Special Bond between Dogs and Humans?

[russ_watters]

@activist in the know , I am not sure why you seem to have gotten a negative impression of this forum. We do our best and appreciate good inputs. You could have posted your reference links here without the apparent hostility.

It's first sentence of the OP, referencing not just an activist, but an animal rights activist. An activist, by nature, is passionate about their subject, meaning more emotional and less logical. And animal rights activists have a reputation for scoring high in that. Intended or not, the OP injects the negative connotation/tone into the thread.

It is extremely rare that the object of a proxy argument has the guts to join the argument locally (indeed I often get the impression the subject would often rather avoid it). I, for one am impressed by @activist in the know 's moxie and references. Welcome to PF!

That said...

 

[russ_watters]

I think you will need to define "special bond" if we are to have any productive discussion about it.

Right. Clearly dogs and humans have relationships - complex and deep ones, even if not symmetrical - the quotes @activist in the know provided discuss this, and I don't think it should be controversial.

But a lot of animals have relationships with humans. The word "special" implies different and better. What makes our relationship with dogs "special" vs our relationships with cats, dolphins, gorillas or wild animals?

I might say that humans have put more effort into our relationships with dogs than any other animal, and that makes them "special". But it isn't my word to define.

 

[Rive]

But a lot of animals have relationships with humans. The word "special" implies different and better. What makes our relationship with dogs "special" vs our relationships with cats, dolphins, gorillas or wild animals?

Well said. At this point we barely have any reference data. The research with dogs (some partially relevant research with other species) resulted in a growing interest, but it will be some time (decade or decades) till some kind of conclusion could be reached about that 'specialness' at scientific level.

But right now with all the emotional stuff backed up with the half-baked data making the whole topic drifting on the exactly same trajectory as the green movement.

What's worse, animal rights simply does not really need this kind of backup. Especially not this kind of one sided (why only dogs?) one.

 

[russ_watters]

What's worse, animal rights simply does not really need this kind of backup. Especially not this kind of one sided (why only dogs?) one.

In my read of the thread so far, I haven't seen real reference to animal rights as the context, so I avoided taking that next step (why does this "special" relationship matter?). But if that was where this was intended to be going, I agree.

 

[russ_watters]

Not really. Could you please include some/any study at this point to prove that it is really anything special? So that this kind of 'bond' does not happen with other 'human-socialized' social species? Horses, cats, cows, parrots, or: primates?

For example, one of the first hits for "human relationship with dolphins" yields:
https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/m_features/dolphins-humans-a-special-relationship

[note: this includes wild dolphins]

I didn't seek it out, but nevertheless, the word "special" is applied.

 

[BWV]

There was an interesting piece published last fall on how dog intelligence is oversold, but dogs have a perhaps unique or 'special' set of abilities

https://www.popsci.com/dogs-not-smart

What they found was that dogs didn’t seem to stand out from other animals in any of the categories. There were carnivorans, social hunters, and domesticated animals alike that could match or outcompete dogs in cognition tests. What was different about dogs was their ability to match animals across those three groups. Hyenas seem to follow the cues of others in their pack better; dolphins perform better in tests of self-consciousness, and raccoons are better at physical puzzles. However, no other animal could perform as well in all the categories.

“Every species has unique intelligence,” says Lea. What he and Osthaus argue is that “their intelligence is what you would expect of an animal that is... recently descended from social hunters... that are carnivores and that have [also] been domesticated,” he says. “There's no other animal that fits all three of those criteria.”

This new study takes an unusual approach to cognition studies, says Daphna Buchsbaum, the principal investigator at the University of Toronto’s Canine Cognition Lab. “I think a lot of times as humans, we naturally look at animal cognition through the lens of what makes them so similar to or different from us,” she says. Here, Lea and Osthaus compare dog cognition to that of other animals, with some illuminating results. Even within their proposal that dogs aren’t uniquely intelligent, she says, there may be “something interesting and unique” about dogs that enables them to sit in the middle of those three categories.

There are competing theories about why dogs are good at what they’re good at—whether it’s because of domestication, because of an evolutionary history of hunting in packs, or other reasons. Lea says nobody knows exactly why dogs are the way they are, but this paper points to more questions about how they think, and future research directions for other animals that have not been as widely studied as dogs. Studying other carnivores—particularly endangered species such as the African painted dog or the dhole, which may go extinct before we can figure them out, Lea says—could offer a whole new window into pre-domestication dog cognition, as well as providing insight into those animals themselves.

the paywalled paper is here
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13420-018-0349-7?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_brand_PID6161396&utm_content=de_textlink

 

[Klystron]

Well said. At this point we barely have any reference data. The research with dogs (some partially relevant research with other species) resulted in a growing interest, but it will be some time (decade or decades) till some kind of conclusion could be reached about that 'specialness' at scientific level. [snip]

Dogs do seem ready-made to interact with humans, certainly while fulfilling anthropocentric expectations. Dogs (and dolphins) smile? Horses and cows have mobile faces and lips; not sure if they smile convincingly. Pacific bull snakes were common pets where I was raised. Cute critter would slither over when I strummed my guitar. Never bit even when moulting. If prompted, the non-venomous reptile could imitate a pit viper! Hissing, coiling, shaking a non-existent rattle. Durn thing seemed happy but never managed a smile. If you think it had an immobile face that lacked muscles to display expressions, you would be correct.

Many species have been part of my household. The most communicative by far were Cichlids. The fresh water species rivaled reef fishes in color and behaviour. Adult mbuna not only recognize and signal each other but recognized and watched individual humans. Adults communicate using vision and chromatophore color changes coupled with intense body motions. Mouth breeder species showed astonishing child care, hatching eggs in their mouths then sharing responsibility for sheltering the brood, even in community tanks. Chiclids rearrange the aquarium decor to their own preferences using lips and mouth as proficiently as an elephant uses its trunk.

My point: pet reptiles and fish and birds are as special as pet mammals. They lack the appearance of human children (big puppy eyes!), lack warm fuzzy fur, and up to recently* lacked anthropomorphic cartoon representations to condition children to want them; but given proper conditions, thrive.

*a Times article warned that salt-water reef fish that resemble Nemo -- difficult species for beginners requiring expensive co-species such as anemones in order to thrive -- have become scarce due to extraordinary demand generated by the Nemo franchise.

 

[RPinPA]

I've recently finished reading a fascinating book on the subject of animal cognition, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? by Frans de Waal. I highly recommend this fascinating examination of cognition in a very wide range of animal species. Some of the experiments include human interaction, for instance crows' ability to recognize individual humans.

 

[Klystron]

I've recently finished reading a fascinating book on the subject of animal cognition, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? by Frans de Waal. I highly recommend this fascinating examination of cognition in a very wide range of animal species. Some of the experiments include human interaction, for instance crows' ability to recognize individual humans.

I've placed a hold on Smart. This book also looks interesting:

The Bonobo and the Atheist
In Search of Humanism Among the Primates
Waal, F. B. M. de, 1948-

 

[activist in the know]

Right. Clearly dogs and humans have relationships - complex and deep ones, even if not symmetrical - the quotes @activist in the know provided discuss this, and I don't think it should be controversial.

But a lot of animals have relationships with humans. The word "special" implies different and better. What makes our relationship with dogs "special" vs our relationships with cats, dolphins, gorillas or wild animals?

I might say that humans have put more effort into our relationships with dogs than any other animal, and that makes them "special". But it isn't my word to define.

Agreed. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that one’s relationship with his or her dog is any more special than another’s relationship with a pet bird, pig or dolphin. To my mind, the “specialness” of the human-dog bond refers to the dog’s uncanny sociability/affinity for humans and the neurobiological mechanisms undergirding this relationship which, based on what we know today at least, sets this particular animal apart from all others, qualitatively speaking. Sure, pigs and crows are “smarter” than dogs, sheep also have the ability to recognize human faces, horses also can read human emotions, etc. But are they equally as attuned to us as dogs?

Studies/Reviews of note:

Advances in neuroscience imply that harmful experiments in dogs are unethical [this 2018 review provides a nice synthesis of the data]

Our Faces in the Dog's Brain: Functional Imaging Reveals Temporal Cortex Activation during Perception of Human Faces

Awake fMRI reveals a specialized region in dog temporal cortex for face processing

Separate brain areas for processing human and dog faces as revealed by awake fMRI in dogs (Canis familiaris).

Awake canine fMRI predicts dogs’ preference for praise vs food

Dogs Can Discriminate Emotional Expressions of Human Faces

Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds

The domestication of social cognition in dogs.

Genomic Regions Associated With Interspecies Communication in Dogs Contain Genes Related to Human Social Disorders

Sociality genes are associated with human-directed social behaviour in golden and Labrador retriever dogs

Orienting asymmetries and physiological reactivity in dogs’ response to human emotional faces

Dogs recognize dog and human emotions

Neurobiological underpinnings of dogs’ human-like social competence: How interactions between stress response systems and oxytocin mediate dogs’ social skills

Dogs (Canis familiaris), but Not Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), Understand Imperative Pointing

A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do.

Communication in Dogs

News magazine articles (for sum and substance):

How dogs stole our hearts

A man’s best friend: Study shows dogs can recognize human emotions

Brain Scans Show Dogs Think of Humans as Family More than Fellow Dogs

Brain Scans Reveal What Dogs Really Think of Us

Genes underlying dogs' social ability revealed

A common underlying genetic basis for social behavior in dogs and humans

Dogs really can tell how their owners are feeling, new study shows

Empathetic dogs lend a helping paw

Dogs understand what's written all over your face

Smiling human faces are attractive to dogs, thanks to oxytocin

Dogs process faces in specialized brain area, study reveals

Dogs succeed while chimps fail at following finger pointing: Chimpanzees have difficulty identifying object of interest based on gestures

What makes dogs so friendly? Study finds genetic link to super-outgoing people

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that one’s relationship with his or her dog is any more special than another’s relationship with a pet bird, pig or dolphin. To my mind, the “specialness” of the human-dog bond refers to the dog’s uncanny sociability/affinity for humans and the neurobiological mechanisms undergirding this relationship which, based on what we know today at least, sets this particular animal apart from all others, qualitatively speaking. Sure, pigs and crows are “smarter” than dogs, sheep also have the ability to recognize human faces, horses also can read human emotions, etc. But are they equally as attuned to us as dogs?

Are you familiar with the anthropic principle? It basically states that things are the way they are because if they were any other way, we couldn't be here to have this conversation.

Applied here, yes, dogs are the most compatible companion animals to humans, as measured by our choice to be companions with them*. If sheep were, then we'd all have sheep for pets instead of dogs and the conversation would be no different, just with automatic word replacement of "sheep" for "dogs". So I guess my question is; why does this matter?

*36% of American households vs 30% for cats.

 

[activist in the know]

I'm not familiar with that principle, no. But I'll brush up, thanks. I guess I don't look at it by the human-centric measure you propose. If tomorrow, we all decided to abandon the dog in favor of sheep as pet du jour, the conversation wouldn't in fact change because dogs qua dogs wouldn't change.
Why does it matter that there exists a biological human-dog bond? Hmm, why does anything matter?

 

[BillTre]

The most communicative by far were Cichlids. The fresh water species rivaled reef fishes in color and behaviour. Adult mbuna not only recognize and signal each other but recognized and watched individual humans. Adults communicate using vision and chromatophore color changes coupled with intense body motions. Mouth breeder species showed astonishing child care, hatching eggs in their mouths then sharing responsibility for sheltering the brood, even in community tanks. Chiclids rearrange the aquarium decor to their own preferences using lips and mouth as proficiently as an elephant uses its trunk.

I had a special relationship with one of my cichlids (an oscar) which I trained to jump out of the water to grab food from my hand.

Nevertheless, the relationships I have had with dogs, cats, and birds (which all have larger brains) have been even more special than that!

 

[symbolipoint]

I'm not familiar with that principle, no. But I'll brush up, thanks. I guess I don't look at it by the human-centric measure you propose. If tomorrow, we all decided to abandon the dog in favor of sheep as pet du jour, the conversation wouldn't in fact change because dogs qua dogs wouldn't change.
Why does it matter that there exists a biological human-dog bond? Hmm, why does anything matter?

Why it matters? Maybe it is just so, because whether knowingly or unknowingly, it was bred into them.

Also, thanks for the many interesting references in post number 46.

 

[symbolipoint]

I have just identified the dog expert I was trying to mention, named Ray Coppinger of Hampshire College in Massachusettes.

Here are two pieces of useful information:

Coppinger, Ray (2001). Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0-684-85530-5.

https://www.hampshire.edu/faculty/raymond-coppinger

 

[activist in the know]

I think you will need to define "special bond" if we are to have any productive discussion about it.

By “special bond”, I was referring to the unique neurobiological connection between dogs and humans. See, e.g., studies at post #45

 

[russ_watters]

I guess I don't look at it by the human-centric measure you propose. If tomorrow, we all decided to abandon the dog in favor of sheep as pet du jour, the conversation wouldn't in fact change because dogs qua dogs wouldn't change.

Right, if tomorrow (or over the next 10 years) 10% of dog owners decide they'd rather have cats, cats will become the dominant pet and in that way "special", but it won't be dogs (or cats) that changed, it will be us.

While it's true that dogs were likely the first pets and have long been the most or one of the most common, our reasons for picking them have of course evolved over time and the level of preference for other animals with it. I suppose it is impossible to know for sure, but it is likely that originally most if not all animal domestication was for food or service, not for relationships (except as a means to improve the service). But humans form relationships quickly. And today, pets are almost exclusively for relationships, though the lines may blur with explicitly designated "service animals".

I do think it is interesting that some of the studies indicate that dogs do have the most compatible collection of relationship type traits than other animals. Whether that predates their domestication or we bred that into them, I don't know if is important. But I still think the most important traits are physical. For example, no matter how well suited dolphins are mentally/emotionally for forming relationships with humans, it's never going to happen that they become pets and we spend thousands of years breeding billions of them to enhance those traits. For obvious reasons, it is simply physically impossible to make dolphins into housepets.

Why does it matter that there exists a biological human-dog bond? Hmm, why does anything matter?

Reasons of course vary, but obviously every topic being discussed on PF has reasons the participants decide make them worthy of discussion. Not being one of the two people who started this discussion, one of my reasons is curiosity about your reasons. If you don't want to say, I suppose that's your prerogative.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Right, if tomorrow (or over the next 10 years) 10% of dog owners decide they'd rather have cats, cats will become the dominant pet and in that way "special", but it won't be dogs (or cats) that changed, it will be us.

In the southern US, dogs are more popular than cats, but in the north and coasts, it's the other way around. Is the special bond dependent on geography?

 

[BWV]

And how much of any perceived bond between a pet and their owner is just simple projection and wishful thinking on part of the owner? You see these yahoos who take in dangerous animals like tigers or chimps and swear they have a loving reciprocal relationship then someone gets killed or seriously injured

 

[activist in the know]

Right, if tomorrow (or over the next 10 years) 10% of dog owners decide they'd rather have cats, cats will become the dominant pet and in that way "special", but it won't be dogs (or cats) that changed, it will be us.

While it's true that dogs were likely the first pets and have long been the most or one of the most common, our reasons for picking them have of course evolved over time and the level of preference for other animals with it. I suppose it is impossible to know for sure, but it is likely that originally most if not all animal domestication was for food or service, not for relationships (except as a means to improve the service). But humans form relationships quickly. And today, pets are almost exclusively for relationships, though the lines may blur with explicitly designated "service animals".

I do think it is interesting that some of the studies indicate that dogs do have the most compatible collection of relationship type traits than other animals. Whether that predates their domestication or we bred that into them, I don't know if is important. But I still think the most important traits are physical. For example, no matter how well suited dolphins are mentally/emotionally for forming relationships with humans, it's never going to happen that they become pets and we spend thousands of years breeding billions of them to enhance those traits. For obvious reasons, it is simply physically impossible to make dolphins into housepets.

Reasons of course vary, but obviously every topic being discussed on PF has reasons the participants decide make them worthy of discussion. Not being one of the two people who started this discussion, one of my reasons is curiosity about your reasons. If you don't want to say, I suppose that's your prerogative.

I see where you’re coming from now. Well put.

To answer your question why it matters to me, at bottom I’m fascinated by the science and what it portends for the advancement of our understanding about the neurobiology/psychology of other animals as well. I’m not as focused on what it signals in terms of our preferences around pet selection, or what value a given animal might offer to us in other respects (I’m vehemently opposed to the use of dolphins for human entertainment). I do think this greater understanding of animal behavior should inform how we relate to them in turn— the greater our knowledge, the greater our responsibility to ensure we’re treating them with dignity.

Though animal rights isn’t the point of this thread, the science around how dogs perceive and relate to us should nevertheless inform discussions about our ethical obligations to them, for example, whether the dog should be derogated to the status of “food item”, whether we allow pet owners to chain their dogs outside or leave them in isolation for extended periods of time, whether we allow dogs to be used as mere vessels for continuous breeding operations, and under what circumstances, if any, should they be used for medical research.

Beyond that, the take-away for me is simply the recognition that dogs are truly something special.

 

[activist in the know]

And how much of any perceived bond between a pet and their owner is just simple projection and wishful thinking on part of the owner? You see these yahoos who take in dangerous animals like tigers or chimps and swear they have a loving reciprocal relationship then someone gets killed or seriously injured

Exactly. This is precisely why the science matters. Every animal is different. Not every animal is a house pet.

 

[russ_watters]

In the southern US, dogs are more popular than cats, but in the north and coasts, it's the other way around. Is the special bond dependent on geography?

And I picked my stat based on the US as a whole, of course an equally arbitrary geography. The more rural/farming demographics of southern vs northern pet owners almost certainly explains that difference. I'm sure we're in agreement and I'll reiterate that I believe service utility and practicality are as important if not more important than this "bond".

 

[BWV]

But the economics of science work against any real resolution. People want to believe magical things about their pets. So some researchers facing the tremendous career pressure to publish, p-hack some studies lending some support to these magical beliefs (studies showing negative results hardly ever get published). Then and the popular press inflates these claims and the cycle continues. Its not hard to apply some reasonable assumptions to Bayes theorem and come to the oft quoted conclusion that half of published research is a false positive.

 

[activist in the know]

But the economics of science work against any real resolution. People want to believe magical things about their pets. So some researchers facing the tremendous career pressure to publish, p-hack some studies lending some support to these magical beliefs (studies showing negative results hardly ever get published). Then and the popular press inflates these claims and the cycle continues. Its not hard to apply some reasonable assumptions to Bayes theorem and come to the oft quoted conclusion that half of published research is a false positive.

Interesting point. I was just listening to the latest episode of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, as a matter of fact, and they discussed a survey in which 64% of scientists admitting to engaging in conduct in what was described as “the grey zone” or “questionable research practices” (98% denied engaging in practices that rise to the level of “misconduct” in their view). But among the “questionable practices” included failing to report results because they were not statistically significant, 42% admitted to p-hacking (collecting more data after inspecting whether significant), and 51% admitted to hypothesizing after results were known (“harking”). Disturbing to say the least...

 

[Rive]

People want to believe magical things about their pets.

Remember the Alamo Clever Hans! That was a difficult lesson to learn and it tends to be forgotten from times to times. That's why these one-sided results are so fragile yet, and that's why the hype is not really useful at this point. Many scientist suspects serious underestimations (or, rather: misunderstandings) around the cognitive capabilities of animals already, but at the very point when this becames too hyped the first serious experimental error might send the whole line after the cold fusion, right down the sink.

 

[WWGD]

I see where you’re coming from now. Well put.

To answer your question why it matters to me, at bottom I’m fascinated by the science and what it portends for the advancement of our understanding about the neurobiology/psychology of other animals as well. I’m not as focused on what it signals in terms of our preferences around pet selection, or what value a given animal might offer to us in other respects (I’m vehemently opposed to the use of dolphins for human entertainment). I do think this greater understanding of animal behavior should inform how we relate to them in turn— the greater our knowledge, the greater our responsibility to ensure we’re treating them with dignity.

Though animal rights isn’t the point of this thread, the science around how dogs perceive and relate to us should nevertheless inform discussions about our ethical obligations to them, for example, whether the dog should be derogated to the status of “food item”,
Beyond that, the take-away for me is simply the recognition that dogs are truly something special.

EDIT How is using them as food derogatory? As part of society they are, as are all of us, expected to contribute to its survival, as are all members of it, albeit all in different ways. Why should any group be considered to be above carrying their own weight? It is then up to you to prove that dogs do provide something significant-enough beyond their ability to serve as sustenance to justify their benefiting from domesticated life EDIT :Without being required to serve as sustenance..

 

[Klystron]

Modern societies produce an abundance of food; enough that humans do not need to devour "special" animals and with surplus to feed those millions of pets. Consider the status of cattle in predominantly Hindu cultures. Have Americans elevated Dogs to a similar protected; i.e., sacred, cultural status?

 

[WWGD]

Modern societies produce an abundance of food; enough that humans do not need to devour "special" animals and with surplus to feed those millions of pets. Consider the status of cattle in predominantly Hindu cultures. Have Americans given Dogs a similar protected cultural status?

But I don't think this is true for all Eastern Asian countries ; they have large patches of poverty in Vietnam and China. I am not advocating for it, I don't believe this is derogatory, as Activist stated. EDIT: Why would we distinguish between, say, Cows, Chickens, Turkeys, etc. and Dogs? Again, I would personally have trouble eating dogs, but I am trying to step away from my perspective in this issue. The abundance of food includes the "acceptable-to-kill" animals. Why and how do we distinguish between these two groups?

 

[Klystron]

Yes, I should separate those two statements as they are not directly connected.

Have dogs achieved a status in American culture analogous to "sacred cattle" in predominantly Hindu cultures?

Examples:

• Dogs are not an allowed food source. People who butcher dogs for food can be prosecuted and fined.
• Dogs are allowed in otherwise animal-free zones including food area, hospitals, public transport.
• Dogs are venerated in song and story, often heroically and nearly always anthropomorphically. (Old Yeller, Lassie, Rin-Tin-Tin [really showing my age ;-])
  
• Though highly popular in sub-cultures, dog fights are strictly prohibited (but not human 'fights').

 

[WWGD]

Yes, I should separate those two statements as they are not directly connected.

Have dogs achieved a status in American culture analogous to "sacred cattle" in predominantly Hindu cultures?

Examples:

• Dogs are not an allowed food source. People who butcher dogs for food can be prosecuted and fined.
• Dogs are allowed in otherwise animal-free zones including food area, hospitals, public transport.
• Dogs are venerated in song and story, often heroically and nearly always anthropomorphically. (Old Yeller, Lassie, Rin-Tin-Tin)
• Though highly popular in sub-cultures, dog fights are strictly prohibited (but not human 'fights').

But I think we are debating whether there is some "intrinsic" reason for this distinction and not just a random/accidental one. One of the standards is that this reason should apply throughout the world. It seems it does not , e.g., in Eastern Asian countries. Maybe it ought to apply there , but it does not seem to. EDIT And this last seems to argue against the intrinsic value of dogs; if there was such a thing, it seems dogs would be given the same level of treatment in different cultures. Can one argue that East Asian cultures are somehow misguided in the way they treat dogs? Or are the Western ones?

 

[russ_watters]

How is using them as food derogatory? As part of society they are, as are all of us, expected to contribute to its survival, as are all members of it, albeit all in different ways. Why should any group be considered to be above carrying their own weight? It is then up to you to prove that dogs do provide something significant-enough beyond their ability to serve as sustenance to justify their benefiting from domesticated life.

I think there are a number of us in here who would all answer this the same, based on previous discussion:

Dogs and humans have a "special" relationship that merits them not being eaten for no more or less complicated a reason than that we - in the USA anyway - have by consensus declared it to be so. There's nothing to "prove". It's a chosen/declared fact/status.

 

[WWGD]

I think there are a number of us in here who would all answer this the same, based on previous discussion:

Dogs and humans have a "special" relationship that merits them not being eaten for no more or less complicated a reason than that we - in the USA anyway - have by consensus declared it to be so. There's nothing to "prove". It's a chosen/declared fact.

I agree on that, but, if I understood correctly Advocate's point, she believes/claims that there is a special/intrinsic relationship that goes beyond cultural filtering and that is why she opposes dogs being used as food in some Eastern countries. Maybe she can clarify this.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree on that, but, if I understood correctly Advocate's point, she believes/claims that there is a special/intrinsic relationship that goes beyond cultural filtering and that is why she opposes dogs being used as food in some Eastern countries. Maybe she can clarify this.

If the claim is being made that dogs' status is (a) earned by an objective criteria that therefore (b) conveys certain objective rights and that is what you are objecting to, I think most here would agree with you. I would say that neither position is logical. Both contain arbitrary choices. E.G., we can declare a criteria and then measure it, but that doesn't make the measured result objective because the choice of criteria wasn't objective.

 

[WWGD]

If the claim is being made that dogs' status is (a) earned by an objective criteria that therefore (b) conveys certain objective rights and that is what you are objecting to, I think most here would agree with you. I would say that neither position is logical. Both contain arbitrary choices. E.G., we can declare a criteria and then measure it, but that doesn't make the measured result objective because the choice of criteria wasn't objective.

As I understand she is opposed to using dogs as food on the grounds that there _is_ an objective criterion. But I have not seen any layout on her part to this effect. I think the existence of said criterion would be necessary to have objective grounds to using dogs as food in the East and in general. I guess we have to wait for her to clarify this.

 

[russ_watters]

As I understand she is opposed to using dogs as food on the grounds that there _is_ an objective criterion. But I have not seen any layout on her part to this effect. I think the existence of said criterion would be necessary to have objective grounds to using dogs as food in the East and in general. I guess we have to wait for her to clarify this.

Fair enough. In the meantime, I'll roll in a little hand grenade: there is no objective criteria for not eating people either.