FOAK: Dog training and 'shock' collars

I'm losing my bloody marbles

But they're only the I-RS shurely?

 

YES. BUT I HAVEN'T ADVOCATED GETTING DRUNK YTC.

No, I think your point is rubbish. Stoney's been more coherent than you.
Maybe you've got a hidden agenda.

Well why don't you share it instead of pumping out this sneering, smug stuff
you're locked into at the moment?

Maybe. I'm just surprised you're so averse to self analysis on any level.
Does your religion tell you we're all programmed with a divine sense of
morality or something? Or that everything we do is "ok" so don't worry about
it? Doesn't leave much room for self-improvement, does it?

And free will just means doing whatever you like without thinking about why,
does it? Awesome religion you got there maaaan!

 

I not sure I'm not being trolled.

 

The irony ;-)

 

Champ left a note on my windscreen which said:

Yes and, given half a chance, yes. When anyone came to visit he was
always put on-lead for safety.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Asking me about my reasons for keeping a pet. I know it wasn't
constructed as a question but I took it as requiring a response.

 

Porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Not trolling. And (I think) I understand your point but I just don't
agree with it.

 

Well - we are a sensitive little flower today hmm? FYI - the only thing
that could be construed as 'personal' that I have said was the "it's a
sad reflection" bit..

If you can't handle the fact that someone disagrees with you and is
prepared to argue then I suggest you stick to humour..

So you don't mind one (allegedly) destructive thing but rail against
another?

"In their own mind". You have heard of people ascribing personalities
and names to their bikes? What else is that but an attempt to 'have a
relationship'? Of course it's not limited to bikes - people do it to
all sorts of inanimate objects and machinery.

"What I hope to gain" is your realisation that your attitude to pets is
a *subjective* one and thus not necessarily rational. Especially as
others have used the same information as you in their cogitations and
come to an entirely different view..

And the key word is "sometimes". You admit that you don't analyse all
your likes and dislikes and then fulminate against others because they
don't analyse their like of pets.

Do you not see some sort of disconnect there?

Nope. Self-deception is an active process. I'm describing a passive
one.

Twasn't me who introduced it. Read your own words..

Phil

 

So implying that I require a mental crutch like religion because of my
inability to cope isn't a personal attack?

Bizarre..

You mean like Porl implying that I'm irrational enough to need
'something as crutchlike as religion'?

Phil

 

Really? What was the 'point' of this pet?

 

AND I NEVER SAID YOU DID!

Maybe you just don't understand what I'm saying...

Ah paranioa. Thats always a good one..

I'm not averse to it. In fact I think it a very good thing. I just
happen to realise that other people think differently to me and are
equally valid people who just happen to be different. And I don't
imagine that people are somewho lesser beings because they differ from
me.

Nope. Far from it. Human beings (in the main) are beings who are
programmed to seek their own welfare before that of others. And that
civilisation comes in part from subordingating that selfish desire to
seek the good of others.

Err.. no. But I'm sure you know that.

Phil

 

Champ left a note on my windscreen which said:

The point of owning a pet is what porl and I are trying to discuss. In
this particular branch of the discussion it is beside the point since
your assertion was that a disobidient dog would not remain a loved pet -
not the relationship between pet and owner.

IME your assertion is incorrect.

 

No it isn't, but I'm not going to list them. It's a tad tiresome.

But you're not, Phil. Instead of addressing anything pertiment you've come
in at every angle BUT what we're talking about. I'm surprised you haven't
stuck some typo jibes in as well.

Again, who said I don't mind it?

LOL. Is that _seriously_ the best you could come up with?

I do realise it's subjective. I think I've presented my view rationally.
What's your point?

And I've also said before that it was impossible to analyse everything and
that's why it's best to stick with the subject in hand. Something you're
refusing, or unable, to do. If you'd followed the thread you'd have read
that and I wouldn't have to repeat myself yet again.

Good for you. Helpful as always.

Er... I know. It's why I asked the question.

 

Nor do I. So what is there left to discuss if we're to just accept
everyone's differences without question? Stoney actually seems to want to
discuss this subject. Shouldn't you respect his wishes and just let him do
that?

 

Think of it like this: I've been asking you why you like cheese because it's
curdled milk and I can't understand it. You say you like it, I ask why. You
say lots of people like cheese. And I say "But you're not telling me why".
[1] You say you like cheese and that's it. I say "Well what's the point of
discussing it". You say What? Are you asking me why I like cheese?

[1] Phil jumps in and says "How dare you ask someone why they like cheese!
You're contravening Human Rights laws."

 

You may be right. I've certainly not known anyone who keeps a
disobedient dog that shits in the house and has to be restrained from
biting visitors as a pet. But that's beside the point - I *thought* I
understood why people kept pets (basically agreeing with Porl's
point), but in the above instance I can't see why they owners did.
But as you say they did, then they're motivations must be even more
difficult to understand.

From a personal note, I like cats. I kid myself that I like them cos
they're independent, amusing, etc, but I'm sure I'm at least as guilty
of the anthromorphism that Porl describes elsewhere. But at least I
understand *why* I do it. And with cats you don't have the fascists
"sit, lie down, roll over, play dead" crap that owners put dogs
through.

 

Ah. The old "I've accused you of something but I can't be bothered to
prove it" ploy.

To quote your words: "I'm not sure that you can understand what I'm
saying".

Hint: I'm disagreeing with you and presenting my reasons.

I don't do typo jibes..

That I disagree. And I present my reasons.

I'm sorry - which part of the above do you not understand?

And we go round in circles again[1] - you seem to imply that you have
an issue with lies ("it's the lies that upset me" - or words to that
effect). Then you say "whats the big issue with lies?".

<Shrug>

Phil

[1] I'm beginning to think this is a long extended troll. If so then
it's a good one..

 

As did I at the beginning. I'm heartily beginning to regret it now..
And no - questioning why we do things is always a good thing. I just
don't expect everyone to do it in quite the way you or I do.

Am I stopping him?

Phil

 

Um - not quite what I was saying but never mind. I'm sure you have
convinced yourself..

Phil