Wait til PETA gets a hold of THIS!!

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-02-21 06:13pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:"We would not call a weak-spirited man more intelligent than an independent citizen because we can make him vote as we wish whereas we can't influence the independent citizen, yet countless persons apply an exactly parallel argument in appraising the grey matter of dogs and cats."

Lovecraft obviously never owned a Doberman. Never heard a Doberman owner call dogs weak-spirited.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-02-21 06:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:So it is "weak-spirited" to be capable of learning, or to make the connection between action and reward? I guess that's the way stupid people rationalize their learning disabilities, eh?

--Are you suggesting learning disabilities necessarily result in lower intelligence on average? More specifically, would you say dyslexic people are less intelligent than average people?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-21 06:15pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:So it is "weak-spirited" to be capable of learning, or to make the connection between action and reward? I guess that's the way stupid people rationalize their learning disabilities, eh?
--Are you suggesting learning disabilities necessarily result in lower intelligence on average? More specifically, would you say dyslexic people are less intelligent than average people?

All stupid people have learning disabilities, since stupidity is in itself a form of learning disability. If you decide that this means all people with learning disabilities must therefore be stupid, then that particular fallacy of composition would be your problem, not mine.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-02-21 06:32pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:So it is "weak-spirited" to be capable of learning, or to make the connection between action and reward? I guess that's the way stupid people rationalize their learning disabilities, eh?
--Are you suggesting learning disabilities necessarily result in lower intelligence on average? More specifically, would you say dyslexic people are less intelligent than average people?
All stupid people have learning disabilities, since stupidity is in itself a form of learning disability. If you decide that this means all people with learning disabilities must therefore be stupid, then that particular fallacy of composition would be your problem, not mine.

--I am aware of what you literally said which is why I asked a question for verification as opposed to attacked you for something you did not say. You could have said "I guess that's the way dumb people rationalize their stupidity, eh?" Instead you chose learning disabilities. However, you really meant only those learning disabilities that result in stupidity. It was not clear why you chose to use learning disabilities at all. Then again I just had several beers....

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-02-22 12:02am

Good Golly, what is the big deal? Most of the cat v dog debates I have seen were not quite serious. I am surprised that some of you are getting so upset about it.

I have wondered, might not pack behavior make dogs more likely to learn and obey commands? Cats are not really pack animals, so perhaps they are instinctively less willing to take training? I have owned cats all my life and seen them engage in very complex behavior. They can learn to use light switches, use knobs and latches on doors, respond to many different words, etc. My mother recently owned both a cat and a little terrier. The dog would come when called and the cat wouldn't, but the cat's behavior was easier to control. The cat was slightly more willful than the dog, but she seemed to make the connection between behavior-punishment better than the dog.

Anyway, regardless of intelligence, sociability, hair and dander, whatever, cats are of course better than dogs. It has nothing to do with reason or objective measures, they are obviously superior.

And I am not being 100% serious.

AylaKat · Post by **AylaKat** » 2003-02-22 12:12am

Cats, dogs, cats, dogs... they're all the same... they all give me rashes on my arms, make my eyes itch, and my nose run. I consider them both evil.

On the other hand, I was never punched in the face by a cat. A friend of mine had a dog once, and I was on Claritin so I was able to at least lean down and play with the dog just a little, and I was like "Hey cookie!" in that goofy "talking to an animal" sense, and she fwapped her paw right in my nose. It hurt. So yeah. I hate both cats and dogs, but at least cats don't abuse my kindness.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-02-22 12:54am

Durran Korr wrote:And since there are no coyotes, last I checked, prowling around Marietta, Georgia, I don't have to worry that much about my terrier running off and getting herself killed by a coyote.

((Magazine snapped into place, bolt slid forward...))

[/Insane cackle]

No, seriously...

Dogs are the coolest. It is their instinct to be our friends and they serve as companions. The tricks/orders they complete for us are manifestation of that companionship, not slobbering blind toadyism. Can it be said that humans give unconditionally to one another? We could learn from dogs. They are genuinely happy to see us and want only love in return.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-24 10:24am

Sir Sirius wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote:"We would not call a weak-spirited man more intelligent than an independent citizen because we can make him vote as we wish whereas we can't influence the independent citizen, yet countless persons apply an exactly parallel argument in appraising the grey matter of dogs and cats."
Lovecraft obviously never owned a Doberman. Never heard a Doberman owner call dogs weak-spirited.

Oh, wait. I also forgot that this is the same Lovecraft who had an irrational fear of water.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 10:35am

Johonebesus wrote:I have wondered, might not pack behavior make dogs more likely to learn and obey commands?

It makes them more sociable, as opposed to anti-social animals like cats, which are solitary predators. Pack behaviour is arguably a sign of intelligence, ie- the ability to work co-operatively. We humans are pack animals.

Cats are not really pack animals, so perhaps they are instinctively less willing to take training? I have owned cats all my life and seen them engage in very complex behavior. They can learn to use light switches, use knobs and latches on doors, respond to many different words, etc.

And that's as difficult a task as safely guiding a blind person through busy urban streets?

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-02-24 12:53pm

AylaKat wrote:Cats, dogs, cats, dogs... they're all the same... they all give me rashes on my arms, make my eyes itch, and my nose run. I consider them both evil.

On the other hand, I was never punched in the face by a cat. A friend of mine had a dog once, and I was on Claritin so I was able to at least lean down and play with the dog just a little, and I was like "Hey cookie!" in that goofy "talking to an animal" sense, and she fwapped her paw right in my nose. It hurt. So yeah. I hate both cats and dogs, but at least cats don't abuse my kindness.

mew.

And cats take advantage of your kindness rather than abuse it, lol.