Heartsick and helpless; dogs

Graces7

maggiepip wrote: »

Have you actually read any of the posts? Or are you just out to have a gripe at people who care?

Your post doesn't even make sense as there are no COMPLEX human emotions being attributed here. Just the basics.

If you consider people who do not want a dog to be lonely, terrified or in danger of being hurt/run over, or in pain from being overexercised or feeling some compassion for a dog who is craving affection - a transferral of COMPLEX human emotions then I so truly hope you do not, or ever intend to own a dog.

And Im sorry to disappoint you but most dog lovers or even most people will not agree with you, as, amongst other flaws, you post is out of context.

Dogs are not objects - and while they do not suffer from the nasty emotions humans have - they feel fear, loneliness, rejection, frustration, boredom, pain......... whats complex about that???

Perhaps you should educate yourself a little before insulting other people.

But he does; mentions it in the thread re dog friendly businesses..

maggiepip

Graces7 wrote: »

But he does; mentions it in the thread re dog friendly businesses..

Yes, I saw that:mad:

PucaMama

Graces7 wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

not very nice op

?? No judgement, simply fact.

Amazing that you take that word as an insult?

Many small isolated communities are like this.

Wonder why and how it can be taken as an insult.. Just means the gene pool is limited is all.

Which is one reason there is a high incidence of mental handicap in Ireland.

This wil be less so infuture with more foreigners moving here.

Makes no difference to the way we are with people; love them all but know their limitations. And try damage limitation where the dogs are concerned.
Quietly..

NB I am a social historian and Ireland is fascinating..

I have never seen the choc lab before and I know most of the local dogs after two years. No collar but the mark of one; maybe left chained up and wriggled out of his collar.. And I can guarantee that my enquiry of that local man will result in a better deal for the dog.

PS would rather attribute ignorance to tradition and this than think it is wilful and chosen.

My English friends there with the cats do as I do; keep peace and act.

It is a judgement. you dont have their birth certs. You cant say they are inbred.
Just because its a small town or village doesnt mean they are all inbreeding. I think its a disgusting thing to say personally since I come from one of those small towns.

spiralbound

Graces7 wrote: »

?? No judgement, simply fact.

Amazing that you take that word as an insult?

Many small isolated communities are like this.

Wonder why and how it can be taken as an insult.. Just means the gene pool is limited is all.

Which is one reason there is a high incidence of mental handicap in Ireland.

'Inbred' generally has negative connotations.

Do you have a source for the high incidence of 'mental handicap'?

OldNotWIse

Indricotherium wrote: »

You seem to think I was implying some sort of sexual implication to cuddle, I wasn't, apologise if I gave that impression.

What I mean is that not everyone considers dogs to be full emotional peers with humans, as many posters on this type of thread seem to.[/QUOTE]


I suspect this is simply the inference you are taking though, as it suits your agenda. I haven't seen any posters claiming to be on an emotional or social par with their dogs. Looking after your animals does not mean you see them as your peers. God's sake :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

PucaMama wrote: »

It is a judgement. you dont have their birth certs. You cant say they are inbred.
Just because its a small town or village doesnt mean they are all inbreeding. I think its a disgusting thing to say personally since I come from one of those small towns.

I think its more disgusting the way they treat their animals. I couldn't give a rodent's backside if someone wants to "keep it in the family" but animal abuse and neglect is inexcusable.

PucaMama

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think its more disgusting the way they treat their animals. I couldn't give a rodent's backside if someone wants to "keep it in the family" but animal abuse and neglect is inexcusable.

im not even talking about the animals. im talking about her claim that people from small towns are inbred without any proof.

OldNotWIse

PucaMama wrote: »

im not even talking about the animals. im talking about her claim that people from small towns are inbred without any proof.

I'm talking about the animals, and that is how the thread started out is it not? OP could call these people all the names under the sun, it wouldn't be excusable, but it certainly would not negate their treatment of their animals.

PucaMama

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm talking about the animals, and that is how the thread started out is it not? OP could call these people all the names under the sun, it wouldn't be excusable, but it certainly would not negate their treatment of their animals.

if you want to be picky, the first thing she said was the bit about them being inbred.

Graces7

PucaMama wrote: »

It is a judgement. you dont have their birth certs. You cant say they are inbred.
Just because its a small town or village doesnt mean they are all inbreeding. I think its a disgusting thing to say personally since I come from one of those small towns.

Your response is your choice. All I can say is that it was not intended that way and should not be taken that way. And I don't think you understand what the word really means either. Again, it is nothing immoral or of that nature.

Can we drop this please as it is way off thread and away from the topic.

Thank you.

OldNotWIse

PucaMama wrote: »

if you want to be picky, the first thing she said was the bit about them being inbred.

Seriously? We're actually going down the "she started it" road??

Graces7

spiralbound wrote: »

'Inbred' generally has negative connotations.

Do you have a source for the high incidence of 'mental handicap'?

Many; am working on a book on all this and reliable source material.

It happens in many isolated places and not just Ireland. Up in Orkney for example, the limited gene pool resulted in a huge number of multiple births and also an appallingly high rate of MS which is still ongoing to this day. Too many were "sib" to each other, even though not within the generally accepted proscribed marriage list as there was less understanding of genetics in those days.

The good thing is that it has become a sterling centre for the treatment of MS

The term has also become somewhat of a metaphor for closed minds that are found in small communities. Clannishness; like the local trader who opined that the choc lab was OF COURSE well cared for as it was local.
So with all the dogs there of course; because the owner is local....

Sorry; did not mean to go on..am off my feet this week and working on the book.

But there was certainly never any accusation of anything immoral or nasty...simply fact in a land where the family has always been so utterly treasured.

spiralbound

Graces7 wrote: »

Many; am working on a book on all this and reliable source material.

Can you give the names of your sources? I've not come across this before.

Indricotherium

Graces7 wrote: »

But there was certainly never any accusation of anything immoral or nasty...simply fact in a land where the family has always been so utterly treasured.

Graces7 wrote: »

We trade once a week at a free market in a small village. A very .. inbred place... As blow ins we have to tread carefully..

To be fair I think you did.

Graces7

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm talking about the animals, and that is how the thread started out is it not? OP could call these people all the names under the sun, it wouldn't be excusable, but it certainly would not negate their treatment of their animals.

Exactly so.. and by the way my words were taken out of context; "Blow ins have to be very careful.."

See what I meant by the whole sentence?

Up in Orkney they say that you do not belong until your grandmther is buried in the cemetery

I and others do tread very carefully indeed when in small towns where everyone knows each other so well and where we are outsiders. Hoping that by treading carefully we can help critters we meet.

because it is the critters who matter here, isn't it? Will never forget the scars on that boxer. Still roaming the road.

Graces7

Indricotherium wrote: »

To be fair I think you did.

People matter, simply. Whoever and whatever, they matter too. If we alienate them the critters suffer too.

The choc lab sat at my feet half the day and was gently treated and everyone saw that;)

He is a beauty.Chances are I will never see him again.

And soon the season will end and the village will retreat into itself until St Patrick's Day 2013.

Graces7

spiralbound wrote: »

Can you give the names of your sources? I've not come across this before.

Ask google or wait for the book...Sorry if that sounds brusque but this is not the place for this discussion ...

Ireland takes wonderful care of its adult mentally handicapped which is something they have learned. We see groups on day trips at many of the festivals and markets. Clearly well loved.

spiralbound

Graces7 wrote: »

Ask google or wait for the book...Sorry if that sounds brusque but this is not the place for this discussion ...

Ireland takes wonderful care of its adult mentally handicapped which is something they have learned. We see groups on day trips at many of the festivals and markets. Clearly well loved.

I did ask Google, and couldn't find anything, which is why I asked you to back up your claim. What is the book called, and when will it be out, so I can read it when it's published?

Indricotherium

Graces7 wrote: »

Ask google or wait for the book...Sorry if that sounds brusque but this is not the place for this discussion ...

Ireland takes wonderful care of its adult mentally handicapped which is something they have learned. We see groups on day trips at many of the festivals and markets. Clearly well loved.

Just give a list of sources. Or even one.

DBB

Mod note
This thread is veering off topic a little too much, and some posters are coming ta little too close to being offensive and/or trollish at times.
Let's get back on topic please, and keep it civil.
Do not reply to this post. Any comments to be made by PM.
Thanks,
DBB

Cú Giobach

I want to comment on emotions in animals, that was brought up here yesterday.
I find the dismissal of the idea based on the fact that they are not human quite odd.

A dog's eye works the same as a human eye, there are differences that are species specific and we both have adaptations that evolved best for each species, but the basic process to gather light then transmit the signals is the same and the decoder is quite similar. Nobody would imagine a dog can't see (on a basic level) similar to the way we do just because they're not human, same with the ear or how the heart or liver works.
There are differences in how these things work that depend on the species but for (say mammals) the basic processes are very similar, and all evolved similar mechanisms to deal with similar problems from a common root.

Now why should emotions be any different??
We evolved emotions for specific reasons and if they weren't advantageous to us as an animal it's doubtful we would have them, why shouldn't this evolution have also have occurred in animals other than humans??
Just as a dog sees the world more blue/green than we do and has a wider field of view, why shouldn't it also have different, but still similar and quite recognisable kinds of emotions that we do??
Being an intelligent animal living in a complex social group, emotions would surely be quite evolutionary advantageous, and evolution seem to find similar answers to similar problems.

I feel much talk of emotions in animals is where the debate on whether animals feel actual pain was in the 17th century (or for a few who I feel were quite odd people in the 20th).
The dog just responds to a stimulus but feels no pain whereas the human does, even though we both have a similar mechanism for detecting the stimulus and transmitting and decoding it, not to mention a similar response to it.

Just to finish, look at what we consider a "complex" emotion love.
A bit of oxytocin mixed with some dopamine and adrenilen and having an amygdala, voilà , a bit tongue in cheek but I'm sure you get the gist.

kylith

Graces7 wrote: »

Maybe watch or read "Greyfriars Bobby" ... or the Lassie films...

I just had to address this; those are films, they are not real, and they are not accurate representations of canine behaviour or psychology.

Many dogs hung around in cemetaries those days because there was plenty of cover and people who saw them there, imagining they were pining for dead masters, fed them, so there was no need for the dogs to move on. It seems that after Bobby became famous he may have died and been replaced.

Lassie was completely fictional. In the book she was motivated by the knowledge that at a certain time of day she was expected to meet her master's son at school. She is anthropomorphised no more than that. Many dogs, and other animals, have travelled impressive distances to get home. Whether it's because of territory, pack instinct, or something that could be called 'love' for their humans no-one knows. My point is that it's ridiculous to use films or stories as evidence for higher emotions in any animal; being scripted they are by definition untrue.

The study of canine emotion is still ongoing, and we are obviously hampered by our inability to communicate directly with them and ask what they feel. I'm sure I've witnessed happiness, sadness, frustration, contentment, and resignation from my dogs, things like love or guilt I'm not so sure about.

We'll never know if the dog in the op was desperate for interaction, or whether it just felt like getting some belly rubs from a convenient human. However it certainly shouldn't have been allowed to roam, for safety's sake at the very least.

Cú Giobach

kylith wrote: »

The study of canine emotion is still ongoing, and we are obviously hampered by our inability to communicate directly with them and ask what they feel. I'm sure I've witnessed happiness, sadness, frustration, contentment, and resignation from my dogs, things like love or guilt I'm not so sure about.

Since in English we really use one word for a few meanings regarding "love" it can be tricky discussing it, but lets take it at a basic level just meaning a strongly felt and deep bond between animals.

Is love such a complex emotion? Surely it can be looked at as nothing more than an evolved trait to maintain a connection between creatures that is essential to their survival as a species, or even an accidental by-product of the essential mother-young bond, (like our desire for hamburgers or cream cakes coming from our essential need for high energy or sweet foods 10's of thousands of years ago).
I can't see any reason other animals can't have evolved a similar mechanism to maintain relationships as we have, so why not give it the same name, love.
I actually think it is less logical thinking that something like love is a purely human trait.

Guilt I wouldn't go into because that involves right and wrong and the reasons for finding things right and wrong, something not all humans can agree on let alone bringing other species into the mix.

I genuinely believe my dogs love me, not because of anthropomorphism but because of the reasons outlined above, we are lucky because our human brain allows us to take our feelings as a basis for how other animals might feel, and using subsequent logic to analyse that decision, eg I could confidently say your goldfish doesn't love you (because goldfish don't have to maintain bonds in order for the species to survive), but I can find no reason to say your dog doesn't.

kylith

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Since in English we really use one word for a few meanings regarding "love" it can be tricky discussing it, but lets take it at a basic level just meaning a strongly felt and deep bond between animals.

Is love such a complex emotion? Surely it can be looked at as nothing more than an evolved trait to maintain a connection between creatures that is essential to their survival as a species, or even an accidental by-product of the essential mother-young bond, (like our desire for hamburgers or cream cakes coming from our essential need for high energy or sweet foods 10's of thousands of years ago).
I can't see any reason other animals can't have evolved a similar mechanism to maintain relationships as we have, so why not give it the same name, love.
I actually think it is less logical thinking that something like love is a purely human trait.

Guilt I wouldn't go into because that involves right and wrong and the reasons for finding things right and wrong, something not all humans can agree on let alone bringing other species into the mix.

I genuinely believe my dogs love me, not because of anthropomorphism but because of the reasons outlined above, we are lucky because our human brain allows us to take our feelings as a basis for how other animals might feel, and using subsequent logic to analyse that decision, eg I could confidently say your goldfish doesn't love you (because goldfish don't have to maintain bonds in order for the species to survive), but I can find no reason to say your dog doesn't.

You make some very good points there. It's such a difficult thing to talk about because we understand so little about the mechanism for emotion even within ourselves. We do, as you point out, assign the word love to different meanings, so is it that we are overestimating our feelings towards our kith and kin in relation to animals? Do swans, which pair bond for life, feel similarly toward their mates as we do toward ours?

Jesus, philophosising about the nature of emotion makes my brain hurt.

Cú Giobach

kylith wrote: »

You make some very good points there. It's such a difficult thing to talk about because we understand so little about the mechanism for emotion even within ourselves. We do, as you point out, assign the word love to different meanings, so is it that we are overestimating our feelings towards our kith and kin in relation to animals? Do swans, which pair bond for life, feel similarly toward their mates as we do toward ours?

Jesus, philophosising about the nature of emotion makes my brain hurt.

Thanks kylith.
I do think we overestimate and put ourselves on a bit of a pedestal with regard to other animals, blatant speciesism you could say. Many judge humans compared to other animals by our own criteria and what we find important, subsequently believeing things like emotions, which are so hard to "detect" in other animals and are so brilliant and "up the evolutionary scale", are impossible for other animals to have except on the most basic of levels.

Regarding romantic love and other animals pair bonding for life, why not have a similar mechanism to maintain the bond, it's all about hormones and chemicals anyway, and since many birds seem to have even stronger lifelong bonds than humans (I don't think many swans cheat on their partners) it could be way beyond what we feel, with a subsequent deeper loss.

It is a bit of a deep topic alright.

Sigma Force

Back to OPs origional post, I feel your pain, same problem here. It's like talking to a brick wall, the hilarious (well not so) thing is that if one of my pooches got out and pooped on their doorstep they'd not be too long in letting me know.
Their dogs get run over (and by luck survive) and they just let them out the next day..sometimes wonder what goes through their brains, selfish totally selfish and ignorant.

Binka

Sigma Force wrote: »

Back to OPs origional post, I feel your pain, same problem here. It's like talking to a brick wall, the hilarious (well not so) thing is that if one of my pooches got out and pooped on their doorstep they'd not be too long in letting me know.
Their dogs get run over (and by luck survive) and they just let them out the next day..sometimes wonder what goes through their brains, selfish totally selfish and ignorant.

Absolutley agree with you. I live in a rural area and get so fed up with hearing " ah sure... it's only a dog" and "god.. i'd never have a dog in the house...dirty thing" like it's some kind of disposable commodity. Every second dog around here runs out and chases cars and it's deemed to be "normal" in a farming community. Dogs don't get run over/attack people/end up chained up if you give them the appropriate environment care and stimulation that they require.

It seems that possesion is the important factor. Care is secondary. I#ve never understood why you would get a dog just to chain it up and leave it in a shed most of it's life. What's the point.

It breaks my heart, and you can't argue with the locals, especially if you aren't from a local family yourself.

OldNotWIse

kylith wrote: »

I just had to address this; those are films, they are not real, and they are not accurate representations of canine behaviour or psychology.

Many dogs hung around in cemetaries those days because there was plenty of cover and people who saw them there, imagining they were pining for dead masters, fed them, so there was no need for the dogs to move on. It seems that after Bobby became famous he may have died and been replaced.

Lassie was completely fictional. In the book she was motivated by the knowledge that at a certain time of day she was expected to meet her master's son at school. She is anthropomorphised no more than that. Many dogs, and other animals, have travelled impressive distances to get home. Whether it's because of territory, pack instinct, or something that could be called 'love' for their humans no-one knows. My point is that it's ridiculous to use films or stories as evidence for higher emotions in any animal; being scripted they are by definition untrue.

The study of canine emotion is still ongoing, and we are obviously hampered by our inability to communicate directly with them and ask what they feel. I'm sure I've witnessed happiness, sadness, frustration, contentment, and resignation from my dogs, things like love or guilt I'm not so sure about.

We'll never know if the dog in the op was desperate for interaction, or whether it just felt like getting some belly rubs from a convenient human. However it certainly shouldn't have been allowed to roam, for safety's sake at the very least.

Maybe not quite the same but worth considering, I was recently away for a month and my dog spent the entire time (with the exception of food and "business" and when parents dragged her away to go to the park or bed) sitting at the side door, watching the gate. It was harldy convenient for her to do this when she could have been out in the garden playing etc (which she normally does)

maggiepip

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Maybe not quite the same but worth considering, I was recently away for a month and my dog spent the entire time (with the exception of food and "business" and when parents dragged her away to go to the park or bed) sitting at the side door, watching the gate. It was harldy convenient for her to do this when she could have been out in the garden playing etc (which she normally does)

Excellent point! Our Lab has a huge attachment to my OH.

He was away recently for a week and she split her time between lying at the front door waiting for him to come home and watching out the downstairs window for him for the ENTIRE week!!!!

She also starts waiting for him to come home from work from five oclock onwards everyday(he gets in between 5 and six). She is a lazy old yoke and her favourite place is on the supersleeper memory foam mattress on the bed upstairs, so, as you said above oldnotwise, "this was hardly convenient for her"

loveisdivine

I think its very difficult to understand the intelligence and emotions of other species.
I dislike the attitude a lot of people have that humans are the most magnificent thing ever created and we are the top of everything. Sure its easy to declare yourself the most intelligent species when you are the ones deciding what intelligence is.

Animals are way more intelligent than us, in different ways. Some animals have built in sonar systems. Some animals can make their bodies light up different colours. Whales can pretty much navigate their way around the earth, without maps!

Sometimes I think our complex emotions arent all they are cracked up to be. Animals dont start wars, they dont kill for anything other than survival, they live pretty much in harmony with the environment. Yet they are still capable of forming bonds with other animals, and showing certain levels of compassion/care.