'Yeah, I shot the dog. What the f--- you gonna do about it?'

[Suzanimal]

Dogs have way more sense than they're given credit for...


World's Smartest Dog? Meet a Border Collie Whose Memory Astounds

BS host Neil deGrasse Tyson visited Pilley and Chaser recently for a Nova documentary and quizzed the dog's remarkable memory with a random sampling of toys. The toys were placed in another room, and as Tyson called out the items by name, Chaser would go and retrieve them.

Tyson also brought along a new toy -- a doll named "Darwin" -- which Chaser had never seen before. When he asked her to find it in the other room, Chaser could locate the doll amid the other toys, inferring that the new object was connected with the new word.

"Whoa! " Tyson said to Chaser, tail wagging with "Darwin" in her mouth.

Chaser has also demonstrated the ability to understand verbs, including "find," "nose" and "paw," performing each of the actions on any of the 1000 objects.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wo...special-shows-border-collie/story?id=12875750

The video at the link is very cool..

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Anyone who believes that animals don't have emotions has never had one they formed a relationship with or watched them closely at all. Animals bond with their owners and other animals and GRIEVE when they are gone. They also express love and a variety of other emotions toward each other and their human owners.

You're trying to combat science with anecdotes. It's just not going to work. What you see in dogs is what you want to see. Love doesn't even enter the equation.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Your whole premise is stupid. You seem to believe that you have to be able to converse with a dog in English for there to be communication. There are all types of ways to communicate with another being. Language is only one of them.

No, language is everything. There's sign language, there's French, English, Swahili, none of which dogs can do. It's not just the language barrier either. Dogs aren't carrying out lives as complex as ours only in a different language. The truth is that their lives and thought processes are barely a fraction as complex as ours. They are incapable of understanding us no matter what. That's science speaking. I don't rule anything out, but as Ron Paul would say, this is about as close to ruling it out as I can get without speaking in absolute terms.

Actually, my comment had to do with your apparent inability to see outside of the little box that you are operating within.

It's not a box, it's reality. There's a fine line between closed-mindedness and refusing to believe a lie. You want to believe, and I'm not so inclined to. That's the difference.

[/QUOTE]

You did attack me, no? You obviously have very strong feelings on this issue that don't seem to be based on any sort of fact-oriented examination of the issue.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Lol, SCIENCE!

Indeed. This is one area where I trust science doesn't have an agenda.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, if I'm a UFO enthusiast, I gotta be delighted this morning as I've found in you a member of the Borg. "You will be assimilated! All other species have no value!"

And that totally makes sense.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You're fuggin kidding me, right? AF started these threads on dog killings awhile ago with one explicit purpose in mind. To elicit empathy over police abuse on humans. There is plenty to say regarding the kills or torture of citizens by cops. However, there will always be those that say "he was a bad character", "well he shouldn't have...." or any number of excuses. It's pretty tough to defend someone shooting a 15# puppy. The outrage over killings of dogs have brought awareness to others about police brutality within my circle. I know it has for others as well.
So you're not a dog lover. No big deal. However, you need to understand that to others they are an integrally related member of the family. Explain it away as much as you wish but some need to realize that ignoring it may be at their own peril.

I'm just saying there are people like that. They're in this thread if you want to look back at it.

 

[SeanTX]

What people see in dogs is what they want to see.

Yes, and it's really none of your business, so untwist your panties and quit whining. You can have your own values and beliefs, other people can have theirs -- it's called "freedom."

 

[JK/SEA]

You're not helping you're case when you say you talk to plants. Talking to dogs as if they were plants that respond to sound stimuli by nature means they are programmed to be that way. They do not understand you. They simply receive the stimulus and react to it. No comprehension, no abstract thought, just cause and effect.

Animals do not understand you. Their brains simply can't do that. They are not made for that.

God has spoken. I'm impressed.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, and it's really none of your business, so untwist your panties and quit whining. You can have your own values and beliefs, other people can have theirs -- it's called "freedom."

Did I ever try to take away anyone's freedom. Untwist your panties and stop whining about my values and beliefs. I'm making a moral statement, not arresting someone for disagreeing with me.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

God has spoken. I'm impressed.

This is scientific fact. Go look it up and then try to offer some evidence to the contrary. You haven't challenged me for not offering evidence because you already know it's true. This is not even a debate amongst anyone except people trying to keep the delusion alive in order to maintain their relationship with their dogs. I'm not the only one in this thread pointing that out, either. Most rational people know this to be true.

 

[osan]

Exceptions are the reason we got where we are.

Good point.

I'm as angry as anyone here, but too many of you lose your heads and advocate torture or going ape-shit on a cop who shoots a dog, yet you say nothing about the cop that kills or tortures a human to death. What is this sickness?

I don't think anyone is suggesting any such thing, really. Shooting a cop dead as stone in defense of another life, even that of a dog, is wholly justifiable in terms of moral principle. My dogs are members of my family. I would plug any cop attempting to bring them to harm - no questions and no hesitation on that. They are also legally regarded as property and I reserve every right to defend my property against violation at the hands of any man, cops included.

None of that is "going ape-shit" in the sense I take you to intend. It is called defense of self, of others, and of property. No man holds authority to violate the rights of others. Those with badges hold even less authority precisely because of what the badge is supposed to mean.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Good point.



I don't think anyone is suggesting any such thing, really. Shooting a cop dead as stone in defense of another life, even that of a dog, is wholly justifiable in terms of moral principle. My dogs are members of my family. I would plug any cop attempting to bring them to harm - no questions and no hesitation on that. They are also legally regarded as property and I reserve every right to defend my property against violation at the hands of any man, cops included.

None of that is "going ape-shit" in the sense I take you to intend. It is called defense of self, of others, and of property. No man holds authority to violate the rights of others. Those with badges hold even less authority precisely because of what the badge is supposed to mean.

Then we have two different definitions because I think trying to avenge a dog is nowhere near being worth the repercussions. Choose your battles, don't get killed over a dog. Apparently this not a very popular belief and I am absolutely bewildered by that.

 

[JK/SEA]

This is scientific fact. Go look it up and then try to offer some evidence to the contrary. You haven't challenged me for not offering evidence because you already know it's true. This is not even a debate amongst anyone except people trying to keep the delusion alive in order to maintain their relationship with their dogs. I'm not the only one in this thread pointing that out, either. Most rational people know this to be true.

ya lost me at 'scientific fact'...thanks for the laugh.

Settled science right?...because as we all know, when someone proclaims...'scientific fact' 'settled science', or whatever, all research into said issue ends. Yes...no..?

 

[phill4paul]

I'm just saying there are people like that. They're in this thread if you want to look back at it.

This is from your post.

yet you say nothing about the cop that kills or tortures a human to death.

Who here has had "nothing to say" regarding cops that torture and kill humans? You'll have to cite the post for me. I'm not seeing it.

 

[chudrockz]

Then we have two different definitions because I think trying to avenge a dog is nowhere near being worth the repercussions. Choose your battles, don't get killed over a dog. Apparently this not a very popular belief and I am absolutely bewildered by that.

You're bewildered by it because your moral compass is fubared. You either had a bad experience with a dog as a child or have never taken time to get to know one. It's too bad, really.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, language is everything. There's sign language, there's French, English, Swahili, none of which dogs can do. It's not just the language barrier either. Dogs aren't carrying out lives as complex as ours only in a different language. The truth is that their lives and thought processes are barely a fraction as complex as ours. They are incapable of understanding us no matter what. That's science speaking. I don't rule anything out, but as Ron Paul would say, this is about as close to ruling it out as I can get without speaking in absolute terms.



It's not a box, it's reality. There's a fine line between closed-mindedness and refusing to believe a lie. You want to believe, and I'm not so inclined to. That's the difference.

I am speaking from personal experience, of which you clearly have none.

You did attack me, no? You obviously have very strong feelings on this issue that don't seem to be based on any sort of fact-oriented examination of the issue.

You have attacked most everyone in this thread, so go look in the mirror bud.

Then we have two different definitions because I think trying to avenge a dog is nowhere near being worth the repercussions. Choose your battles, don't get killed over a dog. Apparently this not a very popular belief and I am absolutely bewildered by that.

Some animals are like family members to their owners and they couldn't love them more if they had been human. Sadly, you clearly have not experienced this kind of relationship with an animal. You are missing out.

This is scientific fact. Go look it up and then try to offer some evidence to the contrary. You haven't challenged me for not offering evidence because you already know it's true. This is not even a debate amongst anyone except people trying to keep the delusion alive in order to maintain their relationship with their dogs. I'm not the only one in this thread pointing that out, either. Most rational people know this to be true.

The only person I saw high-fiving you was heavenlyboy. So, there goes your alibi.

 

[Ender]

No, language is everything. There's sign language, there's French, English, Swahili, none of which dogs can do. It's not just the language barrier either. Dogs aren't carrying out lives as complex as ours only in a different language. The truth is that their lives and thought processes are barely a fraction as complex as ours. They are incapable of understanding us no matter what. That's science speaking. I don't rule anything out, but as Ron Paul would say, this is about as close to ruling it out as I can get without speaking in absolute terms.



It's not a box, it's reality. There's a fine line between closed-mindedness and refusing to believe a lie. You want to believe, and I'm not so inclined to. That's the difference.

Language is NOT everything; no language can convey true meaning or what is in a person's heart. Why do you think other people can become so upset over something you might say that was perfectly innocent in your mind?

Language has always been the map- it has NEVER been the destination.

And YES- plants & animals respond to music.

 

[osan]

Then we have two different definitions because I think trying to avenge a dog is nowhere near being worth the repercussions.

You are confusing two points and giving a false motive for action. Firstly, I am speaking in normative terms and not the positive. It may well not be worth the repercussions, but that does not alter the normative truth that it is well within the bounds of morality to defend the life of another living being against the acts of another, cop or otherwise. As I wrote before, it is justifiable on the property rights basis alone.

As for motive, vengeance does not have to enter into the picture: defense of life and property, however, do. If a cop was about to light a match and burn down your house, would you consider it justifiable to shoot his stupid ass deader than stone, or do you feel he is entitled to do so more than you are to defend yourself? If you feel you are, then what about if he is going to destroy your automobile? Your clothes dryer? A TV? A laptop? Your cell phone? If at some point you agree that property defense against police is valid, but not where it comes to a dog, then at what place do you draw your line? I don't draw a line. If a cop is robbing me of a stick of gum he has, in principle, forfeited his right to live. This is not to say I WOULD plug him or anyone else for a stick of gum, but that they get away with it only at MY discretion.

We either possess property rights or we do not. If we do, the right is absolute and inviolate. Anything less than this and the right is no right at all.

Choose your battles, don't get killed over a dog. Apparently this not a very popular belief and I am absolutely bewildered by that.

Your position is reasonable in positive terms and speaks to positive cases in the real world and is a matter of personal judgment. You may be failing to distinguish between positive and normative discourse. I usually speak in the latter because that is what should underpin the former. If we have no normative standard then the world goes wild west and nihilism threatens to rule the day. I do not think anyone would want to see that happen.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Then we have two different definitions because I think trying to avenge a dog is nowhere near being worth the repercussions. Choose your battles, don't get killed over a dog. Apparently this not a very popular belief and I am absolutely bewildered by that.

To many people, dogs are like family, like people.

Cops know and understand this.

That's why they are blowing them away with impunity.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

It will be, in many cases, it is, people being blown away with equal impunity.

Because we did not stop it with dogs.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Apparently you have to stare into its eyes for extremely long periods of time before you become hypnotized by it. I see a dog gazing up at me and I think about nothing except where it's going to put its dirty tongue and paws next. It must take some real country boy hangin' around in order to get THAT acquainted with the species. The level of dog-worship just makes me wonder how one acquires such a state of mind as to see human qualities in a dog. We don't do this with other animals and yet many of us are convinced that they are special, even though they are not even close to being related according to the theory of evolution. What people see in dogs is what they want to see.

Just remember...Dog spelled backward is God.