What do you think of Platypuses?

[Sweets America]

Only to scare them with the Size of it all

Ah, I see. But, I thought it was a needle?!

[TheFifthElement]

I wonder if dogs would like to be left alone, living their doggy life. Maybe. When I wander in the countryside with my dog, I try to give him all the time he wants to sniff whatever he feels like sniffing, I let him decide and I am happy with wherever he goes. I think he is happy with me. I feel it in the way he comes to my arms, snuggles up with me and falls asleep on my lap.

I think this is a danger we all fall into, assuming that a creature loves us because it appears, to our standards, to be so. But this phenomenon is observed in humans subjected to acts of subjugation and denial of self-will, for example in cases of kidnapping. It's called Stockholm Syndrome, more about it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

This, I think, is part of the concern for me, is the behaviour we observe in our pets merely an animal version of Stockholm Syndrome?

Now, I gues the situation with dogs is different from the situation with wild animals. I know I would feel guilty to take a wild animal as a pet.

I'm not sure it is different, in fact the more I think about it, the more I think that the whole matter of domestic pets is worse. We breed 'pets' purely for the purpose of our amusement and gratification without them ever having the possibility of living life according to their nature, with the freedom to behave as they choose to behave without complying to human expectations and rules.

[Sweets America]

I think this is a danger we all fall into, assuming that a creature loves us because it appears, to our standards, to be so. But this phenomenon is observed in humans subjected to acts of subjugation and denial of self-will, for example in cases of kidnapping. It's called Stockholm Syndrome, more about it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

This, I think, is part of the concern for me, is the behaviour we observe in our pets merely an animal version of Stockholm Syndrome?

I feel greatly hurt by your post. It's not because of you, it's because the greatest part of my life revolves around my love for dogs and theirs for me. I feel misunderstood. My relationship with dogs is very special and I fail to explain it. You wonder if dogs really love us. I know what the Stockolm Syndrome is, and this is an interesting idea. But I am absolutely certain of the love my dog gives me. If you were at my place you would know. It's like nobody sees what I mean. I am very sensitive on this subject, because I think that what you say here makes a great fear appear in me: what if my dogs had never loved me? What if it was all an illusion? It would just destroy me, I think. While I had no one, they were there. They were the only ones. They were the ones who adopted me and welcomed me. I would do anything for them. I always put them first.
I know I cannot be sure of it, but I just somehow know how my dog feels for me, how he loves me unconditionally, because he communicates it to me. With just one touch of my hand or with a touch of his nose, we know. We need no words. I have never had a relationship as deep, as sincere as the one I have/had with my dogs.

I'm not sure it is different, in fact the more I think about it, the more I think that the whole matter of domestic pets is worse. We breed 'pets' purely for the purpose of our amusement and gratification without them ever having the possibility of living life according to their nature, with the freedom to behave as they choose to behave without complying to human expectations and rules.

Here I disagree when you talk about amusement and gratification. I feel insulted, because if I have a dog it's not to be amused or to show my beautiful dog to people and boast aloud. I have a dog just like I have a best friend, a soulmate or a father. I certainly do not want my dog to live according to the human nature, I on the contrary want to learn from him and his own nature. I listen to him. I give him everything I can, and I'm not talking about material things here but about love and tenderness.

My dogs are special to me, but dogs in general give me so much. You have no idea of what I feel when I touch them.
The link I have with my dog is just so mysterious to me, so beautiful that I feel so lucky just to be able to feel it.
I wonder what my dog would tell you if he could. I wonder if he could explain better than I do here. Maybe he would not be as sensitive as I am, maybe he would be wiser, kiss my tears and tell me that as long as we both know how we feel for each other, nothing else matters.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I think this is a danger we all fall into, assuming that a creature loves us because it appears, to our standards, to be so. But this phenomenon is observed in humans subjected to acts of subjugation and denial of self-will, for example in cases of kidnapping. It's called Stockholm Syndrome, more about it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

This, I think, is part of the concern for me, is the behaviour we observe in our pets merely an animal version of Stockholm Syndrome?



I'm not sure it is different, in fact the more I think about it, the more I think that the whole matter of domestic pets is worse. We breed 'pets' purely for the purpose of our amusement and gratification without them ever having the possibility of living life according to their nature, with the freedom to behave as they choose to behave without complying to human expectations and rules.

I've never owned a pet. The closest relationships I have with 'domesticated' animals are the three Lhaso Apsos in the care of a friend of mine who drops in with them once or twice a week. Their behaviour towards me is unique from one to the other. Chookie is rather aloof (he was once abused by a man) but has lately chosen to accept me, to the extent that he will leap up on the sofa when I am seated there and permit me to run my fingers back & forth under his chin. Shiwa, the one female among them, appears - as far as one can read animal behaviour - to have a 'crush' on me! That is, she does an excited, ritual-like dance whenever she comes over, rushing around in circles, then placing her front paws on my legs, backing off, running some more circles, &c., and constantly comes over for attention when I am seated.

No Stockholm syndrome there!

[PrinceMyshkin]

I feel greatly hurt by your post. It's not because of you, it's because the greatest part of my life revolves around my love for dogs and theirs for me. I feel misunderstood. My relationship with dogs is very special and I fail to explain it. You wonder if dogs really love us. I know what the Stockolm Syndrome is, and this is an interesting idea. But I am absolutely certain of the love my dog gives me. If you were at my place you would know. It's like nobody sees what I mean. I am very sensitive on this subject, because I think that what you say here makes a great fear appear in me: what if my dogs had never loved me?

Although Thefifth's argument is perfectly valid for her own choices, a fault in it is that one cannot indeed know in human terms what a dog or cat's feelings about us truly are. One might argue with equal conviction that your beloved Calif, as did Mabrouck before him, understands and deeply appreciates the love you feel for and demonstrate to him.

If he were capable of comparing his situation with that of a wolf or any other undomesticated animal, he may very well be uttering thanks to whatever deities he knows of for your love, your protection of him &c.

Let me reiterate: in terms of TheFifth's way of thinking, it would be ludicrous and possibly cruel for her to keep a pet. But in this and other moral matters, she can be no more than the authority on her feelings and perceptions. And you are the authority on yours.

[TheFifthElement]

I feel greatly hurt by your post. It's not because of you, it's because the greatest part of my life revolves around my love for dogs and theirs for me. I feel misunderstood.

I think this is my point Sweets America, actions that are well intentioned can still be cruel, it isn't meant so, but it can be. I think that keeping pets, personally, is cruel, and to change this opinion because it upsets a few people would be unacceptable to my moral choices, but then as Prince says :

Let me reiterate: in terms of TheFifth's way of thinking, it would be ludicrous and possibly cruel for her to keep a pet. But in this and other moral matters, she can be no more than the authority on her feelings and perceptions. And you are the authority on yours.

Which is eminently true. This is my opinion, I may be wrong in my opinion, I may be right. The likelihood is that I an no one else will ever know either way. At a fundamental level I believe there is very little which can be professed as fact, perhaps I should preface all my posts this way, to avoid confusion.

In point of fact, the only statement made which I disagree with is this one:

Although Thefifth's argument is perfectly valid for her own choices, a fault in it is that one cannot indeed know in human terms what a dog or cat's feelings about us truly are. One might argue with equal conviction that your beloved Calif, as did Mabrouck before him, understands and deeply appreciates the love you feel for and demonstrate to him.

I don't think it was the fault in my argument, but actually the point of my argument. I do not believe that we can know what a dog or a cat feels. I don't think I have the right to assume that I know what it feels, or that my judgement on what constitutes a good life for a creature should override the natural state of that creature. Dogs are wild animals, until I know better I believe they should be allowed to live as wild animals, according to their own rules. Same for cats, fish, hamsters, gerbils, snakes etc etc. These are my choices, perhaps many will disagree.

[Sweets America]

I think this is my point Sweets America, actions that are well intentioned can still be cruel, it is meant so, but it can be. I think that keeping pets, personally, is cruel but then as Prince says :



Which is eminently true. This is my opinion, I may be wrong in my opinion, I may be right. The likelihood is that I an no one else will ever know either way. At a fundamental level I believe there is very little which can be professed as fact, perhaps I should preface all my posts this way, to avoid confusion.

In point of fact, the only statement made which I disagree with is this one:



I don't think it was the fault in my argument, but actually the point of my argument. I do not believe that we can know what a dog or a cat feels. I don't think I have the right to assume that I know what it feels, or that my judgement on what constitutes a good life for a creature should override the natural state of that creature. Dogs are wild animals, until I know better I believe they should be allowed to live as wild animals, according to their own rules. Same for cats, fish, hamsters, gerbils, snakes etc etc. These are my choices, perhaps many will disagree.

I see what you mean and if I reacted this way, it was because some part of me wonders if what you said could be true. No one will ever know.
But, my dogs saved me. In many ways. If you only knew. I think you will never know what I feel if you never develop such a relationship with an animal.

I will never think I have done anything cruel to my beloved Calif and Mabrouck. Some human beings, however, have done cruel things to me, and maybe that explains why I turned towards the creatures who accepted me.

I know that I cannot 'know' for sure what my dog feels. We are different creatures with different ways of seeing the world. But, the wonderful thing is that all of these differences seem to be washed out on the gound of love.

I know what a deep relationship I have with my dogs. I know the dread I suddenly felt in the middle of a night, feeling death all around and thinking of my Mabrouck whereas I was miles away from him. How strange I felt when I learnt that he had been greatly sick on that precise night, and how desperate I felt when he died a week after.
I see your point, but I guess I will trust my feelings.

[SleepyWitch]

If dogs could speak would they say 'let me be a dog'?

interesting question. i read an article about some psychologists or behavioural studies guys who are studying the intelligence of dogs. people used to assume that dogs are really dumb an wolves must be smarter than them. they did experiments where a student raised a wolf and kept him like a dog. but it turned out the wolf's social intelligence was much lower than that of dogs. It failed to learn many things that dogs can learn. it seems like dogs have evolved over the millenia since they were domesticated and have developed a different kind of social intelligence than wolves, which is geared to living together with humans. so a dog is not just a dumb ex-wolf (as they put it in the article) but is used to living with humans

[Sweets America]

interesting question. i read an article about some psychologists or behavioural studies guys who are studying the intelligence of dogs. people used to assume that dogs are really dumb an wolves must be smarter than them. they did experiments where a student raised a wolf and kept him like a dog. but it turned out the wolf's social intelligence was much lower than that of dogs. It failed to learn many things that dogs can learn. it seems like dogs have evolved over the millenia since they were domesticated and have developed a different kind of social intelligence than wolves, which is geared to living together with humans. so a dog is not just a dumb ex-wolf (as they put it in the article) but is used to living with humans

Yes, but what if the wolf used in the experiment was just one 'dumb' or lazy wolf while all the others are extremely intelligent?

[SleepyWitch]

I don't remember the details, but I think they had more than one wolf. but of course, they might have picked a whole bunch of dumb wolves. as they say, wolves of a feather flock together

[Granny5]

I think this is my point Sweets America, actions that are well intentioned can still be cruel, it isn't meant so, but it can be. I think that keeping pets, personally, is cruel, and to change this opinion because it upsets a few people would be unacceptable to my moral choices, but then as Prince says :



Which is eminently true. This is my opinion, I may be wrong in my opinion, I may be right. The likelihood is that I an no one else will ever know either way. At a fundamental level I believe there is very little which can be professed as fact, perhaps I should preface all my posts this way, to avoid confusion.

In point of fact, the only statement made which I disagree with is this one:



I don't think it was the fault in my argument, but actually the point of my argument. I do not believe that we can know what a dog or a cat feels. I don't think I have the right to assume that I know what it feels, or that my judgement on what constitutes a good life for a creature should override the natural state of that creature. Dogs are wild animals, until I know better I believe they should be allowed to live as wild animals, according to their own rules. Same for cats, fish, hamsters, gerbils, snakes etc etc. These are my choices, perhaps many will disagree.

So, if I have a puppy I've had since it was 6 weeks old and care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it? Have you ever had a pet and felt the unconditional love they give? It's hard to understand you're argument, especially for someone who has always had pets of all kinds. Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles? Most, no all, pet owners take very good care of their pets. It's a relationship just like any other we have.

[Sweets America]

So, if I have a puppy I've had since it was 6 weeks old and care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it? Have you ever had a pet and felt the unconditional love they give? It's hard to understand you're argument, especially for someone who has always had pets of all kinds. Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles? Most, no all, pet owners take very good care of their pets. It's a relationship just like any other we have.

I greatly agree with you here. TheFifthElement's point distressed me though.
But, I had my dog on the phone (sort of! ) a few hours ago and hearing his 'snif' over the phone made me feel better.

[TheFifthElement]

So, if I have a puppy I've had since it was 6 weeks old and care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it? Have you ever had a pet and felt the unconditional love they give? It's hard to understand you're argument, especially for someone who has always had pets of all kinds. Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles? Most, no all, pet owners take very good care of their pets. It's a relationship just like any other we have.

It's not a lack of love Granny, just a matter of respect. I ask myself the question 'how would dogs live if there were no humans', and take a philosophical view that humans should allow them to live that way now, without intervention.

Sleepy raised an interesting point which, perhaps, further polarised my opinion on this which was :

dogs have evolved over the millenia since they were domesticated and have developed a different kind of social intelligence than wolves, which is geared to living together with humans. so a dog is not just a dumb ex-wolf (as they put it in the article) but is used to living with humans

which basically means that we have so intervened in the nature of this species that if the human race manages to destroy itself, then we're taking dogs with us because we've taken away their natural ability to fend for themselves, which they were probably pretty good at. Isn't that cruel?

Take this point you make here : ..."care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it?", and without restating the entirety of my original post, apply the same rules to humans. That would make it okay for any man, or woman for that matter, to imprison you providing they took good care of you. Would that be okay? Isn't a well treated slave still a slave?

And this : "Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles?" in my opinion yes, it would be less cruel to allow animals to live according to their natural instinct, and though you have stated examples such as if animals were left wild then they would get sick, overpopulate etc, there are probably an equal number still suffering because of mis-treatment by humans, what about the droves of fish that die in transportation alone, just on the off-chance that we'll look at them in a tank? What about the animals that are put down because they are 'inconvenient'? What troubles me is the question of why we think we have the right, or the ability to decide what is the best life for animals, when we can't even agree on what is the best kind of life for humans. Perhaps we should solve our own problems first, before tinkering in the development of other species, and possibly causing them damage in the process - without meaning too perhaps, but doing it anyway. We don't know enough to know what is right and wrong, so why not let them decide?

So, I offer this as explanation. As I said before, this is my choice philosophically. If we are, as a species, going to keep pets then we should do so responsibly and with care for their needs, but, in my opinion, it would be better not to keep animals as pets in the first place.

[Lily Adams]

Platypi are awesome. They're all venomous and funny lookin'. If I had one as a pet I'd carry it around on my shoulder like a pirate. "Yarrrrr. This be me pet-Polly the platypus. Polly wanna cracker?" Jist kiddin'...

When I feel like doing that "Guess what? Chicken butt." joke I say, "Guess what? Platypus butt."

I bet the guy who discovered platypi thought, "Whaaaaaa...?" when he first saw them.

[Granny5]

It's not a lack of love Granny, just a matter of respect. I ask myself the question 'how would dogs live if there were no humans', and take a philosophical view that humans should allow them to live that way now, without intervention.

Sleepy raised an interesting point which, perhaps, further polarised my opinion on this which was :



which basically means that we have so intervened in the nature of this species that if the human race manages to destroy itself, then we're taking dogs with us because we've taken away their natural ability to fend for themselves, which they were probably pretty good at. Isn't that cruel?

Take this point you make here : ..."care for it and love it and hold it and give it lots of attention, make sure it's needs are met and it has great medical care then I'm being cruel to it?", and without restating the entirety of my original post, apply the same rules to humans. That would make it okay for any man, or woman for that matter, to imprison you providing they took good care of you. Would that be okay? Isn't a well treated slave still a slave?

And this : "Would it be less cruel to allow animals to be wild, over populate, die from all kinds of illiness, starve to death, be hit by vehicles?" in my opinion yes, it would be less cruel to allow animals to live according to their natural instinct, and though you have stated examples such as if animals were left wild then they would get sick, overpopulate etc, there are probably an equal number still suffering because of mis-treatment by humans, what about the droves of fish that die in transportation alone, just on the off-chance that we'll look at them in a tank? What about the animals that are put down because they are 'inconvenient'? What troubles me is the question of why we think we have the right, or the ability to decide what is the best life for animals, when we can't even agree on what is the best kind of life for humans. Perhaps we should solve our own problems first, before tinkering in the development of other species, and possibly causing them damage in the process - without meaning too perhaps, but doing it anyway. We don't know enough to know what is right and wrong, so why not let them decide?

So, I offer this as explanation. As I said before, this is my choice philosophically. If we are, as a species, going to keep pets then we should do so responsibly and with care for their needs, but, in my opinion, it would be better not to keep animals as pets in the first place.

I see. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. My dogs are not even close to slaves. I sometimes feel like their slave with the demands they have on my time but now that the kids are all grown what else am I going to do? I truly love my pets and I really believe they love us. I don't think they would choose to live in the wild else they wouldn't come back in when they are let out. We live in a rural area so they do have that option. If we all though alike, wouldn't this forum be a bore?

as for other animals, deer, bear, tigers, lions, meercats, chimps, etc. wild animals do not belong in the home. I think it takes thousands of years to domesticate an animal.