It's a fucking dog. Get over it.

The BBQ Pit
61

While, generally speaking, pet dogs are not living their optimal lives of choice, most of them are not very capable of surviving on their own. Same with pet cats. It is cruel to abandon them in the belief that they are perfect little predators who will do better without you.

Dogs are not wolves. We’ve dumbed them down genetically, for one thing; for another, they don’t have the wolf upbringing they would get in the wild - hunting at the mammal level is not purely instinctive - it must be learned. I’m not going to go hunting for this, but I know I’ve read of studies showing that feral dogs make at best highly inefficient hunters. More typically, they form loose urban scavenging packs with other feral dogs. While they are free to do some things that pet dogs usually can not, they live pretty miserable lives.

62

Ah, another voice of reason. This also applies to zoo animals that are raised and cared for for most of their lives. The likelihood of survival in the wild for this type of animal is not good, since everything has always been provided for them, and while instinct plays a part, they just don’t have the learned survival skills. Think about yourself as a human being removed from your home and placed in the middle of nowhere without the prior education on how to survive.

Those who would let zoo animals ‘roam free’ might as well shoot them before they starve to death.

63

Chef, I heard all those things too [The secret lives of Dogs, on the Dicovery channel] but sometimes I have to wonder. I remember when my mom brought home a little kitten, her dog that she already had was clearly upset. And when I say upset; I don’t mean like growl protect my territory upset, I mean sulk go lay in the corner, upset and not come to you when you call her upset. Which this dog ALWAYS comes to you when you calll her. Clearly this dog’s feelings was hurt.

64

People will do the same things to people they love. That is, snap at them, test them, challenge them and so on.

[/quote]
Put a starving dog in a room with a recently deceased owner and see how far the “love” goes.
[/QUOTE]
.Put several starving athletes in a downed plane, with their dead teamates and see how far “loyalty” goes.

Put several starving pioneers in the middle of the frozen mountains with their deceased loved ones and see how far “love” goes.

Not that I’m not willing to possibly concede that animals don’t love us, I just don’t think that those 'tests" prove it since they can be said of human on human (who DO love each other) reaction too.

65

Put a starving dog in a room with a recently deceased owner and see how far the “love” goes.
[/QUOTE]
.Put several starving athletes in a downed plane, with their dead teamates and see how far “loyalty” goes.

Put several starving pioneers in the middle of the frozen mountains with their deceased loved ones and see how far “love” goes.

Not that I’m not willing to possibly concede that animals don’t love us, I just don’t think that those 'tests" prove it since they can be said of human on human (who DO love each other) reaction too.
[/QUOTE]

Try to focus for a few brief seconds here.

Dogs != People

therefore (still with me?)

Dog Behavior != Human Behavior

Not a difficult concept. You might as well compare an earthworm to a dolphin.

While my example may not have been the best, it doesn’t negate a century of animal behavior studies. A dog’s decision to eat a human has nothing to do with emotion. A human decision to eat another human is an agonizing one that normally results in severe emotional distress and years of guilt.

66

The guy expressed his point in an assinine way, but he has a point. I get rather irritated at people who act as though their dogs (and it’s usually dogs, not cats) are their children.

Mostly what I find irritating is the folks who demand to take their dogs with them when they visit others since, of course, the little beasts are family. Except that they aren’t family, they’re dogs, and your relations may not want to have to deal with putting your dog up when you come for the weekend.

And I can’t help but feel annoyed at folks who insist on buying things like bottled water (yes, they make bottled water for dogs), gourmet dog biscuits, and other such things. Talk about casting your pearls before swine; I love my cats like nobody’s business but I don’t delude myself into pretending that they deserve or appreciate that kind of crap. In all these cases, people are projecting their own feelings onto the animals, and assuming that since they’d like a gourmet meal, the dog wants fancy dog biscuits. In reality, of course, this is a critter who eats out of the cat boxes and will wolf down a ten pound bag of flour (including the bag - true story.)

My mother buys her dog ice cream cones. The dog doesn’t particularly like ice cream - she doesn’t eat it as eagerly as she eats her own food. I suspect the cold bothers her teeth. It’s not the dog who’s benefitting from this; it’s done to satisfy some sort of emotion the owners are projecting onto their pets. And I find it faintly disturbing.

(However, I must admit that if the house caught fire, the cats would be my first thought.)

67

I don’t see how you can dismiss these points - it seems like animal behavior and human behavior parallel each other quite closely in these respects. I understand that they’re different, but I don’t see how you’ve shown that animals don’t experience love for humans. Your examples were immediately countered with similar examples of human behavior, and your only response is that “dogs and people are different” and therefore dogs aren’t capable of love. (I don’t animals have the capacity for love either, btw - given how much more the cat loves me when her food dish is empty, I have to doubt the sincerity of her emotions.)

And actually, I think if I had to eat a human to survive, I’d do it without thinking twice, and with zero guilt later. But maybe my mind would change if I was in that situation.

68

Since this thread was bumped I can reply.
I recognise that there is a need for animal testing. My point was that the horiffic images of apparent cruelty make you feel for the animals and identify with the protesters.
Do the scientists do their best to research the possible effects in theory of a drug before they even begin to test it on animals, or do they think ‘what the heck, the animals are expendible’ and test willy-nilly on them?

69

Depends.

70

Gotta disagree with you there. There’s a whole bunch of people that are so incredibly low and vile and useless and evil and cruel that they don’t deserve to be treated as well as the most brutalized dog.

Having human DNA is no guarantee of worthiness in my book. Not by a long shot.

71

I don’t know any researchers who have the resources to test willy-nilly even if that were his/her inclination. In a corporate environment you have to get management to sign off on the idea. The higher ups don’t like spending money chasing rainbows, you know, so a lot of projects never make it out of the theoretical stage. In an academic environment you have to convince whoever is funding the research, usually some foundation or government agency that your research is valid and worthwhile. I can’t imagine the American Cancer Society funds wild hair theories.

That’s not to say that watchdog groups aren’t necessary because, whether the testing is justified or not, there are labs who treat their animals inhumanely. Those folks should be put out of business and the only way to do that sometimes is to put pressure on the companies that contract them out.

72

Well, ignoring the multiple levels of ethics approval researchers at my university have to get before they can even LOOK at an animal, the cost of research animals is high enough to make “willy-nilly” testing rather impratical.

When each mouse can cost upwards of $75 US, you kinda wanna make sure you know what the hell you’re doing before you begin chopping them to bits.

73

A turkey cock, not a hen, eh?

And cocks are animals, er, people too!

74

Considering the ethics boards, management approval, and actual cost of researching on animals, I doubt they ever just start slicing and dicing without a very clear theoretical understanding of what they’re looking for or attempting to achieve.

Just not feasible, nor is medical testing that goes immediately to humans.

75

Originally posted by dre2xl:

Do you have some sort of proof for this statement?
-whoah animals are smarter that people these days, you learn something new all the time
-rubbing against someones leg is empathy?

Empathy:Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives. So if someone is getting a divorce that cat know what they are going through?

-yes all these animals that are constatly harming themselves by accident have more common sense than people

-Of course the animal is loyal to the thing that feeds it. How would an animal betray your trust?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by danceswithcats:

-Animals can’t talk, they don’t have the ability to lie
-they cannot ask for money
-Animals don’t need any alcohol to barf on someones floor
-Hell I have seen plenty of dogs try to hump friends girlfriends so I don’t think Rover is above doing that.
-Animals cannot drive :stuck_out_tongue:

76

GAAAHHHHHHHH! THAT’S IT! I LEAVE THIS THREAD TO THE FUCKING IDJITS TO DO BATTLE OVER WHETHER OR NOT A DOG HUMPING YOUR LEG IS LOVE OR NOT!

Jesus fucking christ with a milkbone…

77

.Put several starving athletes in a downed plane, with their dead teamates and see how far “loyalty” goes.

Put several starving pioneers in the middle of the frozen mountains with their deceased loved ones and see how far “love” goes.

Not that I’m not willing to possibly concede that animals don’t love us, I just don’t think that those 'tests" prove it since they can be said of human on human (who DO love each other) reaction too.
[/QUOTE]

Try to focus for a few brief seconds here.

Dogs != People

therefore (still with me?)

Dog Behavior != Human Behavior

Not a difficult concept. You might as well compare an earthworm to a dolphin.

While my example may not have been the best, it doesn’t negate a century of animal behavior studies. A dog’s decision to eat a human has nothing to do with emotion. A human decision to eat another human is an agonizing one that normally results in severe emotional distress and years of guilt.
[/QUOTE]
Right, however as “proof” you were using examples in which humans and dogs would behave in similar manners. I agree that the human after effects would be different than a dogs. But in such a situation, even a dog would be hesitant to break a taboo against eating a master, though of course it’s survival needs would outweigh it’s hesitation of course. Just as our survival needs would outweigh our taboo against cannibalism (not for everyone of course, if I remember, there were those in the downed Andes disaster that refused, and chose instead to die), but a lot of people.

The truth is that unless we have some way of being inside a dog, or other pet’s mind, we really have no idea what they are really “thinking” or feeling, if at all.

I don’t at all think that dogs experience love, or any emotions on a level approaching that of humans. But I don’t think that then equals that all of their actions are driven by instinct only. In my opinion only, I think that in their limiited dog and cat ways, that they do feel affection for their human companions. But again, that is ONLY my opinion.

My own dog acts in a very interesting way. And I’ve read of her breed, that they are equated with having the intelligence level of a toddler. Strangely, is survival is a factor, I’d wonder about her abilities, for in a perfect world, as she has now, she’s not all that interested in food, if play is in the offing.

She’ll happily give up her food to any dog, but they’d better NOT think about her toys. And she’s quite aware of which ones are hers, and which are the other dogs. All it takes is a “play with your OWN chewman!” for her to stop trying to take over all toys. :smiley:

I’m sure there’s some survival or instinctual reason behind that, territorial likely, that some scientist would be happy to outline for me, but what it could be I can’t think right now.

78

My mom, like her mom before her, has an instinctual feel (“sixth sense”) for what’s going on with the cats. She seems to be right about them, too.

After my dad died, her cat Reggie always seemed to know the right time to come and “comfort” her. All the cats seemed to “look out” for her. But also, of course, they wanted to make sure that she fed them. :wink: But it was more than that. They kept her going during a very bad time in her life.

Our cats can be sensitive and moody—worrying that they have done wrong, or are being rejected. They also have “favorites.” My little orange kitty Missy considers me her favorite, for some reason.

Who knows? I don’t give a damn whether or not some of you believe that these cats have any sort of unique personality or feelings, it very much appears that they do, IMHO.

79

Yet one more similarity between dogs/cats and certain humans, this time in the realm of jealousy.

Anyone who’s been around multiple dogs and/or cats enough knows about this behavior pattern.
And it appears a very similar emotion is behind some of the posts in this thread.

It’s obvious that the near-visceral rejection of any suggestion that these animals have personality traits and express emotions not terribly dissimilar to those of humans is very threatening to some. The fact that some folks pay a lot of attention to their pets is seen as a form of rejection by certain insecure humans.

If a pet owner goes overboard and insists on bringing an animal to work, or your girlfriend gets slobbered on by the dog and then wants to give you a smooch, OK - you’ve got a gripe. But why should you blow a gasket when you see a woman carrying a dog in her purse, or vent wildly over the level of medical care a person gives their cat?

In the words of the OP: It’s a *$(&# dog. Get over it.

80

Why does everyone assume that love is a complex emotion, experienced only by sentient beings? It’s one of the most basic and simple emotions, and incredibly beneficial in an evolutionary sense, just as are fear and anger.

Take the love of a mother for its young, for example. That emotion compells the mother to care for the offspring more carefully and to spend time with it, nurturing and teaching it. It’s not necessarily instinct alone.

Or, as it was put in this book:

If you met a man in the wilderness who could not speak your languge, how would you know what he was feeling? You’d probably take your cues from his posture, guestures and his facial expression-- so why can’t we trust these same indicators in the animal kingdom?

Animals can communicate-- we just need to understand their language, that of posture, tension, guestures, facial expression (especially in the apes) and vocalization.

Animals are not furry little robots waiting for instructions from their DNA. Indeed, animals appear to have rich emotional lives, experiencing the gamut of human emotion: fear, anger, hate, love, envy, sorrow and joy.They have almost identical chemical reactions in their brains as we do when we experience emotion.

I know that the fear of the stigma of anthrpromorphication is enough to keep many scientists from researching this subject, but there are serious scholars out there who are doing so. I’m not saying that they’re definately correct, but some of their reasoning stands up to logic, and, I think, deserves due consideration.