Why do we need to advocate for the humane treatment of dogs?

[turbo]

I have ample evidence that my dog Duke was abused by former owners. Why? He is such a sweet, smart dog and he is eager to please.

Dogs are hard-wired (by evolution and later development) to be our friends, and they want to help us and please us. They don't ask for anything more than a kind word, a hug, a neck-rub, etc. How can people violate this confidence and make dogs fight one another or make them so mean that they are set against all other humans?

I won't join Tucker Carlson in saying that Michael Vick should have been executed, but I think Vick got off easy, with a too-short sentence, and should never ever be allowed to own a dog ever again. I love dogs, and I can't stand to see their rights be shattered in favor of the favoritism lavished on a millionaire sports figure. Dogs are better people than football players.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

Maybe not everyone shares the same compassion for dogs, posseses the same moral standards as you do and have the same cultural view of dogs as you do.


Where I come from dogs stay outside, not in the house, and are primarily for security. Hence, the more vicious they are towards strangers the better. Often, training dogs to be aggressive involves abuse.

Secondly, people have different moral and ideas of what is disgusting and simply wrong. A popular saying comes to mind " one mans food is another mans poison".

Some people eat dogs in their culture ( in some parts of my country of birth this is acceptable; I personally find it appalling) and to them dogs and not more "special" than chicken.

How do you view chicken fighting done is parts of south america ? Is it worse than dog fighting? If you answer yes I could answer no.

I personally am not a canine lover, if I see a football player and a dog drowing and I could only save one of them I would save him/her rather than the dog. :-\

 

[Kevin_Axion]

╔(σ_σ)╝ is right, North American dogs are primarily domesticated so our perspective on them is extremely different than other countries, but that isn't the point. We are talking about North America so therefore actions of abuse towards any living thing is inhumane. Everything that is alive shouldn't be valued by it's materialistic worth but it's qualities of dignity and respect. Dogs that are abusive are put down or treated differently then those that are more "civilized".

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

╔(σ_σ)╝ is right, North American dogs are primarily domesticated so our perspective on them is extremely different than other countries, but that isn't the point. We are talking about North America so therefore actions of abuse towards any living thing is inhumane. Everything that is alive shouldn't be valued by it's materialistic worth but it's qualities of dignity and respect. Dogs that are abusive are put down or treated differently then those that are more "civilized".

Correct! But some people tend to have more compassion for dogs than they have for humans which I think is a mistake.

Dogs are abused well so are women and children. Is there a difference? From my point of view,not really.

If people can abuse fellow humans why not animals which are "worth less" than humans?

 

[Loren Booda]

Correct! But some people tend to have more compassion for dogs than they have for humans which I think is a mistake.

Dogs are abused well so are women and children. Is there a difference? From my point of view,not really.

If people can abuse fellow humans why not animals which are "worth less" than humans?

People who get pleasure out of abusing animals are sociopaths who may become child molesters and/or serial killers.

 

[Borek]

How can people abuse people?

 

[Sourabh N]

Because some people are better than other people.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

How can people violate this confidence and make dogs fight one another or make them so mean that they are set against all other humans?

I am someone who loves dogs, and not violence. We have to note that some dogs are historically bred to pit fight. This is evidence that that "type of people" has always been around. Considering the time scales over which such custom breeding has taken place, it was probably seen as an improvement over entertainment where people, instead of dogs, were the gladiators. Blood sports have a long history, and are still legal in some parts of the world with different animals.

As for being mean to other humans, that is just the duty of a guard dog, which were more useful before there were surveillance cameras etc.

 

[BobG]

I won't join Tucker Carlson in saying that Michael Vick should have been executed, but I think Vick got off easy, with a too-short sentence, and should never ever be allowed to own a dog ever again. I love dogs, and I can't stand to see their rights be shattered in favor of the favoritism lavished on a millionaire sports figure. Dogs are better people than football players.

Vick served a 23 month sentence, 21 months in prison and 2 months home confinement. Additionally, he lost about $25 million per year in salary and endorsement income, plus had to reimburse the Falcons $20 million of his signing bonus.

Even with his reinstatement, his first year salary dropped to $1.5 million and his subsequent salary and endorsement income is still much lower. It's tough to say how much money his actions cost him, but it was at least $70 million.

I'm not sure those types of penalties could really be considered favoritism.

 

[JaredJames]

My view on this subject is the same, whether applied to humans or animals.

Unless it is in self defence, violence towards either is unacceptable.

I also don't like people injuring/killing insects and other such creatures. The amount of time I've spent catching flies / wasps to put outside is ridiculous.

 

[Jack21222]

People who get pleasure out of abusing animals are sociopaths who may become child molesters and/or serial killers.

Some people treat actual child molesters and/or serial killers with less contempt than a dog-abuser.

 

[radou]

How can people abuse people?

Good point, and it follows logically how they can abuse animals then.

 

[arildno]

Intentional cruelty towards animals, i.e, taking pleasure in inflicting <i>pain</i> (which is a non-cultural phenomenon), is to prove your own evil.

 

[JaredJames]

Intentional cruelty towards animals, i.e, taking pleasure in inflicting <i>pain</i> (which is a non-cultural phenomenon), is to prove your own evil.

That and to show their power / dominance.

 

[arildno]

Some people treat actual child molesters and/or serial killers with less contempt than a dog-abuser.

Few child molesters happen to be cruel, i.e, deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, that is meant as pain.

Their acts are most definitely reprehensible, and generally very painful and traumitizing for the kids they prey on. That is why they are dangerous criminals, but it doesn't follow that they are cruel (the vast majority of premeditating murderers aren't cruel, either). They are fantasizers who delude themselves into thinking the kids really want these acts to happen, even if the kid cries and begs them to stop.

To make a judgment restricted along the specific moral dimensional of cruelty, child molesters are less so than an abuser of animals.

But, degree/existence of cruelty is not the only moral parameter around, and probably not the most important, either.

The difficulty is to make the correct "multi-dimensional" morality, in which you could compare the graveness along one axis (dimension) against another.

Most of us make a muddle out of this, switching inconsistently all the time between what is more heinous than something else.

 

[JaredJames]

Well I've read a number of definitions for 'cruel' and it doesn't follow what you post arildno.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cruel

1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cruel

2. Causing suffering; painful.

I'd say any child molester comes under those definitions.

There are a number of definitions for cruel and yes, one does include enjoying the pain, but there are others, such as the one above, that do not.

To inflict pain / distress on another is cruel.

 

[arildno]

Well I've read a number of definitions for 'cruel' and it doesn't follow what you post arildno.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cruel


I'd say any child molester comes under that definition.

There are a number of definitions for cruel and yes, one does include enjoying the pain, but there are others, such as the one above, that do not.

To inflict pain / distress on another is cruel.

Well, then we could speak about sub-concepts cruel(a), cruel(b), cruel(c) and whatnot, and I'll happily restrict my argument to whichever sub-concept that applies, and not to the others.

As for your definition, "knowingly" is the crucial term here, and I'm not at all sure that within the fog of self-justifying fantasy&self-pity that term has much relevance to many child molesters.

 

[arildno]

Your dictionary is also hopelessly PC.

To knowingly inflict pain isn't necessarily "cruel", or even immoral.

At the very least, it should be qualified as "knowingly causing needless pain".

Even then, callousness might in many cases be a better word to use than cruelty.

 

[JaredJames]

Your dictionary is also hopelessly PC.

A sad fact that follows most things these days.

To knowingly inflict pain isn't necessarily "cruel", or even immoral.

At the very least, it should be qualified as "knowingly causing needless pain".

Even then, callousness might in many cases be a better word to use than cruelty.

Agreed.

For me, the definition of cruel is along the lines of: any person who intentionally causes unnecessary pain.

To what, is irrelevant.

 

[arildno]

A sad fact that follows most things these days.Agreed.

For me, the definition of cruel is along the lines of: any person who intentionally causes unnecessary pain.

To what, is irrelevant.

Hmm..is it, cruel of a factory owner to skimp on, say, heat shielding work clothes just to make a few more bucks, thereby knowingly causing more physical distress/pain to his workers?

Personally, I'd call this callous indifference to the well-being of others, rather than an act of cruelty.But then again, it depends on which definition is used/felt to be most "proper" to use.

On the other hand, your definition might well also exclude this as an act of cruelty, since it cannot be said the employer had as his intention to cause pain, but dismissed that as an unimportant side effect to institute a more financially profitable company

 

[JaredJames]

Hmm..is it, cruel of a factory owner to skimp on, say, heat shielding work clothes just to make a few more bucks, thereby knowingly causing more physical distress/pain to his workers?

Yes, I consider that cruel.

Plus it fits the definition of cruel. You can subdivide it all you like based on sub-definitions. But it only has to fit one of the sub-definitions for it to be considered cruel. I don't see how you can just pick and choose when a definition applies.

 

[arildno]

Have I said I consider callousness less morally reprehensible than cruelty?

"But it only has to fit one of the sub-definitions for it to be considered cruel. "

I hereby DEFINE cruel(a.b.1): "Taking pleasure in eating a green apple".

Munching contentedly a green apple is most certainly cruel(a.b.1), but not necessarily cruel(a) or cruel(c).

 

[JaredJames]

Have I said I consider callousness less morally reprehensible than cruelty?

I never said you did (or implied it as far as I can tell).

"But it only has to fit one of the sub-definitions for it to be considered cruel. "

I hereby DEFINE cruel(a.b.1): "Taking pleasure in eating a green apple".

Munching contentedly a green apple is most certainly cruel(a.b.1), but not necessarily cruel(a) or cruel(c).

What? I'm talking about the real definitions of cruel, as per the official dictionary entries. I specifically noted what I considered cruel, but in so far as actually deciding what is cruel it comes down to the official definitions.

 

[arildno]

I never said you did (or implied it as far as I can tell).


What? I'm talking about the real definitions of cruel, as per the official dictionary entries. I specifically noted what I considered cruel, but in so far as actually deciding what is cruel it comes down to the official definitions.

Not really.

It boils down to develop clear-cut, explicit (sub/alternate-)definitions of the primary concept (that doesn't have any preordained "meaning"), and then show how these applies, or not.

Whether these definitions are to be found in official dictionaries are largely irrelevant, but dictionaries are very handy in giving each of us a clue about what an other person might mean by a word he uses.

 

[Borek]

Now it is a thread about abusing words, not animals.

 

[DaveC426913]

Everything that is alive shouldn't be valued by it's materialistic worth but it's qualities of dignity and respect.

Does anyone consider the possibility that some people have grown up and lived their lives without dignity and respect from their fellow man and therefore don't have the compassionate foundation upon which to extend that to other creatures? Someone who has had to fight for food shelter and freedom their whole lives might actually see animals as competing with them for resources.

Not everyone had the life we do. I know of people who grew up in concentration camps, or running from them.

Before you label people as sociopaths, you have to walk a mile in their shoes (otherwise, in essence, you are guilty of the very thing you accuse them of - being unable to empathize).

 

[arildno]

.

Not everyone had the life we do. I know of people who grew up in concentration camps, or running from them.

Before you label people as sociopaths, you have to walk a mile in their shoes (otherwise, in essence, you are guilty of the very thing you accuse them of - being unable to empathize).

There weren't any rape&murder waves instigated by Jews who had been in Nazi concentration camps.

Nor from Hungarian refugees from 1956.

Nor from Vietnamese refugees around 1980.

So, no, people do NOT, as a rule, "turn evil" just because they have been atrociously treated themselves.

 

[JaredJames]

There weren't any rape&murder waves instigated by Jews who had been in Nazi concentration camps.

Nor from Hungarian refugees from 1956.

Nor from Vietnamese refugees around 1980.

So, no, people do NOT, as a rule, "turn evil" just because they have been atrociously treated themselves.

I'm not sure I see what that has to do with what DaveC said?

 

[turbo]

To get back to the topic, here is Duke less than a day after we adopted him. He's so calm and happy - he looks like he won the adoption lottery. My toddler niece visited that day, and she was looking in his ears, lifting his lips to see his teeth, etc. He just laid there and tolerated it. How could anybody have beaten this sweetie? I have ample evidence that he was beaten, though I can't imagine any reason why. His most "irritating" characteristic (if you can call it that) is that he always needs to be next to me and follows me everywhere.

 

[arildno]

I am relieved little Duke has found a family that cherishes him, and gives him happiness and love.
Perhaps he will have lingering memories of "bad times", and thus be rather more clinging and eager to please than he otherwise might have been?

 

[drizzle]

What I can say is those kind of people have blind hearts.

 

[turbo]

I am relieved little Duke has found a family that cherishes him, and gives him happiness and love.
Perhaps he will have lingering memories of "bad times", and thus be rather more clinging and eager to please than he otherwise might have been?

That might be the case, however we have had him since September of '09 and he still sticks to me like Velcro. He has had time to adjust to his new life (I think), but he still acts like he might lose me if he doesn't keep track of me at all times.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, no, people do NOT, as a rule, "turn evil" just because they have been atrociously treated themselves.

Are you new here?

That's your idea and your words - nothing to do with what I said.

 

[arildno]

That might be the case, however we have had him since September of '09 and he still sticks to me like Velcro. He has had time to adjust to his new life (I think), but he still acts like he might lose me if he doesn't keep track of me at all times.

Couldn't that be because he is, and will remain, deeply traumatized by previous abuse and cannot take his present good fortune for granted? That, to him, you have made the only safe haven he's ever known, and does his utmost to stay in your presence?

 

[turbo]

Couldn't that be because he is, and will remain, deeply traumatized by previous abuse and cannot take his present good fortune for granted? That, to him, you have made the only safe haven he's ever known, and does his utmost to stay in your presence?

I'm not a dog psychologist, but that is the most likely motivation for his clingy behavior.

A couple of days ago, I took him to the neighbor's house for a visit and Al (perhaps Duke's favorite person after me and my wife) took his leash so I could have my hands free to take a few pictures. He walked Duke around for a few minutes so that he could explore and pee. Duke was never farther than 30-40 feet from me at the very most and I was always in his sight. Still, when Al walked him back to me, Duke was jumping up down excitedly like we had been apart for hours.

Also, unlike most dogs I have known, he will not willingly jump into a vehicle to go for a ride. He will put his front paws on the seat when I tell him to, but that's it. I have to physically hoist his butt up and onto the seat. He doesn't mind riding in the truck or the SUV, and actually enjoys our trips to the landfill/transfer station/recycling facility, but he won't jump into the vehicle on his own. He has jumped into my SUV on his own twice. Once when my neighbor opened the opposite door and coaxed him in, and once when his dog Max jumped in the back seat and Duke wanted to join him. I still can't figure that one out.