FOAK: Dog training and 'shock' collars

No, as I said: Fish are just decoration. Spiders and snakes can be
macho/social alienation devices. Giraffes are Sir
Not-appearing-in-this-story. And Jack Fuckery alone knows why people keep
birds.

It's the issue when it's used as an excuse or reason, ie, "We look after
them". "Well stop chopping their nuts off and throttling them with a choke
chain then"

 

Of which what percentage exist in your opinion? My obviously-flawed guess at
the opinion of a perfectly adjusted human being would be to let animals live
or die as "nature" intended in their own environment. Why do otherwise?

Life isn't fair. And facing up to our own flaws and inadequacies is not
something we're particularly good at.

Yes: Speeding? Riding near our limits? Not being terribly considerate to
other road users? I would think that anyone with a brain would appreciate
the inherently anti-social and potentially dangerous aspects of it. Does
that make me a hypocrite? Possibly. Is it a justification for owning
animals? No.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Ah, I was misunderstanding you as saying that pet ownership is
inherently bad or immoral.

But do you acknowledge that animal training or conditioning is primarily
in order to maintain the well being of animals?

I feel that it is also the case, especially in dogs, they enjoy the
attention given to them when being trained or worked.

 

I thought it was primarily to make them do what we want to suits our
circumstances.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

I wouldn't really know what criteria to use for a definition. However,
it is apparent that anyone who uses any sort of farmed animal produce
does not comply with your criteria since those animals are not left to
nature.

The alternative is for us to suffer the loss of all types of animal
produce. To take it a step further - should we, as a race destroy all
material gained through the use of animals based on the principle?

What pyscological comfort blanket is the bike rider fulfilling by riding
a bike[1]? - This is what I'm getting at.

Why does a rider ride a bike? What aspect of their phycological make-up
is missing if they choose not to?

[1] Bearing in mind the fact that obviously not all bike riders are
anti-social 2 wheeled hooligans (ukrm not withstanding).

 

Champ

Well, I think it could be construed as being important for their well-
being, as otherwise they are starved, get a hiding, or a punch on the
nose.

 

Champ left a note on my windscreen which said:

In the cases of basic training principles it's usually to maintain the
saftey of the animal. Horses, cattle etc are conditioned to electic
fencing in an effort to prevent them wandering onto motorways.

You train your dog to recall in case they wander toward a road or
dangerous area.

 

I'm not sure what's giving me the stamina to keep going with this, I think
it's your blatantly unconfrontational manner.

Farmed animals DO comply with my criteria (sic). The motive for farming
animals is to feed and clothe us. Yes, there are viable substitutes that the
sharper end of the animal-welfare brigade ahere to (vegans and veggies) but
at least there is a product, which I can understand; in fact, if it was made
law not to use animals for food or clothing you wouldn't hear a peep from me
and I would consider it a natural step in our evolution. Pet ownership,
however, serves only (imo) to perpetuate and reinforce a fictional
relationship between man and animal that is in neither party's interests for
previously- and extensively argued- reasons.

IOW, I would kill and skin an animal for food and clothing but I wouldn't
enslave it to keep me company because I was lonely or my girlfriend dumped
me or I really wanted to look after babies.

 

The point is why do YOU enjoy training and working them. But we covered that
in a previous post and you weren't inclined to follow it up.

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

There's one question that's been bugging me this whole thread... who are
you and what have you done with the funny Porl?

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Phil Launchbury

Sheer survival. When times get hard you can eat the cat.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

That's what I've already asked. Something has happened and we can't
explain what...

--
Cab :^) - almost as fast as G.i.n.g.e.
GSX 1400 - 'Tarts Handbag' (tm) Bike, dead 550/4 Rat
UKRMMA#10 (KoTL), IbW#015, Bob#4, POTM#3

email addy : cab_dot_ukrm_at_rosbif_dot_org

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

I can honestly say it's not intentional.

The relationship between pet and man isn't fictional. Artificial
perhaps but people do develop bonds to their pets. On another point
working animals - guide dogs, police dogs etc. don't comply with your
criteria (not sure what the sic was for) since there is an end product -
enhance quality of life for us, save lives, prevent crime etc. Yet I
belive it was you earlier in this thread who included guide dogs in your
anti-pet argument.

Yes, but why not. If not about animal welfare or slavery - what is it
that makes it inherently bad IYO?

 

And? So you (in your infinite wisdom) have decided that the people who
(for whatever reason) can't or won't sustain a myriad of human-human
interactions have no chance to find some companionship with an animal..

I know - I think I'll ban bikes because people who ride them are
obviously social inadequates who have to form a relationship with an
inanimate chunck of metal due to their inability to derive pleasure
from human interaction.

[1] I haven't. I just disagree.
[2] Because it is real. There are people who prefer the company of
animals to people.

Why is it irrelevent?

It certainly is not meaningless - both are sypmtoms of inadequacy (for
the purposes of this argument anyway). Both stem from the same thing -
the desire for acceptance or the inability to interact with people on a
mature basis.

You despise people who seek acceptance with animals, I despise people
who seek acceptance with a bottle. Both are entirely subjective and
both are 'abnormal'[1].

If you really really can't see the congruence between the two then I
would suggest that you are not thinking about the reasons we do things
deeply enough[2]

Phil.

[1] In the sense of not conforming to the norm..
[2] This is irony OK? Just in case your irony detecter is broken..

 

Because both are artifacts of our upbringing and environment. And
seeing one as irrational while claiming the other as entirely rational
is of itself irrational.

I don't have a problem with you despising pet owners (apart from the
usual anguish from the approval addict parts of my psyche) but I would
be happier if I know you realised that your attitude is as subjective
and irrational as my despising drunks..

Phil

 

Because killing for food and clothing is natural, and keeping pets is
a human construct.

That is all.

 

I'm sure they can, especially those woth an unhealthy capacity for
self-deception. As someone who accepts something as crutchlike as the bible
it doesn't surprise me at all to find you're uncomfortable with another of
"our" classic emotional supports. In fact, any other stance would probably
be seen a hypocritical.

Hmm..I think that's a different issue. But I'm with you on banning people
who actually have a relationship with their bikes. That's just wrong.

I know. This is what the conversation's about.

It's irrelevant to this argument. It illustrates nothing new and I pretty
much agree with you in general.

I don't despise anyone for either of those things. I'm ambivalent. I just
wish people would face up to and accept the reasons behind what they do
instead of rationalising it with "It loves me back". It's the lies that get
to me.

It's almost a religion ffs PFCT;

 

Who said the other was rational? I've never advocated either. If you're
asking me to comapre and contrast them for the hell of it then my answer is
no. I don't have the time and I think it is fruitless.

I think you're incapable of understanding my point. I don't despise anyone,
I just advocate a degree of self-awareness of the motive. If this is
understaken then the pet owners can despise themselves.

 

[suspicious mode]

Let's just say you won, ok?

[/sm]