Dogs

[Dre89]

I love my dog, everyone loves dogs (I really hope I don't get asked to back that up with data). But does anyone else find it a little bit sad and pathetic that we basically artificially bred creatures to submit to us and give us unconditional love?

Something about that doesn't sit right with me.

Discuss.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Just wondering: do you want us to debate this topic?

I personally love my dog, but artificial breeding has been around for centuries.

 

[Vinylic.]

I had a yorkie before.

But due to some money problems, I couldn't keep it for long.

 

[Dre89]

I wouldn't put it in the debate hall if I didn't want it debated.

It's not the artificial breeding I have an issue with. It's the fact we've artificially moulded something to be be submissive and provide unconditional love.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

I wouldn't put it in the debate hall if I didn't want it debated.

It's not the artificial breeding I have an issue with. It's the fact we've artificially moulded something to be be submissive and provide unconditional love.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily true all of the time. Some dogs are bred specifically for dog fighting rings.

 

[Vinylic.]

And dog fighting is illegal. I think dre is mostly right.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

And dog fighting is illegal. I think dre is mostly right.

The legality of the issue was not brought up. Also Dre, are you arguing that it is immoral/wrong for us to "mold [creatures/dogs] into something submissive and provide unconditional love"?

 

[Nicholas1024]

I wouldn't put it in the debate hall if I didn't want it debated.

It's not the artificial breeding I have an issue with. It's the fact we've artificially moulded something to be be submissive and provide unconditional love.

What do you mean unconditional love? Sure, if you love the dog (as 99% of dog owners do), the dog will love you back, but if you abuse it, then don't expect it to love you. Unconditional love means love regardless of what the other person does, and for as nice as having a dog can be, I don't think that's what they provide.

 

[Dre89]

Stealthy- I'm not sure I'm saying it's necessarily immoral, because the dogs aren't necessarily suffering, it's more that I find it pathetic that we need to do this.

Nic- But we've bred them to submit to us and love us as long as we don't abuse them. They're so impressionable and manipulatable that their attitude toards us is entirely dependent on how we treat them. Also, they don't need to be absolutely spoiled to love us, the margin for error is quite large.

It's different to me if someone has a dog for farming, hunting, racing, policing etc. because they serve a purpose and aren't necessarily mistreated, it's just that when the only purpose is to have something to submit to us and love us so easily, I find that kind of sad. It almost reminds me of someone paying for sex, or owning a blow up doll.

 

[Vinylic.]

Wait, what are you trying to say here?

You mean that people own dogs just to look better for themselves?

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'look better for themselves', but I'm guessing that's not what I'm trying to say.

It's just that we've basically bred something that's nearly forced to submit to and love us if we don't mistreat os it. It's almost like programming something to love you. It's easy love.

It's the same principle as why paying for sex or a foreign bride, or having a blow up doll as a girlfriend are looked down upon, because you're basically forcing something to give you some kind of attention without actually earning it.

I just think humans are beyond the level where they need to force something to love them.

 

[asianaussie]

i saw this topic on the main page, and i gotta say, nice job

im a fish person

 

[Battlecow]

I haz 2 puppies

dey love me

It is good

Anyone who says it is not good is a ****knuckling cowhumping knobgobbling cockjockey

Ima go hug them now

 

[Dre89]

I haz 2 puppies

dey love me

It is good

Anyone who says it is not good is a ****knuckling cowhumping knobgobbling cockjockey

Ima go hug them now

Would you like some premises with that conclusion?

They're pretty much the only things that could love you.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Would you like some premises with that conclusion?

They're pretty much the only things that could love you.

 

[Evil Eye]

Dogs were domesticated in the first place, I believe for things such as hunting farming, and the like. Or maybe it was just that human drive to control ****. Who knows. It was presumably the former, though, since domestication is a hell of an investment to indulge for mere curiosity, whereas the former would accomplish a tangible task.

As such, the fact that dogs will love an owner that treats them well probably speaks more to the nature of dogs than their domestication. Dogs don't need much to be happy, and like many more docile mammals, they are familial creatures. As such they attach to their owners.

Because of these things, unless you have a moral objection to the idea of a pet, I'm not seeing your point. The domestication of dogs, which served practical ends, would inevitably lead to a surplus of dogs that don't need to perform tasks. And even a pet dog will end up serving a function as surely as a police dog or a greyhound track racer. Some perform minor oddjobs like retrieving newspapers or other such things. Dogs tend to be territorial and protect their property. Owning the dog will force the owner to walk them, which will cause them to exercise -- never a bad thing.

Although dogs are exchanged in transactions, and generally end up loving their owner, I fail to see how this is any worse than a dog that is kept on to perform tasks. The relationship is pragmatic; dogs with good owners have a warm place to sleep, food and water whenever they need it, treats, exercise, you name it. They are getting plenty out of the arrangement, and I would assume that has plenty to do with their demeanor with a master. Dogs have a low threshold because they don't need or desire much to be happy.

In fact, dogs that are kept as pets have a rather luxurious life, if you think about it. They have no pressure to do anything. Their arrangement with their master is not unlike being a roommate that does not need to pay rent or buy food. Dogs that are used for occupational tasks, on the other hand, are basically indentured servants. And quite often they are put in hazardous situations that they, being dogs, cannot even consent to. Such as bomb sniffer dogs, or firehouse dalmatians. Or track dogs that get run to exhaustion.

So, yeah. Issues with the domestication in the first place, that I could see. Dogs were more or less snatched from the wild -- and their place in nature -- and indoctrinated to serve man. But to accept that and yet find fault with the common house dog is pretty silly.

 

[Dre89]

EE I never said it was immoral to do this to dogs, I know they benefit from the relationship.

It's not a moral question but rather one of self respect. If someone pays an escort to simulate affection, even though both parties profit, and nothing immoral has been done, you question the dignity of the consumer.

 

[Battlecow]

Would you like some premises with that conclusion?

They're pretty much the only things that could love you.

Only dogs could love me?

Are you saying that your mom's a b*tch?

Cold, man. Not untrue, but cold.

 

[Sinji]

Yea dog fighting is illegal

 

[Dre89]

Only dogs could love me?

Are you saying that your mom's a b*tch?

Cold, man. Not untrue, but cold.

I'll give you that one, that was pretty decent.

 

[Jim Morrison]

EE I never said it was immoral to do this to dogs, I know they benefit from the relationship.

It's not a moral question but rather one of self respect. If someone pays an escort to simulate affection, even though both parties profit, and nothing immoral has been done, you question the dignity of the consumer.

I think you're getting at the fact that the reason people get dogs as pets is because they are missing affection in their life, and a dog can easily give that? It would be the only purpose of a dog, to be attained to give the owner some love.

Is this true or am I rambling?

 

[Dre89]

Kind of.

Most people who have dogs do earn affection from other humans, but the person who has dogs because they can't get affection elsewhere is the epitome of the principle behind domesticating dogs for urban households.

Kinda like how a seedy old man who can get no action and resorts to hookers is the epitome of the principle behind prostitution, even though not everyone who uses hookers is like that.

 

[1048576]

Feels like the whole furry movement is the same way. Lonely people need imaginary friends.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Dogs crap everywhere, and people don't pick up after them. This is one reason why I do not like most dogs. Cats are preferrrrrrable in most circumstances.

 

[1048576]

Cats are cleaner, smarter, lower maintenance, and their tongues aren't gross.

 

[Sucumbio]

It's been said that to a cat, it's the owner that's the pet, and the cat is the real owner.

I don't think this has been said of dogs.

But I don't draw the same correlation between vapid dog owners and guys that pay for sex. There's too many dynamics involved.

I think, though that Dre. is referring almost exclusively to dog owners that own them as objects. My brother's wife is such a person. She totes her yippy little chiwawa like one does a purse. Do I feel bad for the dog? Yeah, sure. There are definitely some breeds of dogs that seem totally worthless but to be shown off as property/status (toy dogs, mainly, the larger breeds definitely serve real-world applications). But these same dogs can end up in programs like pets for the elderly, pets for prisoners, etc. So they are okay.

What this really means is, it's the owners that you should really feel sorry for, because they're so damaged, their only recourse is to adorn themselves with a living necklace.

 

[Overswarm]

I don't think there's anything wrong with subjugating less intelligent species for our own benefit. I find absolutely no issue with doing so to dogs because it is a beneficial relationship. Your dog would get eaten if left outside to his own devices in the wild.

It seems more that you have an issue with your own superiority over another creature rather than actually feeling bad for the dog.

 

[Dre89]

OS I stated it's not a moral issue, I never said the dog is being mistreated. And yes I feel there is something sad about artificially breeding domesticated animals to submit to us and give us unconditional love. It's on a similar level to getting a wife from the Phillipines who will sumbit to you and do everything for you.

And the point that our dogs couldn't fend for themselves on the streets is a bit confused because they only reason why they exist is because we artificially bred them (domesticated dogs that is).

 

[Overswarm]

OS I stated it's not a moral issue, I never said the dog is being mistreated. And yes I feel there is something sad about artificially breeding domesticated animals to submit to us and give us unconditional love. It's on a similar level to getting a wife from the Phillipines who will sumbit to you and do everything for you.

What's wrong with that? win/win.

 

[Orboknown]

Stealthy- I'm not sure I'm saying it's necessarily immoral, because the dogs aren't necessarily suffering, it's more that I find it pathetic that we need to do this.

Nic- But we've bred them to submit to us and love us as long as we don't abuse them. They're so impressionable and manipulatable that their attitude toards us is entirely dependent on how we treat them. Also, they don't need to be absolutely spoiled to love us, the margin for error is quite large.

It's different to me if someone has a dog for farming, hunting, racing, policing etc. because they serve a purpose and aren't necessarily mistreated, it's just that when the only purpose is to have something to submit to us and love us so easily, I find that kind of sad. It almost reminds me of someone paying for sex, or owning a blow up doll.

We do this with all domesticated animals. We breed horses and birds. Humans initially bred animals for labor(like EE said above) then developed them into companions.
Not necessarily for sole devotion to them because we couldnt get affection form anything else,but..idk i guess we came to care for them as part of the family(in the best cases)