Hyperion's Dog-hating Thread

[Hyperion]

you still think you're all high and mighty.

i am basing my opinion on intelligence of both species on what i know about the common paradigm of intelligence, as well as firsthand observations and tests.

you're the one attacking my pardigm time to back it up.

[Darth Wong]

you still think you're all high and mighty.

And you still think it's OK to appeal to popularity and re-define words like "intelligence" to suit your purposes.

i am basing my opinion on intelligence of both species on what i know about the common paradigm of intelligence, as well as firsthand observations and tests.

All of which are based on the grossly erroneous assumption that receptivity to training is not intelligence, and that natural skills are intelligence.

you're the one attacking my pardigm time to back it up.

No, you're the one who bases all of his arguments upon a fundamental assumption which you refuse to submit to questions. And when questions are levelled at that assumption, you simply provide more "evidence" that is based on that same assumption.

When we have a human with some interesting skills but no learning ability, we call him an idiot savant at best, or just a plain idiot. You have never even TRIED to explain why the situation should be any different with cats.

[Hyperion]

standard nightly scene in my house watching sitcoms. nothing was placed, nor was this modified in any way.

[Darth Wong]

standard nightly scene in my house watching sitcoms. nothing was placed, nor was this modified in any way.

What's that supposed to prove? That cats curl up on the couch with you? That's not exactly news.

[Hyperion]

note the quantity, note the doorbell dog, note the gray one facing the TV (which is on the floor)

btw, the tordie on the back of the couch (left side next to my dad) is the autistic and fucked up one.

[Darth Wong]

note the quantity, note the doorbell dog, note the gray one facing the TV (which is on the floor)

Yes, they're all very adorable. Was that the only point you were trying to make? I already told you I don't hate cats; I just don't agree with people who insist that they're smarter than dogs despite their untrainability, because of their ability to pee in a box or open doors.

[Next of Kin]

Hyperion, are you the old geezer in the picture?

edit mode: sorry, I missed your post earlier!

[Hyperion]

wong, i want you to talk to your veterinarian next time you have to take a critter there, ask about if they think (off the record of course for them) which do they think is smarter.

i will do the same here, time to bring professionals into it as obviously neither of us will be backing down.


NOK: that's my real dad.

[Darth Wong]

wong, i want you to talk to your veterinarian next time you have to take a critter there, ask about if they think (off the record of course for them) which do they think is smarter.

Appeal to authority. First you tried to simply state conclusion as fact. Then you appealed to popularity. Now you want to appeal to authority. You aren't accustomed to debating without such crutches, are you?

i will do the same here, time to bring professionals into it as obviously neither of us will be backing down.

This has nothing to do with animal medicine, so why would you consult a veterinarian? This is about the definition of intelligence. You define it as natural skills, I define it as learning ability. Since my definition fits more with Merriam-Webster ("the ability to learn or understand"), the burden of proof is upon you to defend your definition. You have not even TRIED to do so.

[Hyperion]

i beleive the proper comment is that i've given up on bothering to change your blind and warped paradigm.

[Darth Wong]

i beleive the proper comment is that i've given up on bothering to change your blind and warped paradigm.

No, the proper comment is that you can't produce any good reason to defend your personal re-definition of intelligence, so you will simply claim victory anyway. Wall of Ignorance(TM) tactic.

[Hyperion]

same can be said for you, you also have not given any hard evidence. i may go so far as to decalre this a stalemate, but it most certainly is not a victory (it appears for either of us)

[Darth Wong]

same can be said for you, you also have not given any hard evidence. i may go so far as to decalre this a stalemate, but it most certainly is not a victory (it appears for either of us)

No evidence? That's bullshit and you know it. Among other things, I mentioned seeing-eye dogs. You have yet to produce a seeing-eye cat.

[Hyperion]

and my responce on that was the explaination that dogs are TOOLS and work animals.

usefullnesswise, as cat is worthless unless you count them as rodent control, space heaters, and lapwarmers, all of which they do like nothing else.

[Darth Wong]

and my responce on that was the explaination that dogs are TOOLS and work animals.

An evasion, since it has no effect whatsoever on the point that they can learn complex, unnatural skills while cats can't.

usefullnesswise, as cat is worthless unless you count them as rodent control, space heaters, and lapwarmers, all of which they do like nothing else.

Do you understand why red herrings are considered a BAD thing? You can't evade a point by simply changing the subject.

If someone produces evidence that dogs can learn complex skills which cats can't, you do not alter or mitigate that point in any way by switching to a rhetorical attack on dogs as "tools". Instead, you are merely trying to portray the dog's learning skills (which you ADMITTEDLY cannot duplicate in a cat) in a bad light.

You can use fallacious ad hominem attacks and scream "concession accepted" like a baby when I split a thread, but this is a real concession on your part; you know you can't produce evidence that cats can learn any remotely useful skill, so you try to attack the very notion of learning useful skills.

[Hyperion]

you are still harping on "hominim attacks" (which i havn't a clue what they are)

and you can't concede the point that something which is not programmable like a dog might just be intelligent on the same level.

[Robert Treder]

Hope I'm not interrupting anything too intimate here, but I thought I might chime in.

For the record (not that it matters), I love cats and dogs, but I'm more of a cat person. Just a personal opinion; I don't think they're more intelligent than dogs.

But as for my observation, Hyperion, you're noting that cats primarily exhibit a 'different' intelligence than dogs do, and Mike is pointing out that this different intelligence isn't true intelligence, in the accepted definition of the term.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't dogs exhibit these "external programming" intelligences in addition to the type of intelligence cats possess? What can cats do that dogs can't? (other than those feats restricted by a dog's physical configuration, such as jumping onto fences, climbing trees, etc.)
I'm sure there are certain acts that they can't do, but are there any truly important ones?

And to add another anecdotal example of dog intelligence, my dog is walked every night by me and my father. As it is baseball season, she has to wait until a low point in the nightly game to be walked. She has therefore actually learned to beg for her walk upon hearing the TV network's end-of-inning theme music. Pretty intelligent, if you ask me.

[Robert Treder]

Oh, I just thought of another logical fallacy the anti-dog camp could use!

Guilt by association:

"Hitler was a dog person."

[Darth Wong]

you are still harping on "hominim attacks" (which i havn't a clue what they are)

Look up logical fallacies. It's one of the biggest: the idea that you can win a debate by focusing on the man rather than his arguments (for example, your claim that you won because I split the thread). Similarly, appeals to popularity, your Mom's opinion, or the authority of a veterinarian are all forms of logical fallacies.

and you can't concede the point that something which is not programmable like a dog might just be intelligent on the same level.

Sorry, but intelligence is receptivity to programming, ie- training (or even better, true education, but only humans exhibit enough intelligence to respond to abstract conceptual education rather than training, and even then, not in the early years). If you are unresponsive to training, this means you cannot or will not make the connection between positive/negative reinforcement and desired/undesired actions. In other words, you're "learning disabled", which is a nice way of saying "stupid".

I like the way you play games with terminology; you refer to training as "programming", as if you can tinker directly with a dog's brain like a computer. That's not the way it works; you can teach a dog complex skills because he is smart enough to make the connections that you're trying to teach him. You can't teach a cat complex skills because he ignores you. You can say that he just CHOOSES to be stupid instead of being innately stupid, but that's immaterial; objectively, he is learning-disabled, ie- stupid.

[Kelly Antilles]

Let's take a child for instance.

A child cannot gain "intelligence" without being "trained" or "taught".

Were you not taught anything as a child? Did you not learn by doing things?

It is quite unfair for you to say a dog is "dumb" because it must be "taught" to do something. A child that has not been "taught" is perceived as "dumb". However, a child that cannot learn from being "taught" has a disability. A cat will not learn from being "taught", so therefore, it is "dumb", because we (as in society) categorize "learning disabled" as being "dumb".

[Sea Skimmer]

no, i am simply stating that outside of the programmability, a cat is vastly smarter than a dog, they're smart enough to NOT listen to the owner.

I already pointed out that intelligence is defined as learning ability, and cats have not demonstrated any. For the second time, you are confusing urban-suitable instincts with intelligence.

Don't make me repeat this a third time. You are rapidly approaching Darkstar Dumb-Ass(TM) status.

Cats can't learn? So the ability to use a toliet instead of a more natrual litter box and open doors by jumping to grab the nob are instincts? Right..

[Knife]

wow, there is some emotion flowing here. As a owner of two dogs and one cat, and I like/love em both let just say that they are completly different and fill different aspects in ones life. Dogs are extremely loyal, and have learned through out the ages that silly playfull actions gain them attention. They are mostly pack animals who will bow down to the most dominant personality of the pack, namely you the owner thus making a good relationship between you and it.
On the other hand, cats are extremely independent and have learned down through the ages that when they either can't or are too lazy at the moment to find food we people are readibly willing to give it to them. Most felines in nature are lone predators of some sort so the actions of cats are predictable along this train of thought. Yes cats will love their masters and even be loyal to a effect, but they still are loners and independent witch is not a bad thing just different from dogs.
Personaly if I want to curl up with a small fuzzy thing the cat is best but only because my dogs are both more than 60 pounds each. However the dogs are funner to play with and on top of that if some stupid idiot comes into the house at night, I depend on the dogs not the cat, to keep him occupied while I get my gun.

[Andrew J.]

On the one hand, my dog is vey hyper and barks alot, (especially for her size) and she's constantly begging for food.

On the other hand, my cat is able to make himself incredibly annoying whenever he wnat to be letin/let out/fed, and he has a tendency to bite.

On the other hand, (third one so far, if you're counting), my little sister's chinchilla never makes any noise, never begs for food, and never gets into trouble.

Rodents all the way!

[The Yosemite Bear]

I am not allowed to have either dogs or cats under the fascist park circus rules. No I am only allowed to own a caged, terrerium, or aquarium type pet. Strangely, while ferrets are illegal in California, they are legal pets inside the park, infact they are the MOST common pet inside the park (I think they are tied with snakes). Now anyone want to talk about small ankle biters.....

[Kelly Antilles]

I have four ferrets (had 6, but two have passed away within the past 8 months. ) and I love them! They're great pets. Granted, you have to get them past the biting stage, but they think that's playing.