Sunday, September 16, 2012

Divided we stand, Dogether we fall

It is amazing, isn't it?

How something that obvious cannot be comprehended and understood. Since it cannot be comprehended it cannot be defined and thus the response is impossible to form. But it is there, you can feel it, it damages your physical and mental health and you point out but its like you are pointing at the wrath that only you can see. All others that are standing by you think that you are crazy, that you are the problem and that they are the solution. But IT'S A DOG,MAN!!!.People complain about mosquitoes so much, they bite, they transmit diseases, just like dogs do, yet you don't hear, but its a MOSQUITOES MAN!!! Or the bees, the killer bees, oh horror, oh horrible mutants will kill us all. So? It's a BEE MAN!!!

Funny isn't it?

Mosquitoes and bees are smaller than dogs, yet they do the same thing that dog does, they bite or sting, they harm us, but the relationship toward the same thing, the damage or the threat to our bodies is seen differently. But its not different it is the same, it is the damage and it hurts.

This leads to the first thing that I would like to talk about and that can be roughly named as the threat perception.

The threat perception is consisted out of two subjects, the threat and the perception. If you perceive something to be a threat you form a response to it. The threat how ever exists independently from the perception, cause it is a separate entity. In the case of dogs, the dog as an entity is a threat, it is an carnivore organism, it is blood lust organism, it is the social and territorial organism. The threat from a dog comes form direct dog attack and it comes indirectly from the space around the dog, or the space that dog considers to be his. So the when combining those two you get the overall threat that is bigger than the physical size of a dog. In other words its BIG.

So how come it is not perceived as such?

It isn't cause the over time the control is introduced so the dog became a controlled threat. With the training and the responsible aka aware ownership, the problems with dogs would not exist at all. Well not quite, cause the dog as the entity is a threat by default and the level of danger that it represents actually never ceases, cause it is what it is. This means that, in essence, the question of the control is irrelevant cause it does not make the dog safer. However again, this is dismissed at the start, by the consensus. The consensus defines the threat of a dog as lack of control so the weaker the control is the more the dangerous the dog is.

This is basic mistake and all that grows from that, from that initial root is wrong. That error than is branching into endless multiplications trying to prove itself as the right one. Its not the dog it is the owner, its not the dog it is the victim,its not the dog it is the environment, it is not the dog it is weather, it is not dog it is the cosmic rays, it is not dog it is the bad spirits. It is always something else but it is never the dog. But it is always the dog.

Reason why this wrong perception exists is very simple, the power of craving or need to have a dog is much greater than the power of the dog. So the more people feel threaten or weak, the more powerful craving they have and the more weaker they feel the more powerful dogs are needed. So there is a link between how people feel and the number of dogs that they own. 

The weaker the society is the more dogs there are.

The weakness of society can come in may different ways. The society can became poorer, it can be disrupted by some internal strife or conflict, it can be exposed to natural disasters or it can become so large that the sheer scale of that society is so big that it cannot be coherent and unified. This last reason is specifically true for the detached suburban lifestyle, where everyone lives for themselves and where although they live together physically, there is no sense of community. 

So as the dog is the substitute for the individual, on this scale the dog ownership is a substitute for the community and it directly reflects the lack of it. In those places, common good and common interest is subjected to individualism and personal interest and thus the excessive dog ownership is present. The dogs than prevent social cohesion and thus contribute the one society or community's demise and death. Just as I said before, the dog is a scavenger animal it feeds on carcases so in this sense the dog ownership feeds on the carcase of dead society or community. 

It is a sign of entropy and decay and it accrues once the society looses the energy that keeps it together.


  1. Interesting commentary, particularly the notion of "threat perception". People the world over have been thoroughly "conditioned" (brainwashed) by dog fanatics to contemplate dogs as completely harmless. This assertion is used to bolster the (absurd) notion that victims of dog attacks are either fully to blame or the attack was an "accident", given that a sweet wonderful harmless dog would NEVER hurt someone intentionally?

    I'm an activity leader for my state trail association and I lead group hikes in state parks, national forests, etc... Our organization has "moderate" politics... radical "Greens" and the like belong to other organizations but do participate in our activities.

    In any case, you would find it interesting that the "Greens" are terrified of being attacked by bears when in the forest. Note that NO ONE has been killed by a bear in my state. Contrast that fact with the fact that dogs kill humans in my state every year, and daily inflict injuries to humans varying from minor bites to battlefield level injuries.

    When I explain to them that if they were to be attacked by something on 4 legs, that animal is almost certain to be a dog, they look at me like I just stepped out of a UFO.

    I have frequently encountered dangerous dogs on hikes and I now legally carry a 9mm pistol in case the worst happens. Again, I am not worried about the bears, pumas, etc... its the dogs.

    1. But,but,how can you say such's a dog?!. Universal justification is one of the things that specifically drive me nuts in this whole issue. Cause "it's a dog" is both the definition and the justification. Also it is an accusation, how dare you to see dogs as a threat, what kind of man are you? I mean its abysmal.

      Even if you point out at the dog's jaw, show them that it has all the tools,just like the bear or a puma, it's no use. They still don't see it. If you show them the actual evidence, the statistic of the attacks, again it is useless. What we see as an illusion they see it as the reality, cause the power of their convictions is so strong. It is not an artefact that is embedded into their personality it is the integral part of their personality.

    2. Do you mind if I blog about the Threat Perception concept in more detail? I think a blog essay on my experiences would be worthwhile

    3. No problem, by all means. The more of us work on this the sooner we will have the more clear picture and thus be able to form response aka defense.

    4. Feel free to take what ever you like or consider interesting. I mean, lives are at stake here.

  2. "Reason why this wrong perception exists is very simple, the power of craving or need to have a dog is much greater than the power of the dog. So the more people feel threaten or weak, the more powerful craving they have and the more weaker they feel the more powerful dogs are needed.So there is a link between how people feel and the number of dogs that they own."

    i agree but i think there is a greater link between how people feel and the KIND of dog that they own.

    1. No, the breeds are separate value that can be interpreted as power factor. Try to picture this as the volume control. The minimum value would be smaller breeds of dogs and the maximum volume would be pit bulls. The craving is the sound itself,regardless if it is on minimum or at maximum.