Are we no better than Dogs?

[Ramaraksha]

Rush Limbaugh once said on his show that dogs don't really love us, they just want the food we give them and the blankets to sleep on. (This had to have been around the late 90s, because by 2000 I couldn't stand him even for his 'entertainment' value.) I thought then: Goddamn, Rush, have you ever had a dog? Had a companion dog that was happiest by your side, that clamored to jump in the car with you, that followed you around the house watching you? (Mine watched me trap centipedes to get them out of the house, and now he carries on like Centipede Hunter of the Western World.) But with Rush, you had to remember his spotty record with love -- the number of women who walked out of marriages with him, even with the Rush lifestyle they enjoyed.
This thread is just as dumb.
Dogs that have a good home with humans have struck, hands down, the best deal that any species has had with another species. The wonder is that these 4-legged friends have been able to bridge the species gap and live happily with us. They discovered a blissfully happy life in the process. No doubt, centuries of being our companions have developed a wider emotional palette than most creatures with their intelligence display. A dog with a loving master is probably the most perfectly happy creature on the planet. And they are damn good at spreading the joy. In warm weather, I hang out on the deck of our local coffee shop, where my dog greets everyone who comes up the walk. He does his little act for them, and those who respond get a short visit with the most exuberantly friendly pooch you'll ever meet.
We enriched their lives. They enrich ours. If that disturbs you, buy an ant farm or a hermit crab. Those guys will hardly know you exist.

Over and over - it should not be up to us to decide what THEY want
Being a pet is an unnatural existence - ALL life forms should be able to fend for themselves, stand on their own two feet
I have posed a question for Pood - I will ask you the same question
Please read the above and please let me know

 

[Ramaraksha]

I am going by their reaction to my posts - why the anger?

I for one cannot understand how somebody you condescend to, misgender, and unjustly accuse of theism*, would be angry.

It's a total mystery.









* Despite your having access, as a member of this board, not only to their profile in which their "basic beliefs" are published, but also to a long history of postings where they clearly demonstrate their atheism, and openly display their gender.

I didn't know here gender until it was pointed out to me

Well the information was right there in front of you; So if you didn't know, it is because you couldn't be bothered to find out. Is that laziness, or just indifference? Either is unworthy.

So basically you ignore her abusive post, calling me names, senile etc but find fault with me

There was no insult, just advice.

You may not like that advice, but you brought it upon yourself, through your failure to apply your intelligence to acquire easily discovered knowledge.

A case in point being that the ONLY person who has used the word "senile" here, is YOU.

I have not interacted with her before - this was her first post to me & it was a brutal personal attack

No, it wasn't. Get over yourself; You are the new visitor in our home. If you march in making pronouncements about us, based on false assumptions that would have been trivially easy for you to avoid had you cared to do so, then you can expect to be treated with the disdain due to a boorish and condescending incomer.

So ignore all that - i am condescending? oh wow! So sorry, what a horrible person I am

Well, that's something you can choose to work on; Or to double down on.

The choice is entirely yours, and the consequences are entirely on you - if you don't care that people see you as rude and condescending, then you can carry on as you are.

If, as your sarcasm here suggests, you do care, then it is in your power to change.

As for being theist - as I said I am going by her post

Really? Nothing in her post would give a careful reader that impression. Perhaps you should read more, and write less - particularly about other members here, at least until you have taken the time to get to know us.

I have a post where I say Religious people change their morals based on a name
If it is a crazy guy, one moral - crazy guy says he is going to kill his family because God told him to
Another if it is Abraham - Abraham willing to kill his son because God told him to
Lacking objective morals
But I see that Theists are not alone in this matter
.
YOU guys get to spew whatever comes in your mouth, you can dish it out but seem easily hurt if I push back
Over and over I ask the same thing - stick to the post - do not get personal
But I keep getting the same personal attacks over and over

 

[Ramaraksha]

Notice that Ramaraksha equivocates on his descriptions of the human-canine relationship. In some posts he’ll characterize dogs as freeloaders or parasites, and in other posts he likens them to slaves or chattel who have been forced to serve us. It can’t be both ways.

And of course, neither is true.

Here is the word of the day for Rama:

SYMBIOTIC

Look it up.

It started that way - they kept guard duty at night and we gave them food
Still happens in poor countries like India - these are feral dogs - they don't live with families
They live on the street - they have families - they are not given names
That relationship has changed - they are now our dependents

 

[ideologyhunter]

Make me a pet!!!! The perks are amazing. Nutritious food, extended life through medical care, warm sleeping quarters, the wonder of love from my owner, toys, etc etc etc. OF COURSE I'm talking about pets that have good homes. Everyone knows there are exceptions.
You do realize, what we call an ear of corn has been modified by man to optimize its size, flavor, hardiness, right? Native Americans raised little 3" and 4" ears. Bananas today don't look like bananas did 5 centuries ago. Dogs are different now, too. There is no way to re-create the world that feral dogs knew 14,000 years ago. Anthropologists tell us that dogs and humans have lived together for somewhere between 120 and 140 centuries. Since that time cannot be erased, this whole discussion is sterile.

 

[Ramaraksha]

WE domesticated them - they didn't ask for it

We domesticated each other in a symbiotic relationship.

You appear to be totally ignorant of biology, evolution and nature.

You say you worked in a shelter. I find that hard to believe. If you had done so, you must have known that most ot those dogs came from abusive human partners who abandoned them. The ONLY way they could then survive is if they found a human partner who would care for them. Would you have them cast into the wild, and become feral dogs who would probably starve? Male dogs beat it after mating. They don’t give a. shit about their offspring. Dog mothers lose interest in their pups after weaning them. Do you not understand these facts?

Did you even read my post a bit upthread that discussed all this in detail?

" I find that hard to believe" So YOU are allowed to question who I am or what I wrote?
You are allowed to call me a liar?
But I make assumptions based on what she wrote and you find fault with me?
.
Dogs end up in shelters for a variety of reasons
People lose jobs, so the dog has to go
Owners die, the new owners do not care for the dog
Dogs run out, get lost, someone finds them and takes them to a shelter
Older dogs get sick more often - the vet bills are not cheap - they end up in a shelter
We saw pit bulls most often - people fall in love with them as puppies - little bundles of love
Well, they don't remain little much longer - now they are big and super strong
And some people find it difficult to handle them - and so end up in shelters
.
Most dogs cannot find a new owner - shelters can keep them in for only so long
At some point the dog is put to sleep

 

[Ramaraksha]

Make me a pet!!!! The perks are amazing. Nutritious food, extended life through medical care, warm sleeping quarters, the wonder of love from my owner, toys, etc etc etc. OF COURSE I'm talking about pets that have good homes. Everyone knows there are exceptions.
You do realize, what we call an ear of corn has been modified by man to optimize its size, flavor, hardiness, right? Native Americans raised little 3" and 4" ears. Bananas today don't look like bananas did 5 centuries ago. Dogs are different now, too. There is no way to re-create the world that feral dogs knew 14,000 years ago. Anthropologists tell us that dogs and humans have lived together for somewhere between 120 and 140 centuries. Since that time cannot be erased, this whole discussion is sterile.

Please read my question to Pood
It's not always party time - there are downsides to being a dog
Which I describe in detail
Taken out with a leash around your neck
Having to go when they take you out
The same food every day!
Sex only when they want you to
Female dogs get to enjoy motherhood only as the owner decides
You cannot be with your own kind - meet and play with friends of your kind only when your master or mistress want you to
You cannot have a family of your own - the master/mistress's family is your family now
And the ultimate - if your master/mistress dies, your new home might be a 4 X 6 cell

 

[ideologyhunter]

Okay. I can see I made no sale. Fine with me. I've loved dogs all my life, and they've loved me back with incredible, total, sappy devotion. So, you be happy, and I will, too.

******************************************************************************************************************************

However I could not resist seeing how some of your arguments would play if they were not anti-dogs-as-pets but rather arguments against marriage. Some of them make a sort of case, if one allows for metaphor and for varying circumstances:
"The pay is OK -- you lead an OK life (Why sure, we all know about double income families)
Then she says she has taken a liking to you and wants you to come live with her (the standard hookup...okay)
There is a catch, though, actually a bunch of catches.
You are no longer allowed to meet anyone of your kind. (Yeah, a spouse can be too clingy. I'm with you.)
She is going to put a leash on you and take you around, not where you want to go, but where SHE wants you to go. (Yes indeed, I've seen those husbands in Victoria's Secrets or at Julia Roberts movies.)
Food is good but it's the same food everyday. (Yeah, helps if one of you is a fancy cook. Definitely.)
Sex is on her terms. (Aint it the truth!!)
And the worry? Your mistress might die." (You really jumped ahead a few steps on that one, Jack.)

 

[bilby]

you can dish it out but seem easily hurt if I push back

Do you own, or are you able to acquire, a mirror?

 

[bilby]

" I find that hard to believe" So YOU are allowed to question who I am or what I wrote?

It's a rationalist discussion board. The entire point is for people to question what others wrote.

You are allowed to call me a liar?

Nobody is allowed to call any other member a liar. This is explicitly stated in the Terms of Use of the board.

And nobody called you a liar; That's not what "I find that hard to believe" means, but rather is an unsupported assumption on your part.

When somebody says something is hard to believe, the appropriate response is to provide evidence, thereby making it easier for them to believe.

Or, if you cannot find such evidence, you might review your claim, and decide that you were mistaken. At which point it is appropriate to apologise, and to revise your position.

But I make assumptions based on what she wrote and you find fault with me?

When you make assumptions, you are at fault if they are incorrect.

Making assumptions is bad epistemology, and should be avoided if you wish to appear reasonable.

You should try making observations instead; That is the path to truth.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Okay. I can see I made no sale. Fine with me. I've loved dogs all my life, and they've loved me back with incredible, total, sappy devotion. So, you be happy, and I will, too.

So you read the life of a dog that I described and you are saying that is the life you want?
So you are saying you are fine with being a helpless, KEPT being as long as the life is good?
Do you understand that I just described the life of a Prostitute, gigolo, yes-man, sycophant, crony?
They too are KEPT in comfort by their Sugar Daddies - dependent on their Sugar Daddies to give them the easy good life
Their lives, of course, controlled by their Sugar Daddies

 

[steve_bank]

The Dogalypse is coming....it was foretold in the bible.

What is this thread doing in religion?

 

[DBT]

We are all dependent on others to some extent, food, clothing, medical care......that is the nature of society.

 

[Ramaraksha]

" I find that hard to believe" So YOU are allowed to question who I am or what I wrote?

It's a rationalist discussion board. The entire point is for people to question what others wrote.

yes as long as we confine our views to the issues brought up in the post
How many times now have I said, do not make it personal & yet I see personal attacks

You are allowed to call me a liar?

Nobody is allowed to call any other member a liar. This is explicitly stated in the Terms of Use of the board.

You claimed that I assumed she was a Theist, when she was not
I said, based on what she wrote, her anger, I questioned whether she was a theist or not
Well, the same rules apply to you also - I made a statement saying I worked with dogs (not cats, sadly i am allergic to them, so i stayed where the dogs were kept. yes i cleaned their cages, took them out for walks, fed them etc - voluntary work)
You doubted my word, basically you are saying I lied, I am a liar

But I make assumptions based on what she wrote and you find fault with me?

When you make assumptions, you are at fault if they are incorrect.

Making assumptions is bad epistemology, and should be avoided if you wish to appear reasonable.

You should try making observations instead; That is the path to truth.

So YOU assumed I was lying when I said I said I worked at a shelter
amazing how blind you are that you don't realize your morals apply to you also
Oh wait, mine is an assumption, yours is an observation?
wow!
I am sorry, I can't keep up with these forked tongues

 

[bilby]

So you read the life of a dog that I described and you are saying that is the life you want?

Why would you assume that what a dog wants, and what a human wants, need to be the same (or even a similar) thing?

Dogs are not humans; Humans are not dogs. They need not (and do not) have the same goals, desires, or causes for happiness.

 

[Ramaraksha]

The Dogalypse is coming....it was foretold in the bible.

What is this thread doing in religion?

I know we can't seem to move forward from this dog stuff
It started when I posted do dogs not wonder why this being is giving us the good life - he feeds us, protects, shelters, cares for us
We get to snore all day when he is gone, then we get to play with him - life is good
They do not wonder because they lack the mental capacity to do so
But the way theists describe Heaven - it sounded to me very similar to a Dogs life
And yet even the best of minds do not question the cheap and easy promises of heaven
.
But somehow this thread took a nasty turn into something else

 

[Ramaraksha]

So you read the life of a dog that I described and you are saying that is the life you want?

Why would you assume that what a dog wants, and what a human wants, need to be the same (or even a similar) thing?

Dogs are not humans; Humans are not dogs. They need not (and do not) have the same goals, desires, or causes for happiness.

But WE are making decisions for them - how they should live, even how long they should live
What quality of life they must have etc etc
Let's go back thousands of years, when humans were still living in caves and let's assume they had
not come in contact with dogs
How were they living? They were living just like wild dogs live now
To me, that is their natural state

 

[bilby]

I see personal attacks

You apparently do.

The question then is whether your interpretation is accurate, or whether you are just indulging in the typical human error of mistaking an attack on a bad idea you espouse, as an attack on you personally.

I submit that the latter is the case.

I suspect that you are unused to having your views questioned, and so have come to view any such questioning as a personal affront.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Okay. I can see I made no sale. Fine with me. I've loved dogs all my life, and they've loved me back with incredible, total, sappy devotion. So, you be happy, and I will, too.

So you read the life of a dog that I described and you are saying that is the life you want?
So you are saying you are fine with being a helpless, KEPT being as long as the life is good?
Do you understand that I just described the life of a Prostitute, gigolo, yes-man, sycophant, crony?
They too are KEPT in comfort by their Sugar Daddies - dependent on their Sugar Daddies to give them the easy good life
Their lives, of course, controlled by their Sugar Daddies

For all you know, I'm a very well-paid prostitute, and a highly competent one, too.
I prefer 'male strumpet' or 'pleasuring engineer.'

 

[bilby]

I made a statement saying I worked with dogs (not cats, sadly i am allergic to them, so i stayed where the dogs were kept. yes i cleaned their cages, took them out for walks, fed them etc - voluntary work)
You doubted my word, basically you are saying I lied, I am a liar

I certainly never doubted your word, and if you can quote me doing so, I shall gladly apologise.

However, skepticism is NOT an accusation of lying. A liar says something he knows to be untrue. An untrue statement, made in the sincere belief that it is a true statement, is not a lie; It's a mere error. And to err is human - we all do it.

 

[Ramaraksha]

I see personal attacks

You apparently do.

The question then is whether your interpretation is accurate, or whether you are just indulging in the typical human error of mistaking an attack on a bad idea you espouse, as an attack on you personally.

I submit that the latter is the case.

I suspect that you are unused to having your views questioned, and so have come to view any such questioning as a personal affront.

Well I have reported her - so let the moderator decide whether what she wrote to me is an insult or not
At this point I realize I am not going to get an unbiased view from you
As i wrote theists are not the only ones who change their views based on WHO is posting, not what is being posted