Hyperion's Dog-hating Thread

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 10:32pm

i never said i contempted human babies, i just gave my observation that they're butt-ugly, bald, fat, and sour-faced, that sounds like ugly to me.

btw, for your information, i am certified "normal" by my shrink, and i'm NOT uptight, you want uptight, you should see the neighbors with the damned dogs.

(and on a sidenote, wong, do you go to UW? i'll be going there in the engineering program in about 18-24 months)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 10:34pm

Notice how no dog lovers are invading the official cat thread trying to piss about how cats suck, but Hyperion is deliberately invading the dog thread in order to piss about how dogs suck. It's not enough for him to simply not like dogs; he has to attack anyone who does.

As I said before, he is helping confirm my hypothesis that dog-haters tend to have some kind of psychological problem.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 10:36pm

actually this was not invading, i made my points clear and you call it invading. lol...

just because i do not agree with you (and vice versa) does not make it invading. and i have not been attacking (though it probably comes across as such though unintended)

have you ever been rendered permanently gimpy thanks to a dog? i have, i have to deal with the pain and movement problems every day thanks to an UNPROVOKED attack.

and you seem quite intent on trying to force your beleif that anyone who does not like dogs is psycholocially damaged... i have to laugh at that because it is not true, though it may be your own observation, just like my own observations have proven that over half the dog owners shouldn't be allowed to own them since they don't take care of the beasts properly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 10:40pm

Hyperion wrote:actually this was not invading, i made my points clear and you call it invading. lol...

just because i do not agree with you (and vice versa) does not make it invading. and i have not been attacking (though it probably comes across as such though unintended)

Your sole purpose in this thread is to whine that you think cats are better than dogs. Call it whatever you want, make whatever excuses you want, but you are betraying a serious attitude problem.

have you ever been rendered permanently gimpy thanks to a dog? i have, i have to deal with the pain and movement problems every day thanks to an UNPROVOKED attack.

I was slashed up quite nicely by a cat as a child, thanks to an unprovoked attack. You still don't see me forming hasty generalizations, hating all cats for the actions of one, or going to cat-lovers' threads and bitching at all cat owners that their pets suck. Get over it. Stop being a baby.

Stormtrooper THX-1138 · Post by **Stormtrooper THX-1138** » 2002-10-07 10:46pm

I have an Australian Shepherd who is about the best and most loyal friend I've ever had. (Joey has never, ever let me down. Never told me a fib, always ready to play, knows me well enough to know when I want to be left alone.Then again, none of my human friends have ever had an "accident" on my rug.*shrugs* Everythings a trade)

On the other hand, although I like cats in principle, the one cat I owned ruined not one, not two, but THREE easy chairs by going to the bathroom in them when Her Majesty was somehow Displeased.After the third cushion replacement, Her Majesty got secured in a good home elsewhere.

Edit: spelling. lack of sleep = bad.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 10:47pm

in what way am i whining? i am not, i am stating facts and observations as i see them. and attempting in vain to rework your paradigm on the measure of intelligence.

stormtrooper: yes, i know how that works, all too well, that cat "corkey" had a little fetish for down when she was a kitten...3 of my parents down comforters, and 2 ez chairs, not to mention 2 whole sets of pillows. put her in the bathtub (enclosed stall type) with food, water, and a litterbox and she quit it right away.

wong: we've all been eviscerated by cats, if you own'em you get used as a launching pad or a scratching post quite a bit.

i will concede a point though: dogs are definately more useful than a cat any day of the week, but only if programmed, a cat is just plain old interesting to watch and own.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 10:50pm

The interesting thing about cats and dogs is that their differing temperaments represent different types of people. The dog is the loyal friend. The cat is the aristocratic elitist.

I'll be damned if I can figure out why some people prefer the aristocratic elitist over the loyal friend, but then again, aristocratic elitists do have friends of their own in real life, so I suppose it shouldn't be that surprising. Cats are certainly popular with megalomaniac James Bond arch-villains, which would seem to be consistent with the theme.

PS. Did you ever see the article by the forensics guy who pointed out that when the owner dies, a cat will start eating his body on the same day, while the dog will wait for days, often nearing starvation before touching the body of its beloved master? There's loyalty ... and then there's cats.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 10:51pm

Hyperion wrote:in what way am i whining? i am not, i am stating facts and observations as i see them. and attempting in vain to rework your paradigm on the measure of intelligence.

Yes, you wish to replace the correct definition with your homegrown one. And you are being a whiny bitch, even if you won't admit it. All you do is whine about how you don't like dogs; if you don't like dogs, stop posting in the fucking dog thread! That's how we know you're being a whiny bitch!

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-07 10:51pm

I am a cat person but I do like dogs. I just do not want to own one. I dont have the land even if I did.

I think comparing cat and dog intelligence is a little like apples and oranges. These two animals occupy different worlds. Cats for the most part are solitary hunters, and dogs are social pack animals. Whats this mean for humans? That dog intelligence is more compatible with us.

I personally wish some dogs could just relax a minute and stop the non-stop licking. On the other hand, it really bugs me that cats do not at all seem to understand the concept of pointing.

What am I babbleing about ? Dogs are cool, cats are cool, aquariums are cool. Buy what makes you happy.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 10:58pm

actually wong, you are whining more than me according to my observations, you don't like the point i was making because it disagreed with you so you started a direct attack, only thing i did was attack the intelligence of a dog based on the solitary learning capacity of a cat.

as i said earlier, comparing humans, cats, and dogs is basically comparing 3 completely differant types of intelligence. 3 of which cannot be properly compared to one another.

and no, not all cats are a "aristocratic elitist", the ones my family have are on the whole social creatures spending time curled up together sleeping, or greeting the guests and spending time with them (very easy to get pics to back this up) there is one which isn't but according to the vet it's got a feline version of autism so it's a bit messed up (understatement), and i'm not fond of that one.

TPJ: your point probably describes it better than i have.

a subnote to wong: just because you're in power does not mean i follow your views.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 11:04pm

Hyperion wrote:actually wong, you are whining more than me according to my observations,

Ah, the childish "you too!" attack. How witty.

you don't like the point i was making because it disagreed with you so you started a direct attack, only thing i did was attack the intelligence of a dog based on the solitary learning capacity of a cat.

Based on your own homegrown definition of intelligence which bears no resemblance to the real thing. You also bitched about how you don't like them for various other reasons, you made various generalizations about how they all behave, etc. As I said, you're being a whiny bitch. The fact that I keep pointing out your asinine behaviour is due to the fact that I don't like whiny bitches or people who keep trying to redefine "intelligence" to suit their purposes.

as i said earlier, comparing humans, cats, and dogs is basically comparing 3 completely differant types of intelligence. 3 of which cannot be properly compared to one another.

People who can't do math also like to invent different "kinds" of intelligence in order to explain their intellectual failings. It doesn't fly there either.

and no, not all cats are a "aristocratic elitist", the ones my family have are on the whole social creatures spending time curled up together sleeping, or greeting the guests and spending time with them (very easy to get pics to back this up) there is one which isn't but according to the vet it's got a feline version of autism so it's a bit messed up (understatement), and i'm not fond of that one.

It's all relative; no cat is as social as a dog. You whine that dogs jump up on people; that's their way of showing their joy at meeting new humans. You are proud that cats don't do this, yet you don't want to admit that they're aloof. I love the way you try to have your cake and eat it too.

a subnote to wong: just because you're in power does not mean i follow your views.

I never said it did. My criticism is not based on an appeal to my own power (or I would have simply used that power. It is based on the fact that you employ the same childish redefinitions of intelligence employed by everyone who tries to claim that someone or something is intelligent even if it isn't.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 11:12pm

truely a chicken way out wong. you know i'm right so you bury what you don't want to hear so you won't have to accept it.

CONCESSION ACCEPTED!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 11:13pm

Hyperion wrote:truely a chicken way out wong. you know i'm right so you bury what you don't want to hear so you won't have to accept it.

CONCESSION ACCEPTED!

In other words, you are incapable of defending your moronic re-definition of "intelligence", so you resort to ad hominem attacks by focusing on the man instead of the argument. Apparently, you're right and I'm wrong because I split your thread-hijack into a different thread, eh? How pathetic that your poor debating skills led you to such a desperate gambit ...

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 11:14pm

ironic, it was not a thread "hijack" it was a legit debate.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 11:15pm

Hyperion wrote:ironic, it was not a thread "hijack" it was a legit debate.

And you lost, hence your pathetic attempt to claim victory with an ad-hominem attack.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 11:17pm

i lost nothing, i am carrying this particular debate on with several dozen other people right now, and so far even the most rabid doglovers agree with me that the types of intelligence and learning in cats and dogs is very difficult, if not impossible to compare.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 11:18pm

Hyperion wrote:i lost nothing, i am carrying this particular debate on with several dozen other people right now, and so far even the most rabid doglovers agree with me that the types of intelligence and learning in cats and dogs is very difficult, if not impossible to compare.

Appeal to popularity. Yet another pathetic fallacy. Is this what passes for logic where you come from?

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 11:20pm

fallicy it is not, i'm not talking to local people, i'm talking to people from around the US and the world. and even my mom who while liking cats thinks they are dumber than dogs, she does agree with my point, but i know you're gonna sling some muck up at me for bringing in family members... go on, do your worst wong.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-07 11:21pm

Darth Wong wrote: My dog never barks. He's a lapdog breed. You are forming a hasty generalization (based on the fact that you notice the yippy ones, but you don't notice the quiet ones). Try to be more rational; not all small dogs yap.

Uhm, Mike, I can say that 8 times out of 10, small dogs don't like
to be petted by anyone else but their owners....damn yip dog breeds....

I prefer 80 pound german shepherds and Golden retrievers, thank you
very much...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 11:24pm

MKSheppard wrote:Uhm, Mike, I can say that 8 times out of 10, small dogs don't like to be petted by anyone else but their owners....damn yip dog breeds....

Chihuahuas are annoying (and they're a very popular small breed). It depends on the breed.

I prefer 80 pound german shepherds and Golden retrievers, thank you very much...

My neighbour had a big german sheperd named Zack that used to roam around the neighbourhood and play with Fuzzy in the backyard. He was a great dog (heavy though; when he jumped up and put his paws on you to say hello, you could feel the impact). But he got hit by a car

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 11:24pm

backing up a post i made yesterday regarding my mom's mastiff, i'd take a mastiff or golden retreaver any day, the damn demonspawn yipper/doorbell dogs are just a nuisance.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-07 11:24pm

Uhm, Mike, I can say that 8 times out of 10, small dogs don't like
to be petted by anyone else but their owners....damn yip dog breeds....

Exceptions to every rule

For example the large Chow Chow breed(Big long haired chineese?) typicaly rip peoples arms off for trying to pet them or at least fingers as I saw in one rather bad example...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 11:24pm

Hyperion wrote:fallicy it is not, i'm not talking to local people, i'm talking to people from around the US and the world. and even my mom who while liking cats thinks they are dumber than dogs, she does agree with my point, but i know you're gonna sling some muck up at me for bringing in family members... go on, do your worst wong.

Look up "appeal to popularity" fallacy, dumb-ass. Any time you claim something is true because lots of people believe it, you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Your abject ignorance of logic is no excuse.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2002-10-07 11:26pm

and i've ceased listening to your broken-record rants and bashing. you're blind to what you don't want to acknowledge.

to add exception to rule on medium/large breeds, chows, pittbulls, and a few others are known for bad temperment, though with proper training and maintenance such animals can be just as nice as any other, you just have to be on guard with them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-07 11:28pm

Hyperion wrote:and i've ceased listening to your broken-record rants and bashing. you're blind to what you don't want to acknowledge.

Pot calling the kettle black, I'm afraid. You have failed to back up your re-definition of intelligence with anything but your repeated insistence and appeals to popularity (indeed, you actually responded to the accusation of appeal to popularity by listing the number of people who agreed with you, thus demonstrating that you don't know why the appeal to popularity is bad!)

Not once have you even tried to explain what your definition of intelligence is, except to say that mine is too narrow. The fact that I keep reminding you of this is what you call a "broken record", but since you haven't even TRIED to explain what's wrong with the simple statement that intelligence is learning ability, you have no grounds on which to claim that any record is broken but your own.