Dogs are so gross

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is a nonsense argument. You can’t compare to the absence of existence because everything you’re weighing and placing value on is strictly concerned with existence, coming from someone whose value and weight on these issues comes solely from the fact that they exist. There’s nothing to measure against. What you’d actually be measuring is as you said: whether existing is better than death. That’s a different thing entirely.

For something that doesn’t exist, nothing has value. “Well, would a dog like to play fetch? Or would a dog prefer to not exist in the first place?” Spoiler: nothing prefers to not exist in the first place that doesn’t already exist, because preference is a condition of existence!

Bumface is right. You’re basically advocating a hardcore pro-life argument. Can’t allow abortions or birth control if the potential value of life is always better than not existing.

Plus dogs are gross, to reiterate.

I think you are making an incorrect assumption that existing is always better than non-existence. Something brought into existence and then tortured and killed is likely not better off existing. Like factory farmed chickens for example. Factory farmed chickens should not exist even if that meant that no chickens would exist. I don’t think Dogs as a net species meet that Threshold.

Of course those in existence and those with conscious thought are the ones who have to be the arbiter of which is better.

I don’t think I’m making the pro life argument, I’m making the zoo argument.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Dion

Then stop making comments like "You’re one of those people who married their dog, aren’t you?"

Anti social is of course the wrong word to use. People who have never owned a dog might not appreciate how much dogs mean to their owners and how they are treated or become a part of the family. Or the gap it leaves in their lives when they are gone.

You don’t see any similarity to the post I responded to and the way people who married their dog spoke about them?

I think you’re probably right in that people who have never owned a dog might not understand, but people who own dogs don’t always share that same affinity either. I had dogs growing up. They were dogs. You love them like dogs, not like your friends or your siblings or your parents… like dogs. When they die, the gap is dog shaped… you can pretty easily fill it with another dog… if you want.

[Roof-Daddy]

Anybody who suggests to a large group of people that they should use a weapon like a sling shot to hurl ice at a dog might need to seek professional help. Imagine wanting to inflict that kind of pain and abuse on a living creature because you don't like the sound it's making.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You don’t see any similarity to the post I responded to and the way people who married their dog spoke about them?

I think you’re probably right in that people who have never owned a dog might not understand, but people who own dogs don’t always share that same affinity either. I had dogs growing up. They were dogs. You love them like dogs, not like your friends or your siblings or your parents… like dogs. When they die, the gap is dog shaped… you can pretty easily fill it with another dog… if you want.

I get that dog owners can have different views. I just don't see why you felt the need to make that insulting remark. Be respecting of other people and how they view their dogs.

I would disagree that the gap is easily replaced. Dogs have personalities and have non verbal ways of communicating with their owners and through that a bond develops between the owner and his dog. One that is not easily replaced. They're not just a dog to some owners.

When you factor in the number of years the dog has been with his or her owner it's not unreasonable for an owner to consider tham as part of the family.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think you are making an incorrect assumption that existing is always better than non-existence. Something brought into existence and then tortured and killed is likely not better off existing. Like factory farmed chickens for example. Factory farmed chickens should not exist even if that meant that no chickens would exist. I don’t think Dogs as a net species meet that Threshold.

Of course those in existence and those with conscious thought are the ones who have to be the arbiter of which is better.

I don’t think I’m making the pro life argument, I’m making the zoo argument.

Right, but because that threshold is decided by those who only know existence and (in the case of dogs or chickens) only know it from a completely different perspective than the thing in question, it’s totally meaningless.

You’re suggesting that existing can either be better or worse than not existing, I’m saying that the very comparison to the two is completely invalid from the get-go, and making it leads to the argument that because all existence has the “potential” to be better than non-existence (given that we can hardly determine the future of all things), things should always exist.

Even if you were to write out a pros and cons list of existing vs. not-existing, the pros and cons would all be pros of existing and cons of existing. The only pro or cons you could, in theory, put on the not-existing side would be “no concept of pros or cons” and you’d never be able to tell whether it you should put it in the pro or con side because you only know it from the position of existence.

So no, to argue dogs existing in their current state is a problem you need only to compare it to another state of possible existence of a dog, not an absence of.

[FlamesAddiction]

I find it funny that dog bashing inevitably turns into arguments about cats versus dogs. Both are gross in their own way, and both can be satisfying pets if you are into that kind of thing. I am going to play along though.

I prefer cats as I find their mannerisms and personalities more pleasing. I find that many of the reasons people like dogs is the same reason why I don't like them as much. The unwavering loyalty, admiration, groveling, and neediness is just too much for me. Not that cats don't need engagement and interaction, but it is typically a much more laid back relationship.

I do like dogs in small doses, but different strokes for different folks. Honestly, I am not really a pet person in general, but I have had dogs at certain points in life, and I find they give me stress I just don't need and would prefer they are kept away from public events and businesses. People typically don't bring cats around with them, so their annoying traits aren't forced upon others.

[WCW Nitro]

The Memorial Cup final must have been unpleasant for some with the final being between the Saint John SeaDogs vs the Hamilton Bulldogs

[SebC]

Hey Sliver, I found this religion... you're going to love it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I find it funny that dog bashing inevitably turns into arguments about cats versus dogs. Both are gross in their own way, and both can be satisfying pets if you are into that kind of thing. I am going to play along though.

I prefer cats as I find their mannerisms and personalities more pleasing. I find that many of the reasons people like dogs is the same reason why I don't like them as much. The unwavering loyalty, admiration, groveling, and neediness is just too much for me. Not that cats don't need engagement and interaction, but it is typically a much more laid back relationship.

I do like dogs in small doses, but different strokes for different folks. Honestly, I am not really a pet person in general, but I have had dogs at certain points in life, and I find they give me stress I just don't need and would prefer they are kept away from public events and businesses. People typically don't bring cats around with them, so their annoying traits aren't forced upon others.

It’s a long story, but I have a cat and dog. The dog is much, much better. The cat is horrible. Cats are far more destructive and make a lot more of a mess (the dog is non-shedding).

That said, as much as I love my dog, I’m 99% sure that when he passes, we’re done with pets.

[Senator Clay Davis]

How did you not save this thread for a Wednesday? Seems so wasted on a Saturday when most of us have things to do, like take our dogs to the park or whatever. Still 9/10 overall, just figured it makes more sense when there is true boredom to deal with.

[PeteMoss]

Pretty well everything we do to survive is gross if you think about it. Everything we eat either grew in or out of the ground or we killed in some likely terrible form. We go to the grocery store and buy things to eat that have been handled by god knows how many people.

Even the water we drink has fish and animals swimming/pissing, etc in it.

Living through grossness is a way of survival. We've just managed to hide most of the grossness from our lives by not seeing the people dealing with the dead animals and rolling in dirt to get our food.

[Matata]

The real problem is that 99% plus of dog owners are completely oblivious to their pets psychology and needs. I remember being in Prague over a decade ago and since coming back I have not seen one North American dog that was as well-trained as every single dog in prague.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I tend to subdivide people into "dog people" and "non dog people". My trust meter automatically goes up a notch, when I meet "dog people".

It’s a pretty good test of how friendly and chill people are. If I could do a backyard BBQ with the last 10 people who came to my door and pulled away from our dog in anxiety and squeamishness, or the last 10 who came to the door and played with our dog, it would be no contest.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Anybody who suggests to a large group of people that they should use a weapon like a sling shot to hurl ice at a dog might need to seek professional help. Imagine wanting to inflict that kind of pain and abuse on a living creature because you don't like the sound it's making.

I guess we should get nik- some help, too, eh? He reached out to a group of people asking how to mass murder some mice:
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=122021

Didn't see you white knighting for animals in that one.

And look out for fundmark19...he wants to poison voles!
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=105032

Maritime Q-Scout...Roof-Daddy is coming for you!
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...51#post8339651

I mean, that's about all the effort I'm going to go to on this one, but the point is we all get frustrated with nuisance animals and sometimes there are very few options to deal with them. Not to mention if you eat meat, wear leather, drink milk, consume eggs, etc. then STFU.

Just because you like dogs doesn't put you on a higher level. Unless you are a vegan and always have been, then you are part of a cold and vicious cycle of animal abuse being perpetrated every single day. Most of the animals you interact with (in your clothes, on your dinner plate, on the seats of your car, etc.) would be so lucky to get pegged with an ice cube as the worst thing that happens to them when they are totally misbehaving in society.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Pepsifree has just been leaving snide/provocative responses to my posts in various threads since we had a disagreement a little while ago.

I dunno, I find that pretty hard to believe.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s a pretty good test of how friendly and chill people are. If I could do a backyard BBQ with the last 10 people who came to my door and pulled away from our dog in anxiety and squeamishness, or the last 10 who came to the door and played with our dog, it would be no contest.

No, that's the stupidest test to ascertain how friendly and chill people are I've ever heard of. Like, please be serious for one second or make it a little more obvious if you're going for humour because that's not even funny. It's just a waste of ones and zeroes as we all have better things to do than read drivel.

Your test can ascertain who likes dogs and who doesn't and that's the extent of its value. I have no anxiety whatsoever around well-behaved dogs. It doesn't mean I want their drool, fur, dirty paws and nose goop on me, though. So, yeah, good job on devising a test that will give you no insight into the somebody's level of chill or friendliness. Know what a more normal way to ascertain who is chill and friendly and who is not? Interacting with them. Dogs can't help you with this lol.

Like, OMG, Cliff. What happened to you? I used to find your posts insightful and intelligent even though I typically disagree. Now every single one I read I feel like I'm reading a caricature of a CliffFletcher post. All kidding aside, I hope everything is okay.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Anybody who suggests to a large group of people that they should use a weapon like a sling shot to hurl ice at a dog might need to seek professional help. Imagine wanting to inflict that kind of pain and abuse on a living creature because you don't like the sound it's making.

People who are animal abusers rarely think it’s a big deal. They’ll make excuses for how other animals are mistreated so it’s ok, or create imaginary scenarios to explain it away, or bring up people eating beef like that’s the same thing. It’s basically the same as when gun nuts bring up Chicago to try and discount gun violence. It’s pretty sad but it gives you a good frame of reference for the kind of people they are

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Don't bother. Pepsifree has just been leaving snide/provocative responses to my posts in various threads since we had a disagreement a little while ago. It's a weird thing to do, but not worth engaging with. I just stuck him on ignore, and I'm frankly not bothered what he replies to my posts.

No he doesn't. You're misinterpreting his posting style as personal when it isn't.

He's one of my top five favourites on this board and I like to think we're kind of forum bros; however, that doesn't stop him from calling me out in the way you're describing if my perspective is off base/wrong/in need of reflection.

The way he calls somebody out is by astutely extracting the core of somebody's meaning from the extraneous fluff/misleads in their argument. He boils it down to a simple point, but he does it with a bit of humour that can border on snarky, but that's a perfectly reasonable style of humour. Then he turns the mirror on you and if you don't like what you see, perhaps it's not him and perhaps it's you. Is he infallible? Of course not. He can disagree with you and be wrong, but he's definitely earned - and deserves - the respect of your consideration of his perspective if he's taken the time and interest to work with you on seeing things from a different point of view.

It's a shame you have him on ignore. You're missing an opportunity to enjoy and benefit from a unique poster with a perspective most of us need.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I dunno, I find that pretty hard to believe.

Okay, this is the Cliff I love. I don't think you and PepsiFree have the tightest of relationships on here, but I respect that you can always set aside personality conflicts and shoot for objectivity. It was cool you stuck up for him.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Sliver

No he doesn't. You're misinterpreting his posting style as personal when it isn't.

He's one of my top five favourites on this board and I like to think we're kind of forum bros; however, that doesn't stop him from calling me out in the way you're describing if my perspective is off base/wrong/in need of reflection.

The way he calls somebody out is by astutely extracting the core of somebody's meaning from the extraneous fluff/misleads in their argument. He boils it down to a simple point, but he does it with a bit of humour that can border on snarky, but that's a perfectly reasonable style of humour. Then he turns the mirror on you and if you don't like what you see, perhaps it's not him and perhaps it's you. Is he infallible? Of course not. He can disagree with you and be wrong, but he's definitely earned - and deserves - the respect of your consideration of his perspective if he's taken the time and interest to work with you on seeing things from a different point of view.

It's a shame you have him on ignore. You're missing an opportunity to enjoy and benefit from a unique poster with a perspective most of us need.

Haha, whatever... pretty sure I can make my own assessments of patterns of interaction with somebody without relying on your relationship with them as 'forum bros'