FOAK: Dog training and 'shock' collars

You're on a roll today, Porl.

 

Pretty much my view, but lots of other people seem to like them, so
I'm not going to complain too much in case they go on about my love of
cats, fast motorbikes and loud guitars.

 

You think Ben is trolling?

 

I'm certainly having one for lunch. Are you spying on me?

 

Can you roll over and play dead?

 

He can with the assistance of this lovely electric collar!

 

porl says...

Bad porl, naughty porl, SIT!

 

Bunch of self-deluding, anthropomorphising ,control freaks.

 

If that doesn't solve his bark problem then I'm stumped.

 

Nope. Dogs *rock*.

They serve their purpose by being wound up and chased in a variety of
amusing ways by cats who have got their shit together.
Which brings me to my next point.

Cats *rocketh mightily*

Ergo, cats are better than dogs.

And thats about the most cogent argument I can think of at the moment.

*sigh*

Fucking incoming tonsilitis and flu...

 

Unless faced with their natural urban predators: bin bags and canals.

 

Did you know that the only natural enemy of the hole is the pile?

 

I never sit on cold, hard surfaces.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

What are you saying? Dogs shouldn't be trained? If they have bad
behaviour is should just be tolerated because that's obviously in it's
natural instict?

How about a dog who needs to be trained not to be nervous or withdrawn
around strangers? Or a dog who won't venture outside? Should those
traits be accepted because it's in the dogs nature?

Given a dog with a highly aggresive nature (not talking about my dog
here) I would much rather use a shock collar in an effort to teach them
if the alternative was destruction. However, your posts don't seem to
address any particular pros or cons about shock collars in particular.
Giving an opinion showing how you think using shock collars is a cruel
practice I could accept. But your posts seem to suggest you don't
support the use of training in any manner at all and that animals should
be allowed to develop without any sort of guidance from their
owner/handlers.

I find such a assertion quite naive.

 

Jeremy left a note on my windscreen which said:

But doesn't present much of a future for the dog.

 

I don't much like any animals.[0] Of course, I don't actively wish
them harm.

What I don't really understand is those who care about animal rights
more than human rights - Carla Lane and Alan Clark and that lot.

Of course, there's also the people who trot out the old "animals are
nicer than people" cliche; but those people just have tiny brains, I'm
afraid - it's so obvious that that statement is just code for "I had
my heart broken once, and now I'm bitter and feeling sorry for
myself".


[0] The exception was The Brian Johnston Memorial Cat, which was a
superb animal.

 

I thought that was the job of the parents.

 

Yes, in their natural habitat. I think people should deal with whatever
causes the need to require a pet in the first place.

That's because you're a "pet" person and an animal "lover". Animals are
there to be aquired, bred, owned, trained and "loved", if necessary with a
shock collar until they're a living, breathing pajama case that makes you
feel "unconditionally loved". As for naivety, then possibly. I like to think
of it as an alternative opinion but YMMV.

 

Don't worry, his bite is non-existent.

 

Actually, Porl is pointing out that the ownership and training (to do
what you want) of an animal just for your pleasure is a rather odd
sort of thing.