|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 16, 2018 6:53:50 GMT -5
Homo sapiens developed agriculture a very long time ago. Up until then the species had led a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and it is reasonable to assume that while some went for the novel static agricultural settlement mode, others stuck with the old hunter gathering ways.
I, myself, have always had a thing with animals; I like them, and they seem to like me. I've saved quite a few birds from our cat even though she's programmed by evolution to do what she does and I know it. Mice, I have to say, haven't been quite so fortunate, in fact I've watched and observed just how brutal the kill is. It's fascinating and it's real.
No rights, morals or ethics; kill or be killed. Animals (with the exception of hom sap) are easy to read, you know what motivates them and where they're coming from. I do know some people who couldn't be more detached than they already are from other species, animal and plant; isolated in the anthropocentric world.
Why is that? Why do some humans 'relate' to other species and others do not?
One school of thought on the matter is genetic in essence; it holds that the very same genes that today predispose some people to take on their first cat or dog etc would have spread among the early agricultural pioneers all those thousands of years ago. In the dawn of the new agricultural era groups which included people with empathy for animals and an understanding of animal husbandry would have flourished at the expense of those without, who would have had to continue to rely on hunting to obtain meat.
Further research is needed. Are there any common personality/behavioural traits in those people who do not connect with animalia? If so, what are these traits and how do they impact on human on human relations?
Feel free to jump in...
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 17, 2018 3:48:19 GMT -5
humans are programmed to make fast judgements and to act upon them... seeing some one who is not part of the norm is a reaction to perceived danger its all part of the survival instincts … its different ergo its a threat... others who are more secure in them selves do not see an immediate threat and so are more willing to interact and don't rely on fight or flee mode
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 17, 2018 5:11:55 GMT -5
It's no good looking at arachnids and insects, most people have a thing about those. But some people are afraid of dogs, for example. I'm willing to bet in some cases that can be overcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Sept 17, 2018 11:07:31 GMT -5
It's no good looking at arachnids and insects, most people have a thing about those. But some people are afraid of dogs, for example. I'm willing to bet in some cases that can be overcome. Some dogs deserve to be feared, some don't. Just like, some people can be trusted and other folks can't. It's a matter of learning how to approach them. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 18, 2018 0:26:40 GMT -5
It's no good looking at arachnids and insects, most people have a thing about those. But some people are afraid of dogs, for example. I'm willing to bet in some cases that can be overcome. Some dogs deserve to be feared, some don't. Just like, some people can be trusted and other folks can't. It's a matter of learning how to approach them. You may be right Dex, however, my wife and I have worked with dogs and dog owners and local humane society, and during all of those years I never found a dog I couldn't trust or work with. I have found owners who are not as smart as their dogs. Some people should not have dogs as they can make them anti-social, but it only takes a short while to bring them around. That dogs that is, some people are hopeless. |
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Sept 18, 2018 2:18:30 GMT -5
Is this Frett's bestiality thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 18, 2018 7:09:44 GMT -5
It's no good looking at arachnids and insects, most people have a thing about those. But some people are afraid of dogs, for example. I'm willing to bet in some cases that can be overcome. Some dogs deserve to be feared, some don't. Just like, some people can be trusted and other folks can't. It's a matter of learning how to approach them. I think the dogs you refer to are probably of the pit bull variety? I'd say that has a lot to do with the kind of people that breed and own them. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 18, 2018 7:11:10 GMT -5
Is this Frett's bestiality thread? Thanks for your usual useless, knowledge-free contribution, kronks. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 18, 2018 17:40:04 GMT -5
It's no good looking at arachnids and insects, most people have a thing about those. But some people are afraid of dogs, for example. I'm willing to bet in some cases that can be overcome. Yes Fret, the fear some people have of dogs can be overcome. In our classes (1975 – 2016) we generally have taught canine obedience. That is all most people want or need. The teaching is as much toward the people as it is toward the dog. My wife and I also have worked through the years with special problems related to dogs as canine behaviorism. The dogs are fairly easy to teach and reach a desired goal, with the biggest challenge being the people who often have unrealistic ideas about dogs. Dogs which have a history of aggressive behavior, are (generally) no more difficult than any gentle dog. One breed or another makes little difference, with the possible exception of special guarding breeds. However, even these dogs can be changed, but again it is the people that are the challenge. For example, playing games with your dog is great and can be made part of the training, but some games can have the opposite impact. A game of tug or war sounds like a good exercise, but many owners find it okay for their dog to win, it isn’t okay. The dog must always submit to the owner. So too with feeding, to just give them the food and let them gobble it down sets the wrong pattern. The dog should be taught sit and wait for the owner to give them by hand the first bite of food. These two things are just small examples of things to be done with dogs to have one that behaves. In general, the dog must have a clear understanding of what is their home; what are the rules in the home; who are the members of the family; and what is their position (of rank) within that family. All else will be much easier. In part selecting the right dog is understanding what are the primary behaviors of the breed. Such behaviors originate from basic canine behaviors but they have been altered from breed to breed. Which altered behaviors best fit with your family begin with know which behaviors are part of each breed. |
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Sept 19, 2018 2:07:16 GMT -5
Is this Frett's bestiality thread? Thanks for your usual useless, knowledge-free contribution, kronks.
You're welcome.   |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 19, 2018 7:42:28 GMT -5
It's no good looking at arachnids and insects, most people have a thing about those. But some people are afraid of dogs, for example. I'm willing to bet in some cases that can be overcome. Yes Fret, the fear some people have of dogs can be overcome. In our classes (1975 – 2016) we generally have taught canine obedience. That is all most people want or need. The teaching is as much toward the people as it is toward the dog. My wife and I also have worked through the years with special problems related to dogs as canine behaviorism. The dogs are fairly easy to teach and reach a desired goal, with the biggest challenge being the people who often have unrealistic ideas about dogs. Dogs which have a history of aggressive behavior, are (generally) no more difficult than any gentle dog. One breed or another makes little difference, with the possible exception of special guarding breeds. However, even these dogs can be changed, but again it is the people that are the challenge. For example, playing games with your dog is great and can be made part of the training, but some games can have the opposite impact. A game of tug or war sounds like a good exercise, but many owners find it okay for their dog to win, it isn’t okay. The dog must always submit to the owner. So too with feeding, to just give them the food and let them gobble it down sets the wrong pattern. The dog should be taught sit and wait for the owner to give them by hand the first bite of food. These two things are just small examples of things to be done with dogs to have one that behaves. In general, the dog must have a clear understanding of what is their home; what are the rules in the home; who are the members of the family; and what is their position (of rank) within that family. All else will be much easier. In part selecting the right dog is understanding what are the primary behaviors of the breed. Such behaviors originate from basic canine behaviors but they have been altered from breed to breed. Which altered behaviors best fit with your family begin with know which behaviors are part of each breed. You too are an animal person, men an tol, andsomehow I'm not that surprised. De ja vu? My parents had an English beagle - they're a bit larger than the American breed, and as I recall it had a taste for silk shirts. A good friend of mine had an American beagle and, well, he was a character to say the least. A very naughty boy. I had an Alsation-Collie for 15 years called Oscar. We got him from Battersea dogs home at roughly 6 months - it's a harrowing place where the majority of them are not suitable for children. Still, we got lucky, he was a great dog and he is much missed even 10 years on. We have a foundling cat at the moment; a tiger in miniature and lets just say, I'm glad I'm not a mouse. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 19, 2018 7:43:07 GMT -5
Thanks for your usual useless, knowledge-free contribution, kronks. You're welcome. Woof. |
|
Alpha 
