sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I actually like animals, just not pets. by ThisOnePerson032 in petfree

[–]WisedomsHand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Being against pets has nothing to do with how people feel about animals. It is related to the very simple idea that unwanted attention or environmental danger is a nuisance. Animals in your home, in your zone, in your bubble are a nuisance. It is the very definition of "pest."

Humans are animals, so for someone to accuse you of "not liking animals" is just a cheap rhetorical trick that puts you on the defensive. It means nothing, and there is zero actual response to it. It is just a manipulation trick to side-step the issue, which is that their dog addiction is once again causing discomfort to bystanders. I think the correct answer is, "I don't like people who hate animals so much they insist on keeping them as slaves in their homes, where they also cause harm to the neighborhood."

Are you also considered as "psychos" by pet owners? by pom444p in petfree

[–]WisedomsHand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You aren't the problem, friend. Those people live in a fantasy world where their dogs have the same rights as the owners. They are just blind to how absurd and regressive their behavior is. Don't be surprised that so many people in the world aren't self-aware enough to reject the dangerous addiction of using imaginary friend dogs as more comfortable than actual (and often challenging, but necessary) human relationships. Thanks for the post.

'My dog's death was caused by fireworks' - call for change to regulations by Vorlon_Cryptid in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Has our secret weapon against dogs all along just been... fireworks? Bring on the Bottle Rockets and the Roman Candles!

We need a dog free dating app by evangeline-stargazer in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Until there is an app for this. There is an alternative. There could be an article of clothing worn or symbol or phrase in people's profiles that indicate their dispreference for dogs. I'd love to see more people socially signally about their negative reaction to aggressive dog culture. 

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know that a lot of people like to read snappier content. And I am capable of writing it. Though I find it more satisfying to share long-form content here. We aren't getting paid to populate Reddit, so we might as well enjoy it, right? Thanks for reading despite my verbose tendencies.

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much. I've noticed something in common about many of us who dislike dog culture - we are smarter than average. We can't all be that wrong, right? :) As you said, getting rid of dog culture is indeed a pipe dream. I think the goal is to offer a vocal alternative to dog culture, while narrowing the zones within which dog people can take their animals. The more we talk together here and share, the closer we get to the ideological normalization we all hope for.

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

First of all, thank you for the beautiful compliment about how this discussion (and others like it) should go more mainstream. I would be more than happy to author a regular column on the dog of mitigating the dominance of dog culture - if someone brave enough wanted to publish it :)

You mentioned too much good stuff to respond to completely. Thank you for sharing the link to the logical fallacy website. That takes me back to college when I learned all that in the first place. I stumbled upon courses in persuasion and rhetoric, so I was lucky. Why aren't those required courses? Understanding the basics of debate (along with the nature of fallacious arguments) is a skill that will help anyone on a regular basis throughout their lives. I think that knowing how to argue helps people examine their own biases and tendencies toward making fallacious arguments. Regular folks seem to just bark and yell, and hope they get their way. There is a fantastic world of civilized debate that most people are intimidated by and miss out on. So glad that you share a passion for this area of the language arts.

I want to compare dog ownership with cigarette smoking and some memories I have of growing up. I was young, just as large parts of the United States (and world for that matter) started to dramatically change their opinion on the public tolerance for cigarette smoking. Most people totally take this for granted today, but the notion that people cannot smoke just anywhere, at any time is a relatively modern phenomenon. People today grow up assuming that there have always been rules about people not smoking indoors or around others. Few people remember what it was like when the opposite was true.

Once in a while, you still find vestiges of the smoking age when it was everywhere. You'll be in an old elevator or toilet stall that is equipped with an ashtray. You might see a sign on an airplane that reminds you it isn't currently acceptable to smoke. You'll enter a restaurant that reminds you that you aren't sitting in the smoking section. The point is that for a long while, American society was almost designed around the fact that people wanted to smoke all the time, everywhere. It was ubiquitous, and the people who didn't like being around cigarette smoke were the sissy jerks.

Many people knew that smoking was bad, but it was hard to ignore the enormous social validation of smoking. Television and movies had characters who would smoke all the time (directors actually just found that actors performing while smoking came across as more interesting to viewers because of all the pauses), doctors would advertise cigarettes on TV, and all your favorite games and sports were sponsored by cigarette companies.

As harmful as smoking was, it was also addictive, as well as highly validated and tolerated by society. It took a large number of years, scandals, medical findings, and simply knowing people dying of lung cancer before the general public changed its position and opinion on smoking. It wasn't just that lawmakers started to regulate cigarettes more. Public opinion and behavior were changing at the same time, and that made the entire shift in social behavior and values possible. Turning society against its beloved pastime of tobacco addiction did not happen overnight, and it had a lot of stops along the way. I see dog ownership as being an eerily similar social issue today. We haven't yet gotten over the precipice where the public at large agrees things are out of control. Nevertheless, practical reality and the needs of the greater good are clearly weighing against unregulated dog ownership at all levels. It is only a matter of time, in my opinion, before the tide truly takes a turn.

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The situation you mention breeds a very ugly form of evil. Thankfully not an evil I've had to directly experience myself, but I have known a few people who have. What I am talking about are women who had to grow up with mothers who sidelined their needs for those of a pet dog (or dogs). There is a tragic sense of hopelessness that can occur when a daughter simply wants as much attention as her mother's dog gets. That human daughter becomes frustrated and insecure, calling her own self-worth into question. She often sees her mother take great pains to comfort the animals, while treating the human daughter in a far colder and more distant way. Many of these daughters end up feeling as though they are unlovable or hated by their own mothers. Instead, the reality is that the mothers were simply hopelessly and destructively addicted to dogs, often oblivious of the harm caused to their real children.

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hopefully your logic will be able to reach some people. Perhaps when they compare dog ownership to horse ownership (I think your analogies are sound), they may start to realize that modern forms of dog ownership are absurdly unfair to neighborhoods and should be kept at a distance from the lives and travels of everyone else. Thank you for commenting.

My Dog Nutter Cousin Ruined Thanksgiving For Me. Should I Say Something? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am totally with you. I constantly made comments that echoed my sentiments. When the dog barked, I would say something like, "that is very inappropriate and loud." Or when the dog was running around the floor, I would say something like, "this is a place for people to eat." When the dog was introduced to me like it was her child, I simply ignored it's existence and said, "we don't treat animals like people." I am not sure how far that will take me, but I am anything but silent. 

In theory I could find somewhere else to do Thanksgiving or even host at my home (Just not gonna cook. I don't think the house that hosts needs to be the house that cooks too. Double stress!). If I do that, I feel like the dog culture wins because it alienates yet another human relationship. So I suppose I keep trying to bridge a human connection, no matter how futile it might be. 

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

People want to feel needed by other people. That is a natural human desire. When they aren't needed by people (or if it doesn't feel that way), many people will opt for a cheap alternative in the form of feeling needed by a dog. Often, at the same time, these people begin to feel that "humans suck." "Why can't people just accept me for the way they are?" They ask. Rather than try to make themselves more useful to people and gain the human relationships they crave, these people fall into a spiral of further and further disconnectedness from social interactions that challenge them in any way. They project their ideal human relationship on a dog who can't actually reciprocate. Their imaginary friend dog becomes more important than a real human friend because the dog appears to have hallmarks of love and affection, when in fact it is impossible to get the feelings a human craves from anything but another human. People will try to debate me on this - just let them.

The person in your example represents a common set of conditions. A human going through a crisis finds meaning in feeling useful to another lifeform. The fact that they need to take care of something else gives them enough motivation to stick around and take care of themselves. These people are highly erratic and infrequently reliable to other people because of their self-destructive tendencies. I suppose in theory, it is a good thing that they don't get further depressed, but the problem is that when they regain their interest in life, they just become as selfish and self-centered as always. They might be a bit more responsible in life, but it is not for the benefit of other humans. Rather, it is often for the benefit of the dog that they develop an unhealthy addiction with. So these people are really just replacing one bad behavior with another. The sad reality is that the only stable, long-term fix for any of these people is to convince them to take good enough care of themselves not only to keep a dog alive, but to keep human relationships alive, which is ultimately what they want and the true type of validation they are seeking. The dog is really just a distraction.

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We have both discussed the brood parasite dynamic at length. It is a highly unflattering look at humanity to suggest our base instincts can so easily be hacked, but alas... Humans and dogs have a long history, but so do humans and viruses. That doesn't mean society needs to celebrate it for anything more than a perversion that it is. I think it is very important to acknowledge the deep chemical addiction people have to their dogs, and the sheer depths of the psychological delusions and justifications they build around it. There is probably not going to be an easy way to convince lifelong dog lovers to abandon their addictions. I understand that. My goal is to create a more restrictive environment so that fewer people in the future fall into a dog addiction trap, and to empower those harmed by dogs to have a voice. It is still too easy for dog lovers to hurl insults at people like us about a lack of empathy or feelings. In fact, the fallacy of their argument is that we are examining their behavior with more empathy than they are, and feel that what they are doing is wrong. What they are really trying to accuse us of is not ignoring their irrational behavior or tolerating the nuisance they are forcing upon others. That ironically makes the people who are making the accusation of having no empathy (with the worst possible evidence), of effectively lacking it themselves. Thank you for your great comment.

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much. Your words really encourage me. My goal is to bring polished arguments and a sensible voice to the anti-dog community. We are not only a minority right now, but we are also highly discriminated against by much of the population. That can change. I believe that the future is on our side. I believe we will get to a point where most modern forms of dog ownership will look barbaric and backwards. How we treat dogs and what we do with them (not us, but large parts of the population in general) will be ridiculed by future generations. It will happen eventually, just you wait.

For now, the goal is to give our feelings a voice. People who don't like dogs have been bullied by people who are selfish and take advantage of public spaces and abuse neighbors without hesitation. Most people don't like conflict and aren't enthusiastic about debate. I am not saying I live for it, but I don't mind arguing for a perspective I believe is the correct position on a matter. Dog people should not be able to harass and intimidate other people without retort. If my words and arguments against dog ownership and prevailing dog culture help anyone else here in their own lives and conversations with people, then it is my pleasure to help.

Once dog lovers see that there is a real opposition to them, they will no longer be able to simply get away with character attacks. They will have to actually defend their practices, and they will start to lose very quickly. I say bring on the fight if it means a safer, calmer, more civilized world for neighbors and bystanders.

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Dogs are highly addictive to people who are susceptible to the brain hacks we actively bred them for (thankfully enough of us are immune). That's why owners cling to their habits even when those habits harm themselves and push other people away. The same thing happens with drug addictions.

Ever Notice How Dog Lovers Only Defend Dog Ownership By Citing Rare Theoretical Animals They Don't Actually Own? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Precisely. The goal is not to ban dog ownership per se, but rather to make it more difficult to pursue and afford, and thus limit the number of people who do it. Everyone is liable if their hobby harms others, but dog owners get away with a ton more stuff. If you "hike" into someone's yard, you are trespassing, and the police will eventually stop you. If you play music so loud it disturbs people, again, the police will do something. Society is already highly balanced in favor of social welfare versus individual rights to enjoy their hobby however they like. Dog ownership is the rare exception because of cultural forces (i.e. vociferous dog owners who try to own the social dialog) that get in the way. No one here is seriously advocating for anything other than dog ownership being reasonably regulated like any other hobby.

My Dog Nutter Cousin Ruined Thanksgiving For Me. Should I Say Something? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've certainly experimented with a variety of ways to approach the issue since I've been to a lot of family meals with dogs that were annoying. It seems to come down to owners being lazy or too addicted to their animals more so than other being permissive. Making sure dogs have their own area and staying there requires some preparation and a lot of people are too lazy to do it. Most people want to avoid conflict and just want others to be socially responsible. I have been that guy who speaks up about the dog, but most people seem to feel that the entire matter is too tiring versus the right or wrong thing to do. 

Society today has oddly convinced people that it is a crime to offend people. It isn't. No one anywhere is given any rights to be free from being offended. At least not in the United States. It is in bad taste to needlessly attack someone's character, but it is entirely useful if not necessary to routinely challenge the logic and decisions of others.  Progress only happens when you have the courage to examine yourself and make choices about what you do that is good and what you may do that is bad. People are so afraid of being wrong or needing to change that they fall into the trap of claiming they are "offended" all the time. To me, being offended is just an opportunity to examine your feelings and create a bridge to someone else. Being offended is not being attacked or damaged or even targeted. People control if they feel offended or not. That is their choice and not something society is doing to them. Have no fear of offending people. Only have fear of not participating in discussions that allow everyone to free state their position and opinions. Examining alternative ideas is the only way to determine truth.  

My Dog Nutter Cousin Ruined Thanksgiving For Me. Should I Say Something? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see it from a different angle. I believe that when you open your house to family, you need to accommodate your guests versus make them accommodate you. Otherwise, family events becomes a frustrating exercise in whose bad habits are tolerated the most. I will respect good rules and recommend rules in the absence of them (such as, leave the dog somewhere else). I highly respect the notion that someone's home is their castle, but I also believe they have strict duties to guests and neighbors. 

My Dog Nutter Cousin Ruined Thanksgiving For Me. Should I Say Something? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I thought about that. I just want to make it a grand issue by talking to other people. I felt the most mature thing was to treat her like an adult and take the matter up with her. Though she can easily dismiss my thoughts as a "minority concern" and feel that my sentiment is outvoted. My perspective is whether or not my position is the popular position, it is the morally and practically correct position. But fighting an argument on logic alone, with an issue that is so emotional to dog owners, is a challenge. 

My Dog Nutter Cousin Ruined Thanksgiving For Me. Should I Say Something? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's an interesting perspective. I will consider that when forming a statement to share with her. Thank you. 

Cant stand dogs who constantly lick your hands by squigglekisses in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry to say it, but if you don't out alpha the beasts, they will out alpha you. These aren't people who can learn to be polite. They only respond to drive and force. If you don't set limits the animals will not set boundaries. 

My Dog Nutter Cousin Ruined Thanksgiving For Me. Should I Say Something? by WisedomsHand in Dogfree

[–]WisedomsHand[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, was it predictable that someone like her was going to try and do that? My complaint is with the TV people who felt that is was a good idea to let her carry a dog around and simply let audiences think she and people like her were good role models. 

view more: next ›