The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Have Dog Owners Gone Too Far?

I have been pondering the status of man's best friend. I am shocked at the behavior of many pet owners who are willing to sink into debt to fund an expensive operation for their canine "family member."

This article was recently published in the Humanist. I personally think it raises an interesting point or two. I often say that dogs are social parasites that developed behaviors to trick humans into thinking they share our emotions. I wonder if millions of years of evolution of dogs and people in close proximity has this furry parasite perfectly adapted to feed off our highly evolved social needs.

link ... http://thehumanist.com/humanist/09_nov_dec/Pedersen.html

Excerpt below...

There was a time when "Dog is my co-pilot" was merely a fun slap at the "God is my co-pilot" bumper sticker, and it was funny precisely because nobody would ever think to elevate their dog to such a height. Within the past decade, however, pets—primarily dogs—have soared in importance. ("Dog is my co-pilot" is now the slogan of Bark, a magazine of dog culture, and the title of an anthology—published by Bark's editors—billed as essays, short stories, and expert commentaries that explore "every aspect of our life with dogs.") Canines, with their pack instincts and trainability, are by far the most likely pet to be anthropomorphized as a family member, a best friend, or a "fur baby," treated accordingly with gourmet meals, designer apparel, orthopedic beds, expensive therapy, and catered birthday parties. Some people even feel (and in some cases, demonstrate) that their dogs are worth dying for. Others say the animal lovers are going too far.

Tags: anthropomophic, dogs, pets

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 13, 2009 at 7:31pm

As a child, I had several dogs. I loved them all dearly. They loved me back. But I never lost sight of the fact that they're just dogs. They have a tendency to get stolen or run over. If they survive to old age, they don't really live that long compared to us.

As great as dogs are, I don't value them (or ANY animal) as much as people. I find it disturbing that so many charities and products for pets exist out there when there are so many humans in dire need. I consider that a misappropriation of compassion.

That will undoubtedly get me reviled by pet lovers here. They'll have all kinds of lovely reasons for pet charities and it's their right to spend their money any way they wish. Endangered wildlife species is one thing . . . but pets? I guess you're also entitled to your own priorities. I just don't understand priorities that put pets above people. THAT is what I call going too far.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas Gaytheist on November 14, 2009 at 1:46pm

I find it disturbing that so many charities and products for pets exist out there when there are so many humans in dire need. I consider that a misappropriation of compassion.

I don't see it that way. I think people should help out in ways that are important to them, and that reflect their interests and their abilities. That could be with the environment, domestic violence, wild animal conservation, air pollution and quality, etc. All those things are important. I rescued dogs and cats for nearly a decade before burning out, but that does not mean that I don't care about people.

I'm not a psychologist, or psychiatrist, or behaviorist, or whatever, but I think a lot of the people I knew in rescue gravitated towards animals more than people because animals are not as fucked up as people, and they are often much more helpless (or less able to control their own fate than people are). People can be ingrateful, resentful, dishonest, or drag you into a conflict you didn't anticipate. Animals aren't that way. People are much more difficult to help than animals are, and some people just aren't cut out for that kind of work.

Also, we must not look at compassion and justice as though they are like a pie that is cut into pieces and portioned out, and once the portions are gone there is nothing left for anyone else. Compassion and justice are--to choose an overused phrase--renewable resources.

And this is nothing personal against you Free Thinker, becasue I don't know you, but I have found that the vast majority of people who criticize people who help animals, and say that people are more important, are just people who love to be judgmental, and who never actually help other people themselves. I've never once come across a person dedicated to helping other people who has been hostile to people helping animals. It is usually the self-righteous jerk who just likes to find fault with others. And that's a fact.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 17, 2009 at 9:01pm

Nothing personal, Dallas, but I think self-righteous jerks are the ones who judge people instead of acts. I said that "I find it disturbing that so many charities and products for pets exist out there when there are so many humans in dire need. I consider that a misappropriation of compassion." Unlike you, I was criticizing actions not persons.

And there's a reason for that. I've grown up overseas and know the kinds of relationships people and their pets have outside of the privileged U.S. There's a world of difference. U.S. folks simply go overboard with their pets.

Simultaneously, as I grew up I saw the poverty and knew that the extent of human suffering is outrageous. I've got multiple accounts with Feed the Children and World Vision . . . mostly because, over the years, I've responded to their television advertisements.

One Filipino family, in particular, really touched me. I increased my monthly payment to them. Later, I came to the Philippines to see them but mostly to see the conditions they live in and what my money was doing for them. While here, I met a special woman named Christine. She's a devout Catholic and Filipino citizen (but is Chinese by blood). Anyway, I met her and her "sisters in the community" as they were passing out food to children in a squatter area. We had a long, interesting discussion about poverty in the Philippines. We saw each other a lot during the week I was in Cebu City.

Anyway, I returned home to California. I kept in touch with Christine via email, chat and phone. In June 2006, at the age of 52, I retired and expatriated to the Philippines. Christine and I married less than a year later. We're still very much active in local outreach to the poorest of the poor. The need is overwhelming. Those images of children picking through garbage dumps for food are for real. It will break your heart: but helping them will mend it back.

I stand by my words . . . NOT your presumptuous interpretations of them. There is too much human misery to unnecessarily squander resources on pets.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas Gaytheist on November 18, 2009 at 9:23am

Freethinker, as I said, "this is nothing personal against you Free Thinker, because I don't know you..."

I was not attacking you personally. Your opinions were well-stated and understood. But I too stand by my experiences. The vast majority of people who start criticizing people for showing compassion for animals, and claim that it is better to help people, start sputtering and back peddling when asked how they personally help people. The fact is they don't. They just love judging other people. You have to know this is the truth. People love to criticize more than they love to help.

Based on your above story I have not difficulty in accepting that you are an exception to this rule, but I never stated one way or the other if you were or were not.

As far as judging people v. judging acts, well, that's a slippery slop. Should we judge bin Laden's acts and not his person? What about the serial rapist. Do we judge his acts and not him as a person? What about Mother Theresa? Were here acts good but her person not? I'm not convinced that it is easy for people to separate the two.

For the reasons I stated previously, I do not consider helping animals to be a "misappropriation of compassion." We should help out in ways that we are able to.

I think it great you want to help people out, and your experiences have influenced the person you have become and the choices you have made. I also agree that the extreme poverty, disadvantages, and social injustices that many people have to endure are heartbreaking, but we can't always fix those problems from afar. I hate the way women are treated in the Middle East. I hate the genocide that happened in East Timor. I hate to see the human rights violations in Myanmar or China or wherever, but how can I affect change there? What can I do about these things?

When donating money there is often little oversight and there is a lot of ethics violations and thievery. Just look at what happened to the billions of dollars and euros that have been given to Afghanistan -- it's being stolen and misappropriated faster than we know.

For both human and animal issues, I have written letters, signed petitions, and done things like that, of course, but I am not convinced those things have much effect. I also vote for people who I think have sound experience, ethics, and a grasp on foreign policy, but even then it is difficult for those people to affect change. Obama, for example, is only the POTUS, not of the world. He can't make foreign countries do anything.

So, if I choose to pick up a starving stray off the streets and help it get better, I see nothing wrong with that, and no one can convince me otherwise, no matter how much disdain a person has for my actions.

You know, not long ago I let a homeless man with learning disabilities come into my home and take a shower. I washed his clothes for him and fixed him something to eat. I did this at a moderate amount of personal risk, too, as I had no guarantee he wasn't an unstable, homicidal maniac.

Helping him and helping stray animals are both motivated by compassion and empathy. I did those things because I was able and willing. Neither one was a misappropriation of compassion, and neither one was a squandering of resources. In fact, I don't think it is an issue of resources at all, as I think we have plenty of those. I think the real issue is that not enough people care about helping animals or people one way or another.

You said, "I stand by my words . . . NOT your presumptuous interpretations of them. There is too much human misery to unnecessarily squander resources on pets."

Actually, I do think that you are the one being presumptuous and judgmental here. I have spent a lot of time, money, and tears helping homeless animals. I have seen animals I held, cared for, and tried to get adopted (through volunteering with the city) end up being euthanized and discarded simply because no one wanted them. I have been thrown into the depths of depression and been nearly sick over these things.

MY PROBLEM WITH YOU IS THAT YOU WANT TO USE YOUR COMPASSION AS THE YARDSTICK BY WHICH MINE SHOULD BE MEASURED, AND THAT IS BEING TRULY JUDGMENTAL. AND I WILL BE DAMNED BEFORE I SIT HERE SILENTLY AND LET YOU TELL ME THAT MY EFFORT TO HELP ANIMALS IS MISPLACED.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on November 18, 2009 at 9:45am

Dallas,

Seems to me that you have more compassion than 99% of the people who I've dealt with in life. You have taken personal risk and invested personal effort in helping others, both human and nonhuman. You should feel proud of yourself for your humanity.

The last that I heard, the underlying causes of starvation had more to do with maldistribution of resources, corruption, war, overpopulation, and human-influenced change in weather patterns. Not putting a tu-tu on a chihuahua.

Helping others, both at home and abroad, is also a noble and honorable thing. Ive seen poverty both here and abroad, and it's terrible. In my own way, I help others for a living, and work long, usually thankless hours for it. At the end of the day, I often despair that it's only a drop in the bucket. The one being who truly gives me comfort at the end of the day is my dog.

I hope that this threat doesnt turn into another circular firing squad, like some of the others. Everyone is on A|N because they have a need for connection. We all have different experiences and lives. We all need to live and let live.

(As an aside, why is "kindness" called "humanitarian" and "humane"? Are the kindest and most benign creatures on the planet?)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas Gaytheist on November 18, 2009 at 9:50am

Thank you Daniel.

...and work long, usually thankless hours for it.

See this poem.

I hope that this threat doesnt turn into another circular firing squad, like some of the others.

Well, that is certainly not my intentions or my style. I try not to take things personally, but some things must be said.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on November 18, 2009 at 10:18am

Oh - it should be 'thread' not 'threat'. Jesus, my typos. Also that line was meant to be a general hope, not something personal. Hope it's taken that way!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas Gaytheist on November 18, 2009 at 10:25am

No, I did not take it personally. I was just saying, that's all. You're like one of the nicest persons on A|N. I don't think I could ever misconstrue what you write.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 18, 2009 at 7:53pm

@Dallas,

If only we could paint others the way we want . . .

Let's not beat around the bush. When there's a thousand ways to say ANYTHING, intent is not hard to understand. I challenge ANYBODY to show how anything I've written (MY words . . . NOT your spin on them) here is anything but an argument for supporting people first.

You skillfully twist this into a matter of me using myself as a yardstick. What a joke. Look at my homepage. Look at my posts. This is the ONLY time I've ever mentioned this side of my life . . . and only because YOU impugned it to begin with.

I have only one purpose here. It's the purpose I've been arguing. Indulge humanity first, or instead of, your pets.

Whether or not you like that message, I could care less. It's important enough, to me, to take the inevitable flak.

I stood up for a cause: humanity first. You attacked me for it. You can couch your words any way you want but I wasn't born yesterday and will call a spade a spade.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas Gaytheist on November 19, 2009 at 8:54am

@ Free Thinker

I don't think I've spinned your words at all. First, I said that my comment was not directed at you, twice now, but you still insist on taking it that way. I never impugned your life, your decisions, or your compassion. I have never attacked you or the issues you find important. What I have done is taken exception to your attack on my acts of compassion for animals which you have categorically dismissed as being misplaced and unworthy. It is you who have attacked me and my actions in rescuing stray dogs and cats, and I fail to see how you don't see that.

I don't dislike your message that it is important to care about humanity. What I dislike is your characterization that compassion for animals is misplaced (which is not the same thing as overindulging or humanizing pets).

I suppose in your world view that if I see a starving stray dog on the streets I should just turn the other way and let him suffer because there is human suffering on the other side of the world?

I am not going to compartmentalize and categorize my compassion or concern into hierarchies of worthiness. And I will not be made to feel less than human by you because I have a concern for animals.

I think that it is also important to point out that although many people in the West do overindulge their pets with various products and services, we cannot deny that by doing so they are creating jobs, spending money, and stimulating the economy, which is precisely what keeps people out of the poverty that you (justifiably) abhor. Many third world countries suffer precisely because they don't have a strong economy (but which is only part of the problem, of course).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 20, 2009 at 5:24am

Let's see, Dallas,

How about this? Tell me if it sounds familiar.

And this is nothing personal against you Dallas, because I don't know you, but I have found that the vast majority of people who criticize people instead of their ideas or acts, are just people who love to be judgmental, and who never actually help other people themselves. I've never once come across a person more committed to pets than people who has been tolerant of criticism of that commitment. It is usually the self-righteous jerk who just likes to find fault with others. And that's a fact.

I know this post is addressed to you and that the self-righteous jerks I lambasted have the same position as you on this subject but it's nothing personal . . . REALLY.

Give me a break. That's just plain chicken-shit, Dallas.

Back on subject . . .

. . . The phrase, "misappropriation of compassion", is a criticism of priorities specifically tied to putting pet charities above human charities. That's all it is. There's nothing hostile about it. It's ridiculous to claim somebody would judge anybody based on this one thing. Get real, for crying out loud.

Now then, I had 2 people in mind who stood out in my memory when I wrote that. One is a close family member and another was an officemate. Both had written off humanity as ugly and a blight on the planet. But that's not why they stand out. They stand out because they actually bragged (unsolicited) about giving to pet charities INSTEAD of human ones: citing the unworthiness of the human race and the unconditional love of dogs.

Are these bad people? Of course not! I understand how they feel. They both have bad experiences with untrustworthy people. But their bitterness should be directed at those who wronged them . . . not sick and starving children.

I'm not saying these 2 are typical of pet lovers. The charitable among pet lovers might give to both pet and human charities, or one or the other, or none of the above. Any giving is compassionate and laudable. But my experience tells me that a lot of people in privileged countries have lived sheltered lives, insulated from the human misery overseas. They give to charities emotionally, just as we all do. I can't help but believe that, if people knew more about the need, they would apportion more of that giving to alleviate human suffering. That would be a wonderful thing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on November 20, 2009 at 8:55am

Free thinker - Sounds like you are talking about misanthropy. I just stumbled on this term the other day. It means hatred of humans.

There are some people who feel that only humans can be "evil". This makes it hard for them to feel compassion for others. They claim that animals are "innocent" and thus deserve pity. We "evil" humans don't deserve pity because we are guilty. An odd morality in my opinion.

I am not saying most pet owners are like this.... but I have met my share and I find it disturbing.

As an aside...Any monkey owners out there? These creatures take 24/7 attention and have been getting more and more popular. My neighbor had a spider monkey and they didn't spend enough time with it. You could hear the poor animal screaming its head off all the way down the street. Monkeys do not make a good pets in my opinion. Too much like having a real kid!