stand-ins" for other humans, surrogates for nature. We need authentic and vital lives, and we need to let go of and diminish our exclusive and reductionist practices of interaction with animalia, a new respect and perspective. Once you attain that, the alienation goes away. Canis lupus familiaris can be released from bandage back into the wild to live their meaningful lives as members of a community, without an emotionally retarded quasi-human chaperone who selfishly abuses its sensibility by burdening it as the object of a parasitic, unnatural relationship.

Image
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Fri 09 Mar 2007, 15:29:24

Ancient Dog-Man hybrid with poop-scooper:

Image

Say hello to their little friends:

Fleas, feasters on human blood

Image

Ticks, bloodsucking transmitters of disease:

Image

Worms:

Image

Mmm, fecal coliform:

Image

Toxoplasma, from *tasty* cat shit:

Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')i]There has been speculation that human behaviour may also be affected in some ways, and correlations have been found between latent Toxoplasma infections and various characteristics such as increased risk taking behavior, slower reactions, feelings of insecurity, and neuroticism. [3]


Pet food:

Image

Real food of the type Canus would eat if their owners didn't force the alternative on them:

Image

Reality of pet food industry:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or seven years I was a veterinary meat inspector for the US Department of Agriculture and the State of California. I waded through blood, water, pus and faecal material, inhaled the fetid stench from the killing floor and listened to the death cries of slaughtered animals....

Pet Food Industry


Flea and Tick treatment dangers, google search:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Household Pesticides and Risk of Pediatric Brain Tumors - Pogoda - Cited by 51
Tolerances of canola, field pea, lupin and faba bean ... - Lemerle - Cited by 5
Acute and chronic toxicity of imidazolium-based ionic ... - Bernot - Cited by 13


Owners resemble their dogs?

Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople with vicious dogs may be vicious too
Ohio study found that every owner of a high-risk breed had brush with law...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15755870/


Perhaps there is more to the folk wisdom that a dog "resembles its owners"?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he judges found no resemblance between mutts and their owners, providing evidence that owners tend to choose a dog that looks like them, rather than owners and dogs grow alike over time...

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/pr040330.cfm

On pet owners:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')eterinary students at the University of Minnesota are taught to be as concerned about the pet owner's well-being as that of the animal he or she treats....

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Beyond_animal_instincts.html

It follows, logically, that a human who uses a pet to stabilize his/her mental health is probably in need of professional psychiatric help. Enlisting a veterinarian, instead of a psychologist, may illustrate how far gone the former human being has devolved...
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby dinopello » Fri 09 Mar 2007, 16:04:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', 'I') don't "Hate" dogs, I enjoy them.


You enjoy them despite your phobia of fleas and ticks and fixation on fecal functions ? That's resolute, man.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Sat 10 Mar 2007, 13:24:20

BWhippet, what can one say in response to such a well brought-forward and obviously well considered position against the evils of doggie ownership. I’m truly impressed and appreciate all the work you put into your posts! I could respond by arguing for all the merits, however, I still think your position is a fundamentally emotional one, as is mine, and that for all your melodrama, you aren't fundamentally wrong, just one-sided. SO? What are the practical implications of your position? Are you advocating we give up our dogs? Take them behind the shed? Set them free from their subjugation and let them loose to form natural packs roaming suburbia eating cats and small children? Perhaps they'd like us to give them their own autonomous areas, turn the doggie parks into reservations and offer some form of self-governance? Stock these areas with rabbits and rats, but they’d still be caged, and what about the ones who need jobs? Perhaps it would be better to set them free in the Rockies to learn how to hunt mountain goats and elk. Now some small doggies would perish right away, the little pugs and Pomeranians, but at least they'd die free! Viva la resistance! F-R-E-E-D-O-M!

I just don't see how you're going to change the fact that we love doogie company and doggies love our company. For all we know they must tolerate our crazy notions, silly commands, collars, coats, leashes, little booties, our smells, poops and bugs, because they fundamentally adore us too. Now just as we are misplacing our emotions onto them, as you say, perhaps they too are confused and are replacing their pack with humans and we are surrogate doggies. In the end it doesn't really matter. We want to spend time together for whatever reasons and we’ll probably continue to enjoy each other’s company for long into the future no matter what that future is.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Sun 11 Mar 2007, 15:32:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', '[')b]BWhippet, what can one say in response to such a well brought-forward and obviously well considered position against the evils of doggie ownership. I’m truly impressed and appreciate all the work you put into your posts! I could respond by arguing for all the merits, however, I still think your position is a fundamentally emotional one, as is mine, and that for all your melodrama, you aren't fundamentally wrong, just one-sided. SO? What are the practical implications of your position? Are you advocating we give up our dogs? Take them behind the shed? Set them free from their subjugation and let them loose to form natural packs roaming suburbia eating cats and small children? Perhaps they'd like us to give them their own autonomous areas, turn the doggie parks into reservations and offer some form of self-governance? Stock these areas with rabbits and rats, but they’d still be caged, and what about the ones who need jobs? Perhaps it would be better to set them free in the Rockies to learn how to hunt mountain goats and elk. Now some small doggies would perish right away, the little pugs and Pomeranians, but at least they'd die free! Viva la resistance! F-R-E-E-D-O-M!

I just don't see how you're going to change the fact that we love doogie company and doggies love our company. For all we know they must tolerate our crazy notions, silly commands, collars, coats, leashes, little booties, our smells, poops and bugs, because they fundamentally adore us too. Now just as we are misplacing our emotions onto them, as you say, perhaps they too are confused and are replacing their pack with humans and we are surrogate doggies. In the end it doesn't really matter. We want to spend time together for whatever reasons and we’ll probably continue to enjoy each other’s company for long into the future no matter what that future is.


Well, that last sentence could be read several ways. One implication is that you don't need a reason to do what you want and on the other hand, you don't care what kind of future that is as long as you get what you want. I would hold that this type of opinion is rather flimsy. Its true that you don't need ethical, moral, or aesthetic reasons to do anything. On the other hand, civilization fairly assumes such things. Insofar as civilization regards animal ownership as harmless, your behavior is fine. It is a tolerated eccentricity from a classical civilizational perspective. Whatever costs are levied to society or the environment your eccentricities cause, they are essentially considered bearable. Congratulations. It is also still legal to sniff glue in certain parts of the country because such civil harm has not yet been encountered.

But for those whose sense of morality, ethics, and aesthetics are attuned to a higher plane, such moral distinctions are as clear as a turd in a punch bowl. I was in a house the other day, and I was struck by how clean the environment was. No dog, no cat odors, irritants, noises. Just humans, interacting without any sense of loss or artifice. None of these people were depressed, emotionally unwhole, or deprived. And the floor was clean enough to sit on, even lie down and take a nap. No fleas, not even the faintest possibility of fleas. No ground in, dried poo tracked in on anyone's feet, powdered into the carpet to be inhaled in minute quantities. I mean, there is a distinct aesthetic between the house with animals and the house without. And frankly, that distinction, which I've noticed over time, seems to correlate with intelligence and economic levels. Invariably, the dumber, less wealthy, less aesthetically aware the individual, and perhaps less mentally balanced, the more likely an animal lives inside the house with them.

As for anthropomorphism of doggie "persona", this is easily understood by even the most retarded pet owner. Pressed on the point, any owner will freely admit that the characterization of a dog's emotional expression in human terms is central to the relationship of the animal and the human. To suppose that the animal "feels" in these terms is clearly a mistake, a fiction. Recent studies in motivation as the foundation to behavior bear this out and even the simplistic mechanisms of pet "training". The dog is clearly motivated by food and attention. What is the human motivated by? The reality of the exchange belies a truth the fantasy of ownership conspires to conceal. If the truth is not important, if aesthetics are not important, and if morality is not important, then any reason is enough to justify pet ownership.

It may be that pet ownership is really a sort of valve by which the emotional state of a dependent human's psyche is relieved of pressure. Kind of like a priest who molests little boys. The urge to right action is too strenuous an exercise for most people, and self-control is beyond most as well. The pet/owner role is at once an admission of failure as a self-complete emotional and psychic whole, an immaturity of the spirit. Pets are not independent entities, whole psychic creatures in themselves; they are other things to hyper conceptualizing humans. They are an aid to exercise, comfort in old age and mental or physical infirmity, eyes for the blind, handmaidens to narcissist personalities, emotional stand-ins, guardians, etc.

The heart of the matter is that we use animals for our sake, not theirs, and in doing so we run into the old dilemma of that which we own, owns us. No glue-sniffing crackhead can soon thereafter be independent of their habit just as no pet-owner relationship, thus cemented by habit and practice, be easily separated. The endorphin and serotonin-manipulating effects of ownership soon weave vital threads in the tapestry of the psyche. Separation is trauma. The signature of addiction is all over the relationship. So to some degree, it is acceptable to compare giving up a pet after "imprint" has been established to a crackhead letting go of their precious glass pipe. Like Gollum's Ring, a physical and mental dependency is formed. No longer in the objective sphere, one's obsession with his "preciousss" becomes unnaturally overstated in the hippocampus and the disease of ownership sets in.

Objectively, such activities as poop-scooping, vacuuming, walking the animal, training and other effects confer zero benefit on the human in question. One has to conclude that the "benefit" is purely mental. Clearly, however, the benefit to the animal is greatly exaggerated, for without the owner, the animal is uselessly lost. The relationship then, is parasitical, since the benefit to man is not nearly so vital. Perhaps if a dog were genetically engineered to supply blood-type insulin to a human diabetic owner would the tables be equalized.

My personal opinion is that animals should obviously not be kept in homes, owned, caged, etc. This includes zoos and circus acts, aquariums, birds, cats, etc. and so forth. A rational suggestion for the surplus of dogs and cats is an immediate and thorough cull of their numbers. Acclimatization back into the wild is clearly achievable within a relatively short span of time. Ethical arguments against such a cull, I will anticipate, are predicated on some sort of pacifism. But the reality of a world whose state of nature is dangerously imbalanced is carefully managed mitigation of imbalances. In the case of domesticated animals, this imbalance is severe. I also think no amount of logic or reason will dissuade the moronic and mentally defective among us from standing in the way of killing cats and dogs.

The best course of action, the most acceptable to both sides would be a cessation of ownership over time. Like everything else, it is the negative decision that necessarily equalized the negative consequences of so many positive decisions. For some reason, our culture is unable to understand that point: that doing nothing is exactly the right thing to do; that culling is more responsible than allowing an untenable condition to continue. As written in Ecclesiastes, there is a "time to kill".

Positivism is evident in the polarity of moral action: Less cats means more birds. More birds means more seed propagation which means more plants which means less GH gas accumulation. There are a million other benefits. But the dilemma is: how can you impress the importance of cause and effect in people for whom causes are unnecessary and effects unimportant or ignorable? We expose ourselves as thoughtless, irresponsible people for whom the larger goal of an improved humanity is cynically unattainable. The fruits of this harvest is ecological destruction, and the propagation of a whole suite of empty, alienating values upon which we build our stunted personas as emotional children, divested of our responsibilities toward nature and each other and fully invested in the fulfillment of our own empty whims, our own satisfactions.

My suggestion is to convert your habit into something that grows rather than consumes the life-energy of your existence. Cull the animal, eat its flesh, and celebrate your position in the web of life. Skin it and make a keepsake or some shoe leather and bury its remains to push up daises and mushrooms. Then pat yourself on the back and embrace your necessarily human condition. Acquaint yourself with your place in the web of life and accept its responsibilities. Then the vicissitudes of life as a human will take on a noble, just feeling making you immune to the base occupations and addictions of your earlier subjugation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '
')You enjoy them despite your phobia of fleas and ticks and fixation on fecal functions ? That's resolute, man.


I enjoy them like I enjoy a whale: It pleases me to see them at a distance, to not interfere, to understand their world, to understand my own, to understand the bonds between us, to feel a human sense of enmity toward that which destroys that balance, the which allows us all to have meaningful existences on our own terms. You bet its resolute. Non-serious preoccupations with anthropomorphic objects is not for me. I've been there and done that. I have the benefit of seeing their side of the equation. My task is simply to somehow communicate that reality to people that have never gone through it. How do you explain a problem to someone who cannot see the problem? "This is your brain... this is your brain on Dogs..."
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Sun 11 Mar 2007, 18:16:32

BWhippet:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ull the animal, eat its flesh, and celebrate your position in the web of life. Skin it and make a keepsake or some shoe leather and bury its remains to push up daises and mushrooms. Then pat yourself on the back and embrace your necessarily human condition.


Ah, so you want us to kill our dogs and eat them, skin them and then make a keepsakes from their flesh ... and you're saying I'm mentally unbalanced? Well once again your post is a good laugh!
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Thu 15 Mar 2007, 17:02:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', '
')Ah, so you want us to kill our dogs and eat them, skin them and then make a keepsakes from their flesh ... and you're saying I'm mentally unbalanced? Well once again your post is a good laugh!


You're the depressed one. I'm glad I could make you laugh. It proves an animal is not necessary, doesn't it? I firmly believe the most effective "medicine" is the interaction with other humans. Debate, disagreement, philosophy, logic, reason; these are the vitamins of the mind. Dogs are like empty calories. No disagreement. No complexity. Simplistic socio-psychic interaction. They are the empty calories of human experience, to bring the diet analogy home.

And the "Final Solution" answer is merely the logical and humane answer to your question of what to do with all the surplus pet animals after a theoretical conversion to a pet-free ethos. I believe the shelters simply incinerate their bodies. Why not eat them or make some leather apparel? Releasing them would compound ecological problems.

I can understand why people would balk at this suggestion. The motivation is similar to someone who has invested tens of thousands of dollars into an SUV.

IF they understand or are otherwise persuaded to give up the SUV for economic or ecological reasons, what then do they do with the SUV? To them, it has invested value. What do you do? Crush it? Give it away, only to allow its negative uses to continue with another operator? The fact is you do what you can. You recycle it. The Fine Corinthian Leather becomes handsome, comfortable chairs in the home, for instance. The cupholders fitted to your recumbent bicycle. The radiator and heat exchanger for your passive solar heating setup. And so forth.

A pet, euthanized and stuffed, will make an attractive conversation piece, mounted on a stick or other armature. Taxidermists can even enhance its bestial snarl for theatrical effect. The transition from pet to keepsake is fairly trivial. Why settle for an urn half-full of ashes?
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron