The Lurker

In the case of teenage pregnancy, there are many reasons for it, but the cause of it,is only one. Same goes for the dogcravers. The cause of the problem with dogs are dogs, cause without dogs there wouldn't be problems with dogs, cause there wouldn't be dogs. However, the reasons for the dogs are many and are irrelevant in this case, cause problems with dogs are caused by dogs.

Pure and simple.

The dogcravers case follows the same path. There is only one cause for him to have a dog and the cause is craving while the reasons or the interpretation of that craving can vary. It can be safety, it can be trend, it can be statement, it can be privilege or status symbolism, it can be conviction, it can be religion,it can be for profit, it can be erotic desire you name it. You can interpret the craving in bzillion different ways.

Problem is, as it has always been, the definition. Since you are unaware of the problem, you can't define it and thus you can't formulate the response to it. And this issue has been cloaked over and over for centuries in the web of self delusions and dogmas that became movements and reached political level and decision making processes. As such it is now enforced by the law, it demands to be accepted and respected. Unconditionally I might add.

You have to accept that dogs are good and that they are not a threat. They are threat only if the owner makes them aggressive. Helloooo? The dog is SEPARATE entity, SEPARATED from the OWNER. Let me rephrase this? Why the dog existence is denied? Why it is not recognised as a separate and independent entity? For one simple reason.

Without the owner the dog doesn't have the purpose and thus the reason for its existence. The very existence of the dog is bounded with the fact, of how much it MEANS to a person or a group of persons. It is the MEANING of a dog that counts, not the organism itself. On its own, a dog as a organism, doesn't belong to nature, cause it is created by humans yet if the humans don't want it it has nowhere to go. It doesn't belong neither to the nature or to the urban setting.

Truly that organism is the saddest organism that exists and the only thing that overshadows its destructiveness is its tragedy of existence. Cause it is sentenced to endlessly exist between the nature and the human, urban setting, like some perverted, twisted abomination that lurks in that foggy border that separates natural and human realm. If it is free in nature,it destroys it completely cause it is an artificial organism. If it is free in the human setting it also destroys it completely cause it is an wild animal.

It can exist only as the denial of itself and the denial of its existence is the reason for its existence.