Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#91

Post by financetechbro »

nirmel wrote: post #33

I would just like to comment that if you love animals, you should hate pets. The amount of animal factory farming (killing of animals often more intelligent than your canine) required to nourish a domesticated animal over the course of their lives is gross in all senses of the word gross.

This is a philosophical question I hadn’t considered. Although, I eat meat, so under that umbrella I can’t hate my dog for also doing the same.

I think another perspective to consider here is how this applies to rescue dogs. I rescued my dog, but from your pov it would’ve been a better idea to euthanize her to spare the lives of all the other animals she would’ve consumed in her lifetime.

Few more things that come to mind:

1. Nature does not reward for smartest, but for the fittest. Which is interesting in itself

2. Argument could be made the same for humans (there are some people that are not worth the life of a farm animal, for example). But also one could say that the summed intellect of all animals that have been killed for consumption for one person in their life time may be net more than that person’s intelligence

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#92

Post by Gormo »

rootusrootus wrote: post #12
INTPenis wrote: post #5

I like the author's positive outlook on life. Because when I see a dog act like that, especially in a family where a child has taken focus, I mostly see a prisoner longing for freedom. Me and my dog have been exclusive for almost a decade now. We have traveled across europe, always by my side. Off leash even, I have always wanted to give my dog the most freedom possible. To heck with human rules. I've mostly worked r…

> Off leash even, I have always wanted to give my dog the most freedom possible. To heck with human rules. I regularly meet people like that when I'm camping. I find it pretty frustrating. So many rules like that have basis in reality, they are not just meant to annoy.

I just spent two weeks in Germany and noticed that almost nobody there keeps their dog on a leash. Dogs are loose on city streets, in open parks, pretty much everywhere. No one seemed to have an issue with it, and none of the dogs were misbehaving -- all of them were keeping up with their owners and not disturbing anyone else.

Maybe this is a cultural thing, both in terms of people's expectations of encountering dogs in public places, and in terms of the way dogs are trained and conditioned to respond to stimuli. Maybe keeping dogs on leashes prevents them from learning the skills they need to be off-leash reliably.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#93

Post by jjtheblunt »

imoverclocked wrote: post #66
jjtheblunt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My un-favorite is the people with dogs on the spring loaded extending leashes, who let their little crazy dog come running at my feral-parents dog from a distance, announcing "don't worry...my dog is friendly.". The people _never_ ask if my dog on her 2 meter leash (the law in Arizona, btw) is friendly, dangerous, anything. They just announce that their dog isn't dangerous to us. So often the small dog runs up to my…

Just yell back “Mine isn’t!” Then you both get a little bit of an adrenaline rush… On a serious note, I miss the wide open spaces I could bring my dogs to in AZ. Where I live in NorCal it’s practically impossible and even if I could let my dog off leash in some places, the poison oak often stops me from even considering it.

Yeah, that's what works, even though she is friendly, just guards her pack. Like you surmised, it's often amusing watching the reactions.

Be glad in NorCal there aren't the ubiquitous rattlesnakes and babies this time of year. And of course the heat is an outdoors dealbreaker still for a few more weeks, except at dawn. Canine cabin fever. But i sure miss the more pleasant outdoorsy weather in NorCal.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#94

Post by nirmel »

financetechbro wrote: post #91
nirmel wrote: post #33

I would just like to comment that if you love animals, you should hate pets. The amount of animal factory farming (killing of animals often more intelligent than your canine) required to nourish a domesticated animal over the course of their lives is gross in all senses of the word gross.

This is a philosophical question I hadn’t considered. Although, I eat meat, so under that umbrella I can’t hate my dog for also doing the same. I think another perspective to consider here is how this applies to rescue dogs. I rescued my dog, but from your pov it would’ve been a better idea to euthanize her to spare the lives of all the other animals she would’ve consumed in her lifetime. Few more things that come to…

Yes, rescue makes no difference. I don’t know that nature rewards anything. But with our power to make moral judgments comes a response to do so. Yes, you could make the same argument for humans. I’m an antinatalist and so should everyone be too.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#95

Post by amanaplanacanal »

mhb wrote: post #89
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahhh. I’m so used to that construction I didn’t even see it. If you have had the same experience with multiple dogs of both genders, how would you put it?

I would use "he/him" because the convention of using he/him for singular, indeterminate gender is no more difficult to understand than that "they/them" is being used as singular, indeterminate. Ideally, I would like the people for whom this is important to use a new unambiguous word. Though this ship seems to have sailed despite there apparently being a number of possible candidates. That aside, the author of the pos…

Language changes. Trying to make it stop is like trying to sweep back the tide. Could go back to old English I guess, or proto-germanic, or proto-indo-European. Or whatever came before that.

And the singular usage of they/them has been going on since at least the 14th century.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#96

Post by mhb »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #95
mhb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would use "he/him" because the convention of using he/him for singular, indeterminate gender is no more difficult to understand than that "they/them" is being used as singular, indeterminate. Ideally, I would like the people for whom this is important to use a new unambiguous word. Though this ship seems to have sailed despite there apparently being a number of possible candidates. That aside, the author of the pos…

Language changes. Trying to make it stop is like trying to sweep back the tide. Could go back to old English I guess, or proto-germanic, or proto-indo-European. Or whatever came before that. And the singular usage of they/them has been going on since at least the 14th century.

I know the argument about its historical usage which isn't a great one if you're also going to argue that language changes. In any case, I'd prefer that it change for the better. An optimist might even hope that it is discussions such as this one which influence how it changes.

Are you suggesting that we dispense with he/his/she/her in all cases? Like in this one to refer to a male or female dog?

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#97

Post by carom »

jxcl wrote: post #43
fyt2024 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I go to campsites and wilderness areas where dogs are allowed off leash." In the US? I move with my golden retriever back to the states. Should someone have a dog friendly place to rent in NJ close to NYC, Hoboken....

In the US, wilderness area is a specific legal term[1], which have very restrictive rules about what visitors are allowed to do. Very specifically, dogs are _not_ allowed off-leash in wilderness areas, because they can disturb the local wildlife, and the stated goal of wilderness areas is to protect the local wildlife to the highest extent possible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness#United_States

Ansel Adams Wilderness allows off leash dogs.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#98

Post by amanaplanacanal »

mhb wrote: post #96
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Language changes. Trying to make it stop is like trying to sweep back the tide. Could go back to old English I guess, or proto-germanic, or proto-indo-European. Or whatever came before that. And the singular usage of they/them has been going on since at least the 14th century.

I know the argument about its historical usage which isn't a great one if you're also going to argue that language changes. In any case, I'd prefer that it change for the better. An optimist might even hope that it is discussions such as this one which influence how it changes. Are you suggesting that we dispense with he/his/she/her in all cases? Like in this one to refer to a male or female dog?

No, I’m not suggesting that. Languages are gonna do whatever they are gonna do.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#99

Post by yencabulator »

pdonis wrote: post #7
INTPenis wrote: post #5

I like the author's positive outlook on life. Because when I see a dog act like that, especially in a family where a child has taken focus, I mostly see a prisoner longing for freedom. Me and my dog have been exclusive for almost a decade now. We have traveled across europe, always by my side. Off leash even, I have always wanted to give my dog the most freedom possible. To heck with human rules. I've mostly worked r…

> I believe a dog values freedom more than its immediate personal safety. Why do you believe that? Bear in mind that our domesticated dogs of today are very different from their wild ancestors (or from wolves, their closest wild relatives).

Wolves value their pack too. The only lone wolves tend to be young males that were pushed out of their pack and are looking to find/start a new pack. Wolf pack is family, and stays together.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#100

Post by financetechbro »

nirmel wrote: post #94
financetechbro wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a philosophical question I hadn’t considered. Although, I eat meat, so under that umbrella I can’t hate my dog for also doing the same. I think another perspective to consider here is how this applies to rescue dogs. I rescued my dog, but from your pov it would’ve been a better idea to euthanize her to spare the lives of all the other animals she would’ve consumed in her lifetime. Few more things that come to…

Yes, rescue makes no difference. I don’t know that nature rewards anything. But with our power to make moral judgments comes a response to do so. Yes, you could make the same argument for humans. I’m an antinatalist and so should everyone be too.

In your mind, where is the line drawn between consumption for survival and gluttony?
Post reply on HN