No One Sees You Like Your Dog Does

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:32 pm

You got that right! They're too bitter and angry even for me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:52 pm

SnoozeAgain;1382134 wrote: You got that right! They're too bitter and angry even for me. When-ever I go there, they seem to be continually talking about Inserting objects Into each others rectums.... It's just not British.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:31 pm

along-for-the-ride;1381319 wrote:

showed this to my wife. No sense of humour whatsoever. I'm in the doghouse

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:07 pm

gmc;1382166 wrote: showed this to my wife. No sense of humour whatsoever. I'm in the doghouse

Quick ... get her a dog like Harvey and she'll forgive you!!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:46 pm

tabby;1382642 wrote:

Quick ... get her a dog like Harvey and she'll forgive you!!

Definitely no sense of humour

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:36 am

Bryn Mawr;1382101 wrote: Consider, if you will, the domesticated animals and their wild counterparts :-

for the cow you have the auroch and the bison - one extinct and the other on the verge

for the pig you have the boar - on the edge

for the dog you have the wolf - slowly making a comeback but see the various threads on this site as to their status

for the cat you have the lion, tiger, etc - mostly endangered

and so it goes on. Is domestication slavery or is it symbiosis? Is the benefit all to man or is it of benefit to both?

Up until recently dogs and cats worked hard for their keep and were kept for their work - slaves? No, employees because they gained a significant advantage through the relationship.

Now? They retain the advantages without having to do the work.Sorry, but i don't see the connection (if you're making one) with regards to the first half of this post and the second half. If you'd care to clarify it for me I'd be grateful.

If a symbiotic relationship exists then wouldn't it need to be mutual? I don't see any agreement between humans and other animals. I know some would make the argument that they appear happy and therefore can't be otherwise. I'd say that that is naive and demonstrates a lack of empathy.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:51 am

Ahso!;1383171 wrote: Sorry, but i don't see the connection (if you're making one) with regards to the first half of this post and the second half. If you'd care to clarify it for me I'd be grateful.

If a symbiotic relationship exists then wouldn't it need to be mutual? I don't see any agreement between humans and other animals. I know some would make the argument that they appear happy and therefore can't be otherwise. I'd say that that is naive and demonstrates a lack of empathy.

...

Attached files

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:44 pm

Ahso!;1383171 wrote: Sorry, but i don't see the connection (if you're making one) with regards to the first half of this post and the second half. If you'd care to clarify it for me I'd be grateful.

If a symbiotic relationship exists then wouldn't it need to be mutual? I don't see any agreement between humans and other animals. I know some would make the argument that they appear happy and therefore can't be otherwise. I'd say that that is naive and demonstrates a lack of empathy.

As far as I know, animals don't sign contracts. For a relationship to be symbiotic it needs to be of benefit to both parties, not the subject of an agreement. The point I was making is that the partnership is of benefit to the domesticated animals on the species level, not necessarily on the individual level. I'd say that your argument is short sighted.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:31 pm

Bryn Mawr;1383211 wrote: As far as I know, animals don't sign contracts. For a relationship to be symbiotic it needs to be of benefit to both parties, not the subject of an agreement. The point I was making is that the partnership is of benefit to the domesticated animals on the species level, not necessarily on the individual level. I'd say that your argument is short sighted.When artificial selection displaces Natural Selection that is not mutual existence. Humans rob and control other species of their natural purpose of self survival and most importantly to reproduce naturally. That is not symbiotic, in fact, it is slavery. Eugenics?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:44 pm

Ahso!;1383216 wrote: When artificial selection displaces Natural Selection that is not mutual existence. Humans rob and control other species of their natural purpose of self survival and most importantly to reproduce naturally. That is not symbiotic, in fact, it is slavery. Eugenics?

Care to show me any documented evidence of wild, natural dogs In England pre designer dog ?

Would you also care to explain why there has never been any hybrid of wolf/Fox/Wild dog In England?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:53 pm

My little female was a feral kitten... no designer breeding involved. I got my male cat from a rescue group that saved him from euthanasia in a county shelter. I fail to see how living with me is worth than death.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:06 pm

SnoozeAgain;1383221 wrote: My little female was a feral kitten... no designer breeding involved. I got my male cat from a rescue group that saved him from euthanasia in a county shelter. I fail to see how living with me is worth than death.

Here In the UK, when building work Is about to be carried out, animal charities are given a certain amount of time to rid the site of feral cat colonies. Any left, can be gassed by the authorities. The problem with Feral cats Is that they can live In underground cavities.

I have a wonderful friend In Brighton who for 30 years has tirelessly gone out to sites to trap and re-locate feral cats before the gas Is used. She also goes and traps ferals, sedates them, the vet neuters them and then they are released back where they come from.

I was at her house one day and there was this tiny little feral kitten aged approx 4 weeks old. His entire pack had been gassed and he was the only survivor. I took him home and called him 'Caspar'. Up to about a year old, he was quite amiable until his wild Instincts kicked In. He lasted 14 years living under my verranda In my old house..... Got some pics of him somewhere...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:22 pm

Ahso!;1383216 wrote: When artificial selection displaces Natural Selection that is not mutual existence. Humans rob and control other species of their natural purpose of self survival and most importantly to reproduce naturally. That is not symbiotic, in fact, it is slavery. Eugenics?

That is one opinion - not one that I share but ...

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:25 pm

Bryn Mawr;1383225 wrote: That is one opinion - not one that I share but ...I can't see why not. Organisms want to survive and reproduce, don't they?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:27 pm

Ahso!;1383227 wrote: I can't see why not. Organisms want to survive and reproduce, don't they?

Kind of difficult to do that if they're extinct (see my original post).

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:30 pm

Bryn Mawr;1383228 wrote: Kind of difficult to do that if they're extinct (see my original post).At least extinction would be the result of natural selection. You appears to say that pets are self aware and agree to this co-existence and that's simply not the case. Permit natural selection to run its course, that's all I'm saying. Controlling every aspect of species' existence is slavery, pure and simple.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:34 pm

Ahso!;1383229 wrote: At least extinction would be the result of natural selection. You appears to say that pets are self aware and agree to this co-existence and that's simply not the case. Permit natural selection take its course, that's all I'm saying. Controlling every aspect of species' existence is slavery, pure and simple.

Where do I say that? On the contrary I say that animals cannot sign agreements.

Better for the species to survive as a comanion to man that for it to be extinct as a competitor.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:35 pm

Ahso!;1383229 wrote: At least extinction would be the result of natural selection. You appears to say that pets are self aware and agree to this co-existence and that's simply not the case. Permit natural selection take its course, that's all I'm saying. Controlling every aspect of species' existence is slavery, pure and simple.

Slavery ??? Hmmmmm

OK.... I go Into the heart of the Gloucestershire countryside ( nothing but fields and tree's for miles ) and I unleash my dog. He runs off Into the distance although every now and then, he turns around to make sure I'm still behind him.

If he's a slave, he has every opportunity to keep running and set up home In the wild without me.

He chooses to continue to check that I am still behind him. If I stop to light a cigg, he stops. If another human being approaches me, he runs back to me and barrs his teeth at the stranger.

Slavery eh ?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:44 pm

Bryn Mawr;1383230 wrote: Where do I say that? On the contrary I say that animals cannot sign agreements.

Better for the species to survive as a comanion to man that for it to be extinct as a competitor.There, you did it again. These animals are not aware that they exist for the companionship to man and you're suggesting they know what's going on with them. They don't. Their natural instincts and purpose, their only natural reasons for existence has been taken from them. These animals have been altered by humans over time. They exist to serve the needs of humans - that's slavery.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:48 pm

Ahso!;1383233 wrote: There, you did it again. These animals are not aware that they exist for the companionship to man and you're suggesting they know what's going on with them. They don't. Their natural instincts and purpose, their only natural reasons for existence, has been taken from them. These animals have been altered by humans over time. They exist to serve the needs of humans - that's slavery.

How on Earth do you get the one from the other?

How does my expressing an opinion about the situation equate to me suggesting that the animals are aware of that situation?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:49 pm

Here she is:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:52 pm

SnoozeAgain;1383235 wrote: Here she is:

Awwwwwwwww She's beautiful !!!!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:55 pm

Ahso!;1383233 wrote: There, you did it again. These animals are not aware that they exist for the companionship to man and you're suggesting they know what's going on with them. They don't. Their natural instincts and purpose, their only natural reasons for existence has been taken from them. These animals have been altered by humans over time. They exist to serve the needs of humans - that's slavery.

You are wrong on all levels.....

While It Is true most dogs will display traits to their breed, as an example, why do all dogs roll In cow poo ? Simply because the animals they originated from, the wolf, uses the tactic to disguise his smell from his prey.... How ever much you Interbreed a designer dog, those basic Instincts are still there.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:21 pm

Bryn Mawr;1383234 wrote: How on Earth do you get the one from the other?

How does my expressing an opinion about the situation equate to me suggesting that the animals are aware of that situation?I'm fully aware you're smart enough to know the difference. An example of symbiosis would be two species' mutual existence without interference from the other. The opposite is true of pets and humans, there's no mutual existence unless the dog, cat or whatever is bred for the sole purpose of living as the human decides. It's a life but it's a slaves life. If you want to say this is, by extension, evolutionary, go ahead.

Again, the definition of slavery:

Slavery Slav"er*y, n.; pl. Slaveries. [See 2d Slave.]

1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection

of one person to the will of another.

[1913 Webster]

Other than the fact that a pet is not human, where does a pet's life not fit that definition?

Post by **Chloe_88** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:32 pm

ohh cute vid! I don't have a dog, but I must say my cats come to greet me every morning when i wake up.. they seem to love all the attention.. It does piss hubby off sometimes that the cats get more attention and better dinner then we do.. Cats had home made chicken stew today and we had supermarket pizza! If anyone is a slave to anybody, it would be me to my 4 fur babies!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:52 pm

Chloe_88;1383243 wrote: ohh cute vid! I don't have a dog, but I must say my cats come to greet me every morning when i wake up.. they seem to love all the attention.. It does piss hubby off sometimes that the cats get more attention and better dinner then we do.. Cats had home made chicken stew today and we had supermarket pizza! If anyone is a slave to anybody, it would be me to my 4 fur babies!

I agree.

When you look at relationships between cats or dogs and humans, I think the cat or dog knows exactly how to manipulate you. I find the theory of them being a slave to us almost laughable.

Example... My Persian Cat, Oscar gets fed on demand...

Sometimes, he wanders out to the kitchen and meows for food and If I'm In the middle of something, I will Ignore his cries and I decide I will give him some food but as soon as I finish what I'm doing.

However, he knows..... he bloody well knows... To get me to cease what I am doing Immediately and run to the kitchen, he will do the one thing I hate.... jump on the work surfaces..... who's the slave In that scenario ? :wah:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:14 am

Ahso!;1383241 wrote: I'm fully aware you're smart enough to know the difference. An example of symbiosis would be two species' mutual existence without interference from the other. The opposite is true of pets and humans, there's no mutual existence unless the dog, cat or whatever is bred for the sole purpose of living as the human decides. It's a life but it's a slaves life. If you want to say this is, by extension, evolutionary, go ahead.

Again, the definition of slavery:

Slavery Slav"er*y, n.; pl. Slaveries. [See 2d Slave.]

1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection

of one person to the will of another.

[1913 Webster]

Other than the fact that a pet is not human, where does a pet's life not fit that definition?

That is one opinion - not one that I share but ...