Cats vs. Dogs, time to let the fur fly.

A) Do not reply if you have only had contact with one type of pet, the dog/cat lovers who have never given the other a chance, need not apply, people allergetic, well...

B) A slightly trmantic, i.e. did not require emergency assestance, experience with the dog/cat from Hell should not include that animals entire species. (note: I've been attacked by more humans via bite or scratch than dogs and cats combined, mostly it was a kids from Hell.)

c) People who abuse cats or dogs better not post here, abusing animals is a sign of mental illness, you need help. Please don't tell me of the dog/cat you beat into becomming more like the other animal, you are the animal. ~Nuff said
I'm not expecting any converts or anything, but this could be fun, let the flames and fur fly...

Cats are better than dogs!
They are not as suspetable to as many genetic problems, are generally safer, all have distinct personallities, and usually not as stupid as the dogs I have met(owned) (excluding Tickles, the Blue Ticked-hound.)
and any/ all of a cats misbehavior problems can usually easily by solved, and all have an equally expensive doggy equivelent, i.e. Cat not supplied with, or not usuing, scratching post instead usuing corrner of couch, as opposed dogs to chewing/ attacking it to death. Cats onwed outnumber dogs owned sence eaither 1992 or 1995. Sometimes cat vs, dog prefrence is based on gender, women tending to like cats, and cat lovers, more. Certain scientest and otherwise famous people loved cats, certain infamous people hated cats.

I own both. I prefer the dog. Don't get me wrong, I love the cat, but I don't think she loves me.

The dog is affectionate, loving, and obediant. She senses when I need comforting, and sympathetically licks my hands or brings me her favorite toy as consolation. She comes when I call to her. She protects me with her ferocious barking when there's a bump in the night, and she loves taking a bath. She'll play games, and do cute tricks.

The cat couldn't care less. As long as her litter box is clean, and there's food in her bowl, I could be laying dead on the floor for all she cares. And if the mood takes her, she'll claw the furniture/the dog/my fiance. I couldn't bathe her without requring a blood transfusion. (I let the kennel do it, heh heh.) She surveys me cooly from her perch on the mantle, occasionally allowing me to pet her, but most often stauntering away noncholantly. Once in a while, she'll rub up against my legs.

Cats seem to be very stand-offish animals. Dogs relish human contact. Thus, I prefer dogs.

I have both and I prefer the cats. My cats are very affectionate, they love to curl up in my lap and be petted. When I don't pet them, they rub up against my hands to coax me. They are so small and delicate and graceful. I love their almond eyes, their pointy ears, their triangle noses, their tiny feet. I love to listen to them purr and I love it when they curl up next to me, on me, or under the covers with me in bed. My heart soars just thinking about them.

I love my dog, too, but he's been such a trial. The dog I had before was little and cute and very loving, a fluffy yellow 14 lb. mutt with a pointy nose and floppy ears and a fan tail. We think she was some kind of a pomeranian mix. She was beautiful and she was mine (she hated visitors and would bark at guests and nip if they tried to pet her--she loved me.) But the new dog is so young (he's done teething, thank God, but apparently we're still not out of the woods on the house breaking), so big (35 lb. and growing), so rambunctious and in need of constant attention. His only two modes are sleep and play; God have mercy on your soul and furniture if you want to eat, read, use the computer, go to the bathroom, anything while he's in play mode. And he isn't lovey. He doesn't want to cuddle. It's just play play play. He's cute and funny, but he's also an enormous pain in the ass.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

What kinda twisted crap is this? I thought the purpose of the BBQ pit was to flame if one must, not ask STUPID-ASSED questions in hopes of starting a fight. Take it to
MPSIMS, yuh nutrods.

The dealio, C#3, is - 1. I saw a thread all fulled up with flaming and hatred, (gawd, I love that shit) so I decided to subtly confront Christian school prayer advocates with their blatant hypocrisy. (I noticed not a single one of them took me up on it, (yourself included, although now after reading your much belated bio I realize your poo-pooing of the issue is not related to any religious zeal, but to a hopeless apathy. You have the balls to call yourself a liberal?)).
2. I myself am a hypocrite. Sue me.

Iknow some one 'like' you Nickrz. So, are you a dog or cat?

------------------
Myself? Well, I'm only prejudice against the hypocrite, and the bigiot... Yes, myself. ~Jamie Green

Just to get back to the thread, fellas...

I like both cats and dogs (have a cat right now, no yard for a dog presently). Couldn't say which are better but one thing's for sure...........both are infinitely preferable to humans (witness the previous exchange).

I have always owned dogs, I will never own a cat. I have cared for other peoples cats, have friends that have cats, so I have had plently of contact with cats. I will never own a cat for that reason, I know what cats are like.

To rebut Firetiger, (in somewhat of an order) I dont know of any proof that dogs get more genetic problems than cats when you are talking purebreed dogs. Safety? I would much rather trust my pooch to protect me and my house in case of an intruder, whats a cat going to do? A lot of dogs, even big dogs are great with kids. All dogs I have owned and came into contact with have different personalities. I read that scientists theorized dogs are more intelligent than cats because they show loyalty, and by the way they are easier to train too, so misbehavior problems are easier to correct with dogs and they stay that way. I dont hate cats, but they are not for me, I just had to post. (of course)

All I want to say here is that I have four cats and I love them all....I will refrain from telling you any cute cat stories, but trust me, it's worth it to have a cat. Please, everybody, help out your local Humane Society and everyone else who takes care of helpless domestic animals. I know it's not as important as the people in Kosovo or Rwanda, but it's still important. Help out the people who need help, but don't forget the animals, either.

Nah, buddy.. they promised they would loosen the restraints if I keep a civil tongue in my head. Keep up the good work - and I'm praying for you. Heehee.

In reply to Neobican, in some kind of order.

Lets start with...Dalmations, Great Danes, and C. Spanials, all three of theese, *though usually do to bad breeding*, have genitic problems. Dalmaitions after the live releace of 101 Dalmations were in such demand that many were purchaced and some breeders allowed in-breeding to keep up with demand. The results were unpredicitibal animals that often 'had' to be destroyed. Great Danes often have sever hip problems, and C. Spanials are nessaraly inside dogs because of thier caterac problems. These are just some of the recent examples.

I wasen't refering to protection but in some cases, such as Humaine Society adult dogs, have been abuse in the past to the extent that they can be just as unprdictable as the crazy (baddly breed) dogz. The Humaine Society though often can tell this about such animals and warns potential owners about this. I do not think it worth my life to take a chance. (personal experiance, an 75-100 lb. dog can easily kill, I was only bitten because Rocky at the last moment (lets here it for dog loyality) reconized me.
I still love dogs it just so happens my current three cats are (atypicaly) loyal. Cats seem to have a better understanding of human issues and better problem-solving skills. There are exceptions to every rule and one odd cat of 4 and 1 dog with issues of 4 isn't bad. I just feel safer knowing that all three cats would have to work extreamly hard at killing me. (not that they would)

~Is there a vet somewhere around that can verify this better one wat or the other?~

------------------
Myself? Well, I'm only prejudice against the hypocrite, and the bigiot... Yes, myself. ~Jamie Green

OK, it's old, but nobody's done it yet, so...

Dogs think, "These people feed me, they keep a house for me, they pet me, they love me;... they must be gods."

Cats think, "These people feed me, they keep a house for me, they pet me, they love me;.... I must be a god."

I've never owned a dog but have friends who own several. While they are frequently cute, always playful, and have demonstrated an unbelievable ability to understand many English words, they are always loud, smelly, obnoxious, and demanding. My cats are perfect in regards to their overall behavior. They are clean and quiet but love to play and cuddle. They have very distinct personalities. They run to greet me when I come home. They are more affectionate after they eat. They rarly fart. They bring me mouse kits (assemble the pieces...) Cats are endlessly fascinating to me.

My personal philosophy regarding the two?

Dogs, if they are big enough, will protect you, your family, your car, and your property until death stops their loyal hearts.

Cats, if they were big enough, would eat you.

P.S. FireTiger: Check your keyboard, I think it is seriously deranged. If not, please invest in a dictionary.

Cats seem to have a better understanding of human issues and better problem-solving skills.

This seems to be a common theme with dog/cat owners. I wonder why they insist on attributing human qualities to these lowly beasts? Cats don't understand anything, let alone "human issues", and they DO NOT have "problem solving" skills. Dogs/cats operate on a mixture of unconditioned and conditioned behavior. Both varieties are UNconcious and UNcontrolled. A cat might jump up at the sound of a can-opener, but this is not learning, it's classical conditioning. (Much the same as the emotional response pet lovers will experience when they read these words). I will admit cats can be adorable, and I understand all about their positive effects on their owners, but when I go to dinner at someone's house and see their cat prancing about on the kitchen counters with its microbe-laden-hey-I-just-played-with-my-feces feet, I wonder why anyone tolerates their presence. (Not to mention the hair - gawd.. no horizontal surface is immune, and every stitch of clothing you own is contaminated, what a fashion statement..)

Now I'll hear ALL about the "WE don't let OUR cats on the counters" and "WE own a vacuum cleaner" blah blah blah and "MY blood pressure is low because Kitty.." Yah, fine.
You can say what you like, but I ain't eating the cherries jubilee you made, and I can't stop myself from grabbing that Scotch tape dispenser when you walk into the office.

Dogs? Even worse. There's nothing more revolting than to see someone swapping spit with these disgusting creatures, unless it's watching as a dog owner lets his/her canine pal defecate in a public park, or on my front lawn and nonchalantly walk away as if nothing had happened. (These people are using a surrogate only because they are afraid to literally shit on us themselves). Any animal that sweats through its mouth does not belong in a civilized society. Slide through a pile at 2nd base, thou foul dog-owners!

Any dog/cat lover who insists on applying human attributes and emotions to a lowly beast which cannot have them is insulting the human race. Learn the differences between the human brain and that of lower animals before regaling us with your cutesy stories.

There. Maybe not exactly the fight you were looking for, but one perhaps more suitable to this forum. Have fun, kids.

Other mammals as well can be observed displaying complex emotions like emapthy and jealousy and love.

Much as we would like to think these animals are displaying "complex emotions", it's just simply not true. They are displaying unconditioned responses to unconditioned stimuli - that is, the connection between "tummy scratch" and "roll over" existed long before we domesticated them, and "tummy scratch, I roll over because I [i]LOVE[/i} this human" is nothing but wishful thinking on our part. These conditioned and unconditioned behaviors are a direct result of the evolutionary process; those that display them get food and shelter; others who display more predatory (love that "mouse kit" comment) instincts are banished. This position might be called cynical, but I call it realism.

Some animals approach sentience in my opinion. Chimpanzees, for example. 99.6% genetically identical to humans. They can communicate their emotions though sign language, yet people still don't believe they have them.

Sure, pigs share 99.6% of our genes as well, but that doesn't prove anything either. I'll have to refer you to Mortimer J. Adler, a contemporary philosopher whom I greatly admire. The answer to the fallacy that chimps are communicating emotions lies in the two books mentioned in this blurb. I have read them both, and suggest you do likewise as a means of "research into animal emotions." (Sorry if this came off as heavy-handed, but I'm proud of the human brain).

Adler: I have dealt with this subject in great detail in a book I wrote in 1967, "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes," and in another book in 1990, "Intellect: Mind Over Matter." So, here I will only state the most important and obvious ones: Intellect is a unique human possession. Only human beings have intellects. Other animals may have sensitive minds and perceptual intelligence, but they do not have intellects.

No one is given to saying that dogs and cats, horses, pigs, dolphins, and chimpanzees lead intellectual lives; nor do we say of nonhuman animals that they are anti-intellectual, as some human beings certainly are. Other animals have intelligence in varying degrees, but they do not have intellectual powers in the least degree.

Free will or free choice, which consists in always being able to choose otherwise, no matter how one chooses, is an intellectual property, lacked by nonintellectual animals. Some of their behavior may be learned and thus acquired rather than innate and instinctive, however it is determined by instinct or by learning, it is determined rather than voluntary and freely willed.

A person is a living being with intellect and free will. That is both the jurisprudential and the theological definition of a person. Everything else, animate or inanimate, totally lacking intellect and free will, is not a person but a thing. Only persons have natural and unalienable rights. These we call human rights. There is no comparable animal rights."

Whoa - that last should put a few people off, but I happen to believe it true.

Perhaps you haven't ever done any research into animal emotions. It's a fascinating subject.

Some animals approach sentience in my opinion. Chimpanzees, for example. 99.6% genetically identical to humans. They can communicate their emotions though sign language, yet people still don't believe they have them.

They can be observed greiving, showing sympathy, displaying love, and joy. They are not furry robots, running on autopilot and reacting to learned stimuli. They are living creatures, flesh and blood, who feel pain and pleasure the same as we.

Other mammals as well can be observed displaying complex emotions like emapthy and jealousy and love.

Try telling Jane Goodal that animals don't have emotions. A lot of experts agree. I am not an expert, but I can tell you without a doubt that my dog loves me. She demonstrates it daily, and will ignore a bowl full of food to comfort me when I cry. When her friend, the schauzer next door died, she moped around for weeks, staring at her friend's empty dog house and whining. Our neighbor gave her one of the dead dog's toys, and my dog laid on the floor beside it, inhaling the scent of her friend, and sighing. She carried it with her for months. Unlike her own toys, she has never played roughly with it. She almost seems to be keeping it as a memorial. How else could I explain it?

My dog, by the way, is very clean. I vaccum off her shedding hair daily. My cat never walks on the counters. That's disgusting, I agree. I never swap slobber with my dog. That's also pretty gross. She's allowed to lick my hands, but never my face. She's bathed weekly. I wouldn't allow a dirty animal in my house. I have a pooper-scooper for when she and I are on walks. People that allow their dogs to leave messes are rude.

Nicrz~ So why are you in this thread? give me # dogs and # cats EVER owned. Oh, and to the cat problem you could always invest in a hairless cat and train it to use the "human litter-chair" (a real cute 3 year-old).

a) Animals have the following rights. The right to live. The right to avoid abuse (not to be abused).

b) So what you're saying, in general, is that animals do not have decision making souls.

- Which would be OK except that my cats all have very diffrent personalities, Miss Priss, the youngest always responds to my calls, Dotty the middle cat, never. Taffy, my cat for the last 10 years, seems to think about comming first, and sometiimes comming half way before- stoping to eat or harrasing one of the other cats, or simply walking right by me. If this is do to his nature and not decision, he has me and most oter people fooled with his 'inate' responce to someone he 'thinks' is his mother.

------------------
Myself? Well, I'm only prejudice against the hypocrite, and the bigiot... Yes, myself. ~Jamie Green

Nickrz:

I take it you don't get the Dicovery Channel or TLC.

Dogs are better than cats.
Cats think they're smarter and they're always trying to pull one over on you. They think that humans were put here to feed them and let them in and out on command, to scratch and pet them when its "just us two," but then jump up and run away whenever another human comes on the scene so you can never prove that "Snowball let me pet him." Perhaps some of the above beliefs of cats are valid, I'm not saying that cats are NOT, in fact, smarter than me. Although I can always beat one at a staring contest. . .

At any rate, I prefer a pet that's more on my level. Also (sprach Melatonin) I think dogs are better.

I like both dogs and cats...

dogs are cool when you want to play. But they are a pain in the butt to take care of and demand a lot of attention. For this reason, I prefer dogs when they are someone else's - I can play with them and then go home to relative peace and quiet. (sounds like what a lot of people say about kids, eh?)

I like cats because they are calmer, don't poop all over the place, eat less, don't sniff my crotch, don't try to hump my leg, don't jump up on me and knock me down, don't chew anything and everything in the house, don't bark at four in the morning, etc. I don't need to give them constant attention. When they need attention they come up, let me pet them for a few minutes, then go with their lives. Perfect pet for someone like me.

Lissa: I get them, I just don't get my science from them.

Neither do I. But they're a good place to start. Try reading "[i]When Elephants Weep."

I thought the point of this thread is which animals make better pets, cats or dogs, not to bash the whole concept of keeping pets. People who love animals are willing to overlook inconveniences like pet hair. And if you can get used to trading coliform bacteria with your significant other, then pets' microbes aren't so scary, either. The unconditional love, whether we deserve it or not, makes it all worth while.

While I still prefer cats, getting used to a big dog in the house hasn't been all that grosser, more inconvenient, or more of a pain in the ass than getting used to having a husband.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

That poses another question. Which is better, a spuose or a pet? HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE.

Well . . . my dog never looks in the fridge, directly at an item while simultaneously asking me where it is. My cat never watches football, burps, or snores loudly enough to rattle the window panes. They never ask me to do their laundry, hog the remote, or get cookie crumbs in the sheets. I can leave them for the day and not come home to their buddies and them playing cards, drinking beer and smoking cigars.

My husband doesn't lay on the floor gazing up at me adoringly while I do no more than read. But then again, he's never gotten fleas or dragged a dead chipmunk into the house. (To my knowledge, anyway.)

My husband doesn't have to be under my feet every time I cook dinner. He doesn't try to lick everything in the fridge when I put groceries away. He doesn't stand on the back of the couch and smoosh the cushions when he wants to go outside, and he doesn't hang from the window screens when he wants in. He isn't constantly trying to mouth me or lick me (wait a sec, maybe that's not something to be glad of). And he doesn't grab my dirty socks with his mouth and run around the house making me chase him.

Meanwhile, the dog and cats don't contribute to the income but, since there's no animal medical insurance, their vet bills contribute to the outgo. They don't run to the store for me when I'm too tired to go myself. They don't help with the laundry or dishes. And while it's fun to cuddle with them under the covers, going any further is illegal, immoral, and just plain weird.

On the other hand, the pets didn't come with a mother-in-law, so that right there makes up for everything.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

"When Elephants Weep?"
"When Pigs Fly."

I think you are confusing intellect with emotion. Mammals experience a wide range of intense emotions, and this is widely documented. Emotions are an evolutionary tool that contribute to survival in a number of ways: maternal love allows for a longer period of development which is neccessary among most mammals; loyalty keeps animal hunting groups together; etc...
To think humans are the only species to have intellect and emotion is the worst kind of human egotism. The belief that animals are furry robots dictated by conditioning is a justification by our culture to support our exploitative world view. If we all believed that animals felt joy, boredom, fear, and love it might be hard to think of them as nothing more than raw materials.

Humans are the only animals with intellect. Unfortunately, it's impossible to buttress this claim by reading the purely emotional arguments presented by the animal rights nutcases.
If you believe animals experience human emotions, or they "understand" abstract concepts, and you get your ammunition from pop-culture "scientists" on the Discovery channel et al and you choose to willfully ignore what's actually going on when a chimp learns "sign language," then the depths of your ignorance will never be plumbed by the likes of me. Have a nice day.

I see. Care to enlighten me, O Wise One as to exactly what an animal is thinking/feeling?

How much research have you actually done on this subject?

Would you call Carl Sagan a pop-scientist? I would reccomend that you read his book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors but I have the sneaking suspicion that you won't read anything that you don't agree with.

Sagan states the obvious: There is no way to prove that animals have emotions, but then again, there's no way that I can prove that you, or anybody else, for that matter have emotions either.

It boils down to communication: I can say to you, "I am sad." An animal cannot, and when they can, such as apes signing, we dismiss it as being too "complex."

Sagan quotes Voltaire: "What a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have said that animals are machines befret of understanding and feeling."

I don't want to get into a war over this, but I have done quite a bit of research into this subject. After all that I have read, seen and heard, I believe it's rather ignorant and egotistic to believe blindly in the notion that man is exclusively the only being capable of emotions.

Lissa: I find it interesting to note you have narrowed the topic to animal "emotions," a subject infinitely more difficult to quantify than intellect. You yourself quoted Carl Sagan (and yes, I do consider him to have been a "pop-scientist," in the sense he popularized certain branches of science, and his characterizations presented to the public at large did not include the large substrata of
facts discerning thinkers demand before swallowing ideas hook, line and sinker) as offering the [/i]lack of proof [/i] of human emotions to be a significant argument in favor of animal emotions. What tripe. Such statement are meaningless, and are the hallmarks of those who seek to further their cause with the use of syllogisms. Animal "emotions" quite rightly fall into the realm of philosophy, and I have already given one of the sources for mine - Mortimer Adler. I cited the books; have you read them? I think perhaps your "sneaking suspicion" might be a small case of the pot calling the kettle black, but, as you say, let's not get into a war over this. As in the science of mathematics, I only need one instance of concrete disproof for a theory to negate that theory, and Adler provides that proof as least as far as intellect goes. Find out what transpires when animals communicate via sign language (hint: it has to do with signs) and then talk to me of intelligence and intellect, two very different things. Animals do not understand or communicate abstract concepts. Period.

I do not dismiss the significance of chimps signing is as "too complex," quite the opposite. What's going on there is perhaps too simple for your taste.

I do not equate animals with machines. Machines are inanimate.

I love it when people who disagree with my ideas but know nothing about me use words like "ignorant" and "egotistical." To them, I say "Yo momma!"

Lissa: I find it interesting to note you have narrowed the topic to animal "emotions," a subject infinitely more difficult to quantify than intellect. You yourself quoted Carl Sagan (and yes, I do consider him to have been a "pop-scientist," in the sense he popularized certain branches of science, and his characterizations presented to the public at large did not include the large substrata of
facts discerning thinkers demand before swallowing ideas hook, line and sinker) as offering the [/i]lack of proof [/i] of human emotions to be a significant argument in favor of animal emotions. What tripe. Such statement are meaningless, and are the hallmarks of those who seek to further their cause with the use of syllogisms. Animal "emotions" quite rightly fall into the realm of philosophy, and I have already given one of the sources for mine - Mortimer Adler. I cited the books; have you read them? I think perhaps your "sneaking suspicion" might be a small case of the pot calling the kettle black, but, as you say, let's not get into a war over this. As in the science of mathematics, I only need one instance of concrete disproof for a theory to negate that theory, and Adler provides that proof as least as far as intellect goes. Find out what transpires when animals communicate via sign language (hint: it has to do with signs) and then talk to me of intelligence and intellect, two very different things. Animals do not understand or communicate abstract concepts. Period.

I do not dismiss the significance of chimps signing is as "too complex," quite the opposite. What's going on there is perhaps too simple for your taste.

I do not equate animals with machines. Machines are inanimate.

I love it when people who disagree with my ideas but know nothing about me use words like "ignorant" and "egotistical." To them, I say "Yo momma!"

To Nick:

I apologise for using the word you mentioned. It was very petty of me to become insulting. My only excuse is that this is a subject I feel strongly on.

I have never read the works of Adler. I live in a very small town, and my access to authors who are less than popular is somewhat limited, but on your recommendation, I will try to track them down.

I am basing my beliefs on four or five books I've read on the subject, documentaries and personal experiance with animals. I hadn't been exposed to any that refuted my beliefs.

My admittedly poor education in a private school made the only science available to me books by Carl Sagan, and other such writers. I had never learned the basics of scienc4e, and he made difficult concepts easy for me to understand. Maybe there wasn't a substata of facts. I sort of appreciated it.

So, again, I apologise, and admit your greater knowledge of the subject. Before this, I had thought that I was relatively well-read on it. I may still disagree with you, but I am not dismissing your point of view.

'K, Lissa. Skirmish over, no damage done. Sorry if I got heavy-handed, but I feel quite strongly on the topic, too. Hope you find the books!

Hmmm...

A=B and B=C then A=C, right?

Cat = Harpy bitch. Aloof. Threw tantrums and "punished" those around her through behavior if she was displeased. Left crap laying around and sat imperiously on couch waiting for someone else to clean it up.

ExWife = Harpy bitch. Aloof. Threw tantrums and "punished" those around her through behavior if she was displeased. Left crap laying around and sat imperiously on couch waiting for someone else to clean it up.

Holy crap! My Ex Wife was a cat!

Regardless, I don't like either of 'em. Cats in general, ex wife in particular.

Nickrz:

The fact that you feel strongly about this subject is plain without your saying so. That's what I find interesting.

It is easy to understand why those of us who believe in the intelligence, emotional sophistication, and inherent value of animals become passionate about the subject, particularly when our feelings and beliefs about it are challenged. Animals are meaningful and important to us, and to see them maligned and disregarded is painful on the face of it. What makes it even more upsetting is that such attitudes are what allow the greater crimes against animals to occur: the cruel exploitation of animals for human desire, need and folly. There is a very real threat in allowing attitudes such as yours to persist and prevail: it causes real harm to beings that we value.

That said...what's your excuse?

Why in the world is it a subject you feel so strongly about? What button is being pressed with you? What is the source of the threat here that you feel the need to take such a strong position?

It is especially fascinating that you say "I'm proud of the human brain". Why? Did you design it? It's something you have no control over and no responisbility for, why are you so proud of it? Everyone I ever met has one, what's the accomplishment there? It makes about as much sense as saying: "I'm proud of the opposable thumb!". It's a biological advantage we can use for good or ill. Lots of perfectly good thumbs have been put to very evil uses.

I am very proud of what some people have done with their brains. I am appalled and shamed by what others have done.

You, like many people, seem to feel that the mere fact of being born with human DNA entitles people to be cruel and selfish. You want to take the credit, enjoy the benefits, and pretend that there is no responsibility to be taken.

Wrong.

Whatever your assessment of animal "intellect" (and the debate rages on; until such time as we can learn to speak their languages, all our assessments can be categorized as theory) the fact is that many of them, certainly all mammals, are capable of pain and suffering. That alone is enough that we must recognize that it is evil of us to inflict it upon them, for any reason. To do less is to be nothing more than a bully: because you are capable of beating up the little guy doesn't make it alright for you to actually do so, no matter how creative and intellectual your justifications. (Which aren't all that creative anyway, since they amount to this: "It's ok for me to beat up everyone in the room, because I'm the only one who CAN". It's a classic logic fallacy, the latin name of which escapes me now.)

Furthermore, so far as we know, earth is the only place in a thousand galaxies to hold such a beautiful and complex diversity of life. It would be a tribute to the brains and abilities we are born with to take it upon ourselves to preserve and protect that diversity, recognizing how very precious and thrilling it is. It would be a testament to that potentially amazing brain if we could put it to use finding ways to keep the earth natural and beautiful and habitable for all living things. Instead we have people like you, so enamored of that three pounds of flesh that you think it's ultimately the only thing that matters. Watching us destroy everything in our paths, I confess I am not nearly so impressed as you.

In my own experience, I've known many animals that I might throw myself in front of a train for, and people I'd tie to the tracks. The very fact of being human does not, in my opinion, confer any special value to a being. All beings are valuable, and humans are the only ones I know of that have the ability to actually make themselves LESS worthy.

And finally, just to clarify my own position: my love and appreciation of animals doesn't mean that I am a vegetarian, or that I think any and all uses of animals are wrong. I just dont' believe that it is ever necessary to cause animals to suffer for our needs and desires. In the case of animals as food, that is the way the world is designed. But I dont' think a pig or cow or chicken should have to spend it's short life utterly miserable, pumped full of drugs, barely able to move, never allowed to rest...all the charming things we do to our food animals before we eat them.

And dogs rule, cats blow. (I have 2 of each).

Stoidela, great post! I was behind you 150% right up until the end:

And dogs rule, cats blow.

Are you mental?? Dogs rule, cats blow... I'll try to remember that at 4:00 AM tomorrow when my cat is curled up next to me purring sweetly and the dog is trying to eat the blankets.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

Gr8Kat:

Well, I just adore what someone else here had said about what dogs and cats do if they are big enough.

I love all my animals, but my dogs really love me back. I've met some sweet kitties that were very affectionate, but I never got the sense that it was about anything other than getting rubbed for them.

Dogs? Dogs are the embodiment of the ideal of unconditional love.

It seems to be the general concensus here that the main "problem" with dogs is that they require more from us (they will love us unconditionally even if we beat and starve them, but in order for them to be good companions that fit in, they require more) - but why should we expect to receive so much without doing anything? Cats are definitely easier than dogs, but the rewards are correspondingly thinner.

Cats are by nature solitary animals, and it shows. THey can learn to get along with other cats, dogs, with people, but it's obvious it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition with them. Dogs are by nature social animals. It is critically important to their well-being to have a pack, whether that consists of just you, or you and your spouse, 3 kids, and 3 other dogs.

We are also social animals. We need our pack as well, and dogs fit right in.

I adore dogs. Their heart, intelligence, devotion. They melt me.

I suppose I'm especially sentimental about dogs these days because of my own... they will be 17 on their next birthdays. They've been a part of my life for a VERY long time. And they have been difficult at times, they are difficult now. But never so much that I can imagine what my life might have been without them.

My cats are 12. Also a long time. Also I love them. But...but....well, I've made my position clear about that.

And how old is your dog? Maybe the problem is that you haven't put in the time to train your dog, the main reason people have dog problems. It isn't the dogs fault, ya know. If you do your part, she WILL do hers. She just needs to understand exactly what is expected of her.


------------------
Stoidela

Nickrz:

I forgot to mention: if our superior value is all tied up with our intellect, what are your feelings about the mentally disabled? Are they just as meaningless and low as beasts? If you had a mentally disabled person and a chimp in a room and tested them both, and it was obvious that the chimp was much brighter than the disabled person, which one would then be more important?

If your answer is a knee-jerk "the person", you have just dismantled your own argument, and you are going to have to come up with the REAL reason that "people are better". Could it be.... because you happen to be one, and it is simply a matter of sticking with your own kind? Sort of species-ist, if you will? Nothing wrong with that, just be honest about it.

------------------
Stoidela

Hrmph. Where's Nick?

I love dogs, too, I really do. But our current dog, Jimmy, has just been such a trial. We got him when he was only 5 weeks old (too young, but his mother's owner had 7 more like him at home and was eager to get rid of them) and now he's 7 months. He's the youngest dog I've ever had and potty training and teething have been a learning experience for us all. I'm looking forward to him becoming older and more sedate, hopefully. But right now all he seems to want from us to play. He doesn't cuddle, he's definitely not a lap dog, and I couldn't convince people not to let him chew on their hands or clothing when he was tiny and cute, so now when he wants attention, guess what? We're human chew toys. I blame myself for his faults. I'm not very strong physically and haven't been able to assert my dominance over him when he's been naughty. He lept into the role of pack leader very early and it's been hard convincing him otherwise.

Our last dog, Daisy, was about 2 years old when we got her and she lived to be about 14. I still miss her terribly. I knew she loved me, the way she would always jump up in the chair I was sitting in and roll over to have her belly rubbed, and the way she'd close her eyes and lick her lips showed she was in doggy heaven. (I shouldn't have said doggy heaven, now I'm going to cry.) I'm sure Jimmy loves me too, in his own way; he follows me everywhere and lays on the kitchen floor near me when I'm cooking. Sometimes too near But he's not submissive. It's very rare he'll roll over for a belly rub and he doesn't seem to get into it the way Daisy did.

I know a lot of it has to do with the fact that he's a very different kind of dog. Daisy was little and cute, I don't know what breeds she had in her but guesses included pomeranian and cocker spaniel. Mostly she was just orange and fluffy and small, only about 12-14 lbs. And she was very low maintance. But Jimmy is part Australian Shepherd, part black lab. He's a ball of energy and needs excercise and things to do. I wouldn't have picked him out, honestly, but my sister gifted us with him and I was still aching so much for my Daisy dog that I accepted him. As I've said before, this has been a learning experience. But I still love him. Even when he does get bored and devour the blankets at 4 or 5 AM. (One of them was a wedding present )

What I'd really like to do is see if he could be taught to be a disabled person helper dog and pick things up for me when I drop them or open drawers or fetch my shoes, not eat them. Even though I don't have the knowledge or ability to help him become a 100% professional dog for the disabled, I've been trying to teach him to bring things to me instead of snatching them and running away so my husband has to chase him down. It's his favorite game, but I'm trying to teach him it's more rewarding to do what we want and earn praise and treats than to trick us into his games. So far, though, he prefers the games.

But cats... maybe because I'm a solitary type person myself, I appreciate a cat's independence. But I haven't found my cats to be that aloof or distant. When I call, they come, and purr and rub and seem happy to see me. Sometimes they leave after a few minutes, but sometimes they stay and want more. And I love it when they come running to greet me with that little half-purr, half-meow chirping sound they make. That melts my heart. They are so soft and delicate, they lay quietly with me and just soak up the attention I give them. The cats I've known are happy to receive attention, even if they don't ask, beg, or demand to get it like a dog.

When I asked if you were mental, I was just teasing. This is supposed to be the BBQ Pit, afterall, and I've always wanted to use that line

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

Gr8kt:

I didn't take any offense at your saying I was mental. Not at all.

I'm glad to hear you love your dog, but it does sound like you have a handful. Even though your sister gave him to you as a gift, if you dont' feel you can do the training that is obviously necessary, you might want to find him a new home. It isn't kind to him or to you for you to remain together if you weren't meant for each other. And if he's as energetic and playful as you say, it sounds like he needs a different kind of environment.

As an alternative, you may want to contact a professional for some advice on how to handle him. You obviously have a very good understanding of doggy dynamics, and the fact that Jimmy is taking the alpha role, which he should not.

I really hope you work it out the best way for both of you. I intend my next dog to be a Golden retriever, expressly because I want a dog I can train the hell out of!



------------------
Stoidela

Kat- I was just attempting to send you some e mail about your new puppy, when my computer had a "fatal error" (I hate the sound of those words). Anyway, by the time I logged back on, I saw the post above, and it was pretty much what I was trying to tell you in my letter. Ask your vet if he knows any dog trainers he can refer you to.

Okay, now I really know (as if I didn't before) that Nickrz is a dog-hater. On his homepage he gives the exact doses of chocolate necessary to kill a dog.

Charming.



------------------
Stoidela

Manny Peoples ask me . . .

Uh, er, oops, sorry - - forgot myself there for a minute.

But truly, WHY does chocolate kill dogs?

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Theobromine - ingredient in chocolate which is harmless to us and toxic to dogs.

This is something that everyone who has a dog should know, obviously. Chocolate seems harmless, and dogs certainly like it! But no, don't give them any. (One bite of chocolate cake will do them no harm, but never give them chocolate candy, or alot of chocolate anything.)



------------------
Stoidela

I'm not trying to suggest that we all should feed our dogs chocolate, don't get me wrong and risk hurting your pet, but I have heard that milk chocolate isn't as bad for dogs as unsweetened baker's chocolate. Does the milk and/or sugar help neutralize the theobromine? If your dog did get ahold of a hunk of baker's chocolate, would it help to give him a glass of milk, like the poison control center suggests doing for some household chemicals? Or are you risking doubling the harm since some dogs are (at least Daisy was) lactose intolerant? Then again, maybe you would want to induce vomiting?

I've always wondered about this stuff because, despite our efforts to keep chocolate away from Daisy, and despite the fact that our wee dog was blind the last two or three years of her life, she was crafty. I once had one of those Tobler chocolate oranges and, before we went out one day, I put it on a table that I thought would be out of her reach. But, when we got back, the orange was gone. Devoured by the hound doggy. Nothing left but scaps of orange foil wrapping. I figured she'd throw up or get the runs or croak or something, but she was fine. I mean, the thing was almost as big as her head, but she didn't even act like she had a tummy ache. I couldn't eat that much chocolate in one sitting without serious reprocussions! She must have had a cast iron stomach

So, anyway, I was just curious

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

We've never given Jimmy chocolate, and to the best of my knowledge he's never gotten into any on his own. But he does love peanut butter so we put it in his kong. It holds his interest a little better than doggy biscuits, because the biscuits are usually either too small and fall out within the first couple minutes or too big and won't come out so he loses interest quickly. But he won't give up on peanutbutter til every last lick is gone

We've invested much money in finding the right toys for him to keep him occupied (and from devouring the blankets, carpet, and anything else in his mouth's way). His favorites are stuffed rottweilers from PetSmart that rattle and squeak (he loves to play fetch with them), compressed rawhide chewies (we avoid the regular rawhide bones with the knots), Pedigree Dentabone, a peanutbuttery kong, the Gummabone, and the smaller of our two cats (not really a toy but it's hard to convince Jimmy otherwise). The Monks of New Skete recommend having only one, maybe two, toys but I confess we have so many because it's easier to find and grab one when they're all over the house. If we gave him just one toy, he'd hide it under the bed and go back to playing with what he's not supposed to.

I don't really want to give Jimmy up. I'm afraid of what someone else might do to or with him. I don't want him to end up in a shelter where he might be put down if no one else wants to deal with him. We haven't talked to the vet about a trainer yet, but the vet did recommend the Gentle Leader head collar which has helped adjust his attitude and make him easier for me to handle. And the vet recommended we should schedule at least 2 20 minute play sessions per day to wear him out because "a tired dog = a good dog" I don't want to be unfair to Jimmy, I want him to have a good life, but I don't want him to end up in the hands of someone even less equipped to deal with him. So many unwanted dogs are destroyed every year, I just don't like the odds. I keep worrying about his brothers and sisters and how the owner seemed so desperate to get rid of them...

Anyway, I love dogs, I love Jimmy, I am trying to do right by him, but I still prefer cats That's just me

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

Regarding chocolate and pets...take it from me, it isn't good for them. Around the holidays we get lots of dogs in for chocolate toxicity. If your dog eats enough chocolate all at one, it can seizure and die. Don't try to play vet at home. If your dog eats chocolate, watch him carefully for vomiting, diarrhea, rapid breathing, seizures, and so forth. If you see any of these symptoms, get your pet to the vet. Chocolate isn't good for ANY animal, but dogs are more frequently seen for this problem because they are more likely to get into the stuff.

I do hope things work out for you and your dog, Kat. The advice your vet gave is good, but sometimes simple tips aren't enough. Sometimes you have to go puppy classes. Sometimes more than once. In some cases, you might have to seek help from an animal behaviorist, which is not the same thing as a dog trainer. Anyway, kiss your dog for me and give yourself a pat on the back for being a concerned pet owner.

Love,
Resident veterinary technician,
Michelle

Ahem. Sorry, I was busy elsewhere and thought this thread had petered out.

Before we go any farther, let me assure you I am not a dog or a cat or an animal hater in any sense. I do not condone inhumane treatment of animals, never did. That little thing you so admirably ferreted out on my web site is called a joke, something you would be aware of had you looked at the context or if you knew anything about me at all. But no, someone stepped on your doggie's tail, and you come out spewing vitriol from every fiber of your being. I can't help but wonder if you actually read or understood any of my posts on this subject.

1. Show me where and how I "maligned and disregarded animals." The only animals I maligned were irresponsible pet owners.

2. Show me how a careful recitation of scientific thinking about how human and lower animals' brains differ fosters cruelty to animals, and tell me why my "attitude" should not be allowed to "persist or prevail." Are you suggesting that emotional arguments such as your own should take precedence over science? Of course, you'll probably make some lighthearted remark about the quality of my science, but that is only because you yourself are ignorant of the facts, and prefer to argue "My dog loves me, and if I think it, it must be so."

3. The only "threat" that exists here is the exposure of the willful ignorance of people who hold ideas in contempt before they examine the data. I have examined the data, what's your excuse?

4. Your lumping me in with those who would torture animals needlessly I dismiss as out of hand. I've said nothing to give rise to these accusations. Nifty straw man, though.

5. Your clarification of your own position betrays the hypocrisy so prevalent among those of your ilk; You cannot tolerate animals "..pumped full of drugs, miserable, barely able to move.." but you'll eat bacon from a pig that had been whacked on the head with a sledge hammer and had its throat slashed to bleed to death.. that's okay, because maybe they didn't suffer, eh? (At least where you had to see it). Suppose you tell me where you draw the line, sister.

6. I did not say "our superior value is all tied up in our intellect," you did. I did not imply "people are better," you inferred it.

Your other palaver, I'll just simply ignore. I've heard it all before countless times. (I did, however, enjoy the "Nick is a dog-hater," a common demonized enemy everyone can pile on.. and I wondered if anyone would EVER read that page and take offense). The animal rights sermons get funnier and crazier the madder you-all get.

PS. I have owned (and loved) very many kitty-cats in my life, and I understand our symbiotic relationship with these animals as well as you do. One might be tempted to wonder which of these various species of domesticated animals (I'm including humans) might have become extinct with or without the intervention or cooperation of the others.