FOAK: Dog training and 'shock' collars

" "

 

porl bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along the
lines of:

Phew. I was getting worried for a moment, when you started to be all
serious like.

 

HE'S ALWAYS SERIOUS. GETS RIGHT ON MY TIT END.

 

See this? This is me not caring..

Let me remind you of the difference between intelligence and capacity
for abstract thought.

Ah - so it was a broad generalisation which you then proceeded to apply
in the specific. Just so I know where you are coming from..

Agreed. And now to go on to the meat of your arguement - you argue that
we should no longer keep pets but should instead learn to relate to
other people and not to oppress other species.

And I would argue that your arguement is a load of cobblers because it
fails to take into account one small but vital point - namely people
don't all think the same. Some people don't want 'relationships' with
other people becuase they can't handle a complex human-human
relationship. And in your brave new petless world they would become
utter loners - unable to sustain human interactions except at a basic
level but unable to find any other interaction that they can maintain.

(Oh - and also one other point - said domesticated pets don't see it as
slavery. You are projecting *your* feelings onto them. Which is exactly
what you accuse pet owners of doing..)

And again you utterly missed the point that I made about drunkenness -
I find it sad that people have to damamge themselves in order to seek
oblivion. However that doesn't mean I would want to ban alcohol - or
that I would take a stance of condemning those who do go out and get
drunk every Friday night..

Besides which - what is the functional difference between you saying "I
find it sad what humans have to do..." and me saying "thats a sad
comment on your life"? Both statements apply to you equally (as long as
you class yourself as a human!)

Phil

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Sorry, I'll revert back to your pre-defined 'phsycology' level for your
convenience.

Can I just ask, why do you enjoy riding a bike?

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

In an effort to understand what point you are trying to make here I've
posed a question in another branch of this thread.

 

Actually - "want" is one of the primary human drives..

We "want" to form relationships. We "want" a new shiny car. We "want to
feel loved and appreciated. We "want" to attract a suitable mate.

Most of our "wants" have clear biological roots. The pet-keeping
"wants" fulfill a number of criteria (the desire for companionship when
no suitable human companion is available, the desire to be loved, the
desire for control etc etc).

And all those wants fulfill needs. Whether those needs are biological
necessities (food, sleep etc - stuff that you would die without) or
culturally acquired (I want a shiny motorbike, I want a mate who is
sympathetic) is to a certain extent immaterial.

Because it is enjoyable? Because it fulfils a need? Just because you
don't have the 'need' that is fulfiled by owning a pet doesn't make it
any less valid for others. Just like I don't have the need to go and
get drunk doesn't mean that others don't have that need.

Phil.

 

Ah - nice straw man. Where is your proof that "it is basically
rubbish"? Or is it just an unfounded assertion that you have decided to
present as fact?

Which (contradictory) branch of psycology are we talking about?
Freudian? Jungian? Modern?

So which psycological catalyst do you think keeping pets is driven by?

Phil

 

Actually- "drive" is not synonymous with "reason".

It's not the biological roots that are interesting it's the psychological
aspect.

....if you don't want to understand what's going on, sure. I don't need to
understand why I'm hungry to eat food. However if I was 16 stone I might
want to look at the desire to eat food constantly. If I was a religious nut
it might be beneficial to look at why I felt so unfulfilled that I had to
subscribe to some archaic whcky bullshit to get by.

And just because I see things in a different way doesn't mean I don't have a
need that could be fulfilled by a pet. I choose, however, not to displace
those feelings onto a comfort sack.

 

No, it's you missing the point. Maybe it's one and the same.

Go on then. Follow it up with an actual point to make it easy for me.

LOL boohoo. THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. Breeding and owning animals, dominating
their lives, creating what amounts to obedient brain-washed comfort bags
because of an inability to get on with their own kind. That's what I've been
saying! So [1] How can you have missed it and [2] Why on earth do you think
it works as a counter to my argument?

No I'm not. I've no doubt the dogs don't see themselves as slaves. That is
irrelevant. Institutionalisation is one example for one of how prison can
not seem like prison and I'm sure there are many more, including being a
fucking thick-brained dog. Doesn't make any difference to what we're doing
though.

Yeah I did miss that point. But it's meaningless, why say it? To show how
balanced you are so your opinions must be amazing? Maybe it's not as
important to you? Maybe a million things.

Oh I see. In that case *You* are.

 

Fine. I have no problem with that. I still don't see why bringing up another
example helps to sort this one out. We might as well ask about the need to
go out and get hammered every night and start fights. I still wouldn't
accept "Because I want to" as a useful reason.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

[snip]

Have you killfiled me or just ignoring?

 

Neither. S'up?

 

Stoneskin says...

I'd go with the latter. I'm not bothered about joining in the argument,
on either side, but it seems clear, to me, what Porl is saying. You,
however, seem to incapable of understanding what is being said and keep
answering questions that are not being asked.

Now answering unasked questions is not a bad thing, but the inability to
answer, or even see, the plainly asked questions does indicate that it
may be you that is at fault.

I thought about attempting to rephrase the question in an attempt to
make it easier for you to grasp, but I couldn't find a way of doing it
more clearly that Porl already has.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Just that you didn't respond to my question why you enjoy riding a bike.

I wondered if you had got fed up of me not being able to see your point
and had given it up as a lost cause.

 

No I'd forgotten. And I felt I'd already answered it the last time I was
asked by either you or Phil.

 

MattG left a note on my windscreen which said:

It wouldn't surprise me.

To be honest I think I do understand what porl is saying, i.e. that
keeping a pet is some sort of comfort blanket for repressed
phsycological reasons. And what he is saying is that prospective pet-
owners should look at the phycological reasoning behind owning a pet.

The idea I'm trying to get across is the case for owning a pet, or
indeed any possession given that animal welfare/slavery is not the
issue, in perfectly adjusted human beings.

I cannot help but feel that if welfare is not the issue then the pet is
rendered as any other possession. It doesn't seem fair to pet owners to
assume they are somehow socially inept for the possesion of something
which brings them enjoyment/comfort as porl's argument seems to suggest
- which is why I brought up the question regarding the explaination of
bike riding enjoyment. Can we just as easily extrapolate an 'accurate'
view on the physcological 'flaws' present in pleasure bike riders?

I can honestly say I've attempted to address porl's questions to the
best of my ability and I accept that it may be my comprehension at
fault.

Could you tell me to which question in particular you are referring to?

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

The issue I'm trying to prod at is the case of possession. Are all
possessions designed for enjoyment or entertainment considered to be
some sort of comfort blanket?

If the answer is no then is it justified to consider all cases of pet
ownership comfort blankets?

I know the critical difference is the fact that a pet is a living being
but I cannot help but feel that this point regards the welfare or
slavery of the animal which, as you indicate, is not the issue at hand.