FOAK: Dog training and 'shock' collars

Whatever.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

I already answered the question;

"For me, I don't really know. Perhaps it's because I've always been
around animals it's a sense of the familiar perhaps. Maybe it's just an
excuse to get off my lazy arse."

For other people they may want companionship, a show dog, a working dog,
a hobby - I don't know. What I've been asking you is how you've weighed
up all the reasoning behind why people own pets and come to the
conclusion it's inherently a bad thing which should be addressed
directly rather than use a pet as a 'comfort blanket'?

Secondly could I ask if you now classify working pets such as guide-dogs
equally as 'comfort blankets' since you included guide dogs specifically
when you were using slavery as your debating tool?

 

Champ left a note on my windscreen which said:

Purely from a enjoyment-motivation-need-physcological viewpoint I do see
Porls point. The issue I'm not in agreement with is that Porl appears
to see this as some sort of 'bad' pshycological deficiency which should
be addressed in alternative ways where I see owning a pet as a perfectly
acceptable and natural way of addressing it.

/pokes hornet's nest/

Ah - but dogs enjoy it...

/phn/

 

Well I can't properly weigh it up with data to consider like "For me, I
don't really know", can I? It's kinda fundamental to the whole argument and
pretty much ends at that as far as I can see. I've been posting realms to
find the answer to "why" and if there is none forthcoming then that's it.

I've already said not all animals are "comfort blankets", citing examples of
fish and other animals but with the caveat that they fulfill an equally
selfish need. Blind dogs are eyes for blind people. Lucky blind people,
unlucky dogs.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

You can use the 'sense of the familiar' or the excuse 'for me to do
something once in a while' if you like.

As you said - you would kill an animal for food or clothing. Using
animals to our own end is something both you and I appear to support.

If we acknowledge that the use of animals for our selfish needs is
justified then why do you infer the use of animal product is 'OK' but
the use of animals for enjoyment, 'bad'.

In either case we choose that ultimatly the animal is in servitude to
'us'. The only distinction is to what end we chose the animal's
purpose. In your case it was to furnish yourself with it's skin. In
mine it was because I wanted the companionship of a dog. Other cases
because we want to eat, show off, entertain etc.

What makes any one of those uses worse over the other?

 

Because I don't pretend that a steak is my friend. Anyway, it's been fun
but I need to mingle with the other guests.

Cheers,

 

Snip dogs as pets stuff which I've followed with mild interest.

<looks up><sniffs bait><bites>

Go on porl - why unlucky dogs? Any direct experience you have such as
being involved in puppy walking, the training process, mobility
assessments, knowing someone with a guide dog etc etc will be taken
into consideration.

 

I was kind of assuming that the dog maybe would rather be running around
sniffing another dog's arse, pissing up trees and licking its own bollocks
than being brainwashed into moving around at a blind person's pace and doing
relatively **** all. Of course, I can't know that for sure as not having had
the experience of the training process, puppy walking, mobility assessments
and knowing people with guide dogs, which I gather you're insinuating gives
you the magical power of translating dog language, somehow.

 

FFS. Dogs don't have a language.

Those things with a language are people!

 

Guide dogs get to do all these things when they are off duty.

hmmm, are you not here doing the very thing you have been railing
against pet owners for and anthropomorphising?

The prospective owner is trained as much as the dog.

which is fecking quick in a lot of cases.

Have you ever known (in a non biblical sense of course) a guide dog?
Bouncy bundles of energy - doing **** all is way down the list.

I'm 'insinuating' (tutu tut Mr porl, deliberate emotive language,
shame on you) that I have a greater experience and knowledge of the
subject than you and am using that greater experience and knowledge to
educate you. After all, you are clearly keen on examining motivations
and actions and learning.

hmmm, are you not here doing the very thing you have been railing
against pet owners for and anthropomorphising?

 

I don't know, what would you call Pavlovian conditioning?

Hmmm, not in my experience of the blind.

Well if you've been following the thread you'll have seen that I've been
replying to so many posts that have nothng to do with what I've been talking
about that I may have become less than enthusiastic in discussing the
subject. And guide dogs aren't really that useful a sub topic because they
have a viable use in society and the subject of pet ownership is a more
clear cut example of my point. And we couldn't even get that one sorted ("to
my satisfaction", although Phil unwittingly came the closest)

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "porl" <>
saying something like:

I think they get a chance to do most of that stuff off duty; same as
coppers/firemen/paramedics. Why, there's many an ambulanceman whispered
to me he wished he could be off sniffing a bitch's arse.

--

Dave

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

 

A means of modifying behaviour.

Depends on when sight is lost to a great extent.

So we're dropping the unlucky dogs bit then?

And good points have been made. In an amazingly civilised fashion.

But have you learned from the experience ? <darfc>

 

(c) Euphemisms-R-us.

Before they reach a bend?

Well I understand and would participate in the subjugation (Hah!) of an
animal for my own ends if I needed to (guide dogs, huskies, etc) as I've
said a couple of times before. But I draw the line at destroying their souls
(Double Hah!) and crushing their spirits (Hah! With knobs on) for
"companionship" which is needlessly selfish. But I doubt this is any
consolation to a guide dog who has been ENSLAVDE FOR ALL ETERNITY for a
human's use.

It's reinforced my view of the blinkeredness of pet owners so "yes".

 

They let them retire you know....

 

Their souls got to hell.

 

Not if they're saved. Hmm is dog preacher a valid career choice?

If they are born again do they have two belly buttons?

 

Ginge wrote

If you define language as a means of communicating ideas and concepts
then they do. Granted their language is very limited but it is a
language nonetheless.

Those things with people language are people.

 

<Expires with shock>

Damn - there goes my lifetime membership of the Tech Support Hate
club..

Phil

 

But not for anyone elses ends eh?

Could I make a wild stab in the dark at guessing that you have never
owned or looked after dogs?

You have a real problem with slavery no?

If it is slavery for a human to keep a dog then it's equally 'slavery'
what occurs in 'natural' dog society.

The alpha male/female get to breed/have fun/be the boss. The rest
don't..

The reasons why dogs are so easy to domesticate is that domestication
fits quite well which how dogs normally behave.

Here - have a mirror.

Phil