Are we no better than Dogs?

[ideologyhunter]

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

FOOTNOTE: There's an attribution error here. I didn't write what it indicates I wrote. No big deal, but it's not my writing.

 

[Ramaraksha]

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.

My turn to apologize - i got you mixed up with Pood - he/she said that - sorry about that
Replying to way too many people speaking to me on this thread - i need to be more careful

 

[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

FOOTNOTE: There's an attribution error here. I didn't write what it indicates I wrote. No big deal, but it's not my writing.

How did your name get there? I am sorry I was talking to bilby and replied to him/her - not sure how your name got in and his/her name got removed
My mistake - sorry about that

 

[Ramaraksha]

How did your name get there? I am sorry I was talking to bilby and replied to him/her - not sure how your name got in and his/her name got removed
My mistake - sorry about that

Ok I see bilby has gender listed - will use that moving forward, though I don't think there will be many opportunities in the future

 

[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.

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

And they are making decisions for us - what noises we should investigate, whether to allow a given person to enter a premises, whether to comfort us when we are distressed...

Let's go back thousands of years, when humans were still living in caves

Humans mostly never lived in caves.

and let's assume they had
not come in contact with dogs

OK

How were they living? They were living just like wild dogs live now

OK. But the distant past doesn't set moral rules for the present.

To me, that is their natural state

Indeed. And our "natural state", as defined at the same point in pre-history, is to live a nomadic existence, with few tools or possessions, constantly at the ragged edge of survival and subject to famine and hardship at every turn.

"Natural - Unnatural" is an axis orthogonal to "Good - Bad"; Knowing how "natural" something is tells us exactly nothing about how good that thing is.

Dogs and humans teamed up early on in the prehistory of both species, and that has been a good thing for both.

Humans and dogs now live comfortable and luxurious lives. Not all of them, obviously; But many. Probably most, by comparison to the "natural" state their distant ancestors suffered.

Neither I nor my dog expect to go hungry if the rains fail.

 

[steve_bank]

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

It is not hasty. here is not much to say and it all got said quickly.

After that you get what you get. People indulging their sense of humor.

There is an old Washington political saying 'If you are in politics and are looking for a friend get a dog'

No one is being particularly hurtful or insulting to you.

The topic of pet abuse is one for the lounge. Comparing humans to other species is for natural science and social science.

n have watched several documentaries on the history of human domesticate of animals. Dogs have been bred for specific traits for specific tasks. A variety of horse breeds. Cattle. Chickens. Sheep.

Pet abandonment is becoming an issue as inflation and cost of pet food grows.

Feral p[et cats are a real hazard to bird populations. Feral cats act like theirr big cousins. Feral dogs form packs and figure out how to get food.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Feral p[et cats are a real hazard to bird populations. Feral cats act like theirr big cousins. Feral dogs form packs and figure out how to get food.

Where I live, the feral cats are, periodically, a real problem. They go after the bird population, they scavenge, etc. The wild dogs (we have coyotes too, and sometimes I'm not sure of the difference) go after garbage and targets of opportunity, which often means domesticated pets that they encounter. They typically are malnourished, crawling with parasites, and disease ridden. Bad situation, and very little public funding to address the problem.

 

[pood]

Yeah, the 'wild' that doesn't exist nowadays. All the pets would be running around eating garbage and we'd, I guess, be shooting them.

It's our fault - most dogs would not survive in the wild after all these years of domestication
WE did this to them

We did not do anything to them. We gravitated toward each other and co-evolved. Dogs want to be with us — not in the wild. They would not survive in the wild. Our relationship is perfectly natural by definition.

 

[pood]

But see, according to Rama, they’d be much better off and happier by living a literal dog-eat-dog life in the wild. This, you see, is what nature “intends.”

The point is that WE are deciding what is good for them

No we are not.

Would you rather be a pet than be independent?

We are ALL dependent on others. A dog without a human would not survive in the wild. Can you really not grasp this simple point? And — dogs want to be with us. Can you not grasp THAT simple point?

 

[pood]

That relationship has changed - they are now our dependents

So what??

Did you look up the meaning of symbiotic?

 

[pood]

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

There are downsides to being every living thing — like being eaten in the wild. Pet dogs don’t worry about that.

Which I describe in detail
Taken out with a leash around your neck

The dog does not care!

Having to go when they take you out

They LIKE going out with their humans! When they hear “walkies” or “car ride” they start jumping around and wagging their tails!

The same food every day!

Here with this BS again! What makes you think their humans feed their dogs the same thing every day? And even if they did, so what? Here again you are anthropomorphizing dogs.

Sex only when they want you to

Oh for Christ sake. DOGS ARE NOT HUMANS.

Female dogs get to enjoy motherhood only as the owner decides

Bullshit! It has already been explained to you that breeders wait until pups are weaned before selling them. After wearing her pups. THE MOTHER LOSES INTEREST IN THEM! The father is not even around at all — he skipped out right after mating!

You really seem to think dogs are miniature humans with identical motivations and desires. How do you think dogs would “raise” their families? Would daddy dog get a job at the factory, with mom a stay-at-home doggy housewife, and they’d all be living in suburbia and at night watching Lassie reruns on the tube?

You cannot be with your own kind - meet and play with friends of your kind only when your master or mistress want you to

We ARE their own kind!

You cannot have a family of your own - the master/mistress's family is your family now

See above. As has been endlessly explained to you, MOTEHR DOGS LOSE INTEREST IN THEIR PUPS AFTER WEANING, AND FATEHR DOG IS NOT AROUND AT ALL. Does all-caps help?

Yes, wolves raise families in the wild, but dogs are not wolves!

And the ultimate - if your master/mistress dies, your new home might be a 4 X 6 cell

Or it might be another human family. NO species is guaranteed happiness in this world.

 

[pood]

As for your weird fixation on leashing dogs, it’s obviously for their protection, and the dog does not mind at all. An old woman in my neighborhood used to let her little dog Rosie run around unleashed. One day I walked by and there she was sitting on a bench crying her eyes out and cradling the bloody and mangled carcass of dead Rosie. It had been hit by a car before her eyes! Is THAT what you, who presents yourself as so concerned about dogs, would like for them?

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's also a little weird that he goes on about the food being the same every day. My little monster goes apeshit for his food, and it's Purina One (kibble.) He would knock over a bus if it was parked in front of his dish.
Dogs don't have the same need for variety that we have. A friend of mine who raised Scotties fed them -- exclusively -- a diet of a good brand kibble, with snacks being pieces of dry flatbread and green beans straight out of a can. Again, you'd think they were dining at the world's swankiest cafe. They're excited just to eat -- if it's crunchy and halfway flavorful, you've got a happy camper.

 

[pood]

It’s also weird his fixation that the dog/human relationship is “unnatural.” Everything in nature is natural by definition. Nature = natural. He started by banging on about nature “intending” all animals to “stand on their own two feet.” It was explained to him, first, that nature does not “intend” anything, and second, if it did, then by his own “reasoning” it “intends” all organisms to be parasitical, since the vast majority of living things are parasites!

But he just ignores all this as inconvenient to his own argument. He rants against theists, but he employs the same fact-ignoring, telos-biased magical thinking that they do.

 

[southernhybrid]

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

I have never reported anyone during the more than 24 years I've been posting on this forum, despite being insulted and attacked on several occasions. I'm a mature adult who doesn't allow petty insults to bother me. But, I have never insulted you despite your claims. I never said you needed a psychiatrist or that you were senile. All I did was offer you the chance to ask for some emotional support if you needed it, since many of your posts seemed as if you might be very distressed for some reason. That was an act of concern, not an insult. I have never put anyone on ignore either because to me that is petty and I can always scroll over a post that I find too long etc.

You are the one who has insulted many posters in this thread, and claimed that we hate you. I don't hate you or anyone for that matter. I don't even hate our deranged dangerous president, who is obviously mentally ill. He reminds me of one of my delusional former patients who believed she was a queen, but she was harmless since she was in an assisted living facility not in charge of a powerful country. Nobody with such serious delusions who believes he is a king, should be in that position. And no, I'm not comparing you to him, so don't pretend I am.

You have called me a "wolf in sheep's clothing", a pretend atheist among other things. Those are insults, but I can take it. I'm openly atheist so I'm used to people telling me I'm going to hell or that they are praying for me. Still, I don't hate them because I see them as victims of severe indoctrination, just like my late mother and father were. I don't hold grudges. In fact, two of the most insulting Christians who have attacked me irl, are now friendly acquaintances, which is how it should be imo.

I identify and am a member of the American Humanist Society. it's a very idealistic philosophy, so it's not always easy to live up to such standards. Despite the fact that it's idealistic, I like the idea that "love conquers all" or as the Beatles sang during my youth, "Love is all we Need."

We have given you evidence that dogs evolved to be our companions and that they love us. We could learn a lot from dogs, as they don't carry grudges and are probably the most forgiving species on the planet. Despite all of that, you continue to make false claims about dogs. That is very frustrating for those of us who know better. In fact, if we were more like dogs, the world would be a better place.

They also know how to manipulate us, usually in good ways. When my dog Kiki died, I went to the shelter looking for a new companion. We were ready to leave as we hoped to find a smaller dog and the dogs were all barking and upset. But the volunteer asked me not to leave yet. She brought Sunny to me. Sunny quietly slipped on to my lap, looked at me with her beautiful brown eyes as if to tell me that I was not leaving without her and that she knew she would be given a good home with us. I couldn't resist her. She knew exactly how to win me over. Now she's been with us for over a year, and she's part of our family.

I agree with ideology hunter that dogs aren't fussy about their food, but my spoiled fur kids get 3 different flavors of wet food mixed in with a little bit of dry food. Plus they get dessert every night. it consists of veggies, sometimes a little bit of rice, and if we had meat for dinner, a bit of that. If we have a vegan supper, they enjoy a tiny bit of fancy canned dog food. Yes. They are spoiled and they love every minute of their lives with us.

It's just sad that they have such short lives.

 

[steve_bank]

Feral p[et cats are a real hazard to bird populations. Feral cats act like theirr big cousins. Feral dogs form packs and figure out how to get food.

Where I live, the feral cats are, periodically, a real problem. They go after the bird population, they scavenge, etc. The wild dogs (we have coyotes too, and sometimes I'm not sure of the difference) go after garbage and targets of opportunity, which often means domesticated pets that they encounter. They typically are malnourished, crawling with parasites, and disease ridden. Bad situation, and very little public funding to address the problem.

Around here hungry coyotes are a threat to adults and kids. Recently one had a kid in its jaws. Not often but encounters happen.

Bears in yards are not uncommon and occasionally cougars are sighted.

Dramatic reporting in the news and scared people.

 

[pood]

It's just sad that they have such short lives.

It is sad. My friend had a toy poodle, Rascal, that lived all the way to 19. I believe toy poodles are among the longest-living dog breeds. When she was about 17, she went blind from cataracts, but my friend paid for an expensive operation to remove them so she could see again even though he knew she didn’t have much longer to live. The drawing I made for my avatar is Rascal as a supernatural demon doggie, based on the horse at the center of Picasso’s Guernica. I call it the poodle of Guernica.

 

[steve_bank]

Started a science thread on domestication.

 

[Elixir]

We are ALL dependent on others.

Except libertarians - they are fiercely independent, and rely on nothing and nobody.

he just ignores all this as inconvenient to his own argument. He rants against theists, but he employs the same fact-ignoring, telos-biased magical thinking that they do.

... and with an apparently total lack of self awareness.

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

There is ample evidence for the delusion that Ram--- ascribes to "religionists". Trying to pin it on hard atheists is a very curious... uh ... tactic?

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.

I don't know that there's an actual position there needing revision. Could simply be a bad habit of making poorly based summary judgments about others' relationship to that (possible) position.

 

[Elixir]

I realize I am not going to get an unbiased view from you

If you'll permit a 'personal' question, from whom do you expect an unbiased view?
The determination of what is or is not biased is one thing, the other is the question of managing expectations.