Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2014, 01:57 AM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
Dog tastes okay. Better as pets.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kiwihogfiend's post
10-09-2014, 05:40 AM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
(10-09-2014 12:14 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(09-09-2014 11:30 AM)Dom Wrote:  If the dog is a lose stray, it's society's fault, the careless breeder's fault, the people who kicked him out are at fault, everyone but the dog is at fault. The dog is simply a dog.

Undecided I just don't know what to say to that. No Pure ignorance. Sorry. Drinking Beverage

So, blaming a dog for being a dog is a sign of superior learning? Tongue

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
(05-09-2014 02:51 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(05-09-2014 10:06 AM)Anna Wrote:  Dogs don't attack unless provoked, it is our responsibility to make sure they aren't.

This statement right here indicates to me that you actually don't know a lot about dogs.

Dogs can and will attack for any reason, and provocation is not required.

The dog that mauled me ran across a street (I was jogging on the other side), not even looking at him when he jumped on my back.

I've also worked with a lot of dogs with behavioral problems with my clients when I trained dogs for a living.

One minute a wagging tail, a "smiling" dog, a bite the next. Nothing changed.

The real issue is that just like all cognitive creatures, we have differing levels of empathy between us. Some dogs are more empathetic, can read their humans better. That's why these dogs are generally working dogs. Some dogs don't have as high of empathy as they should. It's not that they are mean spirited, but they just don't care what happens to their humans.

Once again, the dog that attacked you was either crazy or untrained. Both conditions demanding human attention.
I am talking about the sane dogs that live with us. And if a pet dog attacks you, it's the humans who didn't train him well enough. People train their dogs to attack, believing they'll only attack an intruder, but they forget that if a dog is being pleased to attack anything, he will not much care who it is he's attacking, even if it's you. This behavior is reinforced in the dog by training.
And even when I am talking about strays, I live in a country where there are strays at every corner, no one even pets them but there are hardly any cases of dog attacks here. Because these strays have learnt to live with us and they know if they don't get in our way we won't do that either. A dog attacking a jogger is an example of a mentally unstable dog and he shouldn't be left outside, who let him out?

All great truths begin as blasphemy - George Bernard Shaw
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
I prefer the company of animals over people.. mainly cats but I have a golden retriever too. I'd never take in a dog that barked though for I find it one of the most annoying noises in the world. Oh, and no pits, rottweiler, doberman or any other mean looking pooch with a history of violence.

A wise person makes their own decisions; an ignorant one follows public opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 12:44 AM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
(10-09-2014 05:40 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(10-09-2014 12:14 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Undecided I just don't know what to say to that. No Pure ignorance. Sorry. Drinking Beverage

So, blaming a dog for being a dog is a sign of superior learning? Tongue

Dom, the argument could also be made that a bear is just a bear or a bobcat is just a bobcat or a lion is just a lion. Yes, these animals are "just these animals." Unfortunately, nature dictates that "just being these animals" means ripping someone apart on occasion. Animals - despite what you seem to think - don't operate only by our command. They can, sure. But not entirely. Sometimes a lion or a bear or a dog acts like a lion or a bear or a dog, and it's not my fault or your fault or society's fault for not training it not to.

Yes, I blame a dog for being a dog. Just as I'd blame a bear for being a bear or a lion for being a lion or the Ebola virus for being the fucking Ebola virus. Can you imagine the argument? "The virus is just a virus; I blame geneticists for not programing it not to infect us."

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 06:18 AM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
(12-09-2014 12:44 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(10-09-2014 05:40 AM)Dom Wrote:  So, blaming a dog for being a dog is a sign of superior learning? Tongue

Dom, the argument could also be made that a bear is just a bear or a bobcat is just a bobcat or a lion is just a lion. Yes, these animals are "just these animals." Unfortunately, nature dictates that "just being these animals" means ripping someone apart on occasion. Animals - despite what you seem to think - don't operate only by our command. They can, sure. But not entirely. Sometimes a lion or a bear or a dog acts like a lion or a bear or a dog, and it's not my fault or your fault or society's fault for not training it not to.

Yes, I blame a dog for being a dog. Just as I'd blame a bear for being a bear or a lion for being a lion or the Ebola virus for being the fucking Ebola virus. Can you imagine the argument? "The virus is just a virus; I blame geneticists for not programing it not to infect us."

You get me all wrong. The bear is just a bear. If you get in his territory, you need to be prepared for meeting a bear. If you get mauled, it's not the bears fault, he is simply a bear and you should have known he would maul you if you messed with him.

The dog is a different thing. It exists because of a human, or a chain of humans. It is in the situation it finds itself in because of humans. The two pit bulls didn't ask to be put together. Humans made that decision. The pits are just being pits.

Had you had the pits from puppyhood on, and had you spent a year until they were formed training them to ignore each other, they would have ignored each other. But that didn't happen, so they functioned on primal instincts and the mess happened.

If you take a human and let it be raised secluded and without any human contact, it will not know how to behave when you drop it in the middle of New York city. It may feel threatened by things everyone else there thinks to be normal. It may attack for what you hold to be no reason. It may flee for no obvious reason. It has no frame of reference and is operating on primal instincts.

If you take in a dog you have a responsibility to teach it how to fit into the situation. If you are smart you will pick one of the many breeds that innately fit better into your situation. Unless the dog is taught to fit the situation, it will act on primal instincts. But, dogs have been with humans for so long, it is part of their evolution to look to humans for instructions. It is the humans who fail to understand how a dog learns and what it needs to learn.

In both cases, the dog and the bear, humans have the ability to understand fully what to expect. The bear will protect family and territory and look for food. That is what a human can expect. The bear has no idea what to expect from a human.

The dog will bark, jump up on you, beg for food, pee in the house and bite when the prey drive or the defense drive is awakened. It has no idea what is expected of it.

In the case of the bear, it is not domesticated and will not look to humans for instruction, hence it will always function on primal instincts.

The dog, however, can and will learn if you learn how to teach.

Humans don't use their noggins and behave irresponsibly and animals get blamed for it. Makes no sense. Humans are to blame.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
12-09-2014, 12:55 PM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
(12-09-2014 06:18 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 12:44 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Dom, the argument could also be made that a bear is just a bear or a bobcat is just a bobcat or a lion is just a lion. Yes, these animals are "just these animals." Unfortunately, nature dictates that "just being these animals" means ripping someone apart on occasion. Animals - despite what you seem to think - don't operate only by our command. They can, sure. But not entirely. Sometimes a lion or a bear or a dog acts like a lion or a bear or a dog, and it's not my fault or your fault or society's fault for not training it not to.

Yes, I blame a dog for being a dog. Just as I'd blame a bear for being a bear or a lion for being a lion or the Ebola virus for being the fucking Ebola virus. Can you imagine the argument? "The virus is just a virus; I blame geneticists for not programing it not to infect us."

You get me all wrong. The bear is just a bear. If you get in his territory, you need to be prepared for meeting a bear. If you get mauled, it's not the bears fault, he is simply a bear and you should have known he would maul you if you messed with him.

The dog is a different thing. It exists because of a human, or a chain of humans. It is in the situation it finds itself in because of humans. The two pit bulls didn't ask to be put together. Humans made that decision. The pits are just being pits.

Had you had the pits from puppyhood on, and had you spent a year until they were formed training them to ignore each other, they would have ignored each other. But that didn't happen, so they functioned on primal instincts and the mess happened.

If you take a human and let it be raised secluded and without any human contact, it will not know how to behave when you drop it in the middle of New York city. It may feel threatened by things everyone else there thinks to be normal. It may attack for what you hold to be no reason. It may flee for no obvious reason. It has no frame of reference and is operating on primal instincts.

If you take in a dog you have a responsibility to teach it how to fit into the situation. If you are smart you will pick one of the many breeds that innately fit better into your situation. Unless the dog is taught to fit the situation, it will act on primal instincts. But, dogs have been with humans for so long, it is part of their evolution to look to humans for instructions. It is the humans who fail to understand how a dog learns and what it needs to learn.

In both cases, the dog and the bear, humans have the ability to understand fully what to expect. The bear will protect family and territory and look for food. That is what a human can expect. The bear has no idea what to expect from a human.

The dog will bark, jump up on you, beg for food, pee in the house and bite when the prey drive or the defense drive is awakened. It has no idea what is expected of it.

In the case of the bear, it is not domesticated and will not look to humans for instruction, hence it will always function on primal instincts.

The dog, however, can and will learn if you learn how to teach.

Humans don't use their noggins and behave irresponsibly and animals get blamed for it. Makes no sense. Humans are to blame.


There's something that confuses me about dogs and their instincts. I often hear owners of, say , a Border Collie express how that they heard instinctively or that Alaskan Huskies which have been bred as a sled dog, just do it with little training. Yet when Pitbull's, some breeds having been bred as a fighting dog, bite people or maul a child it's the owners fault. It seems that when a dog does nice things it's part of their instinct but when they do rotten thinks like bite a child it's the owners fault.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
12-09-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
(12-09-2014 12:55 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 06:18 AM)Dom Wrote:  You get me all wrong. The bear is just a bear. If you get in his territory, you need to be prepared for meeting a bear. If you get mauled, it's not the bears fault, he is simply a bear and you should have known he would maul you if you messed with him.

The dog is a different thing. It exists because of a human, or a chain of humans. It is in the situation it finds itself in because of humans. The two pit bulls didn't ask to be put together. Humans made that decision. The pits are just being pits.

Had you had the pits from puppyhood on, and had you spent a year until they were formed training them to ignore each other, they would have ignored each other. But that didn't happen, so they functioned on primal instincts and the mess happened.

If you take a human and let it be raised secluded and without any human contact, it will not know how to behave when you drop it in the middle of New York city. It may feel threatened by things everyone else there thinks to be normal. It may attack for what you hold to be no reason. It may flee for no obvious reason. It has no frame of reference and is operating on primal instincts.

If you take in a dog you have a responsibility to teach it how to fit into the situation. If you are smart you will pick one of the many breeds that innately fit better into your situation. Unless the dog is taught to fit the situation, it will act on primal instincts. But, dogs have been with humans for so long, it is part of their evolution to look to humans for instructions. It is the humans who fail to understand how a dog learns and what it needs to learn.

In both cases, the dog and the bear, humans have the ability to understand fully what to expect. The bear will protect family and territory and look for food. That is what a human can expect. The bear has no idea what to expect from a human.

The dog will bark, jump up on you, beg for food, pee in the house and bite when the prey drive or the defense drive is awakened. It has no idea what is expected of it.

In the case of the bear, it is not domesticated and will not look to humans for instruction, hence it will always function on primal instincts.

The dog, however, can and will learn if you learn how to teach.

Humans don't use their noggins and behave irresponsibly and animals get blamed for it. Makes no sense. Humans are to blame.


There's something that confuses me about dogs and their instincts. I often hear owners of, say , a Border Collie express how that they heard instinctively or that Alaskan Huskies which have been bred as a sled dog, just do it with little training. Yet when Pitbull's, some breeds having been bred as a fighting dog, bite people or maul a child it's the owners fault. It seems that when a dog does nice things it's part of their instinct but when they do rotten thinks like bite a child it's the owners fault.

All the breeds have an advantage in learning to do what they were bred for. They learn easier. Their parents and grand parents and in some cases their ancestors for hundreds of years have behaved a certain way, done a certain job. It's in their genes. But - they still have to learn to apply their instincts properly.

The owner still has to understand how a dog learns and still has to train. The proper breed will just learn faster and retain longer.

When you take a dog that has been bred originally for fighting, you have to teach it things that are opposite to what it has been bred for. It can be done, but that dog will always need a watchful eye. Pits have many lovely qualities, they are loving and comical. But their instinct is to fight. Some individuals will have it stronger than others, and you don't know until it happens. They will take many decades of only breeding the very mellow dogs to lose that fighting instinct.

Breeds are also purposefully changed - like Great Danes were bred to hunt boar, and they were a mean, lean fighting machine. Fast like a greyhound and strong like a mastiff (the two breeds it was based on). When people stopped hunting boar the breed had to change to survive. So people bred the sweetest, gentlest dogs only. The result today is a gentle giant, a big old couch potato.

Even when you get a mixed breed it is important to take into account what the breeds in the mix are like. If you have a pond with ducks, you don't want a terrier, he'll kill the ducks. A Great Dane will guard them instead.

The most important part is always the owner. A conscientious owner who takes the time to understand and train his dog will be able to make unsuitable breeds fit - but it takes more work and continued vigilance.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
12-09-2014, 04:50 PM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
(12-09-2014 03:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 12:55 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  There's something that confuses me about dogs and their instincts. I often hear owners of, say , a Border Collie express how that they heard instinctively or that Alaskan Huskies which have been bred as a sled dog, just do it with little training. Yet when Pitbull's, some breeds having been bred as a fighting dog, bite people or maul a child it's the owners fault. It seems that when a dog does nice things it's part of their instinct but when they do rotten thinks like bite a child it's the owners fault.

All the breeds have an advantage in learning to do what they were bred for. They learn easier. Their parents and grand parents and in some cases their ancestors for hundreds of years have behaved a certain way, done a certain job. It's in their genes. But - they still have to learn to apply their instincts properly.

The owner still has to understand how a dog learns and still has to train. The proper breed will just learn faster and retain longer.

When you take a dog that has been bred originally for fighting, you have to teach it things that are opposite to what it has been bred for. It can be done, but that dog will always need a watchful eye. Pits have many lovely qualities, they are loving and comical. But their instinct is to fight. Some individuals will have it stronger than others, and you don't know until it happens. They will take many decades of only breeding the very mellow dogs to lose that fighting instinct.

Breeds are also purposefully changed - like Great Danes were bred to hunt boar, and they were a mean, lean fighting machine. Fast like a greyhound and strong like a mastiff (the two breeds it was based on). When people stopped hunting boar the breed had to change to survive. So people bred the sweetest, gentlest dogs only. The result today is a gentle giant, a big old couch potato.

Even when you get a mixed breed it is important to take into account what the breeds in the mix are like. If you have a pond with ducks, you don't want a terrier, he'll kill the ducks. A Great Dane will guard them instead.

The most important part is always the owner. A conscientious owner who takes the time to understand and train his dog will be able to make unsuitable breeds fit - but it takes more work and continued vigilance.

From what I've read the English Bulldog has many health problems from being over bred. I'm certainly no expert in these things but I have a neighbor who is always taking her English Bulldog to the vet.

Seems to me humans have overdone it with dogs. We just can't seem to let things be, we're always tinkering with the poor animal. Even though this is from the Daily Mail it's got some good photos of dog breeds over the last 100 years and show some of the transformations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...imals.html

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: Animal Lovers (And why I can't stand them)
(12-09-2014 04:50 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 03:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  All the breeds have an advantage in learning to do what they were bred for. They learn easier. Their parents and grand parents and in some cases their ancestors for hundreds of years have behaved a certain way, done a certain job. It's in their genes. But - they still have to learn to apply their instincts properly.

The owner still has to understand how a dog learns and still has to train. The proper breed will just learn faster and retain longer.

When you take a dog that has been bred originally for fighting, you have to teach it things that are opposite to what it has been bred for. It can be done, but that dog will always need a watchful eye. Pits have many lovely qualities, they are loving and comical. But their instinct is to fight. Some individuals will have it stronger than others, and you don't know until it happens. They will take many decades of only breeding the very mellow dogs to lose that fighting instinct.

Breeds are also purposefully changed - like Great Danes were bred to hunt boar, and they were a mean, lean fighting machine. Fast like a greyhound and strong like a mastiff (the two breeds it was based on). When people stopped hunting boar the breed had to change to survive. So people bred the sweetest, gentlest dogs only. The result today is a gentle giant, a big old couch potato.

Even when you get a mixed breed it is important to take into account what the breeds in the mix are like. If you have a pond with ducks, you don't want a terrier, he'll kill the ducks. A Great Dane will guard them instead.

The most important part is always the owner. A conscientious owner who takes the time to understand and train his dog will be able to make unsuitable breeds fit - but it takes more work and continued vigilance.

From what I've read the English Bulldog has many health problems from being over bred. I'm certainly no expert in these things but I have a neighbor who is always taking her English Bulldog to the vet.

Seems to me humans have overdone it with dogs. We just can't seem to let things be, we're always tinkering with the poor animal. Even though this is from the Daily Mail it's got some good photos of dog breeds over the last 100 years and show some of the transformations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...imals.html

Well, that's the AKC and the showing of dogs. It ruins many breeds. It ruins their natural disposition, they are only bred for looks and no other standard such as intelligence, character, working abilities and so forth. I think it's sad. Many are just shadows of what the breed used to be, and they are not healthy.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: