PETA kills animals

[Ttaskmaster]

Taking a police horse into a dangerous position and expecting it, the one of the team that didn't sign up for it on the dotted line, to take the brunt of an attack is morally dubious in my book, and the poor old hypothetical porpoise, entirely wrong.

To continue my example of soldiers with the runner dogs above, one thing we were taught is that if the enemy is using dogs against you and they're not an immediate threat, take out the handler - Losing a mate will upset the enemy and leave them with no handler (one shot, multiple elements off the battlefield, and even more if he's a live casevac), but shooting a dog will upset them so much they'll go ape on you, bringing as much merry hell down upon you as they can radio in. We often responded the same and it's a lesson that usually got passed on to the enemies who'd previously trained with us.

I'm interested to see people's reasoning as to why we hold the attitudes we do such as dogs>sheep, whereas justifying eating meat at all is just your basic vegetarian vs carnivore argument & there isn't a lot that can be derived from turning over our carnivorous caveman roots &c &c imo.

On a basic level, I'd say it comes down to the same reasons other animals eat one meat but not another.
Put a dog next to another dog, a lamb and a rabbit - Chances are the dogs would team up to corner the rabbit and maybe even share the meal or just fight over it... or they may team up against the sheep and both have their fill. It's highly unlikely one will try and eat the other, though, as they recognise similarities between them - I reckon there is that same human-canine recognition, which led to us adopting them into our tribes in the first place.
Certainly for us, most of our pets are the kinds who came over to make friends and have that certain look in their eyes, whereas the animals we tend to use for food are those that just stand and stare indifferently.
Yes, there are a few videos of people with pet pigs, lambs and so on (not seen ones of cows...), but they are the rarity hence the need for a video of it.

[sammyc]

On a basic level, I'd say it comes down to the same reasons other animals eat one meat but not another.
Put a dog next to another dog, a lamb and a rabbit - Chances are the dogs would team up to corner the rabbit and maybe even share the meal or just fight over it... or they may team up against the sheep and both have their fill. It's highly unlikely one will try and eat the other, though, as they recognise similarities between them - I reckon there is that same human-canine recognition, which led to us adopting them into our tribes in the first place.

Hence my comment, not that I don't understand why we may not eat dogs, but that I'm interested (for the purposes of this thread, & rather than just argue why someone eats meat at all) to see if anyone can make an argument stand up as to why they think that some humans feel the way you describe, and not other humans, unless it's cultural programming.

[Ttaskmaster]

to see if anyone can make an argument stand up as to why they think that some humans feel the way you describe, and not other humans, unless it's cultural programming.

Difference in personality, perhaps?
I can't always look at humans and tell/know what they're thinking, but animals are usually pretty easy and they tend not to lie about it, either.
You also have individual needs that will dictate bonds - Dogs seem to work well for people who like being in charge or have strong parental instincts, while cats appeal to those of a more independent mind. Similarly, I'm sure there's another type of personality that feels a bond with horses and, though I don't know so much about them, I do find 'horsey' people quite alike.

[sammyc]

Difference in personality, perhaps?
I can't always look at humans and tell/know what they're thinking, but animals are usually pretty easy and they tend not to lie about it, either.
You also have individual needs that will dictate bonds - Dogs seem to work well for people who like being in charge or have strong parental instincts, while cats appeal to those of a more independent mind. Similarly, I'm sure there's another type of personality that feels a bond with horses and, though I don't know so much about them, I do find 'horsey' people quite alike.

Yes, but the nub of this topic as I read it is why one set of values from one nation over another, rather than one person to another, hence the why is there not a dog-eating festival at Chipping Norton. For me it's the same reason I was singing All Things Bright & Beautiful in school assembly, until you get to an age why you debrief religion & make your own mind up. So that's the only bit of anyone's posts I'm really picking the (metaphorical) bones out of.

[opel80uk]

But beyond that, when you get a dog, you sign up to a level of emotional involvement, committment to care and responsibility on a very similar level to children, albeit on a shorter time span... and the dog does the same. That's a lot of investment to suddenly dismiss. As the saying goes; The dog might only be part of your life, but for your dog, you are his whole life.

That's where we'll just have to disagree. For me it's nowhere near similar, certainly in terms of emotional involvement, with that of my children. That's not to say I don't care about my dogs, and I may even love my dogs, but for me (and I fully appreciate others will feel different about their own pets), any comparisons with what I feel for my children are laughable. That’s not to dismiss the investment I have made in my dogs (which is considerable), but rather simply acknowledging that in the hierarchy of importance in my life, and in relation to my family, they are pretty far down the list. I also know that it’s unfair that I’m more important to my dogs then they are to me, but that’s life.

As for me eating my dog vs setting it free, perhaps I should put it another way. I would do whatever it was I felt that gave us (my human family), the best chance of surviving, up to and including sacrificing the dog(s). If I felt setting them free would give us the best chance then I’d do it, if I felt eating them would give us the best chance, I’d do that. In such a situation, my dogs would become something that I would use in any way I felt appropriate to save us.

[Ttaskmaster]

Yes, but the nub of this topic as I read it is why one set of values from one nation over another, rather than one person to another

Ah right, well on a national level it's got to be a cultural development, surely?
For example, horses might be a French delicacy, while among the horse tribes of the Eurasian Steppes it would probably be sacrilege. Same for those cultures that don't eat pig or cow, I guess.

Definitely a comparatively recent development though, probably in line with people's increasing affinity with animal rights and heightened awareness of animals as sentient beings - This is not a new concept, as the likes of Plutarch and Aristotle debated such things, with others like Voltaire and Freud picking up the studies throughout history, but recent developments like television nature documentaries and the internet have allowed an even further reaching perspective and appreciation for animals.

That's where we'll just have to disagree. For me it's nowhere near similar, certainly in terms of emotional involvement, with that of my children.

Why, though?
What is it your children have that dogs don't, and that sets them above?

any comparisons with what I feel for my children are laughable.

Long as you can understand why others do feel the same about their dogs, laugh away.

In such a situation, my dogs would become something that I would use in any way I felt appropriate to save us.

Whereas I would not. When I took these dogs on, I accepted full responsibility for their welfare and any sacrifices I would have to make to ensure their welbeing.

[opel80uk]

Why, though?
What is it your children have that dogs don't, and that sets them above?

The (mis?)fortune of being borne of my seed? Joking aside, on one level I would guess it's part of my biological makeup - most, but not all, mammals are hardwired to feel this way to a more or lesser degree towards their own offspring, why would humans be any different? I would assume there is an evolutionary explanation to it. Moreover, what does it really matter? If I spent time contemplating why I liked a) more than b), I’d not have much time for either the dogs or the kids. By its very definition, emotional involvement is not dealing with the rational. But your question could also be easily flipped – why do you personally feel the same about your dogs as you do your children? And I don’t mean how does that manifest itself, but rather why do you feel that way?

Long as you can understand why others do feel the same about their dogs, laugh away.

Although I do understand that there are people that feel that way, I’m afraid I don’t understand why. Or maybe a better way to put it is to say that the notion is so alien to me, I simply cannot comprehend what that feels like, whilst at the same time acknowledging that others do feel that way. And in that long list of things I don’t understand that I wished I did, why some people feel the same for their pets as they do their children is pretty low down. And that’s ok too; I doubt anyone who feels like that is going to be particularly fussed about what I think in the first place.

Whereas I would not. When I took these dogs on, I accepted full responsibility for their welfare and any sacrifices I would have to make to ensure their welbeing.

Again, as per my last answer, but It would be boring if we all uniformly had the same priorities in life wouldn't it? And fortunately for my 3 dogs, the chances of me ever having to eat them are, thankfully, slim.

[sammyc]

Ah right, well on a national level it's got to be a cultural development, surely?
For example, horses might be a French delicacy, while among the horse tribes of the Eurasian Steppes it would probably be sacrilege. Same for those cultures that don't eat pig or cow, I guess.

I'm not putting my point across well, sorry. Cultural is exactly what I'm saying it is (therefore highly open to question imo) - but people don't necessarily think that has as much effect on them as it does, so it's interesting to see if/what other reasons people have for eating what's on our ok list. I don't think people routinely examine why they think the way they do or concede it's illogical. I haven't seen anyone here say "No, it's not cultural" & then back it up.

[Ttaskmaster]

Moreover, what does it really matter?

Beyond the general drive to arrive at a consensus of understanding and opinion on matters for the furtherment of society as a whole? Depends how complete an answer you want, I guess...

But your question could also be easily flipped – why do you personally feel the same about your dogs as you do your children? And I don’t mean how does that manifest itself, but rather why do you feel that way?

In the case of both my dogs and my daughter, we spent a long time preparing for them and went through a lot of emotional struggle to actually get them. Both were brought into our lives and for the same reasons, even though they may take different forms. For all intents and purposes, they are all family.

There's also been a lot of study in past decades, to eradicate the flaws in Pack Theory and raise awareness that dogs naturally behave on a more familial level, not seeing an Alpha male and female but a breeding pair. In effect, they see you as their parent(s), which reinforces the family thing that many people have instinctively adopted before anyway, as well as accounting for why dogs (and some other pets, like parrots) are often so protective/possessive of their owners*. They see themselves as part of your family and you're (effectively) declaring yourself their parents, so from an animal behaviouristy sort of perspective, they are your (adopted) children.

Although I do understand that there are people that feel that way, I’m afraid I don’t understand why.

The same instinct that allows bonding between the parent and their adopted child, I reckon. The more you understand your dog and its behaviour, the more it seems just like having a kid... even down to the temper tantrums and being a huffy teenager!

Or maybe a better way to put it is to say that the notion is so alien to me, I simply cannot comprehend what that feels like, whilst at the same time acknowledging that others do feel that way.

It feels just like loving a kid, albeit one that speaks a different language and grows up a lot faster.

And that’s ok too; I doubt anyone who feels like that is going to be particularly fussed about what I think in the first place.

Not at all - People usually like to be understood, even if there's still differences of belief, because there can still be acceptance born of it - That's how multi-faith societies were able to get along relatively well in the past.

I'm not putting my point across well, sorry. Cultural is exactly what I'm saying it is (therefore highly open to question imo) - but people don't necessarily think that has as much effect on them as it does

I was specifically meaning cultural development.
For example, I read an article not so long ago about the horse meat scandal in the UK and the question was why Americans would be so horrified by it if it'd happened there, when it wasn't so long ago that US Horse Meat was a perfectly everyday government certified and regulated market. In a few short decades, the US had gone from chowing down on Mister Ed and Red Rum to squealing like a cartoon elephant that's seen a mouse.
I'd suggest that cultures and the things within them are now developing so fast that people don't bother to dwell on them too long, for fear of being left behind? They realise the changes and the wide-reaching effect, but don't bother with more than a few articles or forum rants about it, because they have to download and install the next set of 'cultural updates'.

I don't think people routinely examine why they think the way they do or concede it's illogical. I haven't seen anyone here say "No, it's not cultural" & then back it up.

I do think about it sometimes and enjoy discussing it when I can. I've a passing interest in cognitive behaviour.

I don't think everything is purely cultural, but I do note that most cultures make friends and pets of dogs, horses, cats and generally anything that commonly comes over looking cute or makes an emotional connection, but make meals of things that just stand and stare, like sheep, cows, fish, etc.
Speaking of which, I've known 'vegetarians' who claim to still eat fish because "they're ugly, so I don't mind". Not pescaterians, who have grown up with such a diet, but those who make a conscious choice to give up meat while retaining fish on their menu.


*My best mate has African Greys. The female loves him and hates anyone else. The male has come to not like him very much, but loves his friends as if they were brothers. Interestingly, mate's own (human) daughter also came to the conclusion that mate and I are so close and similar that we're effectively brothers, and decided that made me her uncle. Familial instinct is more common in animals than people realise.

[sammyc]

^ that's my quote btw not opel's

Re the changing nature of things, absolutely, but even so the Americans of which you speak are going along with their (shifting) culture by switching on or off from horsemeat, it's not their own singular idea to do so (excepting the minority who go against the tide of whatever is accepted at any one time, or are vegetarians anyway). If you ask anyone "why is chicken food" and something else not, I think it's more to do with not pondering the status quo, than it is about weighing up the more befriend-able species and instinctively not eating them. Otherwise dogs horses cats etc would be off the menu more universally you'd think. Why don't we eat more birds, for example, as in China.

Re fish & so on, unfortunately that's all too correct, I made friends with a beautiful little (I think) Yorkipoo today and in the light of this thread contemplated its demise for my survival and - no way. The last carp in someone's pond - I don't eat fish but oh 'eck, who knows.

[opel80uk]

Beyond the general drive to arrive at a consensus of understanding and opinion on matters for the furtherment of society as a whole? Depends how complete an answer you want, I guess...

Yeah, but we all pick and choose as to what we want an understanding of. And even then, whilst the general drive to reach a consensus is admirable, it’s is often not achievable.

In the case of both my dogs and my daughter, we spent a long time preparing for them and went through a lot of emotional struggle to actually get them. Both were brought into our lives and for the same reasons, even though they may take different forms. For all intents and purposes, they are all family.

There's also been a lot of study in past decades, to eradicate the flaws in Pack Theory and raise awareness that dogs naturally behave on a more familial level, not seeing an Alpha male and female but a breeding pair. In effect, they see you as their parent(s), which reinforces the family thing that many people have instinctively adopted before anyway, as well as accounting for why dogs (and some other pets, like parrots) are often so protective/possessive of their owners*. They see themselves as part of your family and you're (effectively) declaring yourself their parents, so from an animal behaviouristy sort of perspective, they are your (adopted) children.

Maybe that’s part of the reason why I feel the way I do – in all the time I’ve had dogs, I’ve never felt an emotional struggle to actually get them. Although in fairness, I never felt that emotional struggle in having my children either.

I also fully understand my dogs see themselves as part of my family, but that doesn’t change the point I was making in that I don’t. In saying that, I think we have a good trade off. They give me the things I am looking for when getting dogs (security, affection, companionship, etc) and they get an entirely convincing pretence of being part of my family. They are fed, cleaned, sheltered and loved. Thankfully, no dog I’ve ever had has had to experience the sort of hypothetical extremes that I gave that would show that, if push came to shove, they were a rung below my actual family.

The same instinct that allows bonding between the parent and their adopted child, I reckon. The more you understand your dog and its behaviour, the more it seems just like having a kid... even down to the temper tantrums and being a huffy teenager!

Plenty of adoptive parents who also have biological children acknowledge that what they feel for their biological children is different to their adoptive children. I know a woman who has both, and she told me that in adoptive parent’s support groups there is even a term for it, so commonly is it felt. That’s not to say they haven’t bonded with their adoptive children or that they don’t love them or that they treat them different, but that, for some, they understand that is how they feel. Perhaps there is an argument to be made as to whether or not people like that should adopt in the first place, or whether people who don’t consider dogs part of their family should own dogs in the first place, but from my point of view that is for others to argue about – I’m not particularly fussed.

I also think that there is a misconception that by not feeling dogs (or animals) are part of the family, then you are unable to understand them as much as those that do. I would actually argue the opposite. Having a dispassionate view of behaviour, in my case specifically my dogs, allows me to manipulate their instincts far better than I could with my children for the simple reason that I am far more emotionally involved with my children. Furthermore, dogs are nowhere near as complex as humans and, as a result, easier to understand. But again, the analogy with a huffy teenager is one I don’t really recognise. My dogs have a large reemit in terms of what they are allowed to do of free will, but of the things that is expected of them, they do them because that is how they were trained and there are no real exceptions. The idea that wouldn’t do what I asked of them, or do it reluctantly, a la a huffy teenager (provided it is something we have trained), is alien to me – they just do it. But they don’t do it by chance, they do it as a result of the hundreds of hours I have spent training them, made able as a result of the bond they feel, and the trust they have, towards me. And all of that is not to say I am not attached, bonded or that I don’t care for the dogs, because I do. And sometimes I am genuinely awe struck at how loving and intuitive they are. I’ve mentioned this before on another thread, but I was amazed watching my Alsations, completely of their own initiative, position themselves between any stranger that may come into the garden and the kids, non-aggressively but alert. They would move as the stranger moved to ensure that they were always in between, and only relax when the stranger left. I don’t argue that a Human – Dog relationship is not something that should be belittled – I just don’t see it the same, or as important, as parent – child.

Not at all - People usually like to be understood, even if there's still differences of belief, because there can still be acceptance born of it - That's how multi-faith societies were able to get along relatively well in the past.

The difference is that multi–faith societies were dependent on that understanding to function. I’m not bothered if I’m not understood on this because that understanding of me, or lack thereof, is not going to impact me in anyway. Equally, whilst I might find it amusing that some people out there consider their animals the same as their children, I cannot think of any way that them feeling like that would adversely affect me personally, or society as a whole.

[Ttaskmaster]

Yeah, but we all pick and choose as to what we want an understanding of. And even then, whilst the general drive to reach a consensus is admirable, it’s is often not achievable.

So no-one has ever corrected your misunderstanding, and you've never come across more knowledge about something than you previously knew?
OK, then....

Maybe that’s part of the reason why I feel the way I do – in all the time I’ve had dogs, I’ve never felt an emotional struggle to actually get them.

It's just a difference in perspective. Might be biological, psychological, cultural or whatever, but you just don't see dogs that way, in the same way I don't see pet tarantulas as cute.

Ours have always been rescues, so we've had to be more involved anyway than the bloke who just wanted a four-legged shepherd and didn't care that dogs don't like being hit, or the couple who couldn't be bothered with spending 6p a day on anti-epilepsy medication and dumped the dog in the middle of nowhere. You get a lot of that in Ireland, apparently, which is where a great many of our locally-homed rescues came from.

Although in fairness, I never felt that emotional struggle in having my children either.

Probably depends if getting to that point was straightforward easy, or if there were any life-changing difficulties. We were in our very late 30s before we saw any positive indications.

Plenty of adoptive parents who also have biological children acknowledge that what they feel for their biological children is different to their adoptive children.

And yet most will still regard (vehemently) themselves as the adopted child's 'actual' parents, even if not biological. If you doubt that, try arguing against it with them...!!

I also think that there is a misconception that by not feeling dogs (or animals) are part of the family, then you are unable to understand them as much as those that do.

The argument would be that if you don't actually feel it you won't behave as if you did and your actions would not be as convincing or effective. Understanding usually creates empathy in humans, which is where the emotional involvement for bonding usually comes in.

I would actually argue the opposite. Having a dispassionate view of behaviour, in my case specifically my dogs, allows me to manipulate their instincts far better than I could with my children for the simple reason that I am far more emotionally involved with my children.

The fact that you say you 'manipulate' your dog rather than, say, 'working with them' or 'directing their instincts' is an interesting choice of words...

Furthermore, dogs are nowhere near as complex as humans and, as a result, easier to understand.

If that were the case, why do so many people need obedience classes?
All our trainers (since the early 80s) have always said, we're not training the dog to do what the handler wants, we're training the handler to speak dog.

My dogs have a large reemit in terms of what they are allowed to do of free will, but of the things that is expected of them, they do them because that is how they were trained and there are no real exceptions.

I'm thinking more about how they behave when you tell them they cannot have or do something, even (or especially) if it's something they usually can expect from you. You might be on the phone right now, or waiting for your programme to finish... whatever. That's when they can get huffy.

The difference is that multi–faith societies were dependent on that understanding to function.

It's a belief in or a perspective on something that affects your life and your behaviour. How is it in any way different?

I’m not bothered if I’m not understood on this because that understanding of me, or lack thereof, is not going to impact me in anyway.

OK, point taken.
I guess you'll never meet anyone with a differing perspective, then.

[opel80uk]

So no-one has ever corrected your misunderstanding, and you've never come across more knowledge about something than you previously knew?
OK, then....

Oh, plenty of people have corrected my misunderstandings, and have come across plenty of people more knowledgeable about something. But I was fully aware from the beginning that there are plenty of people that do see their dogs as part of their family; it wasn’t like I was ignorant of it. But as to the why they felt that way, I’m just not particularly interested in it. I find the notion that people feel for their dogs as they do their children rather whimsical, but harmless nevertheless. It doesn’t arouse much emotion in me either way.

And yet most will still regard (vehemently) themselves as the adopted child's 'actual' parents, even if not biological. If you doubt that, try arguing against it with them...!!

Why wouldn’t they though? They are the actual parents. Considering yourself the actual parent, but acknowledging that you may feel differently about your adoptative children as you do about your biological children are not mutually exclusive.

The argument would be that if you don't actually feel it you won't behave as if you did and your actions would not be as convincing or effective. Understanding usually creates empathy in humans, which is where the emotional involvement for bonding usually comes in.

That might be true if, say in my case, I hated the dogs but was pretending to like them just so I could train them. But in reality, I very much do like them, care for them, maybe even love them. I doubt they realise I don’t feel for them the same as I feel for my kids, and if they do realise, they are doing a pretty good job of hiding it. It terms of my dogs feelings towards me, I’m confident they are no different to those of someone who actually considers them the same as their human family. That what I feel is different is no nevermind to me.

The fact that you say you 'manipulate' your dog rather than, say, 'working with them' or 'directing their instincts' is an interesting choice of words...

It was a deliberate use of the word, although I said ‘manipulate their instincts’. And I used that word because that is exactly what it is - handle or control in a skilful manner. The reason my dogs would attack you on my command, and not move if you said the same trigger is because I’ve used their drives to allow me to control them in a very specific way. And if you’ve taught your dogs to sit on command, you’ve done the exact same thing. That is almost the very definition of manipulation. Any other description is just semantics. It might make people feel better to think they are working with them, but ultimately you are getting them to do what you want.

If that were the case, why do so many people need obedience classes?

Often because owners haven’t the first idea about training a dog, and the lessons are required as a result of the dog learning what are perceived to be undesirable behaviours, with the owners not having the sufficient skill set or know-how to change that behaviour themselves. But I don’t get how this is related to me saying that dogs are not as complex as humans and therefore easier to understand. Are you saying dogs are as complex as humans, and just as difficult to understand?

I'm thinking more about how they behave when you tell them they cannot have or do something, even (or especially) if it's something they usually can expect from you. You might be on the phone right now, or waiting for your programme to finish... whatever. That's when they can get huffy.

I can only speak from my own personal experience, but mine don’t get huffy. Or at least they don’t show any behaviours that would indicate they feel that way. However, if it manifested itself in ways that I found to be undesirable (i.e not stopping on command, ignoring a new command, etc), as with most undesirable behaviours, chances are it can be trained to not do it. If mine, for example, are looking for attention at a time that isn’t convenient for me, they will just go and amuse themselves till I am ready.

It's a belief in or a perspective on something that affects your life and your behaviour. How is it in any way different?

I already said how it is different. Multi–faith societies are dependent on a level of understanding and acceptance to be able to function. I on the other hand don’t need any understanding of why you feel the way you do about your dogs, or even understanding of why I feel the way I do about mine, for me, or you, to function. [/QUOTE]

I guess you'll never meet anyone with a differing perspective, then.

That would only be true if I wasn’t engaging with, or acknowledging that there were, people who had a different perspective to me. That is patently not true - I’m doing it right now. Engaging with people who have a different perspective to me, (which I am doing) and seeking acceptance and understanding of my opinion on this matter (which I am not) are 2 entirely different things. Furthermore, I’m not particularly bothered whether I am understood on this issue because if truth be told, and notwithstanding this conversation, my interest in other people’s relationships with their dogs (outside abuse or mistreatment) is ephemeral at best.

[Ttaskmaster]

Fine. I stand corrected in every respect.

[Ttaskmaster]

Well, I guess the government doesn't want us having opinions anyway: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnis...t-illegal.html