6 ms·

Excuse me? No, just no. Not in the same way a human slave needs to be taught. Not at all. And besides I said dogs "don't need to be taught their place in the wo

Excuse me? No, just no. Not in the same way a human slave needs to be taught. Not at all. And besides I said dogs "don't need to be taught their place in the world" not "what's acceptable and what's not." They do in a sense, of course, but not remotely in the same sense as a slave.

jimmywanger 9y ago
I'm objecting to your sentence, saying it's objectively false. Whether or not training another human being is ethical or not is another argument (e.g. children). A dog needs to be taught what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. If you have somebody living with you, they need to be educated on what they can and cannot do. And since dogs and human are pack animals, you need to enforce the idea of a hierarchy where you are above them to ensure obedience. The fact that you're denying them contact with their families and not paying them is one thing. However, it's a completely different thing from saying that the modification of behavior of humans is wrong, categorically.
- dismantlethesun 9y ago
  I understand what you're saying, but his implication is that dogs do not have to be taught not to aspire to be better than dog-status. They cannot be any more than dogs. This is clarified by using an inanimate object (wrench) as a the other example. Human beings though have to be molded in order to keep their 'place'. They can even aspire to want to be things that they cannot achieve, such as my never ending desire to be the first man to set foot on Mars.
  - creepydata 9y ago
    Yes, thanks for your accurate well written, and polite reply. I didn't reply myself because I wasn't able to keep my cool.
  - jimmywanger 9y ago
    That is also objectively false. Often, dogs will try to be part of the family and try to assert dominance over family members, especially younger, more timid children. They're aspiring to be a higher place in the pack than they should be, and they need to be trained in the fact that they're objectively and necessarily not equal to any human being. When a dog ever thinks it is the equal of humans, bad things happen, such as bites and euthanasia of the dog, and maulings. That's why you need to train it early as a puppy, that it should never bite/be aggressive to humans, as it'd be harmful to the dog. The same reasoning can be applied to humans, but cannot be applied to wrenches. Equating wrenches to dogs is another logical dead end - either dogs have feelings and emotions and hopes, otherwise the beating your dog is equivalent to leaving a wrench out in the rain without oil, as both are just tools to you.
    - dismantlethesun 9y ago
      > When a dog ever thinks it is the equal of humans, bad things happen, such as bites and euthanasia of the dog, and maulings. You've pretty much laid out the limits of dog rebellion against human control. Dogs' however can't foment revolution, conspire to free all the other dogs in the state, create an army, capture or hold territory and enslave their former masters. To put it bluntly, even in the worst case scenario dog-revolt is an annoyance to humanity in general. No one is going to wake up with a collar around their neck, because a dog decided it was 'equal' or 'superior' to humans. Dogs' are simply limited to dog-level actions, regardless of how hard they're trying. Human slaves on the other hand have no technical barrier to acting as competently as their masters. --- Now if you say "that is objectively false", let me remind you that we're not talking about dominance, submission, correct behavior, or otherwise. We're talking about objective status in society as determined by humanity in general. Even if you can find a single person who says "aha! I am dominated by this dog!", humanity in general will never agree that a dog---any dog---has somehow achieved equality with humans. Imagine that: dogs voting, dogs marrying, dogs taking wages, dogs running for president. When people say they are superior to dogs; they're just making things up. If you think "that is objectively false", well then you'll need a better argument than "oh dogs can bite you if you're not careful".
      - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jimmywanger 9y ago

I'm objecting to your sentence, saying it's objectively false. Whether or not training another human being is ethical or not is another argument (e.g. children). A dog needs to be taught what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. If you have somebody living with you, they need to be educated on what they can and cannot do. And since dogs and human are pack animals, you need to enforce the idea of a hierarchy where you are above them to ensure obedience. The fact that you're denying them contact with their families and not paying them is one thing. However, it's a completely different thing from saying that the modification of behavior of humans is wrong, categorically.

dismantlethesun 9y ago
I understand what you're saying, but his implication is that dogs do not have to be taught not to aspire to be better than dog-status. They cannot be any more than dogs. This is clarified by using an inanimate object (wrench) as a the other example. Human beings though have to be molded in order to keep their 'place'. They can even aspire to want to be things that they cannot achieve, such as my never ending desire to be the first man to set foot on Mars.
- creepydata 9y ago
  Yes, thanks for your accurate well written, and polite reply. I didn't reply myself because I wasn't able to keep my cool.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  That is also objectively false. Often, dogs will try to be part of the family and try to assert dominance over family members, especially younger, more timid children. They're aspiring to be a higher place in the pack than they should be, and they need to be trained in the fact that they're objectively and necessarily not equal to any human being. When a dog ever thinks it is the equal of humans, bad things happen, such as bites and euthanasia of the dog, and maulings. That's why you need to train it early as a puppy, that it should never bite/be aggressive to humans, as it'd be harmful to the dog. The same reasoning can be applied to humans, but cannot be applied to wrenches. Equating wrenches to dogs is another logical dead end - either dogs have feelings and emotions and hopes, otherwise the beating your dog is equivalent to leaving a wrench out in the rain without oil, as both are just tools to you.
  - dismantlethesun 9y ago
    > When a dog ever thinks it is the equal of humans, bad things happen, such as bites and euthanasia of the dog, and maulings. You've pretty much laid out the limits of dog rebellion against human control. Dogs' however can't foment revolution, conspire to free all the other dogs in the state, create an army, capture or hold territory and enslave their former masters. To put it bluntly, even in the worst case scenario dog-revolt is an annoyance to humanity in general. No one is going to wake up with a collar around their neck, because a dog decided it was 'equal' or 'superior' to humans. Dogs' are simply limited to dog-level actions, regardless of how hard they're trying. Human slaves on the other hand have no technical barrier to acting as competently as their masters. --- Now if you say "that is objectively false", let me remind you that we're not talking about dominance, submission, correct behavior, or otherwise. We're talking about objective status in society as determined by humanity in general. Even if you can find a single person who says "aha! I am dominated by this dog!", humanity in general will never agree that a dog---any dog---has somehow achieved equality with humans. Imagine that: dogs voting, dogs marrying, dogs taking wages, dogs running for president. When people say they are superior to dogs; they're just making things up. If you think "that is objectively false", well then you'll need a better argument than "oh dogs can bite you if you're not careful".
    - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]