FOAK: Dog training and 'shock' collars

LOL, and? Of course the dog would choose the longer lifespan dictated by
another species rather than its natural urges, wouldn't it? It told you over
a glass of whisky and a fine cigar.

I'm surprised domestic dogs can muster the braincells to blink, frankly. And
when a dog *does* have the audacity to show some element of its ancestors'
behaviour we try to shock and strangle it out because it's not obeying our
laws.

*You* are.

Er...I don't think that domesticated animals are that great an idea, I
thought it was clear that I was making that point. I don't see why fish in
pond or aquariums as decoration are particularly edifying. I'm not a fan of
caged birds that keep their gibbering old owner company, I don't see why
watching mice run around wheels until they go hard and die is so great for
kids.

As I said, living, breathing pyjama cases. Bit sad really. Not for the dogs,
but as a comment on humans. I don't actually give a **** about animals
(aside from being interested in wildlife) I just think it's sad what humans
have to do to get a bit of comfort in their lives.

 

My god, it's like being on a roundabout. Next time I'll type this next bit
in caps: It's the fact that humans enslave animals for their own comfort
that bothers me. I don't give a **** about the animals, it's the motive for
us doing it. I eat meat, eggs etc because it provides sustenance and wear
leather because it protects my skin even at the expense of the life of the
animal. I would prefer, given a choice, that animals weren't battery farmed
but I don't care that much because at least we're honest about it going on.
My problem is with the breeding and enslaving of domestic animals because of
our pathetic low self-esteem. "They're better than people", "I get
unconditional love", etc . It's US that's the issue here for me. **** the
animals.

I have no idea why you keep going on about mass extermination. No one's
mentioned it.

You simply stop them breeding. We do that already, remember? And then they
die out.

 

Dave Bongo Bollocks left a note on my windscreen which said:

As I said up there in another post, is the use of electric fencing for
herd animals also considered inhumane? Initially my thoughts on
electric collars were that it was an inhumane method of training. Since
drawing parrallels with electric fencing which I have used with animals
for years I'm not so sure.

I wonder if the advice against electric collars is more of a shotgun
effect to reduce the number of dogs subjected to these sort of devices
unappropriatly.

Just for clarification - when I slap my dog on the snout I do it with
about the same force as somone may pat you firmly on the back.
Certainly not enough to hurt or to sting you and not enough to hurt the
dog.

I'm planning a visit to;

http://www.cedts.org.uk/

in the near future to check out their training methods.

I don't think 'punishment' training, assuming it's not excessive (and I
acknowledge that a small amount of punishment should be considered
excessive) results in fear.

Not an expert myself but I do consider myself a dog lover. I've helped
train gundogs in the past. Two of which currently are worked by a
friend of mine. Both were trained by excessive loud noises at a young
age, the occasional slap on the snout when doing something they
shouldn't and mainly reward training. The same as with my Cocker except
her first owner never trained her for working so she grew with a
disliking of loud noises.

 

flashgorman left a note on my windscreen which said:

That reminds me - I must get my Bonzai Kitty out of the garden shed
sometime.

 

Rope left a note on my windscreen which said:

The dog's nose was *far* more sensitive to the shock than you are. I
doubt cattle get the barest tingle from it.

 

Er...Yes there are lots of horrible facets to human society shall we discuss
them all right now in this thread or stick with the topic? Or are you
accusing me personally of being an anti-social drunk?

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Then why did you bring up all that crap about animal slavery when you
are perfectly happy to support it yourself?

If you feel perfectly comfortable reaping the benefits of mankind's
dominance over animals because you simply *want* to then who are you to
critise pet owners keeping animals they *want* to? In the end you, as
are pet keepers, are satisfying yourself at the expense of an animal.
Please justify how you accuse pet owners of slavery when you use animal
produce for your own purposes?

As to your argument that you're not critising the treatment of animals
in 'slavery' but you are critising mankinds use of them to provide
enjoyment can I ask why you think you should dictate how others derive
their happiness and enjoyment? Take biking purely for enjoyment - you
pollute the enviroment by burning fossil fuels to provide you with your
selfish enjoyment - can you justify this activity and more or less than
a pet owner can justify their enjoyment of owning a pet?

Yes, I did several posts before. You relied with the thought that this
would be distastful and you would prefer some sort of natural extinction
which would be impossible without the assistance of mankind, ergo, mass
extermination.

So in order to stop mans inhumane attempts to control nature we should
excert our control over nature and force the animals into extinction?

 

The _motive_. Stop concentrating on the end product.

I already did either in the previous post and you're contantly missing the
point to keep going on about animal welfare when this isn't the main issue.
Read it again, I can't be expected to keep C&P previous posts.

Well I would say I'm expressing an opinion rather than dictating anything.
And still no one has mentioned any justification of pet ownership aside from
"Because it brings me comfort/I want to". But if I am to be criticised for
dictating anything I don't see it as any different as dictating the life of
an animal. I would just say that to not confront the desire to control and
use a creature for no life-sustaining end is regressive and self-deluding.

Nope. I think still using fossil fuels is horrendous, I think fast
motorbikes are dangerous and the whole question of transport highly dodgy.

Both options to help them reproduce and to stop them reproducing involve
"playing god". One is an acceptance of our desire to perpetuate animal
slavery the other is an acceptance to put things back the way they were.

I see it as redressing an error. I don't really see it as such a moral
conundrum since we're doing it already on a smaller scale. And it's only
domestic animals that would be disappearing, the ones we're currently
manipulating for our own ends. the one's we're creating - or allowing to be
created- for our own amusement.

 

Then again, you could say the same about having children[1], except that
with children it take you longer to train them not to shit on the carpet.

Which brings us to another important point, and a diverging point in this
thread. Do I ...

(a) Mount an argument that "I want to" is the single best reason for doing
anything, perhaps further arguing that there are no "ends" only "means" and
that do what you will should be the whole of the law or do I ...

(b) As a dog owner and the parent of a child tell you to FOYRND, or ...

(c) Go away and shut up.

Prace bets now!

[1] Please sir, I'd like a biological need to propagate the species taken
into consideration.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

I'd say exactly that about children. Good analogy..

You've set yourself up with a false thingy: "I want to" is not a reason at
all, it's the end result of a number of other psychological and emotional
factors that culminate the "I want". Also see: "Because I feel like it", "It
just is" and other so-called reasons given by people who cba to think about
it.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

If it's merely expressing an opinion then we may as well end this
discussion. I think yours is wrong, you think mine is wrong and neither
of us can prove it either way.

As to the dictation of animal life there is a flaw in your argument.
Given that to stop the possesion of animals would certainly lead to loss
of life there is a valid point that the housing of animals is a life-
sustaining end. Not only that but it is a less selfish end since you
are preserving the animal's life and not selfishly your own.

This is then surely hypocritical, assuming you do ride on occasion
purely for the enjoyment of it?

I'll remind you of your comment above, "I would just say that to not
confront the desire to control and use a creature for no life-sustaining
end is regressive and self-deluding." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

It will shortly get to the point where we both understand each others'
points of view and then yes I agree we can finish up. There's no wrongness
attributable in my mind: we just have different opinions, mine is concerned
with human psychology and yours is based on freakish genetic manipulation
for the purposes of emotion-based degradation and slavery to obscure a low
self-esteem.[1]

Please explain that. How would it lead to loss of life?

Utterly. UKRM is a shared guilt room for me. I think we should stay on the
animal topic though, being a hyprocrite in relation to bikes in now way
undermines my views on pets, imo.

Why? I don't understand the reference.


[1] bwahahahaha!

 

Well, I don't like the idea of them, but as I know bugger all about
farming I can't really judge. I *guess* electric fences are used because
there's no practical alternative, but when you're dealing with one or
two problem animals (and pack animals at that) that live amongst you and
your family there are lots of other options.

The reason it works is because it causes pain. If it didn't cause pain
the dog wouldn't give a stuff how or why you hit it and would carry on
regardless. Dog anatomy is pretty different to human anatomy - they have
a huge, sensitive epithelium that fills most of the snout compared to
the tiny epithelium of a person that's tucked away at the top of the
nasal cavity behind lots of cartilage.

At the end of the day, even if you aren't that bothered about inflicting
some degree of pain, hitting a dog on the nose is quite likely to cause
damage and desensitisation over time. I'm sure any vet could confirm
that.

I've been to places like that in the past (not for a long while though).
They're good at what they do, but I don't think they're great at solving
behavioural problems in the home (unless things have changed and they do
one-to-one home visits now instead of big classes in a hall or yard
where you walk the dog up and down to heel and that sort of stuff). I
thought I was pretty good with dogs until we got this bloke round for a
couple of home visits (the guy I would have recommended if you lived
near me) I learned more from him in the first half an hour than I ever
did in a group "dog obedience" training session.

Nowt wrong with punishment at all in my view -- the dog has to
understand that there are some things it's not allowed to do, but I have
a huge problem with *physical* punishment because it's unpleasant and
there's no need for it. Like settling your differences with people,
there are usually better ways then physical aggression, but with dogs
its a complete no-brainer because, once they respect your position as
the leader, they're genetically predisposed to trying to keep you happy
to ensure their own survival, so it just becomes a matter of
communication (sometimes easier said than done, but that's half the fun
of having a dog).

Best of luck with the hound, I'm sure you'll get the problem sorted.

Dave.

 

This will explain your childless status then. Well, that and you can't get
a shag, obviously.

Y'see if you did have children you'd be used to the reductive powers of the
"Why?" argument, where every answer you give solicits the response "Why?",
requiring that you either further examine your motives or give the child in
question a thick ear and then send them to bed/bother somebody else.

If you follow any "reason" long enough then it eventually comes down to an
axiomatic state, which cannot be further reduced ...

"I wish I could win the lottery"
"Why?"
"Because then I'd have lots of money, which would be nice."
"Why?"
"Because I could buy a ****-off fast motorbike."
"Why?"
"Because I want a fast motorbike."
"Why?"
"Because it will make me happy."
"Why?" (a not-small-child may add here, "Why do you believe it will make you
happy?" or "Why do you wish to be happy instead of in some other emotional
state?")

So we've reach an axiomatic state, where the question of my desire to win
the lottery can not be further reduced and the final answer is synonymous
with "Because I want to".

Indeed I can't think of any human action that can not be ultimately be
broken down to either "Because I want to" or "Because it is necessary for my
continued survival"[1].

So there you have it, the reason that "Because I want to" is the best reason
of all.

[1] Which, of course, could be further questioned as "Why do you want to
survive?", although I feel to do so is a bit extreme.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

porl left a note on my windscreen which said:

Because there would be many previously domesticated animals which would
die without human care.

Actions speak louder than words y'know.

Since it's fairly certain that domesticated animals would not survive
without humans to look after them. You said yourself that a natural
dieing out woudl be sufficient - or someshuch comment.

 

While I'm aware I'm currently missing out on the magical world of raising a
child I seek solace in buying new motorbikes, trackdays, holidays and
copious amounts of time off work to enjoy them all. Damn my loneliness.
Girlfriend's obviously not that enamoured with it but I live opposite a
kiddy school and she can look out the window. If and when this becomes
unfulfilling, it's a small flat and she knows where the door is.

 

Dave Bongo Bollocks left a note on my windscreen which said:

So morally we can use electricity to teach animals when it takes too
much time and resource otherwise?

It couses momentary discomfort. Pain is probably a bit too much of a
strong word. Pippa got the hair at the end of her tail caught in a
childs push-chair once causing her to yelp in pain. This is nothing
like that.

As to damage the trained gundogs I mentioned below have no problems with
their sniffing abilities despite the occasional slap.

This is what my 'slap' represent to the dog. It's not a hard slap at
all but communicates my displeasure at her doing something.

Thx.

 

So they're cared for before they die and then not replaced. It's natural
wastage; we've covered this about 10 fucking times. I'm becoming convinced
you're actually having a conversation with someone else but replying to me
for some reason.

Red sky at night shepherd's delight.

 

Say that again when one of your kids gets their KD before you do

 

It's a sad thing to say, but having a kid is better than those things, IME
anyway.

OTOH, I feel much more comfortable knowing that your DNA stops with you.

Yeah, she could nip out and nick a couple of them. Good plan.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.