FOAK: Dog training and 'shock' collars

Well I've only got one (and it's staying that way), but as she lives without
fear I'm pretty sure she'll get her knee down before me.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Minced beef with mashed tatties; shepherd's pie.

 

Aint that the truth.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

I'll try and make it a bit clearer - you cannot protect a moral if you
are perfectly willing to break said moral in the process - see?

You cannot deny a species the facility to reproduce without imposing
your own will on that species. So in order to protect our morality we
would simply have to stop caring for them - thousands would die and
you've just contradicted yourself by saying that keeping animals for
life-preserving purposes would be OK.

Are you telling me you cannot see a contradiction here?

Secondly if you feel strong enough about usung animals for our own
puposes then you wouldn't be buying animal produce. Or would keeping
produce animals in order to satisfy your lifestyle be OK?

A bird in a bush is worth two on the bed.

 

"for walks"?

Hmm.

 

<fx: licks Nina in friendly fashion>

 

Eh?!!!!!!!!!!

We _already_ deny species the facility to reproduce. We cut their nuts off
and remove their ovaries. We breed them to be unable to reproduce. Etc.

You did know this, didn't you?

Yeah that would be fine. I'm happy with eating them. The point for the 756th
time is:

Humans' Motivation for Keeping Animals as Pets.

Not for food, I understand that- same with clothing. I'm talking about the
need for animal companionship and the associated anthropomorphisising that
occurs in expectation, projecting human morality and justification. It's all
bullshit and this is what I want to discuss. NOT animal welfare and not my
hypocritical burger-addiction.

 

Phil Launchbury wrote

Disagree most strongly. I suppose you would have to put a label of
degree on sapient to gain a consensus but that they conscious is in no
doubt.

 

My immediate thought was 'Down boy' then I realised the implications.
Next thought was slapping you with a rolled up newspaper - again, not
good.

So it's off to the vet with you. It's a kindness really at your age.

 

Woof woof!

<Innocent big brown trusting eyes>

 

Oh all right then, I'll let you live, I'll just get the vet to neuter
you.

 

Being a fan of the repetive 'why' technique myself, I found the reply
'Because God told me to' gives pause for thought.

 

*snigger*

 

Look well with those eyes, little Champydog.

That ironbound oaken door in front of you is the entrance to my
killfile. It's quite crowded in there at the moment, you'd have lots
of little friends to talk to. I don't expect you'd like it much,
though.

 

I've found that asking them back "Why what?" often makes them realise
they're not actually listening and have just beem asking "why?" for no
reason. Then they shut up.

 

Crikey - a little bit of a game with the girls and you go all
killfiley on me. And, what with the recently imposed toll on
discussing a certain island - what would you have me talk about?

 

Champ wrote

Not all of us. Some of us think you are a hero and read everything you
write.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

It's not a 'need' it's a desire. And there's no less justification in
keeping pets because you enjoy it than there is with any other activity.

I enjoy keeping and training a dog. If welfare is not your point then
explain why you take exception to my enjoyment in pet-keeping.