Why do people make such big deals at certain body parts? Why so much self hatred?

Kevin? I mean this in the nicest possible way...

STAAHHP!

Stop dissing your posts and yourself. If people don't want to read long posts, they won't - I read them because I like reading them and I CHOSE to spend my time reading them; please don't flagellate yourself over it.

Now, I have no answers re. all your duck questions, but re. animal ethics, we observe behavior that we as humans can relate to in ourselves. Koko and her sign language (and her kitten(s)), elephants' capacity to mourn their dead, etc. We still are pretty egocentric as a species, but there seem to be movements underway to respect other species a bit better than before.

Time for moar coffee!
 
Don't worry Kevin, my post was more to educate you with the info on many behaviors of non-Human animals that have been "observed" by Human animals and the entirety of that post was directed at Humanity in general since so many Humans seem to be so self-righteous about themselves and how they see every thing.~
 
Part 1 of 3

Re:
"Don't worry Kevin, my post was more to educate you with the info on many behaviors of non-human animals that have been 'observed' by human animals and the entirety of that post was directed at humanity in general since so many humans seem to be so self-righteous about themselves and how they see everything."

Okay; I can handle that. May all the self-righteous humans be damned. (A bit more on the less-pretentious humans in a moment ...)

Re (from YouAreHere):
"STAAHHP!"

Oh but I'm having so much fun. I love self-flagellation. Helps fill that emptiness in my heart that was hollowed out when I was deprived of a strict Catholic upbringing.

Anywayz, thanks for the heartfelt props.

Now along the same lines ... my warped dream is that someday humans will stop flagellating (verbally and otherwise) their own species and yes even that humans (American humans in particular) will stop flagellating America.

Why? because humans are so perfect? Heh-nooooo. Because America is so glorious? Heh-nooooo. Simply because, like you, I rather dislike watching other people essentially beating themselves up.

Now granted, this is a special type of "self-flagellation" that involves the "few enlightened humans who are superior to the hordes of evil humans" and the "few enlightened Americans who are superior to the hordes of evil Americans." But for me? It still all looks like nasty hateful shit that's full of negative energy.

So do I have some kind of better idea? Maybe, maybe not, but one first thought I'll throw out there is, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Americans (and even non-American humans) do some damn horrible, inhumane shit. And you bet I hate that shit. But I refuse to give up on the people who have the potential to do so much better.

Example: What good does it do to hate the Nazis? They did what they did. It's done. Millions of innocent lives lost, generational chains permanently damaged, and no way to go back in time and make it right. And *do* we hate the Nazis? Well neo-Nazis, often, yes. Old and long-dead Nazis, even, often yes. But originally Germany was "Nazi Central" and hated as part and parcel with Nazi-hating. Well, why'd we stop hating Germans per se? They're still the "evil descendants of evil Jew killers" just as much as white Americans are the evil descendants of evil slave owners. But by way of some magical turn-around in the human brain, Germans are (less than a century after WWII) considered some of neatest/niftiest people around, and Germany as a whole is seen as one of the neatest/niftiest countries around. That's some fast-ass forgiveness, in my opinion.

We now, in fact, realize that the real problem is that virtually *all* humans have the capacity to "become Nazis," and we need to figure out how to prevent ourselves from becoming Nazis ever, ever again. Voilà! The human race (including Germany) can be liked and loved just fine without having a drop of love for the atrocities that the Nazis committed. So to re-cap: hate the sin; love the sinner.

What we should be worrying about, therefore, is how to inspire a shift in human consciousness. Destroying all the evil people won't solve the overall problem. We need a big-picture approach to the ills, evils, and errors of humankind. So I say it again: Please, all within the sound of my voice: a bit less hating on the human race? Please? Please?

Even today, with all the rotten, goddamned things that *some/many* people do, *many* other people are out there doing a shitload of inspirational good. Would it be so awful if we focused a bit more on that? gleaned a little hope for the future of humanity (and thence all life on Earth) by observing, acknowledging, and celebrating the awesome goodness that these enlightened people are accomplishing? and we're not even usually talking about famous role models here either; we're usually talking about plain ordinary folks who just go about their humble lives as unsung heroes. In other words, humanity has a *great deal of good in it,* to go along with all the terrible, tragic abominations.

In other words, I propose that we put most of our species-wide self-improvement efforts into the mindset of: "Look at all the good we're already accomplishing: How can we build upon that?" rather than sooo often obsessing about, "Oh God we are such an awful miserable arrogant worthless species, all hope is lost, the world and all life thereon will soon destroyed and it will be all our fault." Gee, when one paints oneself with that negative of a brush, doesn't it kind of become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Are we going to tell ourselves that we're destined to continue fucking up, or are we going to tell ourselves that we're going to learn how to do better -- and better -- and better? Personally, I vote for the latter mindset. "Dammit! We're humans. Our brains are big/sophisticated enough to learn what we need to learn. So, we're going to learn it. Watch and see!"

Humanity, in other words, rather than beating itself up for its (admittedly gigantic) mistakes, can (psychologically and otherwise) reward itself for *all* the good that it does, and in that way encourage itself to do even better. Which to me is a promising way to go about improving humankind ... and sooo much less depressing than the species' current rituals of self-flagellation. If depression, guilt, and self-putdowns are not the way to accomplish individual self-improvement, then why should they be the way to accomplish species-wide self-improvement? Is everyone feeling me here? Yes? Yes? Cool idea, kdt26417, you're onto something, in no small part because of YouAreHere's kind encouragement toward you.

In that way, I apologize (coz you know how I adore apologizing) for that lengthy rant of mine, and for "exploiting" your use of the term "flagellate" to demonstrate my own point even though it might not have been a point that you felt so keen about. I earnestly ask your pardon and your indulgence. And hey, if you did feel keen about my "little rant," why, then, I'm a lucky, lucky guy, just as I am if you'll still extend me a remission for my opportunistic stratagem (and failure to give fair warning that I was gonna go all "Republican" spider-monkey on you).
 
Last edited:
Part 2 of 3

So now that we've talked about humans per se, let's talk about humans and all remaining animals -- and plants, yes plants:

From FinchJ on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 11:19:57 AM PDT:
"Not sure how anyone who chooses 'all animals' expects to eat anything at all considering the deaths of insects and other 'multicellular, eukaryotic organisms' is pretty much guaranteed when harvesting plants for food. Multicellular organisms abound on the surface, inside, and outside everything we cultivate for food. They die when we eat them.
Of course, why stop at animals and not continue on to fungi? After all, many types of fungi operate with a level of 'intelligence' that is astonishing. Mycorrhizal fungi have the ability to transport water, nutrients, hormones, and other types of resources/messages vast distances (kilometers) between different species of plants.
What about their right to life?
Where to draw the line is always going to be arbitrary given the practicality of feeding ourselves. I would like to say we should extend this to cetaceans, elephants, apes, and monkeys.
However, I think a better idea would be to change the way we interact with the entire planet. I think we should recognize the importance of all species while coming to terms with the reality that we have to eat something and that even if we decide to only eat plants, there are many other organisms (including animals) that will die in the process.
We should do our best to restore ecosystem services, increase biodiversity, and design better systems of human settlement that account for complexity rather than the current industrial paradigm that simplifies, excludes, and destroys."

First of all, level of intelligence isn't the end-all be-all of our ethical considerations about how this or that animal ought to be treated. And that's in addition to my (wait for it) official admission that we can't possibly *know* how "smart" *any* animal (or plant!) really is.

That said, let's not abandon all objectivity if measuring intelligence is the question at hand. We can't *know* but we can still *guess* based on observation and (sadly subjective) interpretation of the apparent information. Example: It's absolutely cool and amazing that (at least one) gorilla has proven that she can comprehend at least 2,000 human words. But see Wikipedia: "The Oxford English Dictionary lists over 250,000 distinct words, not including many technical, scientific, and slang terms." And see: "A 1995 study shows that junior-high students would be able to recognize the meanings of about 10,000-12,000 words, while for college students this number grows up to about 12,000-17,000 and for elderly adults up to about 17,000-21,000 or more."

Okay, so maybe the "problem" here is that we're measuring Koko by *human* words instead of *gorilla* words. Fair enough. I don't know the nature of gorillas' communication systems, nor how sophisticated said systems really are. Perhaps it says enough that one animal is able to learn *another animal's* communication system to such a significant degree. Guess the jury's out as regards how smart gorillas *really* are.

And, then there's those all-important opposable thumbs that so augment whatever intellectual prowess humans possess. So you could argue that cities and spaceships and symphonies and heart transplants don't count as true measurements of human intelligence compared to animal intelligence. But let's be fair here: We can at least be reasonably convinced that humans are pretty damned smart as a whole. Smarter than the other apes? I don't know. I do admittedly however suspect that the answer is, "Probably." Maybe not even by *that* much, but probably by some moderate margin.

Dolphins? I have no idea. It's very possible that they're at least as smart as humans; after all they don't even have hands let alone opposable thumbs. And God knows that they demonstrate all kinds of intelligence in many, many ways.

For that matter, I think cats and dogs (and pigs; definitely elephants -- probably horses and maybe cows too) are also pretty freakin' smart. Anecdote of the day: My cat Rainee (a Russian blue with a dash of Siamese) has been increasingly impressing me lately with her displays of, well, cleverness to say the least.

Now Rainee looooves food (as do I) and is three pounds overweight (eliciting the vet's disapproval of course). So I'm poking around for ways to tap into her intelligence and get her on board with the idea of "dieting habits." Sometimes I think she actually gets what I mean when I say, "Now try to wait awhile after you eat this." Can't tell for sure.

But check this out. Last night she "pinged" me for some "nightcap" food. I acquiesced. And *she* refrained from eating it. Never once ever saw her turn down cat food or cat treats of any kind! She cleans her dish. But not this time.

Instead, she goes and does some more of her "begging rituals" for me to get her some more food. What? She's getting picky now? Well, okay ... So I got her a little more food of a different kind and added it to the dish. And again -- she barely touches it, and then starts begging for more food again! WTF? Well, I had three kinds of cat food/treats in my room so I now added the third kind (some diet kibble). And Rainee rinsed and repeated! Well I had to apologize to her, "Sorry sweetie, that's all the kinds I've got here; there's one more kind out in the kitchen but our other two humans have turned in and I don't want to disturb their repose."

In maybe about a minute (or less), she seemed to "get" what I was getting at, and stopped begging. But she left that damn dish untouched and richly supplied with food. Unprecedented! Then she left (presumably to sleep on the couch).

Thoroughly puzzled, I turned in. And, as usual, I slept late -- later than Rainee ever does. And when I'm asleep (or almost asleep), I'm definitely too lazy to get up. Which means on all previous occasions, Rainee's hankerings to eat as soon as *she* gets up go unheeded, even with her cute/friendly attempts to nudge me out of bed.

Aha! She didn't *have* to "nudge me out of bed" this morning. She just waltzed in while I was fast asleep (never heard her coming or going), consumed that whole dish of waiting food from the night before, and waltzed back out.

To put it simply: Holy shit! This overeating cat *delayed her own gratification* from dark to sun-up, and then proceeded to *remember* her plan from the night before, and follow through on it. LOLOL, WTH??? My cat has learned how to be a squirrel with no squirrel training. My beloved "hinge lady" suggested to me that perhaps Rainee trained herself by watching the squirrels from her windowside view? Well I assume that was meant as a joke, but the point is ... *How smart really is this cat? She knows too much.*

We'll see if she repeats that little trick tonight/tomorrow. But I'm thoroughly impressed just from knowing she did it once. They say Russian blues are considered a particularly clever breed, but my God!
 
Last edited:
Part 3 of 3

And there's the fact that the dog (Sophie) knows the difference between a garbage truck and a UPS truck from at least three blocks away, just from the subtly different sounds of the engines. (Not a peep for the garbage truck, but barks her head off for a UPS or FedEx truck, cause hey, package for us, this time for sure, yay!)

Having said all that, it still doesn't matter *that much* how smart a given animal is. I'm not in a "smartness contest" to prove that I'm better than or superior to my pets or any other animal. It just matters to me that we all try to treat each other as best as we can, at all times. And God bless Rainee, she knows how to do me right too. What a wonderful bed buddy she often makes (even if it's not every day). She's quiet; she keeps out of the way ... She's a doll. (Did I mention I was a cat lover?)

Now the tricky part: What about the really low-sentience animals? clams for example? Less "rights" (such as the "right" to be called a non-human person)? Well? and where do we draw the line? How can we know, since we can't *really* know how "smart" *any* animal is? I guess my point is, there's always going to be an element of puzzle/mystery to how much (and what kind of) rights we should grant this or that animal.

The best lame answer I can suggest is this: Err on the side of kindness. Don't smash that spider, for example, if you can stand to just wave and let it march on by. Yes it's a bug in your house, but it does help you by eating other bugs, and spiders certainly have "evolutionary seniority" over humans in that they've been around a lot longer than we have. It's not like the spider's hurting you, amirite? Shoot, I remember the story of some little family's (Midwest?) house that was infested with brown recluses. The people had lived there for many years and had young children, and yet *no one* had ever been bitten (as far as anyone could tell). Spiders (including the very few significantly poisonous ones) don't *live* for the joy of biting humans, despite the creepy way they make us feel. So: be kind to the bugs and the birds, and all forms of life, as much as you reasonably can, and make the best guess you can with respect to ethics and morals.

Side topic: Alas, "saving" spiders by shooing them outdoors doesn't save them at all. They're *actual indoor spiders.* They evolved to thrive in the unique indoor environment (shelter yes, abundant prey no, easily available water hell no). Set that poor spider outside, and it's now exposed to the elements which it's totally unsuited for. It'll probably freeze, or get taken out by some outdoor spider. Who knows. Point is, it won't live very long, and it's death'll probably suck. Smashing the poor fucker would actually be kinder (albeit much more gruesome). And now all you spider lovers out there know the truth about indoor spiders ... and why I say, just let 'em walk on by if you can. (Helping them get out of the tub is no easy task for me, cause they do creep me out and they don't exactly know how to cooperate, but I try to do it anyway.)

Oh oh, and the other thing I wanted to say. This is just my opinon, I know, but I sincerely believe that for lots and lots of non-human animals, "life in captivity" isn't necessarily always bad, sad, and terrible. Notice how most cat advocates beg us not to let our cats outside -- even the cats who'd *like* to go outside. Why? Cause it sucks out there. Yes yes, the beauty of nature and all that, but also the cold, sickness and disease from possums and whatnot, cars for God's sake if you live in the city (or adjacent to any road), and above all, *the chance that they could get lost.* That's right, most cat advocates *want* our cats to stay captive! They know it's good for them! Of course that presumes a home where the cats are treated kindly, fed, watered, given proper medical attention, etc.

Lots and lots of animals starve/freeze/etc. out in the wilds, and that's a fact. Humans have a totally luxurious life in comparison, and some animals probably quite enjoy partaking in that luxury. Ever heard someone say, "Man, that dog has it so easy, I wish I was a dog." Yes they're joking, but there's a bit of truth lodged in there if you asked me.

Dolphin captivity? I don't know. Sounds like it has some good points for the dolphins and some bad -- presuming of course that the dolphins are treated kindly, fed well, given medical attention, etc. ... and maybe, just maybe, some of those dolphins do get a kick out of entertaining their "human captors." They sure seem to me to give off that vibe, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't know any dolphin well enough to have Clue One about how it *really* feels. I just make the best guess I can based on what little (mostly intuitive) info I have, and give at least moral support to whatever sounds like a beneficent (win-win if possible) idea.

Setting the dolphins free? Oh, I suppose that sounds nice enough (even though it exposes them to the dangers of the wilds). Sounds like as good a guess as any; sure, I'll support it. But I don't *know* that (all) dolphins hate "domestic life," so I'm not necessarily all down on those "evil dolphin jailors" either. I'd really need more info before I could take a "strongly-grounded" stance on the matter. If there are *any* ways humans can think of to discern what helps the dolphins the most, then I do favor using those ways and making a sincere effort to treat those dolphins right. Surely others have better insights into the dolphin mind than I, so I'll let them make the judgment call. (Kind of a gimmie that we shouldn't kill dolphins, duh. But what about all those poor tuna fish? Yeah I'll leave that riddle basically unanswered for now.)

Now if you want an *indisputable* example of cruel animal captivity, feast your eyes on human slavery (since all humans, black, white, or whatever, are technically animals). Perhaps the "house slave" is doing well enough, but those poor bastards out there in the cotton fields are definitely getting screwed, and in most cases are probably being treated like shit in virtually every way (short of what's needed to keep them alive so they can keep on working). Shudder!
 
To quote a great man from Captain America the movie, "People often forget that the first country the Nazis invaded was their own."

Many of the thousands of lives that were taken were German lives, German "Jewish" lives.~

"Germany" does not need to be "forgiven" nor had it ever needed to be, it was those who helped the "Nazis" and Hilter's rise to power that need to be forgiven.~

Only an ignorant person or a liar would blame an entire country for some thing individuals or groups did who were from that country.~

I know you are neither of these.~

I don't hate people, in fact I don't judge people at all, I believe "morality" and its' existence is completely subjective depending on the person.~

I have no "morality", I do not see things as "good" or "bad" nor do I hold others to my ideals and judge them for their actions.~

I like certain things and I don't like certain things, when my likes and dislikes interact with others' likes and dislikes it is usually an interaction without many issues, but I am firm in my convictions and I never "submit" to any one, but I do change my point of view often.~

I do not mind living in a society with established values by the people who live within it, but I am against forcing every one every where, even if they do not wish to be apart of a society with values that conflict their own, to accept these values as their own to live by.~

I make a "difference" between "shame" and "guilt", to me:

"shame" is when you feel horrible because "some one else" has felt that you did some thing "bad" according to "their" "morality",

"guilt" is when you feel horrible because "you" feel that you have done some thing "bad" according to "your own" "morality".~

When you say "good" I have no idea what you are talking about!~

"Good" is completely subjective depending on the person, *your* "good" may be some one else's "bad" and so on.~

Please be *specific*.~


*sigh* Intelligence is simply defined as the speed and ability to learn and understand some thing, this "some thing" can be "any thing"!~ We actually have "no idea" if any one is truly "intelligent" in "every thing" as there are an "infinite number of intelligence".~

One intelligent in mathematics could be unintelligent in basketball and one intelligent in basketball could be unintelligent in mathematics.~

I agree with you in that no amount of difference between any one whether they be Human or non-Human does not make one or the other "better" than the other or "less capable".~

Please don't make the same mistake as others even here on these forums have made: the mistaken idea that because a creature is "not Human" they are some how less capable of adapting to change as any Human would be.~ (I expanded on this more in my thread: Feelings on "Pets")

This is a mistake many Humans make of being condescending towards other species.~

I know you like other Humans may feel very "protective" and "caring" of other non-Human creatures, but please don't let this "protection" and "caring" become "discrimination" and "patronizing".~


Love,

ColorsWolf
 
Last edited:
Please don't make the same mistake as others even here on these forums have made: the mistaken idea that because a creature is "not Human" they are some how less capable of adapting to change as any Human would be

How capable of adapting to the wilderness would a modern-day, first-world human be without considerable training? Many homeless people depend on the kindness of others, as do many stray animals (my ex feeds three stray cats and apparently, a couple foxes and a possum :eek:).

I doubt that a domesticated animal is any less adaptable. Rather, I think in this society, we've domesticated ourselves out of our own survival instincts as well.
 
How capable of adapting to the wilderness would a modern-day, first-world human be without considerable training? Many homeless people depend on the kindness of others, as do many stray animals (my ex feeds three stray cats and apparently, a couple foxes and a possum :eek:).

I doubt that a domesticated animal is any less adaptable. Rather, I think in this society, we've domesticated ourselves out of our own survival instincts as well.

There comes a point though where Human or not, many creatures let go of their 'civilized' mindset holding them back and tap into their 'instincts', sure it may not be a 'pretty' way to live and there may be no coming back from it, but it is by no means impossible.~

That's the definition of the word 'feral':

fe·ral1 [feer-uhl, fer-] Show IPA
adjective
1.existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2.having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
3.of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feral
 
Last edited:
Part 1 of 2

Clarification about my Nazi-related comments: I knew that Germany was never "all Nazi," and I knew that the Nazis took "their own land over first." Which is kind of a side detail anyway. What I was getting at was that "the world at large" had a beef against Germany as a whole because it was there that the Nazis got started and established their center of power. Lots people surely saw many or most Germans as supporting the Nazis even if they weren't Nazis themselves. Now was that a misperception on "everyone's" part? Oh yes, largely so at the least. Many Germans tried to resist what the Nazis were doing (and many Germans were Jews and the earliest victims of the Holocaust). But much of the rest of the world probably didn't realize/appreciate all that. So, the upshot of all this misperception was that a lot of people (perhaps especially Americans but maybe English folks too and who knows) were, during WWII, really pissed off at Germany as a whole (and by extension much or most of its people).

Now for a reiteration of the point I wanted to make about all that: I think it's really cool that, after all that, people pretty much worldwide have come to downright like or even love Germany and by extension most/all of its native peoples. So, what have we learned? that people can learn how to hate the sin (the Holocaust) but love the sinner (Germany the country and its previously-misunderstood citizens by extension). Considering how awful the Holocaust was, I reckon it took quite a motion of "forgiveness" on "the world's part" to change so much in its opinion of Germany in so short a time.

Definitely not saying Germany "needed" to be forgiven. Just saying that it *was* forgiven (or should I say, at least came to be much better understood), and isn't that something. Yay for hating the sin and loving the sinner! It can be done, sez that one example at least. Forgiving Hitler and the Nazis themselves would obviously be even more amazing, and some people including some Holocaust victims have managed to do just that. Even better! Astonishing as well.

Re: morality ... just so we're clear, let me officially state that I do agree that morals and ethics are inevitably subjective. Lots of people disagree with me on that point of course (e.g. religious zealots who consider the Bible and church authorities to be the final words on all things ethical and moral). Nevertheless, I still believe in *trying* to behave ethically and morally, using whatever resources (e.g. diverse literature and discussions with diverse people having the objective of giving morals and ethics considerable thought) are reasonably available to one to make the best guesses one can within the confines of one's own abilities.

Meanwhile, I expect other people to make "different moral or ethical choices" than I would because they have a different understanding (and hence have guessed differently) than I have about what constitutes ethical/moral behavior. Not always a happy situation, but for the most part, I think I can live with that. For example, right-to-lifers will generally continue to try to outlaw abortion, and even though I can't in good conscience support them in that effort, I can still respect the likelihood that they're trying to do the right thing (as am I).

It can certainly be argued that there should be "no laws about anything" since ethics and morals are so subjective, but I can at least understand why "society as a whole" feels that it needs to enforce certain things (Confining to either prison or at least a psychiatric institution someone who's just committed a series of violent rapes seems to me like a particularly understandable example).

Now socially pressuring (let alone physically forcing) people into cutting their hair, living monogamously, or even wearing clothes especially when illogical due to hot weather, stuff like that, in my opinion is certainly going overboard in the "mission to see that basic ethics/morals are carried out in society." Hair growth, polyamory, and public nudity are not ethical/moral issues in my eyes; they are merely matters of personal choice and preference.

Sooo ... where does one draw the line between stuff that "needs" enforcement (e.g. violent-rape prevention) and stuff that *doesn't need* enforcement (or even persuasion)? I don't precisely know, and I seeeriously doubt that anyone really knows. Again, as with the personal exercise of morals and ethics using one's best (hopefully educated) guess, the best I can expect any society to do is to try to conduct its affairs morally/ethically to the best of its (hopefully educated) collective understanding. Sucky state of affairs but there it is.

Re: your definitions of, and distinctions between, guilt and shame ... sound fine to me.
 
Part 2 of 2

Re: good ... gods I hope you're not hoping that I'll give you a complete list of what things I consider to be good! I'd need a huge library, way more time than I'll ever have, and a post ridiculously longer than Polyamory.com's one-post limit, in order to accomplish that. Sorry, that's one request I just can't carry out. If you want me to "be specific" about what "good" means to me, I'll need you to be specific about what kind of specifics you have in mind. I guess I don't have some formulaic code I can use to automatically determine what's good. For the most part I just make judgment calls on a case-by-case basis. Unsatisfactory perhaps to some, but to me it seems to be adequately satisfactory for my own purposes.

Sure "good" is subjective. Oh well, back to the type of problem that morals and ethics present: We all have to guess at what constitutes good, and the best we can do is to try to educate ourselves about various people's philosophies in order to engage ourselves in deeper thought about the matter and hopefully improve our guesses. Well that's a shitty deal ... but unfortunately, it's all we've got.

Re: intelligence ... yep, most certainly comes in all shapes and forms. Is it possible that someone out there (especially if there's an infinite number of inhabited universes) knows everything? Why yes it is. Do we therefore *know* that someone exists out there who knows everything? Other than that (those) hypothetical someone/s, no, I don't think any of the rest of us know one way or another.

Re: humans and their "superior adaptability" ... well, humans today certainly aren't terribly adaptable, at least not without the help of all their fancy tools and technologies. But I don't see how it's arrogant to simply observe that at one time, humans, without all the fancy tools and technologies they have today, did indeed spread into more kinds of environment than any other non-human person (or plant) I know of. So if they aren't more capable of adapting to change than any other (Earthly) life forms, all indications seem to confirm that they *were* more adaptable at one time.

Please note that adaptability isn't the same thing as superiority. Every living creature has its own talents and specialties. So humans (at one time) proved to be good at adapting to new environments. So what? All that means is that humans' particular talent (or one of their talents at least) resided in that area. Other life forms had their own talents. I ... don't see what the problem is. No one's engaged (I'm not at least) in any contest to prove that humans are somehow better than any other life form. They're just different from other life forms, that's all. All life forms are different from each other. Better at some things, less suited for other things.

Well, that's diversity for you. I guess if some mysterious being up in the sky were somehow "taking score" on who was "the best" and who deserved to live while all other Earthly beings deserved to die, then we'd have something serious to argue about. But personally, I'm quite sure that no such contest exists. In some (arrogant) humans' minds does it possibly exist? Well it certainly wouldn't surprise me. But I just don't care that much about what other humans (especially the arrogant ones) think. My point is, the "superior species contest" doesn't exist in any objective way, and that's what matters to me.

Isn't the very word, "superior," a rather silly word? What does it even mean? I don't know. I guess various humans (especially the arrogant ones) define it in various ways according to their own design or (more likely) convenience. Well, that's their convenience and they're welcome to it. In the meantime, the very idea that a human is superior to *anyone* or *anything* (even a rock for example) means virtually nothing to me. Doesn't mean anything to me; doesn't matter to me. Ah, so nice to not have to be shackled to some kind of superiority contest that I'd feel pressured to win. I'm shackled to enough kinds of pressure as it is. Please don't count me in on any superiority contest on top of all that. That'd be way more than this "superior" person could handle.

By the way, I have a riddle for any who'd consider it a (hopefully interesting) riddle: Could we consider modern Western humans, if we separate them from their technology, to still be human, or at least human in quite the same way that they were? After all, we modern Westerners are so married to our technology that it's practically like one of our limbs. So if we lost our technology, perhaps we'd still "be human" per se, but we'd be crippled humans! Hmmm, sorry, didn't mean to spoil the riddle by answering it myself, I actually hadn't planned to do that. Okay, let's say we wouldn't be *whole* humans, at least as far as the modern Western breed of human is concerned. :confused: I don't know; you tell me ... Guess our "adaptability" would really be tested then, wouldn't it?

Re (from ColorsWolf):
"I know you like other humans may feel very 'protective' and 'caring' of other non-human creatures, but please don't let this 'protection' and 'caring' become 'discrimination' and 'patronizing.'"

Okay: as long as we're agreed that "protection," "caring," "discrimination," and "patronizing" are all ultimately subjective concepts -- just as I believe that *every* concept (as handled by the human mind) is ultimately subjective and the result of (hopefully educated) guesswork. What any one of those four quoted words means to one person, is certain to mean something somewhat different to someone else. Ain't it a rip-off to be a hopelessly subjective being living in a relentlessly objective world? :) Well, it is.

Oh by the way: can cats and dogs adapt themselves to (in essence reverting to their distant ancestors') life in the wilds? Well, it's been proven; many of them have done it. Thus it's possible, but I trust we can agree that there may (at least in theory and/or for argument's sake) be higher-priority considerations than whether something is possible.
 
Yeah, nothing quite as subtle and insidious as hypocrisy ...
 
Kevin, "It can certainly be argued that there should be "no laws about anything" since ethics and morals are so subjective, but I can at least understand why "society as a whole" feels that it needs to enforce certain things (Confining to either prison or at least a psychiatric institution someone who's just committed a series of violent rapes seems to me like a particularly understandable example).

Now socially pressuring (let alone physically forcing) people into cutting their hair, living monogamously, or even wearing clothes especially when illogical due to hot weather, stuff like that, in my opinion is certainly going overboard in the "mission to see that basic ethics/morals are carried out in society." Hair growth, polyamory, and public nudity are not ethical/moral issues in my eyes; they are merely matters of personal choice and preference.

Sooo ... where does one draw the line between stuff that "needs" enforcement (e.g. violent-rape prevention) and stuff that *doesn't need* enforcement (or even persuasion)? I don't precisely know, and I seeeriously doubt that anyone really knows. Again, as with the personal exercise of morals and ethics using one's best (hopefully educated) guess, the best I can expect any society to do is to try to conduct its affairs morally/ethically to the best of its (hopefully educated) collective understanding. Sucky state of affairs but there it is."


I actually meant a society reaching outside of its' boundries to those who do not currently live within it to force its' "ideals" upon all.~

But I like where you went with this subject.~ ^_^



ColorsWolf, "I know you like other humans may feel very 'protective' and 'caring' of other non-human creatures, but please don't let this 'protection' and 'caring' become 'discrimination' and 'patronizing.'"


Kevin, "Okay: as long as we're agreed that "protection," "caring," "discrimination," and "patronizing" are all ultimately subjective concepts -- just as I believe that *every* concept (as handled by the human mind) is ultimately subjective and the result of (hopefully educated) guesswork. What any one of those four quoted words means to one person, is certain to mean something somewhat different to someone else. Ain't it a rip-off to be a hopelessly subjective being living in a relentlessly objective world? Well, it is.

Oh by the way: can cats and dogs adapt themselves to (in essence reverting to their distant ancestors') life in the wilds? Well, it's been proven; many of them have done it. Thus it's possible, but I trust we can agree that there may (at least in theory and/or for argument's sake) be higher-priority considerations than whether something is possible."


I disagree with your conclusion here, I think it is very important.~

The state of affairs as far as the concept of "Pets as Property" is very dire indeed with facts being there are not nearly enough Humans willing to care for the sheer amount of these overly domesticated creatures yet more are bred every year, they overpopulate the cities and the "pounds" with many being killed (there is no pretty way to say it in my opinion) simply because "there isn't enough shelf space", and that's not even discussing the pure ramifications of domesticating them and treating them as "property" for trivial purposes in the first place, oh wait it is.~


Other than the parts of your posts I have already addressed, I love your way of thinking and I am so excited and happy that you understand exactly all of my points!~ ^_^

Love truly,

ColorsWolf
 
ColorsWolf, ". . . so many Humans seem to be so self-righteous about themselves and how they see every thing.~"

nycindie, "Pot, meet Kettle."

Kevin, "Yeah, nothing quite as subtle and insidious as hypocrisy ..."

ColorsWolf, "I hope we are not talking about me here.~"

As I never claimed my points of view were in any way self-evident nor self-justifying, nor do I judge any one or hold any one to a set system of morality I could only call my own, in fact I am and as far as I know I have done only the opposite as I have no morality and I believe the concept of morality and even its' existence to be completely subjective.~

I have my likes and my dislikes, but I do not hold any one to them like others might with their subjective concept of "right" and "wrong".~

I can say only my point of view and my reactions towards any thing.~

If I have done any thing to the contrary of this, then please let me know and I truly apologize for it.~

Sincerely,

ColorsWolf
 
Last edited:
Re:
"I hope we are not talking about *me* here."

Can't speak for nycindie. I myself was being reeeally careful to caution strictly against "the sin," while avoiding any implication of who may or may not be "the sinner/s." Fact is, I think we're all hypocrites at times, so 'nuff said, my point is let's *all* watch ourselves with respect to that.

And I kind of didn't want to talk about that particular elephant in a room so well-stocked with elephants, but once nycindie had opened the can of worms, I felt compelled to say *something* about it. It's like NRE. Careful, careful, careful about it everybody. That is all.

Re (from previous post):
"I actually meant a society reaching outside of its' boundries to those who do not currently live within it to force its 'ideals' upon all."

Hmmm ... sounds a little like the seemingly widespread attitudes fueling the United States' war on Iraq. Don't suppose you were (at least partially) referring to that?

Re: pets as property ... yep, lots to chew over on that topic. In the United States (for example), pets are indeed technically considered property by the law. I suppose it would be better for the law to refer to pets as "dependents."

The law has far to go in granting non-human people all the rights and protections that they deserve. I actually don't think semantic revolutions are as effective at fixing social problems as we'd like to think. Not that they have no effect, just that there's more effective ways (e.g. direct action and widespread discussion) to plant the seeds and raise the saplings of the "social trees" the world needs. Besides that, I personally would rather have language's primary function be to clearly and logically describe things as they are, rather than attempting to be the catalyst for worldwide mindshifts about how things *should* be. But in legal terms? Yeah, I think I'd support striking the word "property" and supplanting it with the word "dependent/s."

Now, the law is one thing (by no means to be disregarded), but my personal thoughts and feelings are another matter. Let the law call Rainee and Sophie (my cat and dog) what it will; I call and consider them friends, companions, and adopted family. True no one *asked* them if that's what they wanted to be, but since we hardly know how to communicate with them, we kinda just had to make a guess about whether we thought they'd be cool with our decision to keep and confine -- yes even confine them.

Sophie goes on walks but on a leash; Rainee stays indoors ... and by the way she could probably bolt out the door at various opportune times when the door's opened, but she doesn't seem to be "desperate to escape" in that way; it's more like she stands near the open door, casts a curious eye through it, and then "goes (seemingly content) on her way" after it's closed. Definitely don't *know* what she's thinking, but given the evidence I observe, my guess is that indoor life doesn't bother Rainee all that much.

As for Sophie, she's crazy anxious to go on her walks, but she seems willing enough to wear that leash, be "guided" by it, and when the human walking her tugs her back toward home she doesn't seem to be inclined to put up a fight about it. Is it because she knows the humans have the power? I don't know. But again, I am guessing that she doesn't mind "sticking with the human pack" that she's grown up with.

Re: too many cats and dogs and too few humans to keep them ... definitely a big problem. And yes, you could say breeders are making it worse (though some considerations make sense such as that the "hinge lady" of our poly household has cat allergies; Russian blues tend to be hypoallergenic so, there is such a thing as a human who, if they're gonna get a cat, or dog, may have a legitimate need that it be a specific breed for one reason or another).

But beyond breeders, it's becoming increasingly standard practice to spay and neuter any/all cats/dogs that we can, whether they be established pets or just feral individuals we find on the street. So humans probably aren't working on the problem as vigorously as they should, but a gradual solution is emerging. I suppose it'll take many generations to really get the problem under control, but I predict that cat/dog populations will eventually shrink enough to be proportionate with the number of humans who will keep them.

Now you could argue that spaying/neutering without the poor non-human person's permission is a sick/wrong thing to do, but given our current level of knowledge, it's really the only way we know of to even move in the direction of the solution that we seek -- and most of us do sincerely believe that it's a good thing for the dogs and cats, and even that the dogs and cats aren't actually bothered by the "mutilatings" (assuming proper anesthesia of course) other than being irked by pre-op fasting, stitches, "cones of shame" and what have you.

I really think that humans are probably by far the most sex-craving species on the planet, or nearly tied with the bonobos or something like that. Cats and dogs ... I feel rather confident in guessing that they're mostly about their food, toys, water, attention from fellow human and non-human people, etc.

Plus I'm not sure that spaying/neutering stops animals from having sex. Getting far from my realms of expertise here, but you know. I don't know, maybe spaying and neutering "kills" their sexual hormonal drives. And that may be sick/wrong, but given that they still "seem" happy enough to me once they've recovered from the post-op inconveniences, I guess it doesn't worry me too much.

You could say, "But what about a female's craving to bear children?" Well I actually suspect that such is yet another area humans are especially inclined towards. It's more like, once a cat or dog *does* have offspring, she is all about taking tender care of them. But prior to her (perhaps would-be) pregnancy? My intuition and observations suggest to me that she's probably mostly all about her food, toys, water, attention from fellow human and non-human people, etc.

So in the end, we're doing shit that's arguably disturbing but probably not actually all that harmful to the animals in question, neither physically nor psychologically. If it does (phyiscal or) psychological damage to them, I sure can't tell. Chalk it up to my oblivious arrogance if you will; it's still the best guess I can make using the info I have. I am willing to listen to futher info if you have some to share with me.

There's always the other contraversy, of course, about whether cats and dogs should be kept as pets (by any name). Maybe they should be out in the wilds. Well, if that's true, then I guess we don't need to worry about controlling their population levels. Nature itself can do that, as they run and roam free and clear through what glades and forests remain after all the land-clearing, cultivating, and building humans have done. Not a great state of affairs but it does have a certain logic to it.

But I personally prefer the solution of eventually getting all cats and dogs safely kept and cared for in loving, responsible (though maybe misguided) human homes.

Re:
"They overpopulate the cities and the 'pounds' with many being killed (there is no pretty way to say it in my opinion) simply because 'there isn't enough shelf space ...'"

No need to mince words. Killing the non-human people for lack of shelf space is exactly what the pound does. Makes it a pretty damn serious situation, I'm right with you there.

Re:
"That's not even discussing the pure ramifications of domesticating them and treating them as 'property' for trivial purposes in the first place ..."

Could you elaborate on what you mean in this context when you say "trivial?"

Also keep in mind, this domestication process takes tens of thousands of years and can't just be undone. So even if it was odious of "us" humans to do, it's done now and just like slavery and the Holocaust, we can't just erase the damage. Sorry to have to say it.

Yes, you could argue that "forcing them back into the wilds for their own good" is the only moral/ethical choice (as its own gradual process towards a proper solution). But that's really ultimately a matter of opinion, and as we've repeatedly said we do not have the means to know how the cats and dogs themselves feel about the whole situation. So, we'll have to try to do the best we can (to act morally/ethically) as individuals, and I advise us to at least grudgingly respect each other as long as we have in common a sincere desire to do what's best for our non-human friends.
 
Kevin, Ah, thanks for elaborating on that whole 'hypocrisy' subject: I agree we could all benefit from taking care not to be hypocrites of our own messages.~

'Trivial' purposes?~ In my personal opinion, 'entertainment' and 'companionship', 'friendship', or 'what ever you want to call it'.~

My question is, "Was it worth it?~"

A long time ago we Humans befriended non-Humans like wolves and it was a true friendship one of mutual agreement to stay with one another so that we may both benefit from each other.~

Like other animals, we Humans have taken other animals from the wild, killed them, and eaten them.~ Over time the time between taking them from the wild and killing them got longer until we started raising them out of the wild for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten.~

Both of these relationships were separate for a long time.~

At some point we stopped treating our 'non-Human friends' truly as 'friends' and instead they become some thing in-between what they once were "true friends" and what the animals we capture from the wild or raise from birth out of the wild to kill and to eat "are".~

I ask another question, "Why?"~

and

I will ask the first question again, "Was it worth it?"~

I'm not sure why Humans did this, but every reason I've ever heard to 'justify' this is 'trivial' in my opinion.~



Your right, the damage has already been done.~ Perhaps cutting the genitals off and out of these "Property Pets" will help stop the overpopulation.~ Another question, "Why is this 'Justifiable' to force upon non-Humans, but not Humans?" Aren't we Humans ourselves overpopulated on many parts of this planet?~ Is this a adequate solution for either non-Humans or Humans and if it is, is it a permanent solution to always be practiced?~


How do we get back to that: the times when a long time ago Humans and certain non-Humans were 'truly friends'?~


Is releasing all 'non-Human Pets' to go any where they wish to go the solution?~

Many Humans would most often refuse to face the truth, but the truth is many "Pets" that can not be allowed to roam without dying are a direct result of "horrible parenting or caregiving": they are often never raised to navigate the dangers of life in 'civilization'.~ So not only are many "Pets" not ever allowed to roam on their own, but if they ever to just happen to do so they have not been prepared for a world (civilization) they have often been born into.~ Would this be 'justifiable' with a "Human" child?~


What about the ones no Human is taking care of but have been captured and are put into cages at a 'pound'?~ Would it be best to release these 'surplus' 'Pets' into the wild?~ Not all of them would die in the wild, is that a better life than spending the rest of their lives in a cage made short when 'their time is up' because they have not been 'adopted' and are each for sure killed for circumstances taken out of their control?~

The reality of things and the truth of things may not always be pretty, but is any one even willing to even seriously think about these questions?~

I'm glad you are, Kevin.~
 
Last edited:
Part 1 of 3

Well, these are certainly hard questions; barely any of them (or none at all) could possibly come with an easy/adequate answer. And as any hard question about an important issue will always do, these hard questions will surely be met with some contraversy since one person will suppose that one answer is the best answer, while another person will suppose that another answer is the best answer. Kinda like the abortion debate. Wonder if people will ever be able to agree about that kind of a hot-button topic.

Best I can do for ya: submit some food for thought about the questions and respect your right to do with that food whatever seems best in your mind. Consider the food a gift. Once I've "given" it to you, its yours, and you have the rights to decide what to do with it. Just so we understand there's not much use in starting some big argument about any of it, because the argument would surely last forever (bleah).

Re:
"I'm not sure why humans did this [stopped treating our 'non-human friends' truly as 'friends'], but every reason I've ever heard to 'justify' this is 'trivial' in my opinion."

And I willingly concede that you've every right to hold that opinion. I even (think I) now understand a little better *why* you hold that opinion, which was my goal when I asked for clarification on why the word "trivial," so yay I got to attain my own goal at least. Hope you feel somehow benefitted from the discussion too.

So, here's what I'm "getting." Olden-day relationships between human and wolf constituted genuine friendship because the wolves had total independence and could come and go as they pleased ... whereas today, we have a situation where dogs are essentially wolves-no-longer who've been bred (and conditioned) into the state of rather young, helpless, dependent children. (I don't mind polite correction if I've misinterpreted what you were getting at.)

If I'm "reading you right," then the problem with this "thing" that we feel is a friendship is that we can't/don't respect a dog in the same way that we'd respect a wolf. You can't be a friend to someone you can't/don't respect, right?

Hmmm. Well that is a puzzler. Okay here's the thing. "Exploiting" my dog Sophie for a moment for use as an example, I both recognize her "helplessness" in comparison to a wolf -- but, in my heart I still feel like I have respect for her. How/why? because, she does pretty cool things for the state and condition that she's in. I guess you could say that I'm impressed by how she makes the best of her lot in life. She's cheerful, she loves people -- even me, who "my hinge lady" will quickly characterize as a "cat person." And speaking of cats, she graces our cat Rainee (who's smaller than Sophie) with good friendly (and respectful) relations ... even some play time where Rainee-the-silent-one and Sophie (employing some relatively petite barking) take turns baiting each other and chasing each other around the apartment.

Sophie and I have something of a strained/"Odd Couple" relationship. LOL. She, uh, gets on my nerves ... LOL. "Pet" peeves: her damned high-pitched ear-splitting feverish manic barking (especially when I'm trying to sleep -- Jesus!), and her occasional "thing" about carrying her toy frisbees into my room (*my* room, dammit!), and leaving them there, right on the floor, right in the way of the door or the spot by the window where Rainee would want to sit, thus (maybe?) passively-aggressively trying to "force" me to "play frisbee" with her. Dammit! I'm not some circus clown. You can't just *force* me to play with you Sophie, you have to indulge me with enough patience to wait til I'm in the mood. Just sayin' ...

Sophie's crowding/hovering at the dinner table (waiting for anyone to accidentally drop the least crumb of food), crawling under the table (and touching my legs without permission!) used to bug me, but I've pretty much "adapted" to that venial habit by now. And it used to bug me when she'd jump on my bed (*my* bed, dammit!) and start rubbing all over it (oh thanks Sophie, my ass was already filthy and now your filthy ass has been rubbed all over my bed), but yay and will miracles never cease, once I told her "No!" a couple of times and shooed her off the bed when she was doing that, she broke herself of the habit.

Truth is, Sophie and I have more of a respect-based relationship than we do an affection-based relationship. Oh she'd love it if I'd let her lick out my ears forever and ever; I've kind of stopped letting her do that. So she's got more affection for me than I do for her. But I do kind of grudgingly like her in my own way. It's just that my "stronger tie" to her consists of "respecting" her "position" in the family and being willing to help her out as a fellow Earthly creature on those infrequent occasions when she needs my help. Example: About 99% of the time, it's my V companions who take her out to go potty, but if she reeeally needs to go when it's just me at home, then I will (grudgingly) pull out the leash, doggie bags, my shoes and keys, and take her on a moderate walk around the apartment building so she can do what she's gotta do.

And whenever Rainee gets a treat from the kitchen, I make a point to give Sophie a dog biscuit too (which I probably shouldn't due to the bladder stones she might be prone to develop), just to be fair and because I know Sophie loves the hell out of food. (Damn dog actually chokes on occasion while she's inhaling her dinner since she hardly bothers to breathe during the process.) Yeah, I know, that doesn't sound like I respect her at all, does it? but like I said, fairness, fairness, it is important to me to at least treat her fairly (and decently). Sheesh, I let her bask in the Sun in the window in my room (*my* room, we've all gave that principle due props by now amirite). And *most* of the time she makes a point of peacefully minding her manners and letting me go about my business. So she (oh God do I have to admit it) definitely respects me and demonstrates as much.

So I "do respect" her, and I "don't respect" her (if don't-respect must be what we call it when I know she's not a wolf), both at the same time. As I said, given her crazy kind of breeding/evolution/domestication, she earns her due rights for my respect by acting her level best and by living responsibly within the confines of the choices she has. (Example: I know I can totally trust her to never ever bug me to take her out unless she *really* needs to go. She seems to realize that the job ain't my cup of tea, and, well, she respects that fact.)

So there you have it. The unsolvable mystery of whether respect is possible for a human towards a dog who's been bred/conditioned into the state of a rather young, helpless, dependent child. She may be a "kid" in that sense, but she could be a "rotten kid" if she wanted and yet, most of the time she "independently" takes the higher road, behavior-wise. How could I not respect that?

Re: cows ... oh holy shit now there's a kettle of fish. "Primitive" humans had better excuse than "modern" humans for eating meat. Largely we need a society-wide change/expansion in the menu our economic system offers (Burger King sez we can haz veggie burgers but McDonald's sez we can't? I don't get that) ... but, technically, any average Western person today could easily enough become a vegetarian. (Course bugs still die when crops are grown/harvested but let's not confuse ourselves with that inconvenient detail right now.)

And now the problem. If we all turned veggie tomorrow, we'd still have to continue to keep/confine/care for our cows because we've already domesticated the poor bastards. Maybe not completely true, they might be able to "re-adapt" to life in the wild. (On the other hand there's the contraversy about whether we can arrogantly justify ourselves in using their milk. I dunno. Could I survive if I gave up cheese? Ouch. Pizza?? Ahem ... also true is that while veggie pizza is excellent, sometimes humans get a rather insane craving for a good old pepperoni pizza ... oh God I'm getting off-topic again.)

And now some irony for your disgust and entertainment: Back in the good old days when we killed and ate our meat straightaway, we definitely weren't "friends" with the about-to-die "meat" that we were going to so promptly eat. But now that we keep/confine/care for our destined-to-become-steaks cows, some of us (e.g. my dad) come to feel quite attached to our future dinners. So one could argue that today we are more friends with/toward our to-be-eaten victims than we were before our ancestors did those victims the disservice of domesticating them!

Side note: What's really disgusting about the above irony is that as a whole, we don't lend pigs nearly the same level of emotional investment that we do our cows. Don't even feed them as well. Slop instead of straw? Our rotten leftovers? How is it the pigs' fault that they're such a piggy mess? We put them in those muddy pens and feed them crappy food and that's all they get! So sad. They say that pigs are probably actually "smarter" than cats and dogs. Eat a cat or dog? Ewww, awful, the inhumanity sez we (except in a few Far-Eastern dives). Eat a pig? Mmmm, everything's better with bacon. :rolleyes:

Eoh; by the way. Regarding entertainment. Sometimes we just enjoy our pets' company, but sometimes we "shamelessly" get a kick out of their antics as well. Welllll ... that *is* rather trivial of us, even I'll admit that. In the same way that going to a circus is a trivial way to spend our time. But trivial may or may not mean harmful ... After all, if the non-human person's having fun too, then it's a win-win sitch. (Not exactly my most important point here but, worth mentioning.)
 
Part 2 of 3

Re:
"I ask another question, 'Why?'
and
I will ask the first question again, 'Was it worth it?'"

(By "was it worth it" I take it you mean, was it worth it for us to domesticate what Nature originally designed to be tameless and wild.)

Re: Why? ... Why ... I don't know. Well I guess the cows thing I get. Readily available meat, right? But dogs? I don't know. Maybe as human civilizations became more ... complicated ... we stopped needing the wolf's hunting assistance so much, but felt that we still wanted the wolf's company ... and the wolf, no longer having an official job to do, found it all too easy to relax into the role of a mere household pet. :confused: Just one of many possible guesses.

By the by: Visit, say, New Zealand sometime, and behold some dogs who still have very real jobs to do for their human "masters," who in fact do rather live outdoors and could probably easily escape if they wanted, technically. But these dogs take their jobs very seriously, and it's incredible to behold how complex their jobs are, and how proudly expert they are at executing these jobs. They are sheep-herding dogs, and different dogs specialize in different parts of the trade. Some of them are responsible for prodding the sheep into moving along in their pens. Some of them are responsible for aiding humans in the literal herding (to and from pasture and pen).

Can't nearly remember what all the jobs are, but there's a bunch. Some involve barking at sheep. Some involve running along the sheep's backs to get to "the bottleneck sheep." Many involve receiving complex commands from the humans by way of a sizeable vocabulary of whistles by the humans. And check this: One of the jobs involves dogs who approach the sheep slowly in a state of utter silence, and stare the sheep down! Those dogs virtually hypnotize the sheep with that stare. The dog creeps back and forth, and the sheep (the whole herd) creep back and forth in concert with the dog, mesmerized and mastered by the dog's relentless stare. I believe that's part of the actual herding process, but anyway -- just, wow!

Re: Was it worth it? ... Why ... I don't know. You know we have handicapped people today who rely on their own personal dog to help them out. Leading dogs for the blind of course. But also, dogs who help folks in wheelchairs. Who help retrieve things for those folks. Turn off the light switch for them when they're in bed and then, sleeping with them (thus sharing valuable companionship as well as amazing services). Even helping such folks socialize with non-handicapped humans, who feel awkward talking with a guy in a wheelchair but feel naturally drawn to the inviting, unjudging charm of the dog. In which case the dog's official job at that moment is breaking the ice for the psychologically distanced humans. Again, dogs with very sophisticated jobs, who take those jobs supremely seriously and carry them out with flawless grace and aplomb. Just try to "not respect" that! Now that's a dog that earns its keep.

I don't know if it was worth it. What about the psychological aid that cats and dogs lend to people with emotional disabilities? I myself suffer from a shitload of emotional limitations, and gods do I remember the day when Rainee was first introduced to our home. She was basically a kitten at the time, a tiny little thing. And on that day, I was so lost and depressed I was just laying on the floor, with the will to do only nothing, feeling unloved though my mind *knew* I had two poly companions that loved the hell out of me as well as lifelong blood and chosen family and friends. Well for whatever reason, when my "hinge lady" placed Rainee by my side and handed me a feather toy, Rainee immediately inspired me into playing with her, staring at her wild jumping (with backflips!), and shit, straight up making me feel like I was alive again.

From that day on, Rainee has been an utterly loyal and faithful friend to me. Nothing fake or trivial about what Rainee has to offer! Can I say the same about what I offer her? Gods, I just don't know. I try -- I do try. How does one convey adequate appreciation to a cat who's employed her feline magic into saving one's emotional life? OMG ... [sobbing] ... Who's really dependent on who, I wonder ...

I'll never know "if it was worth it." How can anyone ever possibly know? You can't measure or put a price on those types of things. Fuck, it sure seems to have been worth it for us humans. Maybe non-humans have in essence selflessly sacrificed themselves for us just because they just plain cared. Maybe? We've already established that none of us knows what our pets are thinking.

Sure you could argue that you might still get all that with a non-human person who was 100% independent and could come and go as he/she pleased. But we keep our pets safe and sound and in that way, we know they'll always be at home waiting for us. Hell of a deal for us humans. The non-humans? Well, they'll never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, for what that's worth. Shelter; no cold, rain, driving snows. And the "friendship" (be it trivial or profound, illusion or real) that human "masters" extend to their non-human "slaves." Pets are "house slaves." As deplorable as deporting some poor slob from Africa and turning him into a house slave? These are the kinds of riddles I just don't know how to answer.

Re: forcing spaying and neutering upon a non-human person ... tricky, since there's no way to know whether the non-human does/would want/consent to the operation, and thus, no way of knowing/agreeing on whether that operation constitutes force. We are only guessing at whether the non-human person (if he/she knew what the hell we were doing to him/her) would agree with us that the operation was a good idea and for the best. Yet another unsolvable riddle, in my mind.

Similar to the riddle of infant circumcision, I suppose. I personally like being circumcized, and fancy that I prefer having had it done when I was too young to dread the ordeal. But that's me; plenty of other men feel violated by having been thus mangled. And of course we could argue about foreskin pros and cons all day; ultimately much like clothes and shaving it's a personal/cosmetic choice. And yet that baby boy has no choice ... or has he, if he'll grow up to like the decision that was made for him? Maybe others can solve that riddle, but I can't.

Re: human overpopulation ... well that's an easy one, Utah (especially Utah Valley) being, like, the ultimate example of overpopulation!

Re:
"Is this [sexual mutilation] an adequate solution for either non-humans or humans and if it is, is it a permanent solution to always be practiced?"

Don't know and it gets worse. That particular riddle is going to become increasingly complicated as life extension is developed. And I can practically guarantee that life extension will be developed (for all animals, both human and non). Just a matter of time. Guess we'd best start puzzling over its implications ahead of time (but who knows where to begin with that puzzle).

Re:
"How do we get back to that: the times when a long time ago humans and certain non-humans were 'truly friends?'"

With a time machine, by setting all the non-human people loose, or (if this last one be possible) by somehow inventing a whole new way of relating to each other (as "masters" and "pets"). Yeah yeah I know, that's a dumb-ass answer on my part, stating nothing more than a combination of the obvious and the absurd. Sorry but I just can't think of any answer that sounds better to me. In other words, I'm (once again) stumped.
 
Part 3 of 3

Re:
"Is releasing all 'non-human pets' to go anywhere they wish to go the solution?"

*The* solution? It's certainly *a* solution. One of several (many?) possible solutions, some good, some bad, some better than others, who knows which is which, everyone seems to have different opinions about it and none of us seems to be able to agree. Personally, I'd prefer not to put the non-human pets through that ordeal even if it *is* the solution. But, that's just me. What's my opinion worth? I let other people decide for me that I'll let my hair get cut, that I'll wear clothes in hot weather, and that I'll walk around with a flayed penis. I'm no genius, I'm just your average quirky fool with a weakness for "going along to get along." Oh sure I try to be unique in my own way, but that doesn't mean my opinions are worth a damn. As always, I make the best guess I can about things and just run with it.

Interesting question: Would it be okay if any humans were to own a "human pet?" Interesting answer: Some BDSM folks actually kind of do that. It helps that the "pet" expressly consents, but then we are talking about creatures who can verbally communicate with each other.

And there's the riddle of "traditional" marriage: kind of a "co-ownership" type of situation, wouldn't you say? I personally mildly (or not-so-mildly?) dislike it, but so very many people out there sincerely see it as the best thing since sliced bread, and ya can't argue that there aren't some (seemingly) very-happily-married couples out there.

Re: transferring a wild/feral cat/dog to the pound ... oohh, that's a really harsh one. Well, I think *most* pound-consigned pets luck out and get adopted, even though *many* (far too many) get put down, so technically we are "putting the odds in the wild/feral cat/dog's favor," if you consider captive domestic life to be a happy ending. I can't answer a riddle like that. I suppose since cats and dogs have already been bred (over thousands of years) to specialize in captive domestic living, I'll (reluctantly) vote for the "pound solution." But I can also easily understand the argument for leaving the already-undomesticated critters be. Or better yet (maybe?), like you said, transfer them to a national park or something, where they won't have to contend with the man-made disadvantages of living on the streets in the city, and can enjoy the fresh air and glorious view (that comes at the, in my perspective, terrible cost of the harshness doled out by the wilderness).

Unavoidable complication: A feral cat is impounded. Later, the pound runs out of shelf space for the cat. Standard procedure: Put the cat down. Buuut ... since it *was* feral, why not release it back into the (wilds? streets? Which would be better especially if the streets are what the cat was used to?) instead of putting it down? Then at least it'd be (in theory) no worse off than before animal control swiped it up.

Ohhh. I did a "wee" bit of brain straining on this one and ... the bottom line is, *I've no idea whether to recommend re-release or euthanasia.* In my logical mind, re-release seems to make pretty darn good sense. In my illogical heart, it just feels horrible to send that cat back out into that life that seems so pitiless as to suck all the seeming trust and comfort out of the cat's eyes. It's lived a sad, tolling life (especially considering its species isn't really made for life in the wilds, or on the streets). If we can't find a home for it, can we give it a relatively quiet, peaceful departure from this world of sorrows?

Buuut ... then I guess we should put homeless people in pounds, and euthanize them if the pound runs out of shelf space. Why, after all, should we release some poor slob back into the cold, hungry, lonely street life he was toiling through? Obviously that's not how we roll with homeless humans ... but the question remains, *should* we roll that way? Oh man, that puts me in just as bad of a pickle. I suppose I'd vote to at least be consistent and apply euthanasia to all out-of-space-and-out-of-luck ferals, be they human or otherwise. But in the logic center of my mind, I easily see that it makes more sense to re-release such infortunate souls back into the "wilds" of the city, where soup kitchens will keep them alive. After all, isn't there always hope that they'll somehow, someday, find a way back into a home and a good job? Plus, we can *talk* to each homeless human and find out what they'd prefer. Simplifies that riddle a little at least.

Well, what would a wild/feral cat/dog want us to do? In the immediate sense? They've presumably learned to distrust humans and want nothing to do with us (let alone be stored in a cage, with nothing but more human contact to look forward to at best). In the long term? If they "luck out" and once they've become accustomed to their new life imprisoned in someone's home, they might find that they prefer the infantile benefits now enjoyed, over the fierce freedom originally enjoyed. They usually seem to do so (if they get adopted), despite having had to adapt themselves to slavery/captivity/dependency (pick the word you "like" best). Maybe nothing ever really changes on a fundamental level; that is, every living thing always does nothing more than merely try to make the best of whatever circumstances it finds itself in.

That pine tree, growing on the side of a cliff. It was born there; it can't leave; it's "trapped" in that state of affairs. Being a rather unconscious type of organism, it nonetheless (like all animals, captive or wild) makes the best of what it's stuck with. In a philosophical sense, the side of a cliff is kind of a cool (but awfully rugged) place to live, wild and "free," even though the tree probably knows no different. Just an illustration (whatever it's worth) of the principle that all living things (except some humans?) adhere to: Always make the best of things, no matter what one lives (and/or must live) with.

Which despite ending with a period, is not actually a statement but a question and another riddle. Is it "good" to be trapped on the side of a cliff? or in a pot (for a plant), in a home (for a pet), or in a cubicle (for a human)? I guess it's both good and bad, but I don't really know; it just ... is what it is.

And always, always, we could sooo easily argue all day about how "good" domestic life may be for a captive pet (from goldfish on up -- hell even indoor spiders are trapped indoors; they too have evolved to be dependent on a human environment). It's good and it's bad, philosophically speaking, but what I've observed so far is that virtually all pets that are decently treated *seem* to be content (sometimes even happy -- especially when dinner's served or even when they're curled up on their "master's lap") with their lot and, of course, in addition to that, are making the absolute best of all that they experience which is really an accomplishment of theirs that we have to respect.

And that's all I got to say about that.

Re:
"The reality of things and the truth of things may not always be pretty, but is any one even willing to even seriously think about these questions?
I'm glad you are, Kevin."

Thanks.
Regards,
Kevin T.
 
Last edited:
Sure you could argue that you might still get all that with a non-human person who was 100% independent and could come and go as he/she pleased. But we keep our pets safe and sound and in that way, we know they'll always be at home waiting for us. Hell of a deal for us humans. The non-humans? Well, they'll never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, for what that's worth. Shelter; no cold, rain, driving snows.

My ex doesn't want a pet. Ever. But he feeds the stray cats that come to the house (and, due to leaving food out, a couple of foxes and a possum - which could be argued that he's making wild animals dependent on him, but I digress...). Two are feral, in that if they are approached by a human (or even SEE a human), they make themselves scarce.

One seems to have been someone's pet in the past - when he first started coming around, he tried to get into the house. He follows you when you walk up to the house, he meows and rubs against your legs, he follows the kids to the bus stop and hangs out with them.

So maybe, CW, this is your idea of friendship?

Except that these cats never see medical attention. The friendly one? He's had skin issues for years, with patches where his fur is missing, scabs covering his skin. Covered in ticks some days. It's sad, and every winter he disappears, we wonder if it will be his last.

He wants companionship, and gets it how he can, but with his health issues, my ex won't let the kids touch him, so he gets some level of attention, but not much. He still makes do, and sleeps on a chair on the porch from time to time.

(For anyone wondering, my ex called the local animal rescue league twice, but they need him to catch the cat, which he won't do.)

I still find it better and healthier for the animal to take them to the vet regularly, and to have regular food and shelter. We've domesticated the hell out of them over thousands of years, I have no problem taking responsibility for a couple who needed a place to go.


Edited to add: ARGH! Sorry for cross-pollinating threads again. Mods, if you want to move this into the "Pets" thread, then please do so. I'll try to be a bit more mindful of what thread I'm in.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top