Jump to content
Dogomania

Seijun

Members
  • Content Count

    384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Seijun

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.liquinet.com/wolfdogadoption/EXTRA.jpg
  1. I do not leave just because of this discussion. Rather, I am taking it as opportunity to leave, at least for a while. I believe that forming any kind of social relationship with other people leaves one open and vulnerable. To eliminate this risk a person must slowly eliminate all social relationships, friends, family, etc, and in general, avoid interaction with other people as much as possible. My goal is to eliminate most or all of my "internet talkings" over a period of several years. I have already dealt with most of my "real life" relationships. I have the wacked out belief that I will only find true happiness if I can learn to survive without any social interactions, other than those that are vital for my physical survival. Yes, I am crazy. Don't listen to my "life lesson reasonings" too long, or it'll make your head hurt. As for why I won’t be owning pets for too much longer, my other dream is to die (non-suicidal death) before I am 40. After my current pets are dead of old age, I will begin trying to give life every opportunity to knock me off. *wicked laughing* Yes, now you see the madness within. Yes, I am serious. Yes, I am a bit crazy. No, I am not completely insane, yet. Why am I telling you guys all this, lol. Why not, I guess. *ducks and runs*
  2. *sigh* You guys just won't see. You see only your own side, and your own opinions. I take the time in life to look at things from both sides of the fence, I wish everyone else could do the same. I am tired, tired of this discussion, and people in general. I will be taking a break from the forum, I have tried my best to "live" among people so adamently against my companion animals, but I see that I can no longer do that. I wish everyone the best in the times to come, and for those who think it cruel that I keep wild animals as "pets," don't worry, I won't be able to for too much longer... ~Seij
  3. How many times do I have to tell you.. I support [i]responsible[/i] exotic ownership. Keeping a tiger in an apartment is not responsible, and thus not something I support. BTW, just a note of interest, most "wild animals escape/attack" stories I read about involve animals in zoos, not animals owned by private owners. Just my experience... ~Seij
  4. [quote]Seijun....you keep saying that a wild animal does not *need* to live in the wild, that wild animals can be kept as pets and live happily in captivity.....you say this is a fact. It is not a fact. It is your opinion and people like you's opinion..... [/quote] It is not opinion if it can be proven. I have already proven that wild animals can live happily in captivity. Therefore, it is fact. :D [quote]So Seijun, would you argue for me to be able to keep an elephant? How 'bout a giraffe? Or a hippo? Or a gator? If I was able to sufficiently care for these animals would it be okay for me to keep them? Or is it only the 'cool' animals like big cats and wolves that deserve the questionable interference of human beings?[/quote] Well, if you did have the resources and knowledge to care for these animals and keep them happy, go for it. Same for a dolphin. [quote]This is total BS! Honestly, if you cant see a difference in a domesticated animal and a wild animal there is something wrong. It seems, seij, you think people should look at wild animals in the same light they look at domestic animals.[/quote] We know perfectly well the difference between wild and domestic. Basically, it involves dependence. Most domestic animals differ from wild in that they have been bred to depend on humans. This is the MAIN difference. The way we see it though, dependence on humans should not be a deciding factor on what "should" or "shouldn't" be kept as pets. [quote] Im sorry, but I think fear is going to strike the hearts of people much more if there is a loose tiger, wolf, etc than if there is a dog running loose. And rightly so! [/quote] We also don't think fear should be a deciding factor. Many people are terrified of dogs. It is not sensible to ban something just because it causes fear. Some people are afraid of moths! [quote]Another thing I was wondering.. what about the wild instincts that are still there in the animal? Maybe I missed the answer somewhere back there, but I was wondering how you deal with hunting instincts and such?[/quote] There is no such thing as wild instincts, IMO. Any instinct found in a wild animal can be found in a domestic. Dogs and cats have hunting instincts. So do ferrets. How we deal with those instincts depends on the animal. Keeping is away from potential prey isn't that hard. If you could be potential prey, raise the animal to see you as "companion/friend/nonprey/whatever you want to call it" and don't do something dumb around the animal like lay on the ground and scream like a dying rabbit! [quote]But would a Pit need dozens of EXPERIENCED care takers or what not to trap it and bring it home to safety? What about the tranquellizers (sp?) you would need to trap the animal? The crate, the transportation? IMO, I'd feel safer knowing there was a Pit running loose than a TIGER.[/quote] True, but that mostly has to do with size, IMO. I have seen domestic cats "hunt" people. Imagine if they were 600 lbs, everyone would want them banned. I think the key thing here though is not to let it get loose in the first place. Most escapes happen due to human negligence or inadequate fencing. [quote]Dogs were once wild and over hundreds of years they are now domestic. And people didn't keep them in small cages to do that. In fact dogs use to be used to do work more than they are now. I'm sure people who breed wolves are more likely to breed two wolves together which are happier and calmer around people than who aren't. I mean, you can't sell someone an unruly and truly WILD wolf pup now can you?[/quote] I honestly don't know what factors wolf breeders decide on, but since it is a given that wolves are shy, I doubt most breeders would worry too much about it, especially just from what I have seen, good socialization can do wonders on many wolves. If a breeder had a particular wolf that produced pups that, despite socialization, would continue to fear, I think he would probably choose a different wolf for breeding. There is only so far this can go though. Not that many "pet" wolves are produced every year from responsible breeders. Once a wolf stock reaches a point where the pups born respond well to good socialization, why go further, especially since as I said before, it is a given that wolves are shy and need a lot of socialization. I would really have to discuss this with the breeders though, rather than make assumptions like we are now. IMO, domestication of captive wolves would only happen if we deliberately chose only the tamest and easiest of wolves over and over again. I just don't see this happening with breeders a lot. They are careful to stay away from extremely shy or extremely aggressive wolves, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that they are making efforts to choose only the tamest of the tame wolves. Again, this is something that should really be discussed with the breeders themselves. [quote]And no, our domestic dogs can't survive in the wild that well. Have you ever seen a stray? Half of them are like walking skeletons, with mange, and other sorts of diseases. [/quote] Not all though. I have seen very healthy feral animals. The Dingo, mustang, and wild american boar all started out as domestic or semi-domestic. [quote]Rowie, she already said that wolves don't have "hunting instincts" unless they're hungry[/quote] When did I say that? Wolves, like any animal, including domestics, can have hunting instinct regardless of hunger. [quote]You won't change our minds, and we won't change yours. The thing is... we out number you a LOT... There's only two people still here arguing that wolves should be kept as pets, and how many who say they should stay in the wild? That right there should tell you it's not right... if it was right, more people would be gunning for you on your side.[/quote] If I go to an exotic animal board though, it is you who would be outnumbered. If you went to talk about Pit bulls on a PETA message board, you would be outnumbered if you asked should you be able to keep them. Just because I am outnumbered does not mean I am wrong. How many people here have had wild animal pets? Have grown up around people who had wild animal pets? Talk on a daily basis with people who have wild animals? I doubt many of you have. Most people don't have experience with these wonderful creatures, and they have no idea what the positive side is like. Their judgment remains limited only to what they have seen. [color=darkblue]Why do I fight so hard? Because I own wild animals. My wolfdog, not really wild, is still counted as exotic. She is awesome, like no other canine I have ever had experience with. She is murderously hard to care for, but for me, it is worth it to watch her wrestle with the Pointer pup, stalk through the grass after voles, or sit mesmerized by horses for an hour, among a hundred other things it seems. I love her, and she loves being here. Of course she would like it better if I just let her loose to chase the horses or raid the garbage cans, but what canine wouldn't? I fight hard for my Hawks, the ones of the past, and the one of the present. Nothing compares to walking through the woods with two Harris hawks soaring overhead waiting for you to flush a rabbit from the grasses. Nothing compares to getting back to the truck after a long day hunting, to watch these two magnificent birds land in front of you on the tailgate, hop into their crates and squeak affectionately for rabbit meat to keep them busy in anticipation of the ride home. I also fight for my fish. It was the greatest feeling in the world a few months back to see my bluegill build and defend a spawning bed in the fish tank. It was awesome to realize that I had cared for these creatures so well that they were willing to engage in their most private of activities. I fight for my reptiles, yes even my venomous one (not enough venom to hurt me, just frogs). I know they are happy to be here. The turtle sits on his little rock in the sunshine, stretches out his limbs, and closes his eyes. If he could smile, he would. Same for my toad, my loan amphibian. He is as fat as any toad I have ever seen, and nothing pleases him more than to shuffle down into freshly moistened dirt to digest an earthworm. I fight to love and enjoy these animals, to see them happy, and I fight for others to be able to do this as well. I fight hard for Fennec owners, who devote their lives to those wonderful little foxes, that love nothing more than to wrestle with one another in the living room and play with kitty toys. I fight even for the big cat owners, wolf owners, bear owners etc. I fight for my friends and their wolves, that love to romp and play in their enclosures, fight over deer meat, and dismantle every toy that comes their way. I fight for my friend and his tiger, lion, and alligators. I spent a day watching the cats sunbathe and play. The tiger seemed to enjoy being near the dogs even more that being near us! The gators have their own pond and sunning quarters outside. They have heated pools indoors for when winter comes. The animals enjoy life, the owners enjoy being a part of it. These are the things I am defending, and the reason I have fought for 21 pages thus far. You are right, you will never change my mind, or I yours, but the only thing I ask is that my friends and I be able to continue to care for and love these creatures. Think it "wrong" all you want, I just ask that these views never be taken over into Hitler-style bans that would result in the pointless deaths of thousands of innocent animals, and the tearing apart of hundreds of families. [/color] :angel: ~Seij
  5. [quote]Whoa sis, slow your roll. Despite what you may think, your argument did not make logical sense. If you don't believe me, copy your whole post and take it to an attorney or philosophy student. They'll tell you the same thing. I was trying to help you form a clear cut position. Guess I won't do that anymore. [/quote] I have read my comments, and I still understand them. Two unlike things can be compared by comparing like situations/relationships. [quote]I think if you are foolish enough to want to own a potentially dangerous, undomesticated animal more power to you. But you don't have the right to expose me and my family to that danger. What about the guy in Florida whose perfectly 'healthy and happy' big cat escaped and a huge hunt had to be initiated taking up taxpayers money and scaring his neighbors half to death? [/quote] What about potentially dangerous DOMESTIC animals? A Cane Corso is more powerful than a human, and also potentially dangerous. Ok, so this cat escapes.. But it did not harm anyone, just scared them? The same thing happens with Pit bulls! [quote]No one yet has given an decent explanation as to why a person would want to own a big cat, other than the fact that it's 'neat' and 'cool.' [/quote] What's wrong with keeping something because you like it? As I have stated numerous times before, people do the same things with dogs and cats. There is no written rule stating that a wild animal must always stay in the wild. A wild animal does not "need" to live in the wild. It is purely opinion, not fact, that says where they "belong." They were originally created to live in the wild, but facts can tell us that they can also thrive elsewhere, such as in captivity (no different than an Alaskan Malamute being kept as a pet in Florida). Wild animals can live happily in captivity under responsible owners. Doing so will not harm either the animal in captivity, nor animals in the wild. Although accidents may sometimes happen, this rarely results in death, either for the animal, its owner, or other people. "Accidents" also happen with even the most respinsible domestic owner. Statistically, wild animal pets pose little risk compared to some domestic animals and many commonly used products. (I do not know the situations involving the panther incident you cited, though I don't know of any Big cat owner who would sleep with their cat like that). The way I see things, people who oppose wild animal ownership yet support domestic animal ownership, are hypocrites. Not meant to insult anyone, that's just how I look at it. To me, it's like saying, "It's fine for me to own and love nonessential [i]domestic[/i] animals, but you can't own and love nonessential [i]wild[/i] animals." [u]Your best reasoning so far is that domestics were made to be owned as pets, wild animals were not. BUT, this isn't at all accurate, since we own many domestic animals that were made for entirely diffferent reasons than to be pets, and were even made to survive in completely different environments from what we now keep them in! How is that different from keeping a wild animal for a purpose that is wasn't originally designed to fulfill, in an environment it wasn't originally designed to live in?[/u] ~Seij
  6. Czech wolfdogs--how much have you talked to the owners of these dogs? They are not unstable, or highly dangerous. Huskies, mals, Canaan, Czech dogs... None of these breeds is exacly like a wolf in temperament. [quote] i don't care how many nice explanation you bring a wild animal should stay in the wild,[/quote] This is just opinion though... That's my point. There's no official rule, no law of nature, that makes it so wild animals have to stay wild. They can be kept as pets, and they can be happy in captivity. Those are proven facts! I also just want to point out, that the same reasoning you guys are using against me is the same reasoning PETA uses against you. In your ideal world, all wild animals would be in the wild, only to look at. In PETA's ideal world, this also applies to domestics. In PETA's eyes, domestication is just a form of slavery. Theoretically, any domestic animal can eventually go back to being wild again. Using that theory, couldn't it be said that everyone HERE supports keeping animals in domestication, that form of slavery? According to what you say, keeping wolves and other wilds as pets is bad because it prevents them from being wild. That same reasoning can be put on domestics. By owning these animals, you are continuing to keep them domestic, in essence, causing them to need to be in captivity. The only reason domestic animals are not wild is because we made them to be dependant on us, and we continue to support that by continuing to produce domestic animals. If we tried though, we could likely do away with this, reverse the process. Dogs, cats, etc. could all go back to being wild, "living free," without human aid, if only we tried. That is PETA's dream. If we stopped owning domestics, and started letting them live on their own, they would eventually go wild again. Domestication is not permanent, and if not supported, it will eventually reverse. Isn't that evidence that domestication is forced? Could it not be said that since domestication is a forced state of being, anyone who breeds, buys, or owns any domestic animal is actually helping force the animals, over time, to stay dependant on humans? You accuse me of not thinking about the future of the wild species I keep, when you yourselves, if you wanted to, could over time release domestic animals from that cruel bond of "enslavement." Just something to think about… ~Seij
  7. [url]http://www.epou.org/q_&_a.htm[/url]
  8. [quote]So you're saying you DO want the wolf domesticated? Which IS becomming of it, you said so yourself in a statement above which I highlighted and commented on. But you said people want wolves BECAUSE they aren't domesticated. [/quote] No, didn't say they were domestic. I said all those years in captivity have had a SLIGHT effect on their temperament. They are still wolves. I was just using that as an example though, to show that contrary to popular myth, wolves have been in captivity for decades. [quote]These statements have no connection to each other whatsoever! The dumping of dogs, exotics, trash, ex-girlfriends all need a correlation if you're going to compare them like that. You can't just pull items out of the air, plug them into the formula and expect the formula to work.[/quote] Umm, I had no idea my explanation would put such strain on the brains of its readers. The situations each is involved in are similar, therefore they can be compared, even if the objects involved are unlike. Why is that so hard to understand? [quote]What pleasure can one possibly get in owning an animal that would be better off in a habitat? I don't get it at all.[/quote] Who is to say it would be better off in the wild though? I have already proven that wild animals can live happily in captivity. The point is that they can be happy. [u]It is stupid to try arguing over where else they might have been happy at. It would be like telling a husky owner in the lower states that it is cruel to own a husky since it might have been much happier if allowed to be in Alaska to run loose, chase other animals, and do all the things the breed was ORIGINALLY BRED TO DO! Should we tell all husky and mal owners to ship their dogs back up north because those dogs were never intended to be pets for people in warm climates? They were never even bred as pets anyway, they were made for work! How is this logic any different from you telling me I can't own a wolf because it was originally made for something else? I also suppose that it is cruel to spay and neuter animals, since it prevents them from doing what natural physiology intended for them to do.[/u] In the end, why does it matter where else they could have been happy at, as long as they are happy where they are right now (in a home, with people, in captivity, whatever else you want to call it)?? I know some people with pet wolves. The owners are happy. The animals are more than happy. Who cares if they could have been happy in the wild as well. They aren't in the wild. They weren't born in the wild. They will never see the wild. They are as happy where they are. Whether or not they would have been happiER in the wild is purely a matter of opinion, not fact. Personally, I think a wild born wild animal has much more of a struggle in the wild than a captive born captive wild animal in a responsible private home. Dealing with possible starvation, predation, having to find food, shelter, fight for territory, etc. on a regular basis plus likely dying long before old age sets in vs. having everything brought to you on a silver platter and having 24 hours a day to play and enjoy yourself plus getting to live until old age. [quote]When and IF there are no more natural habitat for *wild* animals, these animals should go into sanctuaries that are built to closely resemble their natural habitat.(I'm talking acres and acres) NOT to JOE SCHMO in Wyalusing to keep in a cage and show off to friends. Where the animal is going to pace and linger till he dies. Not saying Joe Schmo won't feed him right or give him attention but that's not quality of life for the animal.[/quote] Ok, suppose all wild tigers are extinct. Only sancs with acres and acres are allowed to have them. Do you no how infinitesimally small the tiger population would be? Maybe a few hundred at the most. With private ownership, there is the potential for a huge genetic gene pool. And who is to say that a tiger kept by Joe could not be happy? Who are you to say it is impossible to give it what it needs? If the tiger is happy and healthy, what else is there? I was given the chance once to visit a guy who had a pet tiger. It was a beautiful animal. It had room, and a lot of toys. It even had a pool to play in. The tiger gets excited whenever it sees its owner. It rubs against the fence making chuffing noises. He went in with it and rubbed against him affectionately. It was not suffering from not being "wild." It was enjoying life. [quote]And she DID contradict herself! She stated that people want wild animals because they're undomesticated. Then stated that who's to say how long it takes an animal to be domesticated? Meaning the wolf COULD be domesticated now, since "who's to say" it's not, and judging by what she said she was pushing towards WANTING them domesticated so that people would get off her case about having a wild animal. But THEN, once they are domesticated (that is, "if they're not now") then you no longer have an undomesticated animal you want, so lets just move onto the next wild animal! You cant stick up for owning an animal like this without taking into concideration it's future, and the future of it's species. People will keep wanting undomesticated wolves until the only ones in captive are DOMESTICATED, so lets bring in some fresh wild blood because we want wild animals!![/quote] I did say people want wild animals because they are undomesticated. What does that have to do with me saying "who is to say how long will it take to domesticate an animal"? Those were two completely different subjects. The first involved the question of why people want wild animals; the second involves the scenario of "if we only were allowed to own domestic animals, who would decide what animals were officially domestic." You are taking out of context quotes that involved completely different subjects! Now, it doesn't matter how many years wolves are kept in captivity, they will never become domestic, so your point about them eventually becoming domestic and needing new wild ones is moot. Domestication does not happen simply because the animal is held in captivity. The behavior change I noted in wolves happened, most likely, because way back in the time of the fur farms, the wolves less inclined to live in a tiny cage would be weeded out. The easiest ones to keep in small cages would be kept. That had a slight effect on the behavior of the wolves over time. Now, wolves are not kept or bred in tiny cages. Responsible owners keep and breed them in large areas, so the selection of only the easiest of easy wolves for fur farms is no longer in play. Foxes have been farmed for hundreds of generations, but it took precise and intentional work to actually make them domestic. [quote] people are selfish, they want what they want and it doesn't matter if it harms the animal being involved.[/quote] Where exactly did I say that people who own exotics don't care about their feelings? Responsible owners keep their animals happy. Like domestic animal owners, they are capable of caring about how their animal feels. ~Seij
  9. [quote]So how is it, that if you are saving these animals from bad homes that obviously you come into contact with every day, can you POSSIBLE condone those people owning those animals? That's just a little hypocritical to me... I know that you keep saying you only support GOOD owners, and I fully respect that. I just don't understand how you can get in such a heated possition about people owning these animals when you are saving them from bad homes all the time.[/quote] The reason is because I know a TON of very good owners, and even a handful of breeders, who truly love and care for their animals (one breeder even helps with rescue). I see a lot of saddness in the wolfdog world, but I also see the wonderful things that are possible when things are done [i]right[/i]. [quote]Wolves have already been domesticated once, I don't understand why anyone would do it all over again. [/quote] We arent trying to redomesticate the wolf though. Wolves can be so different from any dog in existence. Everyone here has said at least once that wolves and dogs are different animals. Think about the dog breeds you prefer. You probably like them because they have certain qualities that no other dog breed has. The same applies to people who own wolves. That wolf is so different from any dog breed ever created. No dog can ever truly replace a wolf. Some people, as hard as it may be to understand, want the UNdomestic version of the dog :wink: They just aren't truly satisfied with the dog, because it does not fullfil every requirment they have. [quote]That's just sick. Suppporting owning wolves, whether they were bred and rased in captive or not IS supporting taking them out of the wild. Because at one point those wolves ansestors were taken from the wild, and wolves are STILL being taken out of the wild to supply "new blood" into these "Pet wolves". You can't argue that it doesn't happen still or never has, because if that were the case then there would BE no wolves livinging in captive in the United States, Canada, wherever. [/quote] The original wolves were taken from the wild. The wolves used today for captive breeding came from fur farms. They are many, MANY generations removed from the wild. In one article I read, it mentioned how the temperament of captive wolves from these lines actually differs slightly from wolves from wild lines (the captive lines are more content in a captive environment, the ones from wild lines are more prone to trying to escape--basically, all those years in captivity has actually had a slight dampening effect on the instinct to roam). I have seen VERY few cases where wolves were taken from the wild to refresh captive lines. The wolves that are taken are typically "problem" wolves that would otherwise have been shot. This is just what I have heard though. Either way, it's not like we are always catching wolves from the wild for these breeding projects. For one thing it is hard to get a wild wolf. For another, it is illegal. There are enough captive wolves that the captive gene pool CAN be upheld without "fresh blood". There WERE wolf fur farms, and thus, plenty of wolves in captivity. There were enough that, today, we have more than enough wolves in captivity to keep the gene pool healthy as long as we breed correctly, and not haphazardly. The captive Arctic wolf population is an exception, and has actually started to become inbred because no new wolves have come in. So far though, I have heard of no plans to bring in fresh stock for them. IMO, if they were going to bring in fresh stock, it would have happened allready, especially considering that the demand is very high for Arctics. As it is, this hasn't happened. Now, next... This whole thing about breeding captive wolves supports taking them from the wild because the original stock was from the wild... It happened a LONG time ago. It wasn't that much longer after the creation of GSD's. GSD's had wolf stock added. Should we not own GSD's because they had "wolf blood" added (not too long ago either!)? IMO, it is a weak statement. It WOULD be supporting taking them from the wild if it actually still happened on a regular basis, but it doesn't. Bassically, you are trying to condemm me for the actions of people generations before my time. Should no one own reptiles because their original stock came from the wild? I think you made a good point about dogs being made for owning, and wolves not, but there is that fine line of domestication.. How long before an animal is officially domestic, and "made" for human ownership? Many people do not think the cat is domestic yet. I am one of them. How do you determine what is domestic, and what is not? After all, the qualities that people often attribute to domestics can also be found in some wild animals. What about wild animals such as fish, reptiles, and birds? If you are against ANY wild animal as a pet, then I won't argue with you, BUT what I fail to see is how some people can support ownership of common, smaller "wild" animals, but be against ownership of less common wild animals, like wolves and fox... How can you be for ownership of one wild animal, but against the ownership of another? Where are you drawing a line at? ~Seij
  10. [quote]Anyway, though this isn't a debate about snakes (I was only pointing out one objection to ownership of non-native "exotic" animals), [/quote] If you read my very first post, you will find that I did mention two exceptions to my stance on owning wild animals. One of those exceptions was invasive species. I mentioned that I DO NOT think people should be allowed to bring into their state/area, a wild animal that is at an extremely high risk for becoming invasive in that area should it ever escape--such as the snakes in Florida, an area that closely resembles that specie's natural habitat. For example, if there existed a mouse in South America that was used only to tropica temps. I would have no problem with someone keeping that mouse in Alaska, but I would have a problem with it being kept in a highly tropical area of the USA. Another example. Suppose someone wants to add a highly adaptive species of european crawdad to their fish tank than can survive both hot and extremely cold temps. This I would have a problem with, since this species of crawdad, being so adaptive, and being able to tollerate almost any envoronment, could thrive almost any part of the US. It would be at high risk for becoming invasive. ~Seij
  11. [quote]They don't come after us (in most cases) because of our error...we're just on them or in the way when they react. Tigers, I'm sure, come at you when it happens with the intent of getting you.[/quote] It doesn't matter [i]how[/i] it happens. The point is that it does happen. You make a mistake with a horse, you could get killed. You make a mistake with a tiger, you could get killed. Also, about tigers endangering other people besides the owner. I can't recall ever hearing of a tiger that escaped and attacked someone else. The attacks I have read about involved people who were deliberately interacting with the tiger. I'm not saying it never happens, but I can't recall ever reading about it. A tiger that gets loose won't just randomly start attacking people. ----- The following will be a long post, directed at everyone who says comparing tigers, wolves, dogs, cats, skydivers, horse, etc. to each other is like comparing apples and oranges. Anyone who has had any schooling in English will remember the "____ is to ____, as ____ is to ____" questions. These questions basically force you to compare two seemingly unlike things. For example. [i]Black is to white as cat is to ____.[/i] The answer would be "dog." Black is to white as cat is to dog. Now, we all know that black, white, cat and dog, are all unrelated things. Black and white are similar only in that they are colors. Dogs and cats are similar only in that they are 4-legged carnivores. BUT, we were still able to compare them. Ok, if you think about it, it wasn't really [i]them[/i] that we were comparing. That is the key. It was the situations each was in. We were not saying black is the same as dog, and white it the same as cat. We were saying that black is the opposite of white, and dog is the opposite of cat. The situation of being opposites was what connected black, white, cat, and dog. Another example. Apples and oranges. These are two completely different objects. But what if we consider the following statements: [i]People eat oranges. People eat apples. Oranges grow on trees. Apples grow on trees.[/i] These statements do NOT say that apples and oranges are the same. Rather, these statements are saying that both the apples and the oranges face similar situations (being eaten, and growing on trees). Now, let's apply this newfound knowledge to the wild animal discussion. 1 - [i]People get pets because they like them. If you get a pet Labrador, that means you probably like the Labrador, and preferred it over all other breeds you possibly could have gotten (such as Chihuahuas). If you get a wild animal pet, that means you probably like the wild animal pet, and preferred it over all the other animal types you could have gotten (such as domestics). Therefore, it is illogical to say that there is no reason to own a wild animal since there are domestics, unless you would also say that there is no reason to get a Labrador since there are Chihuahuas.[/i] 2 - [i]Many wild animals are dumped because their owners fail to care for them. Many domestic animals are dumped because their owners fail to care for them. Therefore, it is illogical to say that wild animals should be banned because some people cannot care for them, unless you think that all domestic animals should also be banned.[/i] Now, in those statements, I was not saying that wild animals and domestic animals are the same. Like with the apples and oranges example, I was comparing the situations each faces. Domestic and wild animals, although they are different things, face similar situations (getting chosen over other potential pets, and getting dumped). Let's try some more. 4 - [i]People who work with tigers choose to take the risk of getting killed. People who skydive choose to take the risk of getting killed. Therefore, it would not be logical to ban tigers because they could kill their owners, unless you are willing to ban all other potentially dangerous activities.[/i] 5 - [i]Tigers may kill their handlers as a result of a mistake the handler made. Horses may kill their handlers as a result of a mistake the handler made. Therefore, it is illogical to ban tigers because making a mistake with one could result in death, unless you also want to ban horses.[/i] Now again, I was not saying that tigers and skydivers are the same, or that tigers and horses are the same. I was saying their situations are similar. Even though the things themselves are not comparable, the situations they face are (both tiger ownership and skydiving are potentially deadly activities, and making a mistake with a tiger or horse could both lead to death). See what I am trying to say? [u]You CAN compare apples and oranges, tigers and horses, wild and domestic, by comparing their situations. Doing so [b]does not say [/b]that the things involved are the same/similar, It says their situations are.[/u] Therefor, if I choose to compare, say, skydiving and tigers, I understad that they are themselves two completely different things. It is their[i] situations [/i]that I am comparing because[i] it is their situatons that can be similar[/i]. And finally, I think I should point out a certain example in support of comparing seemingly unlike things (tigers, wolves, dogs, cats, skydiving, horses, etc,). This involved pit bulls and BSL. Someone wrote up a questionnaire. I do not remember the specifics, but it said something like, suppose you found out that more people died driving Saturns than died driving Jaguars. Would banning Saturns be an effect solution to this problem? Obviously, the answer was no. This was used to show how illogical it would be to ban Pit bulls because they killed more people than any other breed. This bit of writing was hailed as genius by dog owners, many I think even from Dogo. Now, was the writer saying dogs are the same as cars? Of course not! Dogs and cars are completely different, like comparing [i]apples and oranges[/i]. But the writer was not comparing dogs and cars. He was comparing their [i]situations[/i]. Saturns kill more people than any other car. Pit bulls kill more people than any other dog. Therefore it would be illogical to ban Pit bulls unless you also wanted to ban Saturns. SO, to those of you who do not think I should use the comparisons I use, step back and think about the comparisons you yourself have used and supported in order to prove a point. Comparing two completely unlike things by comparing their situations is a common, viable, and highly effective way of proving a point. ~Seij
  12. [quote name='StarGaze']Bucking is still human error most of the time.[/quote] The same could be true of tiger attacks. Most tiger attacks I have seen resulted from the handler doing something "wrong" (even if no one could have known that at the time). Tigers are not prone to randomly attacking. Like most animals, there is usually a reason for their actions. ~Seij
  13. [quote]my problem is not with wolves, but more with big cats as pets. Your wolf would do the same job as my dog would.......[/quote] But so could a Big cat...
  14. [quote name='StarGaze']Deaths resulting from horses are most often falls...not them attacking. So there's still no comparison.[/quote] Falls from what though? The horse bucking? There are no stats to tell us if it was the horses fault (for bucking), or whether it was just an accident and the person fell off. ~Seij
  15. [quote]Again, the difference is a dog is domesticated and a wild wolf is not. The dog is bred to enjoy, to need the companionship of human whereas a wolf is born to fear human.[/quote] But dogs can also be born to fear humans. Some poorly bred dogs actually grow up fearful of humans. On the other hand, I have seen properly socialized wolves that would greet even complete strangers. [quote]Yes... It bans the dogs people THINK are more dangerous. Even though there is NO PROOF that they are more dangerous. In fact there is actually a lot of proof otherwise.[/quote] Ok, I will use a more comparable comparison. What about horses again? Does anyone dissagree with the statement that they are more dangerous than dogs? I see less horses than dogs, but more deaths attributed to horses than to dogs. ~Seij
×
×
  • Create New...