Dogs demanding rights... what to do?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
This is more relevant to the current station in life than many are probably prepared to accept.

Imagine one day you wake up, and someone has received and distributed to everyone an undeniable request from a member of the canine species that they are requesting basic "human" rights.

Currently it is only one member of the canine species capable of communicating this, but it states that it is speaking on behalf of the others who have not had the same opportunities it has had in interacting with humans, and thus haven't been able to develop the skills for communication between the... as they perceive it... different cultures.

What would you do? What would you support? Do just the specific canine(s) asking for rights receive them, or all? Do you eradicate the "anomaly" or "selectively breed" for it or...?
edit on 19-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because:





posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 


Until I have the right to walk around the streets naked on all fours whilst #ting and pissing at will I will not support this.

They don't know how good they have it.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 

Could the same be said of you relative to another's perspective? Especially someone who considers themselves "owners" and "trainers" of humans?

Would their reasons for saying you don't know how "good you have it" be for similar sorts of "activities" and thus you have no reason to demand the same rights as the trainers?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 


Well,

I think that we should offer them a deal. We will free them from the bondage of the master-pet system that we have been subjecting them to and now pay them some wage to continue doing what they do everyday. They can stay on, they will be free, but they will now have to pay for room and board and kibble with the wage that we pay them.

Of course, the wages that we pay them will be just enough to pay for their necessities, whatever is left will be just sufficient to pay for whatever small vices that canines indulge in.

from there, we can move on to discussing some kind of separationist social policy; we can't have dogs up on their hind-legs, slurping out of drinking fountains. And they should be preemptively barred from all gambling establishments. We can't have any of this...






posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Given the fact that most dogs live better than human beings do, food, love, companionship, respect and shelter and health care for life. What could possibly be their grievance? Human beings aren't even remotely as free as dogs, it would seem that 'human rights' would be a down grade.
edit on 19-9-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Visitor2012
Given the fact that most dogs live better than human beings do, food, love, companionship, respect and shelter and health care for life. What could possibly be their grievance? Human beings aren't even remotely as free as dogs, it would seem that 'human rights' would be a down grade.

Would you be willing to become someone's pet?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bybyots
 

Hah... fantastic walking of this path. And loved the ending.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 


Incidentally, I have 12 dogs. They ALL have the same rights that I have.

However, UNTIL they tell me that they want to vote, I will leave them at home on the days the Polls are open.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 



BardingTheBard
Could the same be said of you relative to another's perspective? Especially someone who considers themselves "owners" and "trainers" of humans?


Have you been speaking to my girlfriend?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 

At least they probably wouldn't throw out their legitimacy by electing Al Barkton or Lassie Jackson.

edit on 19-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

LiveForever8

BardingTheBard
Could the same be said of you relative to another's perspective? Especially someone who considers themselves "owners" and "trainers" of humans?

Have you been speaking to my girlfriend?

Well... sorta.


The situation brings into focus all the "rights" dynamics we play out between ourselves. It's similar to the concept that if an alien species were to invade... it would unite humans because finally our differences would be smaller than our similarities relative to the new "threat".

I can see a viable approach for "invasion" where the "threat" wouldn't come from a military attack... but by... let's say... a sharing of rights until eventually the original "human" population is no longer represented. Rather than "unite" humans... it would "smudge out over time"... "human".
edit on 19-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

BardingTheBard

Visitor2012
Given the fact that most dogs live better than human beings do, food, love, companionship, respect and shelter and health care for life. What could possibly be their grievance? Human beings aren't even remotely as free as dogs, it would seem that 'human rights' would be a down grade.

Would you be willing to become someone's pet?


No, but if I was born a dog, I wouldn't be complaining, I'd be enjoying my life. Unless I lived in China...



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Here in Dogtown, canine rights are already considered superior to mere "human" rights.
Sorry, that's just the way it is in my private gated community.
Woe to the human that wants his/her way with "my" resident canines.

Besides being fiercely loyal, completely honest, and truly deeoted - canines are morally, ethically, and spiritually superior to humans.

ganjoa



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

BardingTheBard
This is more relevant to the current station in life than many are probably prepared to accept.

Imagine one day you wake up, and someone has received and distributed to everyone an undeniable request from a member of the canine species that they are requesting basic "human" rights.

Currently it is only one member of the canine species capable of communicating this, but it states that it is speaking on behalf of the others who have not had the same opportunities it has had in interacting with humans, and thus haven't been able to develop the skills for communication between the... as they perceive it... different cultures.

What would you do? What would you support? Do just the specific canine(s) asking for rights receive them, or all? Do you eradicate the "anomaly" or "selectively breed" for it or...?
edit on 19-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because:



would they get the right to marriage as well?

8th



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Visitor2012
Given the fact that most dogs live better than human beings do, food, love, companionship, respect and shelter and health care for life. What could possibly be their grievance? Human beings aren't even remotely as free as dogs, it would seem that 'human rights' would be a down grade.


BardingTheBard
Would you be willing to become someone's pet?


Visitor2012
No, but if I was born a dog, I wouldn't be complaining, I'd be enjoying my life. Unless I lived in China...

Alright. Focusing on to the question of the thread.

You've determined that you perceive dogs as living a life better than humans due to the circumstance of them being "dogs". You choose to deny them rights you have... even if they were to request them... because you believe it to be in their best interest.

Is that an accurate summary?
edit on 20-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

filledcup
would they get the right to marriage as well?

Define marriage and I'll give my opinion. I don't know the answer, there is no answer... only options.

Marriage to me is a minor incorporation before the "public government" allowing two people to be recognized as a single financial and representative unit. Nothing more. People don't need to love or even care about each other to be "married" according to the government as far as I'm concerned.

Beyond that, anyone can do whatever they like with whoever/whatever they like so long as it is consensual... though I recognize the challenge in identifying consensual vs non sometimes.
edit on 20-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

ShadellacZumbrum
Incidentally, I have 12 dogs. They ALL have the same rights that I have.

However, UNTIL they tell me that they want to vote, I will leave them at home on the days the Polls are open.

Do they actually? I'm not trying to be silly... and I'm not taking this topic lightly. I feel it is intensely relevant to the incoming information many people will soon be understanding about themselves and I think it's useful to TRULY explore the differences in how we perceive our canine friends vs our human friends vs our family vs ourselves.

I adore my family member that is a canine. But I simply can't pretend that I extend to him the same "rights" as the family member that is a female human I've chosen as a life partner. It's simply not true no matter how much I wish to make him a "full and self realized being". I can chew on the toilet paper whenever I want. The canine can't without expecting some sort of "negative" outcome.
edit on 20-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

ganjoa
Besides being fiercely loyal, completely honest, and truly deeoted - canines are morally, ethically, and spiritually superior to humans.

Do you perceive that to be because they are aware of what they are choosing... or conditioned and trained to be so by their pack evolutionary history and their specific development in proximity to you?

Morality means nothing in terms of "superiority" if it's automated and simply "happens"... though it's not to be thrown away either in my view.
However to call something which does what it does because that's simply the only option it really understands isn't quite "morality". It's having everything tell you to DO something... and you choose NOT to... because you understand the effects such action will have.





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join