Peak Oil
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.
Post a reply

Re: I want a dog.

Postby BlisteredWhippet » Mon 16 Apr 2007, 00:45:42

here you go:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic28381.html
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby NEOPO » Mon 16 Apr 2007, 03:17:05

Pets

<commandeers a few pieces of MercuryGirl's popcorn>

Its like the epic battle between the buddhist versus the barbarians! 8)
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby crapattack » Mon 16 Apr 2007, 23:26:01

Been away for a week or so and look what happens. Laterlus dives in! Looking forward to seeing what happens on the other thread.
"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.

Postby crapattack » Tue 17 Apr 2007, 02:04:31

BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')mm, I am currently loving all animals. Even you, crapattack. If you could just put down your doggie crack pipe for a second you'd realize I'm reaching out.... to bitch-slap you back into a state of dignity.


I see, you're wanting to slap me because you love me so much. I bet you say that to all the animals.

BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd when I went to the dog park, it was only with enthusiasm for being around people and dogs, just the experience. It might be strange to hear coming from me, but I really was there as involved as everyone else.


You went to the doggie park and now you feel like you know enough about dogs now to want to kill them all.... because you love them so much. You seriously need help my friend.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think pet ownership is retarded. Of course, that influences my musings about what kind of thoughts go through her head.


Da. Yes, it does. I'd argue you're completely biased. You can't see past your specisism.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f I told them I simply didn't prefer to live with dogs, many people would assume I "hate" them. Why is that? ... I suspect they simply fear the invalidation of their beliefs. Even a flimsy belief will be defended tooth and nail by some people, I've noticed.


It's probably how you're saying you prefer not to live with them. Perhaps your belief that all dogs and cats on earth should be exterminated is giving you away. You shouldn't be surprised that people think you hate animals when you have these beliefs.

I'm suspicious of people who don't like animals. In my experience they tend to be self-centered and lack compassion.

BW
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or instance, it would seem that your main objection against any or all of my arguments seem to have collapsed back to its essence: the social consensus is that (1) these animals are not a plague species, that the pet-ownership relationship is not detrimental, (2) that killing dogs and cats en mass is not "moral, ethical, or appropriate". In short, you are falling back on the argument that (3) I am wrong because the consensus validates your own, and invalidates any reasoning or argument as such, regardless of its merit.


1. Correct, it's true I don't agree that they are a plague species. They are more beneficial then detrimental.
2. Correct, I don't agree that killing dogs and cats en mass is the act of a moral, ethical person. It is not compassionate and not the act of someone who professes to love them.
3. Incorrect. It doesn't logically follow that because I object to your notion that dogs are a plague and should be killed that I am falling back on your wrongness as a matter of consensus. That is a postuation you are making. In fact, the mob view has nothing to do with whether I think you are wrong or right, I do think that your arguments fail in their merits. I will add though that I speculate you might not have many people agree with you, but that doesn't mean you're right or wrong.

You seem to think that because I disagree with you I'm just a sheep, or sheepdog perhaps. I find this interesting because it highlights what I have mentioned before. You are more interested in taking an unconventional viewpoint and generating discussion than either supporting your views with really valid research (ie: that dog owners are more "retarded" than non-dog owners), or trying to be "right" in the absolute sense. Why should I pay you any more attention than any other person with an opinion?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are saying that some individuals may not be as smart as the average dog.


No. I'm not. I've never argued that animals are smarter than humans. If you'd read my posts, you'd see I'm saying you can't PROVE dogs aren't as smart as you. We simply have no way to know, no matter how many joints they don't smoke or bridges they don't build.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Say, take the smartest fucking dog on the planet, and the most severely retarded human being. Maybe on par.


How do you know? How are you making that evaluation? What standard are you using? The gut feeling standard? The "everybody knows" standard? Wait a minute....

BW: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I mean, even a child realizes there is something about humans and dogs that seem to put each in entirely different categories.


Aren't you falling back on the concensus argument that you are accusing me of? How do you know "a child" realizes this? In fact "children" don't "realize" this at all. They learn that animals are lower forms of life from adults. I would argue that in fact you are holding the consenus view and using it to try to support your argument that they are lower forms of life.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut the exceptions make the rule, don't they? Dogs are eating, shitting, pissing machines. Humans have complex emotional lives. Dogs don't have "pets". Humans have "pets".

Humans are also eating, shitting, pissing machines. Just because animals shit isn't a reason to exterminate them. How do you know dogs don't have complex emotional ives? Have you asked one? Just because they can't talk doesn't mean they don't feel in great complexity.

Perhaps dogs don't have pets because they aren't into it, maybe they like having 'friends' better. WTF? Is it supposed to be some kind of test of their intelligence they don't have 'pets'? How many flip-flops are you going to have ?- one minute humans higher forms of life because we have pets - the next we're retarded. Make up your mind!

BW:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts absolutely true in the sense that humans are powerful and can create and destroy and wield power. Nothing wrong with that.

Dogs are powerful and can create and destroy and wield power too, it all depends on your perspective. And yes, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the exercising of power, there is a moral issue in the direction of one's application of power. I believe you are saying however, that because man is more powerful than all the other animals that he somehow has an inherent right to exercise that power. Your view seems to be that there is something essential to being human in the exercising of that power over other beings.

BW $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts Judeo-Christian heritage doesn't mean you have to drag all the Judeo-Christian dogma with it. The difficulties lie in its interpretation as embodied by doctrine. And I don't agree with those doctrines. I don't, in fact, feel superior to animals.

If you say they are a "lower" life-form than humans then ipso facto you are saying that by virtue of your being human you are a superior life-form to them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')et ownership, despite advertisements for it listing its benefits as listed above, is actually not a good substitute for real exercise. It is not spontaneous; in fact, it is characterized by routine and repetition.

It's not a subsititute, it's the real thing. We have lost over 30lbs between us while outside getting real exercise with our puppy. You're simply wrong LOL. We're had more spontaneous joy and fun then 10 years of life without a dog. We go for hikes in the mountains, walks by the ocean, plays on the beach - none of which we did before we got her. If that's not 'real' excersise I don't know what you think "real" is. Like a child there is routine and repetition too but it's not the most important part. You are demonstrating your absolute lack of knowlege about pet ownership and I really don't know why I've been feeding your trolling all this time... my weakness.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd lastly, finally, totally: owning a pet teaches you nothing about real compassion. If you had real compassion for other beings, you'd start acting like a human being, and exercise the power to do something about it.

How do you know? You don't know a damn thing about owning a dog or about me. What do you consider 'real' compassion as opposed to 'fake' compassion? Do you have some sort of way to tell if people are giving you fake compassion or the real thing? I mean my compassion certainly feels real to me and those who I love and love me believe that I am compassionate and loving. I can't help but act like a human being, I am a human being being human. Humans form bonds with animals, it's part of what makes us human :) If dogs and cats weren't around we'd probably make pets with racoons and squirrels.

I guess by "something about it", you mean killing my dog. You're actually saying that I'm to release the human within me by killing my dog and agree with 'culling' all the dogs and cats on earth. This is supposed to be the most compassionate thing to do.

You've got yourself ridiculous idea you are trying to flog and win support for on this thread based on some very precarious and unproven assumptions. You've couched it in gobbledy gook and are trying to illicit reactions from pet owners on the pet thread for the fun of it.
"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.

Postby dinopello » Tue 17 Apr 2007, 23:49:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'H')umans are also eating, shitting, pissing machines.


and farting among other things. But, not machines, we are all animals, thank you.

Whatever happened to the lateralus/whippet throwdown? That seems like it was a bust. Or, are they sharpening their swords ?
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.

Postby mercurygirl » Wed 18 Apr 2007, 00:30:14

Well, as is visible throughout the thread (not for the faint of heart or those short on time or comprehension), BlisteredWhippet has made his position ever so abundantly clear.

Lat has challenged that and will have to bear the burden.[smilie=offtheair.gif]
We shall see.
mercurygirl
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby BlisteredWhippet » Fri 20 Apr 2007, 16:04:38

<snipped replicant post>
Last edited by BlisteredWhippet on Sun 22 Apr 2007, 14:45:15, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby BlisteredWhippet » Fri 20 Apr 2007, 16:06:15

Not clear enough, I suppose.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'B')W wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')mm, I am currently loving all animals. Even you, crapattack. If you could just put down your doggie crack pipe for a second you'd realize I'm reaching out.... to bitch-slap you back into a state of dignity.


I see, you're wanting to slap me because you love me so much. I bet you say that to all the animals.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd when I went to the dog park, it was only with enthusiasm for being around people and dogs, just the experience. It might be strange to hear coming from me, but I really was there as involved as everyone else.


You went to the doggie park and now you feel like you know enough about dogs now to want to kill them all.... because you love them so much. You seriously need help my friend.


I specifically said that they need to be culled, because there are too many and are a burden on the environment at large.

FYI, a direct way to argue against that would be to prove they aren't a burden. However, we are talking about an extremely large number of these animals, far in excess of any historical ecological norm. And, of course, petroleum and human enterprise is artificially supporting this population and its impact. So where would you start? Perhaps you can justify the decimation of, say, songbird populations in and among suburbia by suggesting it is simply those people's preference. But songbirds are part of the "Commons" Jevon's Paradox refers to. Everyone enjoys songbirds, but not everyone owns the pets who go out and kill them.

Pet food. Pet food comes from industrial monoculture crops and industrially-farmed animal stock. These industrial agriculture processes involve the destruction of habitat, the reduction of species diversity in impacted areas, the distributed impacts of the application of poisonous herbicides, pesticides, "fertilizers", and "soil amendments" to land, petroleum and energy inputs, and so on and so forth. Again, these practices are not confined to the pets and their owners. The negative impacts are passed on to Jevons' "commons".

It would be interesting to figure out exactly how much work and expense would have to be done to neutralize the consequences of pet ownership on a per-owner basis. Maybe they could trade "crap credits", breed and release local songbird species, engage in habitat restoration, and last but not least, pay the real cost of ownership by including all the costs offloaded onto society and the future.

I think this last item is disingenuous. You can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. A field of F1 hybrid Wheat treated with Melamine in China has nothing to do with pulling up to the local watershed with 4 native tree saplings. Its ecological fantasy to think we can shove Pandora back in her box. Its a moral fallacy in the Judeo-Christian tradition of being a bastard today and begging forgiveness and tomorrow.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think pet ownership is retarded. Of course, that influences my musings about what kind of thoughts go through her head.

Da. Yes, it does. I'd argue you're completely biased. You can't see past your specisism.

"specisism" is not a word in Webster's Dictionary, Wikipedia, or Google. I suspect you mean "speciesism". But does this spurious accusation have anything to do with this quote? I am a human, talking about a human. Its also an anecdotal reference.

Why don't you describe your "anti-speciesism" or whatever kind of enlightened position you're trying to contrast with my own so we can talk about the differences.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f I told them I simply didn't prefer to live with dogs, many people would assume I "hate" them. Why is that? ... I suspect they simply fear the invalidation of their beliefs. Even a flimsy belief will be defended tooth and nail by some people, I've noticed.

It's probably how you're saying you prefer not to live with them. Perhaps your belief that all dogs and cats on earth should be exterminated is giving you away. You shouldn't be surprised that people think you hate animals when you have these beliefs.

I'm suspicious of people who don't like animals. In my experience they tend to be self-centered and lack compassion.

1. I did not say "all dogs and cats should be exterminated". See above.

My experience is people tend to assume broad stereotypical impressions of people by extrapolating what they say and affixing that association within a matrix of emotional and intellectual interfaces. What this means is that when someone says "I don't like dogs", each and every person is prepared to interpret that conceptualization of belief in a way that they intuitively understand. How many people genuinely hate, or loathe dogs? But it is a simplistic construction as an efficient mental shortcut. Imagine an outline in someone's mind who has had no critical experience thinking about dogs, or every met anyone with a contrary opinion (or simply filtered all forms of it out of experience unconsciously). They know only what they have felt to be true, the sum total of their experience. So they believe one thing, the goodness of dogs. And for everything there must be an opposite, something they can only conceptualize by analogy. You say you hate dogs, and their brain starts working on the problem for the very first time in their lives. They generate a series of neuronal connections which approximate or predict a scenario based upon the disparate set of memories and experiences they can draw on. Images of "Cujo", images of that guy from M*A*S*H doing a public service announcement about how people who abuse pets end up abusing children or assaulting people, maybe the experience of imagining their own pet being stomped on by skinheads... the point is that the initial reaction is a reaction not based on experience or involving any nuance of truth, but a relative, prejudiced reaction. Its a feature of the mind to construct this kind of quick, critical, yet essentially ignorant frame of reference in response to new (and especially critical) contrary conceptualization. It is part of the mental immune system, protecting beliefs which form the core of personality. It does not matter if the belief is a dog owner or a skinhead. Everyone has bias, everyone has a certain amount of inherent cultural resistance to contrarian ideas. Its a survival instinct.

Unfortunately, I'm not here to jerk you off and blow sunshine up your ass. I believe in the primacy of ideas and moral philosophy. The strongest-held beliefs are frequently without any reasonable, moral, ethical, or even logical basis. The difficulty you are having with the issue in any of these areas in the debate is more an issue of your emotional and cognitive dissonance wrestling with the meta-condition of rationality and emotion, attachment and perspective. Philosophical perspective is hamstrung.

Thus, the difficulty of telling someone you don't prefer to live with dogs, and the consequent interpretation by them that you hate dogs, and the cascading series of erroneous prejudices and fabrications along the lines of what you mentioned: a state of "suspicion", snap, baseless judgments of your character (in contrast to the sanctity of their own self-contained moral and ethical reality), and accusations of a lack of compassion".

This is what I meant by [people] "fear the invalidation of their beliefs". This leads to ego-protective mechanisms, not rational thought. People have no demonstrable tendency toward tolerancy of a plurality of belief within close social spheres, like situations where they live together. For instance, I might tolerate a dog and a dog owner who lived with me, even while holding a belief that pet ownership is lowly and "retarded", ethically questionable, wrong, etc. That is evidence of perhaps some mental ability of my own, existing within a larger culture while holding a contrarian view. But I find that the dog owner will more often than not be uncomfortable with cohabitating with me because of that issue. It is not because of any specific relation between me and the owner or me and the dog, but of the owner's own cognitive problems sustaining his own worldview in close proximity to something that resembles contrary, or negative, thought. Literally, he fears negation. Why do republicans and democrats, liberals & conservatives, Libertarians and Marxists, not tend to congregate together?

People with contrarian views within a larger context of a society or culture are forced to examine and question their opinions and positions. This is why I have no problem enjoying dogs and cats I encounter, or friends' pets. I have a well-constructed basis of experience and rational perspective.

Someone once said the mark of intelligence is being able to hold two contradictory ideas in their mind at one time. I can do this. The prejudiced, the uninformed, the biased, cannot do this. They are confused and scattered in their reasoning and logic. They lack the integrative ability to incorporate ideas within the matrix of their mental associative reality because they rely on the easy confluence of prejudice and stereotype to do their thinking for them.

The fact is, you don't have to think about the deeper ethical and moral questions, the significant philosophical implications of the activities of everyday life. A pet-owner, god-believer, or neoconservative need not examine his own beliefs or strive for objectivity. But as soon as you open your mouth to argue on the issue, you're already in over your head. Your statements are confused, lacking in direction, and full of invective, logical fallacy. Nothing is getting through. What's the frequency, Kenneth?

I merely tell them I'm allergic. *sneeze*.

You know what? I love being able to sit, or even lie on the carpet or floor and not have dog hair all over me. When you enter a house without pets, you can literally smell the difference. Mmm, ahhh. Clean. Nice.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You shouldn't be surprised that people think you hate animals when you have these beliefs.

Again, I don't believe "all dogs should be exterminated because I 'hate' them". I tell them I "prefer" not to live with dogs.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or instance, it would seem that your main objection against any or all of my arguments seem to have collapsed back to its essence: the social consensus is that (1) these animals are not a plague species, that the pet-ownership relationship is not detrimental, (2) that killing dogs and cats en mass is not "moral, ethical, or appropriate". In short, you are falling back on the argument that (3) I am wrong because the consensus validates your own, and invalidates any reasoning or argument as such, regardless of its merit.

1. Correct, it's true I don't agree that they are a plague species. They are more beneficial then detrimental.
2. Correct, I don't agree that killing dogs and cats en mass is the act of a moral, ethical person. It is not compassionate and not the act of someone who professes to love them.
3. Incorrect. It doesn't logically follow that because I object to your notion that dogs are a plague and should be killed that I am falling back on your wrongness as a matter of consensus. That is a postuation you are making. In fact, the mob view has nothing to do with whether I think you are wrong or right, I do think that your arguments fail in their merits. I will add though that I speculate you might not have many people agree with you, but that doesn't mean you're right or wrong.

You seem to think that because I disagree with you I'm just a sheep, or sheepdog perhaps. I find this interesting because it highlights what I have mentioned before. You are more interested in taking an unconventional viewpoint and generating discussion than either supporting your views with really valid research (ie: that dog owners are more "retarded" than non-dog owners), or trying to be "right" in the absolute sense. Why should I pay you any more attention than any other person with an opinion?

Listen, dude. The market for your opinion is very, very small. 16000+ people viewed this thread, and it wasn't because you ejaculated all over it with gooey pet-worshipping pablum. It is because of the presence of a contrary opinion, well expressed, that creates a drama for thinking brains. "Think-the-same" doesn't sell tickets, "Think Different" does.

Now, for your interpretation of the thread. I have articulated some reasons that pet ownership is bad, I have referenced some negative impacts on ecology, environment, psychology, society, culture, etc. This is philosophy, not statistics. Reasoning a priori, or engaging in metaphysical reasoning does not require "valid research" even though I have provided some links.

I think there are very good indications of pet-ownership's downsides, as supported by "research" that looks at specific things. I find the research on Toxoplasma Gondii to be especially supportive of my arguments against cohabitating with cats, for example. I think my arguments against pet ownership based upon a concept of personal morality and psychology to be mutually reinforcing of each other. I think my arguments concerning the impact on "commons" by pet owners and their pollution to be pretty good. I think my arguments on lifestyle were put together pretty well. So what makes you think I need to accuse you, especially, of being a dupe for consensus reality? Your statements are the best case for that argument. You've proved it brilliantly. So congratulations.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are saying that some individuals may not be as smart as the average dog.

No. I'm not. I've never argued that animals are smarter than humans. If you'd read my posts, you'd see I'm saying you can't PROVE dogs aren't as smart as you. We simply have no way to know, no matter how many joints they don't smoke or bridges they don't build.

The point is that reasonable people don't need such a test. Common sense tells us that people are smarter than dogs. Its just obvious. We don't need to invent a new meaning for the word "smart". A Dog is "smart" if you only have to hit it with the newspaper 3 or less times before it stops crapping on the carpet. Are humans "smart" under the same criteria? No? Then lets redefine the terms. "Dog-smart" is a relative measure of the ability for a dog to learn new behavior, and "Human-smart" is a relative measure of a human to learn new human behavior. *Shwew* Now that we've got that important distinction out of the way, I can argue effectively with you.

Dogs are not as smart as humans because they are not as "human-smart". Dogs cannot learn algebra. They are easily fooled with simple sleight of hand. Etc. QED.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Say, take the smartest fucking dog on the planet, and the most severely retarded human being. Maybe on par.

How do you know? How are you making that evaluation? What standard are you using? The gut feeling standard? The "everybody knows" standard? Wait a minute....

I'm making that evaluation using simple common sense. Anyone with a brain will "Get it". Kids will "get it". Its not difficult. It doesn't mean that any particular dog is less morally valuable than any human... that would be speciesist. Of course, if the Nazis were shipping traincars full of Schnauzers to Treblinka, I don't think people would have cared as much.

Its an interesting line of thought, though. How much more are wild species valuable? Could value increase or decrease by scarcity? For example, if we take all the cats in North America and decrease their existence by 99% and increase the concentration of cats buy 10000+% are we indicating a social or cultural prejudice or disposition? Are we demonstrating that we believe that Canus who hunt their own food and develop complex, independent societies are less important than a domesticated Canus which stalks their owners for canned food and develops simplistic, parasitic relationships with individual humans?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I mean, even a child realizes there is something about humans and dogs that seem to put each in entirely different categories.

Aren't you falling back on the concensus argument that you are accusing me of? How do you know "a child" realizes this? In fact "children" don't "realize" this at all. They learn that animals are lower forms of life from adults. I would argue that in fact you are holding the consenus view and using it to try to support your argument that they are lower forms of life.


"Lower form" is a loaded term. I will say that pet ownership is clearly a heirarchical form of relationship. Humans are "Masters" in this, no matter how ridiculously they believe the equanimity of the arrangement. You can teach a child that all animals, including pets, are "equals". I suspect this is a great way to abuse a young human mind. In such instruction, you are not preparing the child for a future of having to manage a large surplus population of domesticated vs. wild animals. You are not preparing someone to reckon with the responsibilities of exercising power, which is something that humans do, as I demonstrated before.

How can children grow up to make wise decisions about the ecology of the planet their power will influence if adults conspire to confuse the issue by programming arbitrary sentimentality masquerading as enlightenment? For example, we have eliminated important top predators out of the ecological web in many areas in North America. Obviously, surplus deer populations need to be culled. Yet, there is resistance by whole groups of people whose value systems are inclined to a counterproductive sentimentality.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut the exceptions make the rule, don't they? Dogs are eating, shitting, pissing machines. Humans have complex emotional lives. Dogs don't have "pets". Humans have "pets".

Humans are also eating, shitting, pissing machines. Just because animals shit isn't a reason to exterminate them. How do you know dogs don't have complex emotional ives? Have you asked one? Just because they can't talk doesn't mean they don't feel in great complexity.

My comment on exceptions is just that. The exceptional examples prove that most dogs are pretty friggin' vacuous. You can cut it any number of ways. The basic fact is the human brain has a hell of a lot more horsepower devoted to complex interaction and emotional connotation and association.

The fact I am arguing this ridiculous issue with you is evidence of the vast chasm between us in understanding. You have every right by conceit of irrationality to dispute and reject every conventional, common sense observation of the vast difference in depth of human and pet emotional experience, but that only proves that you are staking out an idiotic position in order to be obstinate.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Perhaps dogs don't have pets because they aren't into it, maybe they like having 'friends' better. WTF? Is it supposed to be some kind of test of their intelligence they don't have 'pets'? How many flip-flops are you going to have ?- one minute humans higher forms of life because we have pets - the next we're retarded. Make up your mind!

Humans engage in behaviors and activities indicative of thinking on a more complex level, with greater dimension... you are evidencing a retarded level of reasoning in this matter, in purely human terms. Still, your retarded line of reasoning is completely out of the ballpark in terms of abstract thought, for a dog. In other words, your dog is simply incapable of creating the illogical "doggerel" you espouse here. It does in fact mean that you are smarter than he is, even if you yourself hold the ridiculous notion that it is not the case. Certainly you would be prejudiced to condescend to your intellectual and emotional equal for the reciprocative benefits of such a relationship. Unfortunately for yourself, you are incapable of understanding that your dog will love you no matter how stupid the animal is.

One species reads the New York Times. One species shits on it. QED.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts absolutely true in the sense that humans are powerful and can create and destroy and wield power. Nothing wrong with that.

Dogs are powerful and can create and destroy and wield power too, it all depends on your perspective.

My perspective is not informed by the type of walking, talking, scheming animals of the Hanna Barbera canon, or the hysterical, anthropomorphic habits of pet fetishists.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')And yes, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the exercising of power, there is a moral issue in the direction of one's application of power. I believe you are saying however, that because man is more powerful than all the other animals that he somehow has an inherent right to exercise that power.

"Inherent" has nothing to do with it. It is part of the human condition. We have power, and we exercise it, as simple as that. I would not argue that the dog has a "right" to bark because of a particular arrangement of vocal organs. Dogs simply bark. Humans with opposable thumbs and large brains wield power. Period.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') Your view seems to be that there is something essential to being human in the exercising of that power over other beings.

"Over" has nothing to do with it. But there is an implied hierarchy. This distinction is not controversial. Hierarchy swings both ways. We exercise power over sea life because of our adaptive abilities and power in action. Sea life has no such power to, say, pollute our living environment. In a hierarchy of ecological power, humans are at the very tip-top. Taking responsibility for this is the highest ecological responsibility, and has a moral and ethical dimension. Our power reverberates through the web of life. And we depend on the web. So the question of pet ownership within the ecological context, is for me, the penultimate question and frame of argument.

So yes, power and responsibility go hand in hand for homo sapiens, in a way that it does not for Canus[]/i], etc. This is part and parcel the fundamental differences between species and a clear example of the fallacious nature of anthropomorphism.

If hierarchical thinking and anthropomorphism are endemic to the condition of being human, we need to recognize that they are forms of [i]power and exercise appropriate restraint in wielding this power.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts Judeo-Christian heritage doesn't mean you have to drag all the Judeo-Christian dogma with it. The difficulties lie in its interpretation as embodied by doctrine. And I don't agree with those doctrines. I don't, in fact, feel superior to animals.

If you say they are a "lower" life-form than humans then ipso facto you are saying that by virtue of your being human you are a superior life-form to them.

Sort of, but who cares? Seriously, who cares?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')et ownership, despite advertisements for it listing its benefits as listed above, is actually not a good substitute for real exercise. It is not spontaneous; in fact, it is characterized by routine and repetition.

It's not a subsititute, it's the real thing. We have lost over 30lbs between us while outside getting real exercise with our puppy. You're simply wrong LOL. We're had more spontaneous joy and fun then 10 years of life without a dog. We go for hikes in the mountains, walks by the ocean, plays on the beach - none of which we did before we got her. If that's not 'real' excersise I don't know what you think "real" is. Like a child there is routine and repetition too but it's not the most important part. You are demonstrating your absolute lack of knowlege about pet ownership....

Sorry, exercise and fitness have nothing to do with dogs at all. I've been a dog walker. Its severely low-impact exercise. The dog adds nothing at all to the physicality of the practice. Frankly, its a subtle point. Athletes train without pets. What do pets have to do with it? Likewise, with "spontaneous joy". If you didn't experience "spontaneous joy" without the dog, frankly, maybe you're special in that you lack some sort of self-starting emotional center.

The fact is you used the dog as an excuse to do things that made you happy. Or with the partner. Maybe your partner has some sort of special emotional deficit where walking with her own partner, on the beach, in the mountains, etc. wasn't enough. This is precisely the problem, in my opinion. You weren't enough, apparently, to be happy, strive for happiness, or lose the love handles. Sad. Again, I don't think animalia exists for our own self-fulfillment. Pet as weight-loss plan. Pet as intermediary relationship activity. Pet as reason to leave house.

Fundamentally, physical health is a much more personal, deeper thing than just "getting out and doing shit". Its Diet and exercise, stupid, not "Diet, Dogs, and Exercise".
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby Baldwin » Fri 20 Apr 2007, 23:36:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact is you used the dog as an excuse to do things that made you happy. Or with the partner. Maybe your partner has some sort of special emotional deficit where walking with her own partner, on the beach, in the mountains, etc. wasn't enough. This is precisely the problem, in my opinion. You weren't enough, apparently, to be happy, strive for happiness, or lose the love handles. Sad. Again, I don't think animalia exists for our own self-fulfillment. Pet as weight-loss plan. Pet as intermediary relationship activity. Pet as reason to leave house.


And you touch upon the reasons. Many people want an excuse to go out exercising. If they buy an athletic breed of dog (retreivers, huskies etc), their weight loss is attributed to giving the dog exercise, as opposed to getting exercise for themselves. That would be a personal admission of "I am fat."
Only a city man would carry a bag of iron instead of a bag of rice.

-Ling Tan, from the movie Dragon Seed, 1944 (more wisdom from Turner Classic Movies)
User avatar
Baldwin
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon 05 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby crapattack » Sat 21 Apr 2007, 16:38:38

Baldwin wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd you touch upon the reasons. Many people want an excuse to go out exercising. If they buy an athletic breed of dog (retreivers, huskies etc), their weight loss is attributed to giving the dog exercise, as opposed to getting exercise for themselves. That would be a personal admission of "I am fat."


Oh brother. This came up because I was responding to BW remarks that I somehow wasn't getting 'real' exercise. Losing weight is about as real as it gets. I'm not under any illusions that the dog was somehow exercising for me! I know that my weight loss was simply me getting out and getting it done.

BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact is you used the dog as an excuse to do things that made you happy. Or with the partner. Maybe your partner has some sort of special emotional deficit where walking with her own partner, on the beach, in the mountains, etc. wasn't enough.


Well, there is some truth to this in that the dog has become a good 'reason' to get away from my desk. I run my own business and work long hours at home. Getting up and out is healthy, and since the dog won't listen to my excuses not to go out she is a good motivator. I probably wouldn't be doing a quarter of the outdoors activities I am now without her. I find having a dog much nicer than a human personal trainer.

BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is precisely the problem, in my opinion. You weren't enough, apparently, to be happy, strive for happiness, or lose the love handles. Sad. Again, I don't think animalia exists for our own self-fulfillment. Pet as weight-loss plan. Pet as intermediary relationship activity. Pet as reason to leave house.


What's wrong with that? People use all kinds of things to help them. Other people, sex fetishes, pet snakes, AA, rubber dolls, tea pot collections, whatever. I say, if it's helping you get happy then excellent. There's no need to be sad BW. As much as my dog helps make me happy, I make her happy. She's a very happy well loved puppy. If she wasn't happy I think she could leave at any time. There are open fields all around my property. She could go live with the pack of coyotes close to here if she wanted to, she doesn't. She chooses to stay with me. In fact, I believe she loves me very much as I do her. I don't see anything wrong with our relationship.

On to your other points. I'm not going to address them all. Our argument is getting too polarized to make much progress I think. Perhaps lateralus is better at this than I am and will have a go soon, I hope. I challenge other doggie owners out there to help mount a defense against BW who wants us to kill our pets and thinks we're all "retarted"! Anyone?

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') specifically said that they need to be culled, because there are too many and are a burden on the environment at large.


I can't argue that dogs aren't a burden on the environment. They are. So are all domestic animals. Massive herds of cattle, factory farms of chicken and pigs all are. We have a responsibility to find better ways to produce our food, for ourselves and our pets. I agree it is a huge problem, I just disagree that the way to solve it is by killing our pets en masse.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy don't you describe your "anti-speciesism" or whatever kind of enlightened position you're trying to contrast with my own so we can talk about the differences.

Sure, I thought i was. My "enlightened" position (ha ha) is that you're a dog killer wannabe and I'm not. Seriously though, you do think humans are better than animals. I think dogs are better than humans. Dogs never built the bomb.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he strongest-held beliefs are frequently without any reasonable, moral, ethical, or even logical basis. The difficulty you are having with the issue in any of these areas in the debate is more an issue of your emotional and cognitive dissonance wrestling with the meta-condition of rationality and emotion, attachment and perspective. Philosophical perspective is hamstrung.

How much gobbeldy-gook can a person take! Cripes. Pack the trunk and head for the fucking hills Martha, there's a goddamn psuedo-psycho-ologist skulling around. I'm not wrestling with my meta-conditions at all you moron. And if you're saying my beliefs aren't reasonable, moral, ethical or logical then those are fightin' words buddy.

BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hus, the difficulty of telling someone you don't prefer to live with dogs, and the consequent interpretation by them that you hate dogs, and the cascading series of erroneous prejudices and fabrications along the lines of what you mentioned: a state of "suspicion", snap, baseless judgments of your character (in contrast to the sanctity of their own self-contained moral and ethical reality), and accusations of a lack of compassion".

I could care less about your problems telling people you don't prefer to live with animals. You don't want to live with me or come for dinner so it's not really a big deal. It's when you start telling me I should kill my dog I start having problems.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut I find that the dog owner will more often than not be uncomfortable with cohabitating with me because of that issue. It is not because of any specific relation between me and the owner or me and the dog, but of the owner's own cognitive problems sustaining his own worldview in close proximity to something that resembles contrary, or negative, thought. Literally, he fears negation.

Most people don't like to be around people who judge them negatively. The fact that the owner knows you think he's retarded might have something to do with the fact he doesn't want to cohabitate with you. He doesn't fear negation! Get over yourself will you? He just doesn't want to be around someone who thinks he's retarded.

You seem to have the notion that people who don't agree with you all have psychological and emotional problems. Do you want to talk about that some more?

BW
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')omeone once said the mark of intelligence is being able to hold two contradictory ideas in their mind at one time. I can do this. The prejudiced, the uninformed, the biased, cannot do this. They are confused and scattered in their reasoning and logic. They lack the integrative ability to incorporate ideas within the matrix of their mental associative reality because they rely on the easy confluence of prejudice and stereotype to do their thinking for them.

Bla bla bla bla. I can touch my nose and take out the garbage. Think about the weather and my next project. Consider your stupid posts and scratch my balls all at once. Do I get the gold star now? CAN I JOIN THE CLUB of elites who don't lack the "the integrative ability to incorporate ideas within the matrix of their mental associative reality". HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA. Oh man. That was a good laugh. Thank you.

I find it hard to believe you love dogs and want to kill them. You say you can have these contrary ideas, it sounds more like schizophrenia to me. Someday you might just snap buddy, seriously, get some medication.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact is, you don't have to think about the deeper ethical and moral questions, the significant philosophical implications of the activities of everyday life.

The fact is YOU know nothing about me and are doing to me what you accuse me of doing to you. Making assumptions about what I think about and care about based on the fact that I am a dog owner.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') pet-owner, god-believer, or neoconservative need not examine his own beliefs or strive for objectivity. But as soon as you open your mouth to argue on the issue, you're already in over your head. Your statements are confused, lacking in direction, and full of invective, logical fallacy. Nothing is getting through.

Bark bark bark. I vote NDP (socialist). I'm a buddhist. I am a pet owner. NAILED. I do agree I'm in over my head in this argument. Me just a simple Joe who jus addicted to his poochie missssa. *hic*

BW
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople with contrarian views within a larger context of a society or culture are forced to examine and question their opinions and positions. This is why I have no problem enjoying dogs and cats I encounter, or friends' pets. I have a well-constructed basis of experience and rational perspective.


I'm starting to see your ideas aren't contrarian. They're based on the same sick Juedeo-Christian concepts that have gotten us into this mess all along. You're morally in league with the Jesuits, in fact you are on a crusade in this thread and have the same heat and self-righteousness of a man convinced, absolutely convinced, he's rational and right. You believe might is right and in human superiority. Tell me, do you flail yourself at night. Lick the blood from your whip and thank god for the pain?

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')isten, dude. The market for your opinion is very, very small. 16000+ people viewed this thread, and it wasn't because you ejaculated all over it with gooey pet-worshipping pablum. It is because of the presence of a contrary opinion, well expressed, that creates a drama for thinking brains. "Think-the-same" doesn't sell tickets, "Think Different" does.

I think you're getting off more than I am. If the market for my opinion is very very small then perhaps I do have the contrary view. Whatever. Thanks for the ejaculation metaphor, very nice, and you just proved what I thought all along, eyes on this thread do matter to you. You're grandstanding and taking us all for a handjob.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think my arguments against pet ownership based upon a concept of personal morality and psychology to be mutually reinforcing of each other. I think my arguments concerning the impact on "commons" by pet owners and their pollution to be pretty good. I think my arguments on lifestyle were put together pretty well. So what makes you think I need to accuse you, especially, of being a dupe for consensus reality? Your statements are the best case for that argument. You've proved it brilliantly. So congratulations.

That animals shit is toxic is no surprise. So is human shit, all shit for that matter. Whippee. As for the consensus reality? Behold...

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m making that evaluation using simple common sense. Anyone with a brain will "Get it". Kids will "get it". Its not difficult. It doesn't mean that any particular dog is less morally valuable than any human... that would be speciesist. Of course, if the Nazis were shipping traincars full of Schnauzers to Treblinka, I don't think people would have cared as much.

You seem to put this consensus argument in your pocket and put it out at your convenience. Hey, and maybe we would have cared about the Schnauzers just as much! Is that one of the methods you're planning on using? Would you like to build a doggie Treblinka for your culling program?

FYI, "common" sense is often wrong. It was once "common" sense that the earth was flat and women didn't have sex drives. What we think we "know" is often just training.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he exceptional examples prove that most dogs are pretty friggin' vacuous.

Opinion. You can't prove this at all, in fact I would emphatically disagree.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/sci ... 459295.ece Now the tests they are using in this study are basic, but the point is that it is suggestive that we may be underestimating animal intelligence.

I think that doggies have doggie intelligence. You can't prove their level of human intelligence. I DON'T think they are as smart as us (I've said this many times, why aren't you getting it? - I think you're as blinded as you are acussing me of being). Get past your own blather and read back in my posts. Pay attention to what I am saying if you are going to keep accusing me of having beliefs I don't have then there is no point wasting my time.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact I am arguing this ridiculous issue with you is evidence of the vast chasm between us in understanding.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't believe in killing our dogs. I don't agree that dog owners are retarded. There is a vast difference between us.
"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.

Postby Baldwin » Sun 22 Apr 2007, 15:05:58

Since this is the appropriate thread, here is my new puppy.

It is a husky.

Image

Image
Only a city man would carry a bag of iron instead of a bag of rice.

-Ling Tan, from the movie Dragon Seed, 1944 (more wisdom from Turner Classic Movies)
User avatar
Baldwin
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon 05 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby BlisteredWhippet » Sun 22 Apr 2007, 17:02:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'B')aldwin wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd you touch upon the reasons. Many people want an excuse to go out exercising. If they buy an athletic breed of dog (retreivers, huskies etc), their weight loss is attributed to giving the dog exercise, as opposed to getting exercise for themselves. That would be a personal admission of "I am fat."


Oh brother. This came up because I was responding to BW remarks that I somehow wasn't getting 'real' exercise. Losing weight is about as real as it gets. I'm not under any illusions that the dog was somehow exercising for me! I know that my weight loss was simply me getting out and getting it done.


I think the terms "Exercise" and "weight loss" are tossed around fairly carelessly. To the extent that the human body's biologic function expends calories carrying out cellular processes, it burns fat and muscle, transpires, and "loses weight" without the person actually "doing" anything. "Weight loss" is simply the arithmetic of calorie expenditures being consistently greater than caloric intake. Thus "weight loss" and exercise are two different things.

Consider that the Olympics were not created to promote "weight loss". "Exercise" is an acitvity in pursuit of something else, called "fitness". Weight loss alone will not make you more flexible, stronger, more dextrous, more balanced, with a greater resistance to injury, stress, disease, etc., and so forth.

So we can interpret the relative value of different forms of "exercise" independent of the relative standard, namely, any physical activity undertaken that produces sweat. This standard is "fitness". To compare the disparate forms of exercise, walking a dog is about as low on the totem pole of "fitness" as you can get, except maybe walking Grandma, which would at least have interesting conversation and you would not have to stop and pick up her shit.

Lets say you're a dedicated pooch-walker. How would you up-grade your exercise in terms of "fitness"? Some people jog, which does increase heart rate, metabolism, aerobic, etc. but also tends to put stress on joints and cartilege. So it is false economy. You could ride a bike, but it becomes more and more hazardous.

The fact is that fitness is not about losing weight at all, its about a relationship with your body that is personal. Walking the dog might get you to the bottom of that mountain, but thats about it.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact is you used the dog as an excuse to do things that made you happy. Or with the partner. Maybe your partner has some sort of special emotional deficit where walking with her own partner, on the beach, in the mountains, etc. wasn't enough.


Well, there is some truth to this in that the dog has become a good 'reason' to get away from my desk. I run my own business and work long hours at home. Getting up and out is healthy, and since the dog won't listen to my excuses not to go out she is a good motivator. I probably wouldn't be doing a quarter of the outdoors activities I am now without her. I find having a dog much nicer than a human personal trainer.


You lack one essential things that will keep you from realizing any fitness goals: will. You lack will because you can't form a sufficiently powerful motivation to move your physical body. That is problem numero uno. I can understand. I used to be that way. Then I suffered a crippling accident that resulted in an extensive period of having to crawl my way back to a state of "normal" function. The fact is that most people take for granted the basic level of functionality their body gives them. What does it take to instill a will to something that people take for granted anyway?

Most people are on a long, entropic decline physically, and the process is so inexorable and slow that they do not realize it. They cannot sense the atrophy day to day. They misinterpret the self-destruct functions of their biologic reality as "aging".

My advice is the forget about the personal trainer, the dog, and stop making and looking for excuses. You have to honor the possibilities and reality of the body. You have to resist the gradual decline in physical function. You have to connect neural networks that have, in some cases, been steadily dimming since you were a child.

Its a long, cumulative, gradual, largely mental process, that involves stress, strain, injury, and above all, discomfort and pain. Which is precisely the things most people are calibrated to avoid at all costs. There is little social or cultural support of the idea that someone should pursue actions that result in pain, in fact, there is only the endless, hubristic task of avoiding it, sublimating the essential fear into any of the things you mentioned. By the way, any of those are of little ethical consequence, except the "pet snakes", as I have maintained. Animalia is of a different category.

I would say since you have dropped 30 lbs., you're ready for the next step. Its a bicycle. For all intents and purposes, bicycling is the next logical step. The other part, of course, is diet, a subject with its own extensive knowledge base. In short, you have to move the focus to the mind-body connection. Question is, do you have the will or self-reflection to take this step? If so, then its clear that you have used the dog to step up to the next level. Congrats. But the dog can only get you so far. What does the pooch have to do with motivating you to increase your flexibility, core strength, or upper-body strength?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is precisely the problem, in my opinion. You weren't enough, apparently, to be happy, strive for happiness, or lose the love handles. Sad. Again, I don't think animalia exists for our own self-fulfillment. Pet as weight-loss plan. Pet as intermediary relationship activity. Pet as reason to leave house.

What's wrong with that? People use all kinds of things to help them. Other people, sex fetishes, pet snakes, AA, rubber dolls, tea pot collections, whatever. I say, if it's helping you get happy then excellent. There's no need to be sad BW. As much as my dog helps make me happy, I make her happy. She's a very happy well loved puppy. If she wasn't happy I think she could leave at any time. There are open fields all around my property. She could go live with the pack of coyotes close to here if she wanted to, she doesn't. She chooses to stay with me. In fact, I believe she loves me very much as I do her. I don't see anything wrong with our relationship.

Well, I do. I also have a problem with other people's "crutches", inanimate or animate. Like I said, though, the inanimate is relatively insignificant compared to the animate. The inanimate is just sad; whereas the fleecing of nature represents a qualitative leap. Any kind of crutch is something that weakens the will and dampens the spirit. If people did the heavy lifting of being human, people wouldn't be weak, palliative-seeking primates. It doesn't matter what you're leaning on, be it dogs, cats, crack, or alcohol, the relationship is the same. I recognize the inevitability of crutch-objects, but disagree that all crutch-objects are qualitatively the same.

Pets are an albatross because, unlike a crack pipe, you can't simply put an animal down. The interconnection and cogeneration of emotional and mental states between crack pipes and pets might well be just as deep and endemic.

If we look at the culture in general and its disastrous ecological impact, I think pets stand out as a very obvious contrast. The other obvious contrast would be food production / agriculture and native habitat. Basically, the domesticated vs. "wild" forms. It is the domesticated forms which have been over-propigated. I am prepared, now, to move up to a generalization implicating all forms of "domestication", whether specific, or general, object or mere thought.

Think about the impetus toward exercise: is it a captive idea, or creative? Who instilled the will to action in your case? Was it a product of an organic, aware mind, generatively acting to formulate its reality? Or was it the adoption of a prescribed idea, a borrowed conceptualization from the culture at large? If so, then it fits the definition of "domestic". If the thought is simply a daughter of a cultural meme, then I question its organic truth value. I question its implicit value in a world where the organic, "wild" forms of energy, whether thought, action, or expressed as matter, is being continually absorbed and diluted.

In other words, you might be satisfied with the normative, non-original, derivative energetic nature of conventional memes, but, as the definition of "meme" implies, it is only analogous to the critical, vital "wild" expression it metastasized from through cultural disintegration.

Case in point: your own organic body's signals are apparently not enough to propel your will. What became of the vital self-preservation instincts that evolution programmed into your cellular biology? What denigration of your "operating system" has taken place? You mention being trapped "working from home". To what extent has there been an exchange of personal energy and attention from your personal "operating system" to the one running your computer? Its a fake existence which is severing the spirit from the body, disconnecting the mind as if it can survive independently.

The things you own end up owning you. It was that realization that propelled me out of the so-called "knowledge economy", the "home office", and interminably useless hours spent trapped behind a computer monitor, the body collapsing in abject atrophy, gravity and negative inertia grinding the body's isometric construction into itself.

Wherever we run inside the social/cultural paradigm, we find new, more ornate prison chambers. We are invited to celebrate the domesticity of thought, action, and structure. We are rewarded like rats with symbolic, empty treats. We are entrenched in a system we know is "built to spill". Entropy builds. We do not.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')On to your other points. I'm not going to address them all. Our argument is getting too polarized to make much progress I think. Perhaps lateralus is better at this than I am and will have a go soon, I hope. I challenge other doggie owners out there to help mount a defense against BW who wants us to kill our pets and thinks we're all "retarted"! Anyone?

Lateralus has done nothing so far except piss all over himself. He should aim downwind.

I am also, BTW, not going to be mounting any campaign to "kill pets". I can only hope to kill the idea in the minds of people who have yet to enter into the self-limiting vicious cycles that degrade humane and animialian concepts, and accelerate the disintegration of the link between man and nature.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') specifically said that they need to be culled, because there are too many and are a burden on the environment at large.

I can't argue that dogs aren't a burden on the environment. They are. So are all domestic animals. Massive herds of cattle, factory farms of chicken and pigs all are. We have a responsibility to find better ways to produce our food, for ourselves and our pets. I agree it is a huge problem, I just disagree that the way to solve it is by killing our pets en masse.

I went to a talk by a Marxist who flogged the various Clusterfucks humanity is now facing and kind of chuckled when he said that the destruction of humanity is bad for the environment. Does arithmetic go out the window with such rationalizing? People, dogs, every domestic participant is an agent of resource competition, period. Any one dog displaces (X) amount of habitat, land, food, solar energy, etc. just as any one human does.

This Marxist prof. believes in the Doctrine of Positivism, just like everyone else who holds a convention view of "sanity". If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Hence, we can solve overpopulation and resource drawdown by simply implementing land distribution and socialism. Another speaker tritely observes that we should be "thrivalists" instead of "survivalists" as he extolls the positive positivity of "feeding the world". Imagine, enough food for everyone! No more starvation, and we can continue to grossly overpopulate at unsustainable levels.

The fact is that culling the excess herds of domesticated animals would provide a critically important buffer between the grossly damaging consequences of this behavior now. I would surmise that such a "sustainable" pet-food scheme is just as ludicrous as any other such scheme I've heard. And it does not address the plain fact that 800 million pets in N. America still have an environmental impact.

What no one wants to address is the primacy of the virtue of sacrifice. What you don't understand, specifically, is that industrial pet food, as an industry, keeps your total cost of ownership at an artificially low level. If it were upgraded, by some fantastic wave of a magic wand, to "sustainable" practices, the amount of land and resources displaced would probably be painfully expensive for your habit to maintain. Its the same economic and environmental fact for humans.

Lets say the magic wand of sustainability were waved over everything. We are now talking about human food prices and land/labor intensive cultivation expanding multilaterally. The same dynamic for pet food prices. Pets are like cars, except a car doesn't "die" when you stop feeding it petroleum. People are feeding their pets with fossil fuels. So in a sense you are making the same basic error that these Positivists are making in any other area- that we can get by with little cost to ourselves.

We as humans have a responsibility to remediate the ecological problems we are facing. That means unpleasantness in the service of holistic gains. Like a fat guy climbing a hill, the effort is worth it. The immediate effect of culling the species we as a culture have disproportionately supported at the expense of a multitude of others, will provide immediate benefit to these multitudes.

What the science of ecology is rapidly discovering, and what most people have yet to understand, is that it is the total diversity of organisms which produce a beneficient state of nature. It is what supports us as a species. The interconnected nature of these connections means that nothing exists in a vacuum.

Every minute spent cultivating an appreciation of nature which emphasizes personal sacrifice, a reduction of emotional or sustenance dependence on "favored" domestic species, is like a net deposit into the collective "bank account" that sustains us as a species. It is also a level of thought and value which measures the responsibility for our power.

The existence of a large (by large I mean absolutely humongous) surplus of domestic species implies that we are actively acting contrary to ecological principles. I find the arguments against the culling of such species to be flawed, illogical, and ultimately selfish and "inhumane", if "humane" were a concept expanded beyond the self-interested scope of someone's own personal self-fulfillment. Such defenders of the EarthRaping status quo are, iin my opinion, the "lost children" of humanity, the soft domesticated underbelly of consensus reality. By their sheer mass they are destroying a world beyond their "home offices" they only dimly understand. They cannot teach or pass on any truly humane values since they lack a substantive moral center and possess only crippled logical and emotional self-awareness.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy don't you describe your "anti-speciesism" or whatever kind of enlightened position you're trying to contrast with my own so we can talk about the differences.

Sure, I thought i was. My "enlightened" position (ha ha) is that you're a dog killer wannabe and I'm not. Seriously though, you do think humans are better than animals. I think dogs are better than humans. Dogs never built the bomb.


Dogs don't pick up their own shit. If we built a bomb, we can dismantle it. This is a stupid argument.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he strongest-held beliefs are frequently without any reasonable, moral, ethical, or even logical basis. The difficulty you are having with the issue in any of these areas in the debate is more an issue of your emotional and cognitive dissonance wrestling with the meta-condition of rationality and emotion, attachment and perspective. Philosophical perspective is hamstrung.

How much gobbeldy-gook can a person take! Cripes. Pack the trunk and head for the fucking hills Martha, there's a goddamn psuedo-psycho-ologist skulling around. I'm not wrestling with my meta-conditions at all you moron. And if you're saying my beliefs aren't reasonable, moral, ethical or logical then those are fightin' words buddy.

I was being charitable by suggesting that perhaps the reason you can't form a cogent argument is because you have some congenital defect which prevents you from having a rational debate without collapsing into solipsism. You're simply out of your depth. Maybe you should go splash around in the kiddie pool with Edie Brickell.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I could care less about your problems telling people you don't prefer to live with animals. You don't want to live with me or come for dinner so it's not really a big deal. It's when you start telling me I should kill my dog I start having problems.

I recognize the difficulty. Its a hard thing to do. But you'll probably feel better about it if you really connect with the fact that you will reduce your total ecological footprint and no longer displace resources and habitat for the other species which the practice has been impacting for so long.

Ever read "Of Mice and Men" by Steinbeck? Just take him out for a run, and point the barrel to the back of the skull. He will feel no pain. Then you can compost his body. No reason to cry like a baby about it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut I find that the dog owner will more often than not be uncomfortable with cohabitating with me because of that issue. It is not because of any specific relation between me and the owner or me and the dog, but of the owner's own cognitive problems sustaining his own worldview in close proximity to something that resembles contrary, or negative, thought. Literally, he fears negation.

Most people don't like to be around people who judge them negatively. The fact that the owner knows you think he's retarded might have something to do with the fact he doesn't want to cohabitate with you. He doesn't fear negation! Get over yourself will you? He just doesn't want to be around someone who thinks he's retarded.

I don't tell people I think they're retarded. Literally, their conclusions spring from the initial opinion that I prefer not to live with dogs. Thats literally ALL they now. So it is not any direct impression of theirs of what I think of them personally; it is a sense that their belief system and my own are fundamentally different, about a specific issue. The issue is not impersonal, like the color of the wallpaper. The issue, for them, is as we have found, their "crutch". They are literally afraid of their "crutch" getting kicked out from under them. Its a prejudicial thought structure formed to protect their ego from perceived threat. And the emotional threat is personal and absolutely "negative". Their fear is "negation" in the sense that ego is formed around arbitrary positivist assumptions about things that are "vital". The ego lashes out against imagined threats regardless of their actual threat value.

No, they aren't facing "annihilation" by the presence of other value systems or opposing thought structures, but to the ego, it may as well be.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You seem to have the notion that people who don't agree with you all have psychological and emotional problems. Do you want to talk about that some more?

They tell me I should ignore my expanded ecological perspective, awareness, and personal values and indulge the self-interested path. That IS what we've been talking about.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')omeone once said the mark of intelligence is being able to hold two contradictory ideas in their mind at one time. I can do this. The prejudiced, the uninformed, the biased, cannot do this. They are confused and scattered in their reasoning and logic. They lack the integrative ability to incorporate ideas within the matrix of their mental associative reality because they rely on the easy confluence of prejudice and stereotype to do their thinking for them.

Bla bla bla bla. I can touch my nose and take out the garbage. Think about the weather and my next project. Consider your stupid posts and scratch my balls all at once. Do I get the gold star now? CAN I JOIN THE CLUB of elites who don't lack the "the integrative ability to incorporate ideas within the matrix of their mental associative reality". HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA. Oh man. That was a good laugh. Thank you.

Hysterical, sarcastic, pejorative... The throes of an ego defense mechanism bristling at DEFCON 5. The simple explanation for my comment is this: we are inclined to believe the opinions and evidence which supports our egoistic worldviews. It is a conceit of logic to think that rationality can dismantle those defenses to allow some non-relative truth to slip by and reprogram the robot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I find it hard to believe you love dogs and want to kill them. You say you can have these contrary ideas, it sounds more like schizophrenia to me. Someday you might just snap buddy, seriously, get some medication.

Its really childish and stupid to write this kind of commentary. Nothing seems to sink in with you, though. Its all ego defense and libelous conjecture. I get the impression that a greater imaginative understanding of your own humanity escapes you. For some reason you are content with the world sliding into an ecological shit-hole of mass extinction and resource overshoot. You are emotionally infantilized by your relationship with your pet animal.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact is, you don't have to think about the deeper ethical and moral questions, the significant philosophical implications of the activities of everyday life.

The fact is YOU know nothing about me and are doing to me what you accuse me of doing to you. Making assumptions about what I think about and care about based on the fact that I am a dog owner.

Assumptions? You have staked out your position exceedingly clearly, as have I. We stand in complete relief. You have anything else to proclaim? So far, all we have is: Canadian techno-nerd with an unhealthy dependence on a pet animal to motivate himself to "lose weight" and experience "spontaneous joy", who doesn't believe that humanity should "cull" the outrageously disproportionate populations of domesticated animals that are actively displacing the ecological diversity upon which the quality and basic existence depends.

Am I leaving something out here??

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') pet-owner, god-believer, or neoconservative need not examine his own beliefs or strive for objectivity. But as soon as you open your mouth to argue on the issue, you're already in over your head. Your statements are confused, lacking in direction, and full of invective, logical fallacy. Nothing is getting through.

Bark bark bark. I vote NDP (socialist). I'm a buddhist. I am a pet owner. NAILED. I do agree I'm in over my head in this argument. Me just a simple Joe who jus addicted to his poochie missssa. *hic*


I regard "willful ignorance" as the currency of debased humanity.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople with contrarian views within a larger context of a society or culture are forced to examine and question their opinions and positions. This is why I have no problem enjoying dogs and cats I encounter, or friends' pets. I have a well-constructed basis of experience and rational perspective.


I'm starting to see your ideas aren't contrarian. They're based on the same sick Juedeo-Christian concepts that have gotten us into this mess all along. You're morally in league with the Jesuits, in fact you are on a crusade in this thread and have the same heat and self-righteousness of a man convinced, absolutely convinced, he's rational and right. You believe might is right and in human superiority. Tell me, do you flail yourself at night. Lick the blood from your whip and thank god for the pain?

Thats pretty ridiculous. As well as totally erroneous. I really don't see where this follows from the above general observation of social dynamics.

I am interested to hear your reasons for believing that I am "morally in league with the Jesuits", though. Sounds fascinating.

I'd love to hear details of your transcendentalist Bhuddist position.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')isten, dude. The market for your opinion is very, very small. 16000+ people viewed this thread, and it wasn't because you ejaculated all over it with gooey pet-worshipping pablum. It is because of the presence of a contrary opinion, well expressed, that creates a drama for thinking brains. "Think-the-same" doesn't sell tickets, "Think Different" does.

I think you're getting off more than I am. If the market for my opinion is very very small then perhaps I do have the contrary view. Whatever. Thanks for the ejaculation metaphor, very nice, and you just proved what I thought all along, eyes on this thread do matter to you. You're grandstanding and taking us all for a handjob.

Don't piggyback on my metaphors. Make up your own. Flattery is not beneath me, but coming from you, it doesn't mean much.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m making that evaluation using simple common sense. Anyone with a brain will "Get it". Kids will "get it". Its not difficult. It doesn't mean that any particular dog is less morally valuable than any human... that would be speciesist. Of course, if the Nazis were shipping traincars full of Schnauzers to Treblinka, I don't think people would have cared as much.

You seem to put this consensus argument in your pocket and put it out at your convenience. Hey, and maybe we would have cared about the Schnauzers just as much! Is that one of the methods you're planning on using? Would you like to build a doggie Treblinka for your culling program?

I have not thought it through. A distributed plan would probably be best. Lots of Steinbeckian assassination. Besides, "Doggie Treblinka" is basically the ASPCA shelter system, is it not. So why reinvent the wheel.

My comment was simply to point out that there is and always has been an anthropocentric basis to morality and ethics. Animal lovers might profess a nonanthropocentric or even completely flat ethical value system for "All Creatures, Great and Small", but I reject this as an outright fraud in reasons detailed previously. Where are the animal lovers raising up to defend the Earth's "less anthropomorphized" species, their habitats, etc.? People blow gallons of snot into hankies worldwide when 3000 people die in the trade center or 30 at a college campus, but can't be compelled to leverage the same psycho-emotional energy toward the global epidemic of species extinction.

I don't pretend to imagine the world's self-centered, transcendentalist-religion-believing hordes of the horribly system-dependent to suddenly adopt a much more radical perspective. The best I think can be hoped for is a humanity which is at least aware and acts responsibly for its impacts and , where applicable, adopts difficult postures including personal sacrifice in order to serve the greater reality of life on the planet.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby dinopello » Sun 22 Apr 2007, 17:54:37

Here's my pooch at 10 weeks

Image

and here she is recently at almost 8 months.

Image
Last edited by dinopello on Wed 09 Jan 2008, 00:37:47, edited 1 time in total.
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.

Postby davep » Mon 23 Apr 2007, 06:54:49

We went out to the farm we're buying in Burgundy over the weekend. While we were there, the dog chased off a deer. She is already showing the signs of a good guard, as she simply chased the deer until it left the property without going any further.

We seem to have inadvertently picked a dog that can guard all livestock (including chickens and even penguins). The Pastore Maremmano seems ideal for the small farm.

There's a small path going along one side of the property where I saw some people cycling. I may have to put up a fence there as I don't want to test the dog's knowledge of property boundaries too precisely.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby mercurygirl » Wed 25 Apr 2007, 01:27:50

Interesting article for the dog lovers:

It's in His Tail
mercurygirl
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby crapattack » Wed 16 May 2007, 00:36:44

No access to that link mercury girl.

BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') would say since you have dropped 30 lbs., you're ready for the next step. Its a bicycle. For all intents and purposes, bicycling is the next logical step. The other part, of course, is diet, a subject with its own extensive knowledge base. In short, you have to move the focus to the mind-body connection. Question is, do you have the will or self-reflection to take this step? If so, then its clear that you have used the dog to step up to the next level. Congrats. But the dog can only get you so far. What does the pooch have to do with motivating you to increase your flexibility, core strength, or upper-body strength?

The dog, as I've already said, motivates me to go outside. I actuallly want to get away from my desk for awhile and go out and play. Yes, I am riding my bike lately. She's got this habit of biting at the tires and I'm training her out of it while I ride. We also are doing a bit of running and hiking. I'm enjoying nature in a way I haven't in years. Next I'm training her to enjoy the canoe.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ny kind of crutch is something that weakens the will and dampens the spirit.


I disagree with you wholeheartedly. If you have a broken leg use a crutch, nothing wrong there. It actually won't weaken you, it will help you heal. 2nd point, we all use crutches all the time. Some are better or worse, some needed, some not, but I think using a crutch is fine if you need to and will probably make you healthier. I could argue that humans developed tool use and since then we've been using things to assist us make life better ever since. Now a dog isn't a hammer, but her presence is a force in my life helping me live a better life. While I may use her to motivate myself to go outside, she is thriving and does her no harm and both of us much good. I find it interesting that you could construct an argument that excerise with my dog could be a harm to me.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n other words, you might be satisfied with the normative, non-original, derivative energetic nature of conventional memes, but, as the definition of "meme" implies, it is only analogous to the critical, vital "wild" expression it metastasized from through cultural disintegration.

Case in point: your own organic body's signals are apparently not enough to propel your will. What became of the vital self-preservation instincts that evolution programmed into your cellular biology? What denigration of your "operating system" has taken place? You mention being trapped "working from home". To what extent has there been an exchange of personal energy and attention from your personal "operating system" to the one running your computer? Its a fake existence which is severing the spirit from the body, disconnecting the mind as if it can survive independently.


Wow, well my "wild" expression is a creative life. I never said I was trapped working at home, I simply said I work at home. I will agree it is a sad commentary on the modern condition many of us earn a living sitting on our butts 8+ hours per day, but it is a real non-fake existence never-the-less, and at least I do believe I exist and am not fakely existing. This could get quite Descartian, but I do know that my existence is real and I make real money sitting on my butt all day. This pays my bills. Your right that it's not physical.

Now my solution ot the severing of the spirit and body is go out and enjoy the world, I happen to do this with my dog and she helps motivate me and enhances the experience. My partner and I do this together and it gives us time to be together enjoying our world. I don't see how I should have to defend the quality and validity of my life and experiences to you, you who will probably scoff at my "fake" existence.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')herever we run inside the social/cultural paradigm, we find new, more ornate prison chambers. We are invited to celebrate the domesticity of thought, action, and structure. We are rewarded like rats with symbolic, empty treats. We are entrenched in a system we know is "built to spill". Entropy builds. We do not.


Ok, I agree that much about the modern condition is soul stiffling. I'm sure Roman slaves, solders, feudal peasants, Mayan stone masons, or even Eygptian pharohs might have felt the same way too, it's not a particularly new human condition. In your "wild expression", should I be running free naked through the woods eating moss and humping stray females? How do you see us practically living our wild natures within a modern context? Anyway, your argument isn't new. We all know this and make our own liveable compromises with it.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am also, BTW, not going to be mounting any campaign to "kill pets". I can only hope to kill the idea in the minds of people who have yet to enter into the self-limiting vicious cycles that degrade humane and animialian concepts, and accelerate the disintegration of the link between man and nature.

So your position is completely theoretical, you don't literally mean to kill the animals, just kill the idea of living with animals. You're nothing but a buzz-killer man, as I thought, jealous of our bond you're lashing out at something you don't understand and yet want for yourself. You're a sniper with water balloons shooting from the bushes at all the doggie owners in the park. Easy targets aren't we? We openly CARE about something. BELIEVE in the love of our animals and ENJOY life with them. You're constant criticism of anything positive displays your deep hostility to everything you secrety want. I can smell your maladaptation from here. You are the almost-buffoon, wanting to live on the edgesof society and take potshots, yell at the "beautiful people". You want to separate yourself because you fundamentally don't adapt. I recognize you and see you.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople, dogs, every domestic participant is an agent of resource competition, period. Any one dog displaces (X) amount of habitat, land, food, solar energy, etc. just as any one human does.

Materialism. Seeing everything in terms of material costs/benefits. Placing value only on things that can me empirically measured. There are other values. Go out and embrace them, I wish you well.

BW:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') was being charitable by suggesting that perhaps the reason you can't form a cogent argument is because you have some congenital defect which prevents you from having a rational debate without collapsing into solipsism. You're simply out of your depth. Maybe you should go splash around in the kiddie pool with Edie Brickell.

I think you're the one collapsing into ad homenim attacks and insults. I'm simply hysterical with laughter about my congenital defect (I'm sure I have many), but it mus be my sense of humor. Solipsism? I'd accuse you of sophism, but I'm arguing with a buffoon who will say whatever he can get away with because there are no consequences here. Give me one reason why I should continue this ridiculous argument? You're simply using me as a spring board for your arrogant ego pronouncements. Real dialogue? Forget about it! You share nothing and don't want to know anyone.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey tell me I should ignore my expanded ecological perspective, awareness, and personal values and indulge the self-interested path.

I've never advocated that. I don't know the "they" you refer to. Is this a back-handed way of calling me self-interested? Another Solipsism attack? Hey buddy, you know next to nothing about me. Really. You're raging against an idea of a person you've fitted over me, it's not me.

By expanded "ecological perspective" you mean advocating killing all animals in a doggie style Treblicka right? Tell me. If we did wipe out all the domestic animals, wouldn't it create a huge environmental mess? Mad cow style carcass burning on uprecedented levels, and how will it help improve our chances in the train derailment of PO that's coming? Chances are that when human die-off occurs, there will be a domestic animal die-off concurrently. No need to worry BW, your doggie genocide is coming. Actually, don't bother answering. You've made some points, at points, that have been worth considering for a while, but I've wasted enough time reading about how you think you're better than everybody else.

Meanwile River is doing wonderfully and is a happy doggie.


Image
"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.

Postby crapattack » Wed 16 May 2007, 00:50:41

Has anyone else changed over to giving their dog the raw food diet? I've switched River and she is doing incredibly well. Her teeth have gotten noticably whiter! Her coat is silky soft. I'd love to see your receipes, I've been doing this receipe:

Raw dog food
20 - 25% veggies
75% meat (1/4, or so of this, organ meats. preferrably organic and local)


Process Raw in food processor
Yam
Kale
Beet
Spinach
Carrot
Seaweed (if you have it, dried is nice)
Blueberries (not too many)
Suppliments:
Vitamin C powder (for absorption)
Greens powder/spiralina
Maca powder
X2 ground zinc tabs (25 mg)
Flavour: salt (not much) & pepper, clove of garlic for flavour

(store if desired)

Then,

Hand Mix in large bowl
Meat
Processed veggies
X 2 Glug olive oil
X 2 Glug hemp oil (if you have any, it’s expensive)
Ground flax seeds (buy them whole and grind, it’s a lot cheaper)
handful of whole shelled pumpkin seeds

Store in fridge or freeze in portions

Then,

Hand mix in serving bowl
Meat and veggie mixture
Fresh 1 egg, including shell
X2 capsules of salmon oil
any special things, but not too much, (some leftover chicken, fish, dog loaf, sprinkle of oats, cottage cheese whatever!)

It's not really as much work as it sounds once you get your system down. I found the key was introducing her gradually starting with just a couple spoonfuls of raw meat.
"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.

Postby TheTurtle » Sun 20 May 2007, 09:53:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', '
')
Meanwile River is doing wonderfully and is a happy doggie.


She is growing into a beautiful dog, crapattack. :-D I love red heelers.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby threadbear » Sun 20 May 2007, 13:29:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', '
')
Meanwile River is doing wonderfully and is a happy doggie.


She is growing into a beautiful dog, crapattack. :-D I love red heelers.


Agreed. My dog has me a little concerned as she seems to be a little stiff and is spending a lot of time just kind of snoozing. When she gets up from a sleep, she limps a little bit and it's centered in her front legs, not back ones. I wonder if she jarred herself running up and down all of the rocky crags around here. Maybe I should take her to the vet. Dogs can take aspirin mixed with food, I hear. Is this a good idea, to try them on that?
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Postby TheTurtle » Sun 20 May 2007, 16:04:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'M')aybe I should take her to the vet. Dogs can take aspirin mixed with food, I hear. Is this a good idea, to try them on that?


My old dog, who was badly injured in her youth, is getting more and more arthritic as time goes on. The vet told us to give her half a baby aspirin each day (hidden in a dab of peanut butter). It seems to be working for her. She weighs in around 40 lbs, so adjust accordingly.

Just to be safe, you should probably clear it with your vet first.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron