[QUOTE]
Originally posted by StellaFantasia *
**
Stella. Come on now. Be reasonable. i haven’t known that many dogs in my lifetime, but I currently know two maltese dogs- one of whom I took care of for two weeks this past summer. Both are really good natured dogs. Just because toy dogs are really small doesn’t make them bad pets. It mostly depends on whether or not their owners trained them correctly. Maybe the ones you’ve known have had bad owners or had truamtic puppyhoods or something.
So if I am hearing this right. . .
People prolly love pets because animals offer a relationship that is somehow more or different than human companionship. Like the “unconditional love” or the non-abusive relationship. While this wasn’t my question, it does shed some light on pet owners.
People own pets in the city because they are pet-lovers who happen to live in the city. They feel that their animal prefers indoors or gets enough out door recreation to make the animal happy.
The third thing I’ve learned is that many people are passionate and defensive about their pets. Why? I dont fully understand, but probably due to the “bond,” relationship and trust they have with their pet. Or maybe they’ve heard the “How can you keep that dog cooped up all day?” argument too many times.
I just hate those little dogs 'cause I’m afraid of them. They bark & bark & they won’t shut up & they have those sharp little teeth & it really seems like they hate me. Bigger dogs, on the other hand, might bark a few times, but after they sniff my hand (&, usually, my butt), they like me just fine. The constant barking of small dogs scares me. I am also frightened of people who yell & scream at me. It’s the same thing to me. My friend Diego used to tell me that his dog just wanted me to pet him, but I do not want to put my hand near something that it making that kind of noise.
Stella, dogs sense your fear. Some dogs who sense fear react with barking. Most of these dogs, if you pet them, they’d stop barking and start wagging their tails. If you trust the dog’s owner and the owners says the dog won’t bite, I’m reasonably sure they won’t bite.
On the other hand, your policy of staying away from barking dogs is perfectly reasonable if you’re THAT scared of them.
racerx, I know you aren’t going to like this answer, but, here it is: it’s a pet thing. If you don’t like pets, you aren’t going to understand. Personally, I can’t relate to anyone who doesn’t like pets.
And FWIW, my love for my pets has nothing to do with my lack of rewarding human contact. I’d love my pets no matter what.
Cyndar has it exactly right.
Other questions.
Why do talk online? Why not real people?
Why do you get pireced?
Why do you dye your hair?
Why do you listen to that awful music?
blah blah blah
If you don’t do it, you won’t understand.
oldscratch and Cyndar, I probably can’t fully understand, but I can make an attempt. If someone wants to understand, I think they probably can get a better idea of what others think/feel. Thats why I asked, because I wanted to know.
I think its pretty smug just to say, “Its a pet thing, you wouldn’t understand.” Its putting up a barrier that doesn’t necessarily have to be there. There are millions of things I could say “Its a girl thing. . .” But if I think someone wants to know, I’ll try to explain it to 'em. Thats how the world works. We are all different yet we have to operate on one planet. Thats why this is an opinion forum.
Now, if you dont want to answer, or cant find the words to express what you feel or whatever, thats different. And I’d rather you just say as much.
So it’s TRUE!! When I was a kid, I thought that dogs could smell fear. I guess they do. My fear is morbid & illogical (I’ve play-wrestled with pit bulls, but won’t get within 10 feet of a Maltese), but knowing that doesn’t make me any less afraid.
For the record, my talk of stomping on little dogs or otherwise destroying them is a lot of bluster. I’m actually much too frightened of them to get close enough to stomp on them.
I agree racerx that my answer might be seen as flip. However, many other people have given you good answers. I’m simply adding to it, that unless you “are” a pet person, you won’t fully understand.
Thank you.
I can see why you wouldn’t agree with my statement 100%. It wasn’t meant to be a sweeping generalization. For the Record, I said “can be the same people who are emotionally cut off.” I didn’t mean to imply that ALL animal lovers, who sleep with their dogs are all emotionally crippled. I’m sure there’s a lot of animal lovers out there with perfectly healthy emotional connections to other humans. I was just trying to point out that some of us are in pain and keeping animals around can be good therapy – if you need it.
But no big whoop.
Also FTR, I just wanted to point out two things:
Ivar Great Danes make great apartment dogs. They are famous for it. Give them a nice overstuffed chair in a corner (or a well padded crate) and they are as happy as only a dog can be. What kind of Dane did you get? It has been our experiance that fawns mellow out the most.
racerx. You know, you might try reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (also known as Blade Runner), by Philip K. Dick. There is an interesting subplot in it about empathy between humans and animals. You may find it helps you to understand the relationship between people and dogs.
I own three Great Danes in a house ( with a big yard, by LA standards ) in LA. I cannot begin to tell you the things that these dogs have taught me, or the joy that they bring. Dogs provide a kind of companionship that people don’t. This may sound corny, but they bring out the best in you; they expect you to be fair, trustworthy, patient, and consistent - you can’t raise a dog any other way. Everyone should have a dog before they are allowed to have children, for exactly those reasons. There’s just something about looking into those worshipful eyes that makes me want to be the person that my dogs think that I am. They have a continual zeal for life that is inspiring; apparently dogs never have bad days. The use of dogs in therapy (especially for the elderly) suggests that I’m not alone in this feeling.
If you can provide a good definition of “love”, we can argue about whether or not dgos are capable of it. Since it appears that I’ve got more experiance with dogs than you have, I’m going to commit the fallacy of arguement-by-appeal-to-authority and suggest that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Yes, they are alone for about 9 hours a day, but Danes are pack dogs, and they play together in my absence. There are quite a few dogs that seem awfully happy sleeping while their masters are at work.
As for dogs prefering to be outside…well, once again, I don’t think you have enough familiarity with dogs to make blanket statements like that one. Yes, some dogs like to play outside. Some prefer to be outside. Some don’t.
And,yes, in the future, I will preview my posts. In my defense, I made it to over 100 posts before it occured. I mean, back when we counted those things, I did.
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll prolly look around for it when I’m done with one of my current readings.
I dont know if I can even express how mind-boggling this suggestion is to me. I’ve never wanted to own a dog. If I were to have a child I think I would want it. While there may be some similarities in the ways your pets view you and how you react to them, they are not children/humans. I can not get over this fact, although I realize that many pet owners blur this barrier between human and animal.
Sorry, but I’m pretty sure I could never give a definition of love. I’m not a coward, I just have some skeptical/realistic views about humans’ ability to communicate with each other.
Wha? Where did you get that idea? Just because I dont like dogs? I have plenty of experience with dogs, just not with owning dogs.
I dont think you have enough familiarity with me to make a blanket statement like that.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant, not because dogs and children are interchangeable, but because dogs are a good warm up for children. The whole fair-unemotional discipline thing, combined with the life-depending on you being around thing, and the punctured sleep during puppyhood, gives you a good idea (well, a taste) of what it will be like to have children.
You know, you are right, I don’t know much about you. You seem like a decent enough person. But this statement speaks volumes about you. It suggests, quite frankly, that you don’t have the…emotional wiring…required to understand the bond between living things of any types. Not only do I not think I could explain why people have pets; given a statement like that, I doubt that I could explain to you why people live together, or fall in love, or get married, or form societies, or do any of the things people do.
Please don’t take that as a slam; like I said, you seem nice enough. But you have a view point that may make it impossible to bridge this gap.
Thanks bashere. Your post got me thinking. First of all, I understand what you meant by the whole pets could give you a feeling of what kids might be like.
I didn’t mean to discourage you from trying to explain your view. But your post got me thinking and led me on a wild rant that explained things in my mind.
The following is the rant, which I hope you dont feel obligated to read because my mind works wierdly.
Anyways, my whole problem with people trying to communicate stems from the belief (I cant remember the actual philosopher’s name) that words are merely symbols for their actual meanings. For example, I say pet and you think of your adoring Danes waiting for you at home. But when I say pets I think of the family pets we had all the while I was growing up. They jumped up on me (I’m little), scratched me, bit and I never understood that this was all in play. So, technically we each have different meanings of the word “pet.” Therefore, we each prolly also have different meanings of the word “love” (thats why I’d never attempt to define such an abstract term). If we each have different meanings of pet and love, then it is quite possible that your pet displays love in a way that I have never experienced and therefore don’t have in my definition of love. So, maybe your animals do display love, and maybe it is something that I’ll never “get” because, as oldscratch and cyndar pointed out its a “pet thing.”
Well, racerx teaches herself something today. Naturally you dont have to agree with it, but I did just admit fallibility and that isnt something that occurs often.
Thanks again all.
Act one, in which bashere sees racerx’s rant, and raises her a couple
Wow, racerx, you pegged all of the issues that I thought would have prevented us from discussing this. I still think we are on opposite sides of a divide that can’t really be bridged, but at least we aren’t shouting at each other across it.
Act two, in which bashere tries to sound like a reasonable person
First off, I wanted you to define “love” not to trick you into some epistomological trap, but to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. For instance, some people can define love as a transcendental state in which the happiness of another is more important to you than your own. Others define the same thing as a brief serotonin-induced state followed by pain and heavy drinking. You seemed to be implicitly defining love as “an emotion only creatures capable of demonstrable abstract thought are capable of”, in which case I would be an idiot to argue that dogs love their humans. Please accept my apologies if I did look like I was just trying to score debaters points. More on this in just a second.
Act three, in which bashere starts to sound a little strange
You state, correctly and inargueably, that communication has limits, even when conducted between intelligent members of the same species. This is one of the things I find interesting about dogs and people; I would respond that a form of communication exists between dogs and humans that teaches the moderately observant person interesting and insightful things about the nature of communication. I can’t really seem to express what these things are, mainly for fear of, err, sounding insane (note to self; probably too late) but clearly the fact that we can interact with dogs so well can be considered fascinating by a reasonable person.
Act four, where people really start to worry
In further answer to your OP; I think it would be an interesting and legitimate line of speculation to consider the, for want of a better word, evolutionary advantages (although I doubt it is genetically related; perhaps some one else can supply a better word) of the relationship between humans and dogs. Dogs were domesticated somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago (depending on who’s counting, and the exact definition of domestication). At the time, we were still struggling our way to the top of the food chain. I would argue that small bands of humans with domesticated bundles of teeth, muscle, and claw had a better chance of survival than their unaided brethern. I’d also argue that those canines who befriended humans had a better chance of survival than their undomesticated brethern. I would further, and finally argue that this relationship is fundementally different than the relationship have with other animals (with the exception of horses). I think it an interesting line for WAGing to consider that those people who like dogs are the, hmm, intellectual(?) or spirital (?) heirs to the people who first formed the “deal” between dogs and humans. I would like to point out that whether or not I am a) insane, b)an idiot, or c) both, is also a legimate line of reasoning.
** Act five, in which a summary is attempted**
I would suggest lots of things about dogs that are subject to a debate that we probably can’t resolve do to epistemological issues. I would argue, for instance, that dogs are self-aware, and are thus capable of “higher” emotions. I would argue that they feel something that can best be described as love (even if they sometimes feel the need to express it by knocking people over). I would argue that dogs can teach people a lot; possibly not quantum mechanics, but certainly interesting things about communication, about societal behaviour, about self control, and certainly about the best place to lay in the sun on beautiful days.
Act six, in which the whole mess finally comes to an end
I’m not a nature-loving freak who places animals on the same plane as people. I support animal testing. I eat meat and wear leather. I have been spotted on the SDMB defending Bush. Clearly, I am not an overly sentimental person. But I think your statement that “I realize that many pet owners blur this barrier between human and animal.” misrepresents the case. There are profound differences between the feelings a pet owner has for a human and for their pets. Because the deepth of those emotions is similiar, it is hard to come up with words to convey the emotions to non-pet-people with out resorting to analogies - “he is like a child to me”. Sorry I can’t explain it better than that.
I’ll stop typing and post now. The nice young men in the clean white suits are here for me.
Mmmmmmaybe. In my years of observing my mom’s dog, the dog did seem to understand some things. But I’ll leave this one to the animal people who observe these kinda things.
Ok. Heres the thing, and I’m reluctant to mention this because I’m not fully prepared to defend it: I don’t think animals necessarily should have been domesticated. I
dont really understand why some animals we domesticate and others we dont. Prolly cause some dont take to domestication. I dont understand why, sometimes we (humans) capture a bird or whatever in order to help it (ie: fix a broken wing, etc.) and then we set it free, even go to great lengths to make sure it can survive out in the wild. But for some reason we dont do this with pets.
Who’s the animal wack-o now, bashere!?
Ok, maybe you win the wack-o award. I dunno, I think the relationship is different because dogs’ temperament is different.
Errr. I don’t think I agree, but I’ll have to think a while before I can explain why w/o sounding stupid.
Yes, but I dont think they teach us more than other animals or plants or what-have-you. Because I dont think it is the dog’s intention to teach a human, any learning is incidental. So, I’m not going to hand out any scooby snacks to any dog any time soon for his teaching.
Whew!
You’re probably right. Many people stated in this thread that the reason they like their pets so much is because they offer something different from human iteraction.
As I said, one of my basic problems with pets is that I have a hard time justifying domestication. Maybe I am the animal loving wacko. I dont like animal testing, I abhor zoos and I dont eat much (still eat some) meat. I just dont quite understand why its wrong to keep animals in a zoo, (I think it’s wrong) but keeping them as pets is ok. In both cases the animal is away from its natural habitat. It’s just one of those things I cant reconcile in my mind. As I mentioned (and maybe I am a coward) I don’t think I can defend this view very well. I haven’t done much reading on the subject of domestication. Perhaps this will prompt me.
Believe me - dogs understand a lot more than someone who doesn’t have regular, constant interaction with them would give them credit for. And every animal I’ve ever encountered has its own personality. They can solve problems. They can even mug for sympathy. My parents’ dog hurt a paw on one occasion. Ten minutes later, she was still limping around, but…on the wrong paw! She was faking to get attention and treats.
**
Too late. 
I agree.
**
They’re happier. My dogs would be miserable in the wild for the brief period of time they’d survive.
**
Define the “natural” habitat of a Persian cat, or a Pekingese dog, or a Shih Tzu. It’s on a cushion in front of the window, protected and pampered. That’s the case even for my Golden Retriever and Saluki.
I think that’s where you’re running into problems. You’re looking at something that happened many thousands of years ago and applying it to today’s world, where it can’t work. Dogs (wolves) were originally domesticated to help with the hunting and to help protect the cave (I’m generalizing). We got their help, they got regular feeding. Win-win. Horses were domesticated to help in the fields and for riding purposes. They also got a win-win. While we largely don’t need them for these purposes today, it’s far too late to change it. And I, for one, wouldn’t. Today’s pets, for the most part, are perfectly content, and wouldn’t know what to do with their “natural” habitat if they had it. To me, that indicates that it is no longer their natural habitat. It’s still a win-win, though. We get their love and companionship. They get our love, regular food, and security. Everybody’s happy, no one gets hurt. Isn’t that what it’s all about?
Were domesticated? Maybe they domesticated us…that’s a theory in Stephen Budiansky’s The Truth About Dogs- (i seem to be referencing this book a lot…)
But after all, most dogs probably wouldn’t fare so well in their natural habitats. Most dogs wouldn’t know how to hunt and find food without us.
Anyway I agree that capturing animals and bending them to our will is wrong, but with most dogs it seems pretty mutual. After all you can’t change the fact that domestication happened…and both dogs and humans seem pretty happy with the relationship- for the most part anyway.