| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DustWolf
Good ol' packwolfy
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 218
Location: Slovenia
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: Things to say |
  |
|
| Gwyn wrote: | | 3. or ran out of things to say. |
I've been thinking about this the other day. It seems there is nothing
to talk about anymore once we got the therianthropy basics figured out.
Could be more colorful if we got any puppytherians (read: newbies)
coming in here asking questions about therianthropy so that we'd have
something to argue about.
If I think back and try to remember what I'm thinking of my
therianthropy the only two things I still don't understand are: 1. why
do dogs consider me to be a dog (cause, despite the ongoing argument
with the skeptical part of my own mind, that's what they do, and my
empirical testing of circumstances has ran out of Oocam type "rational"
excuses), 2. what's up with me considering dogs to be people and not
seeing any difference between the two groups.
People (dogs/humans) act the way you treat them, so if you treated
humans as pets...? Ok, I'm messed up, but humans do make wonderful
pets. You just gotta love them and take care of them like you should.
But I guess I've been okay with that. I mean, why discuss something
like this..? It's the way I think and I'm okay with it. Something to do
with growing up and not being a teenager anymore I guess...
Oh and... I'm planning to restore wikitherian to life sometime this
year. Then we'll have lots to argue about if you guys and girls wanna
help me with it.
_________________
It may just be a coincidence however.
Check my nature photos if you will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DustWolf
Good ol' packwolfy
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 218
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
lol... is it really that awkward to respond?
_________________
It may just be a coincidence however.
Check my nature photos if you will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwyn
Entropy in Drag
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 792
Location: in the sky with diamonds.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nahh, I just haven't been here since then.
I think you'd find some interesting answers to your first question in Dogs
by the Coppingers. It gives a valid hypothesis on the evolution of dogs
from wolves and explains how this would shape their reaction to humans.
It's not exhaustive, by any means, but if it were most people would
fall asleep.
The answer to your second question lies in either anthropomorphism or
zoomorphism, depending on your viewpoint. Dogs are tremendously
different from humans. It's a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DustWolf
Good ol' packwolfy
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 218
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm... Zoomorphism. The evolution geeks would love that word. XD
I mean seriously, science proves that what you call zoomorphism is like objectivity.
_________________
It may just be a coincidence however.
Check my nature photos if you will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwyn
Entropy in Drag
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 792
Location: in the sky with diamonds.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Calling
generalization objectivity is counterproductive. If you are telling me
that dogs and people are individuals and should all be approached as
such, I'm right in there with ya. If you're telling me that humans and
canines develop in the same way, I have a few qualms with it and am in
good company with harried dog trainers across the globe. It's right up
there with oversimplifying the dog/wolf genetic tie to the point of
trying to use wolf socialization cues on dogs. Some are similar, others
are markedly different and you will confuse the hell out of many dogs
by using them. Alpha-rolls and scolding for things after they've
already happened are at the top of the list of wolf/human cues used
erroneously on dogs.
There are exceptions to the rules, but most of them are breeds that
have been carefully selected for a specific interaction with humans.
Which brings us to the other huge gap between humans and dogs, thanks
to the Nazis being stopped in their tracks... eugenics are still fairly
true to their outdated roots in the first-world canine population. The
landraces that are still diverse enough to know better would be
disgusted if they had any clue what was going on. Which could lead us
to the cognition debate... and I'm outta time for that one, I've been
practicing escapism enough for one day.  Maybe later? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DustWolf
Good ol' packwolfy
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 218
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwyn wrote: | | Calling
generalization objectivity is counterproductive. If you are telling me
that dogs and people are individuals and should all be approached as
such, I'm right in there with ya. If you're telling me that humans and
canines develop in the same way, I have a few qualms with it and am in
good company with harried dog trainers across the globe. It's right up
there with oversimplifying the dog/wolf genetic tie to the point of
trying to use wolf socialization cues on dogs. Some are similar, others
are markedly different and you will confuse the hell out of many dogs
by using them. |
I'm not an extremist you know as much. 
I'm just saying there are more similarities than people would like to
admit. For example the whole petkeeping argument is, in my opinion just
an example of how people act the way you treat them and works the same
way for most social animals: If you treat them as incapable of living
independently, they won't be, if you treat them with distance and
respect they'll learn to live their own lives.
Now to many people this means that the right thing to do would be
to treat animals with distance and respect, but to me it works both
ways. I don't really think there is anything wrong with treating some
humans as pets. I mean, sure you got those who want to be independent
at all costs, but there are also some who just want to be loved and
can't really comprehend what reality is all about anyway. Those you can
either heartlessly manipulate (as is often done today) or keep them as
pets, keep them a little in the dark about things they can't
understand, but love them and make sure they're okay.
| Gwyn wrote: | | Alpha-rolls
and scolding for things after they've already happened are at the top
of the list of wolf/human cues used erroneously on dogs. |
I doubt using alpha-rolls on wolves you would have let you come out of
it alive either. God scientists are so stupid sometimes! In other
words, I think that one is more a human / wolf confusion than a wolf /
dog one. Humans assume they can be top dog just because they can
enforce it with behaviour, wolves do their hierarchies bottom-up and
leave the behaviour just for reassurance.
I dunno just the way I see things. XD
_________________
It may just be a coincidence however.
Check my nature photos if you will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
You have no new messages![Log out [ DustWolf ]](therian%20pet%20argument_files/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Log out [ DustWolf ]
