Metaphysical Beliefs » Pets & Animals

Victoria Stilwell or Cesar Millan: Who would you call?

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 21:49:50 +0000

Science is More Important than Metaphysical Mumbo-Jumbo in Dog Training

I have been training dogs since I was nine years old, and I remember hearing all sorts of methods that were offered for dog training when I was a child. One that I particularly remember is the method of training first pioneered by William Koehler. This training method was something akin to the old way of breaking horses or maybe the old Prussian way of training soldiers. Harsh punishment, strict control, and very little freedom were de rigueur. I distinctly remember one method that Koehler suggested that people use to break their dogs of hole-digging. First, you take the garden hose and fill the hole with water. Then you take your errant dog and do some “enhanced interrogation techniques” on him. After you nearly drown the dog, he won’t want to dig holes again.

Of course, such methods are nonsense and border abject cruelty. These methods have been rejected by the discipline of animal behavior, and certified animal behaviorists now use much more gentle methods to correct poor behavior in dogs. Dr. Ian Dunbar, Dr. Nicholas Dodman, and Dr. Patricia McConnell all suggest that these methods are better than the Prussian army techniques. They do use some “correction,” but all of these corrections are focused on understanding how the dog’s brain works. Dogs cannot remember actions for more than a few seconds, so any correction has to be short and quick, as well as closely connected to the undesired behavior. Doing otherwise is simply follow.

These are the types of methods that Victoria Stilwell uses on her show. They are appropriate for the average person to use, because they encourage the proper setting of boundaries and limitations on dogs within a framework that is both user friendly for dogs and owners. If a dog does the wrong, thing it does receive a correction, but if it does the right thing, it receives a reward. The corrections are often isolation, which is used in raising children in the form of “time-outs.”

These are the methods that virtually any certified animal behaviorist will suggest that anyone do to develop a well-behaved dog. However, the old Koehler method has suddenly returned in the form of Cesar Millan. Although Millan is not as severe as Koehler was, the methods are essentially nothing more than punishment. Some of these punishments are physical punishments that may work, but they also may be more or less a good way for the owner to get bitten. And Millan gets bitten

Have Animal Rights gone too far?

admin — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:31:16 +0000

When issues of “rights” come up, one has to realize that we’re dealing with a metaphysical issue. If one looks at animals in the wild, you’re dealing with a state of nature that is more to the thinking of a philosopher like Hobbes than one like Rousseau. An animal’s right to life, liberty and well, the pursuit of furthering its own genetic code, extend only as far as the animal’s ability to keep itself alive and reproductively viable. Disease, predators, sudden changes of environment, are all easy ways of making an animal’s life nasty, brutish, and short.

Of course, without a reasoning mind to create the idea of rights in the first place, those rights don’t really exist. In the natural world, cruelty itself is a nonentity. Things either are, or they aren’t. It is our human capacity to both empathize and reason that allow the concepts of rights and cruelty to exist. Animal rights activists say that using animals as test subjects in medical experiments is cruel. Well, I’ve seen footage on Animal Planet of a pack of wolves taking down an elk and eating it while it’s still alive. Why does that not fit the definition of cruel? It doesn’t because the wolves are simply doing as they need to: they hunt, kill and feed to provide for themselves, their pack, and their young. We do not pass judgment upon them because they are doing what comes naturally, and they cannot transcend their nature.

One could argue the same for the human species. We, like the wolves, are social animals. Our natural state is living together in communities. On the whole, we appreciate having the community stable and all its members healthy. Medical experimentation is within our abilities, and it is done, generally, for the good of the human community as a whole. Thus said, we are, like the wolves, keeping with our natures. So long as testing is done as humanely as possible, I see no problem with it. You can’t put medical testing in the same league as a person beating a pet or a work animal, or a delinquent tying burning rags to a cat’s tail. Intent and purpose must be factored into the equation.

Organizations like PETA don’t seem to take into account the various factors of human and animal interaction, nor the effects of abolishing such systems of interaction. If we were to universally the eating of meat, or the use of animal products in manufacturing, do they really understand the repercussions? Ranching and animal farming are linchpins in economic frameworks, never mind answering the question of what to do with all the animals currently in existence. You can’t simply free them to do as they will. What of the environmental repercussions? Euthanize them all? Then you’ve taken away their supposed right to life, and that leaves the question of what do with the remains.

While I do believe that animals should have all the humane treatment that can possibly be provided for them in any particular circumstance, I don’t see where putting all animals on even footing with humans is possible, or even wanted. Yes, I love my dog more than most people, but all dogs? No. My own needs, those of my family and friends, and of the human community in general, will take precedence over those of animals in most if not all situations. That’s just natural inclination. I recall hearing that one of the higher ranking members of PETA is diabetic. Considering that insulin was produced in pigs before they developed the technology to synthesize it, I’d say that her continued existence to fight for the rights of animals tends to support my view.

Pets and Heaven

admin — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:25:30 +0000

Do animals go to heaven?

The relationship between humans & their pets.

‘I’m sick and tired of people treating their pets like chldren’, the talk-show host huffed, in response to a caller who spoke of taking their dog with them ‘everywhere they go’; including dinners at friends.

‘Dogs are not children. Leave them at home. The dog wasn’t invited!

Of course, one could equally argue that people oughtn’t to take their children with them to dinner parties unless they too are invited.

The confusion really is more of the nature of the relationship between the pet owner and the pet rather than of proper manners when replying to a social invitation. Of course, it would be discourteous to one’s hosts and any other guests if one arrived with Fido or Pussy unannounced. Nevertheless, it’s not Fido or Pussy’s fault that their keepers have bad manners. And that leads to an important reality about animals that many either forget or simply do not understand: animals are innocent creatures!

It is perhaps ironic that, in a materialistic age, that in most respects does not recognise the metaphysical nature of creation, allows for things like ‘animal rights’ or ‘pet cemeteries’ with an allusion to ‘pet heaven’. It is fairly common to find people who deny the nature and reality of their own souls but who ‘feel’ that their pets will go to ‘heaven’. Indeed, it’s quite possible in the Creator’s scheme of things, that Fido might well be included in the beatititude of joy in heaven whilst his owner is left in the ‘doghouse’.

Soul Creation

‘Anima’ in Latin means ’soul’. All animals are creatures with souls…including humans. This is where the animals ‘rights’ people find their authority toward advocating that all animals be accorded something akin to the United Nations declaration on Human Rights. Bunnies would therefore have a legal right to food, shelter and, one supposes, universal health care run by some union. While the sentiment and passion of most of these advocates can be appreciated in the context against ‘cruelty’ or ‘inhumane’ treatment of animals, they too fail to recognise the distinction between animals and humans who, while both having souls, have differing natures. In the Judaeo-Christian + Hellenistic philosophical understanding of ‘being’, the soul of a cat, while bearing many of the characteristics by degree of the human soul, does not include the most distinguishing characteristics of human beings, namely, the capacity for reason

Pets and Heaven – Part 1

admin — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:01:48 +0000

It doesn’t make sense that Fluffy or Rover would not make it through the Pearly Gates In Christianity it is taught that every creature has a purpose on this earth and they are all god’s creations. It cannot be denied that animals have a spirit, every living thing has a spirit even if it is not as complex as the Human Soul. Why would a god that is supposedly a god of love cast his beautiful creations aside like trash? Jesus said that Heaven is smaller than a Mustard seed yet all of humanity could fit inside. That could only be explained metaphysically, I’m sure there is room for your pet in Heaven.

It is my belief that heaven and hell or whatever afterlife you believe in is only a state of mind which one worksthrough their own issues either punishing themselves orshowering themselves in paradise, why would an ego-less pet have to deal with any of that?

Metaphysical Beliefs » Pets & Animals

Victoria Stilwell or Cesar Millan: Who would you call?

Related Articles

Have Animal Rights gone too far?

Related Articles

Pets and Heaven

Pets and Heaven – Part 1

Related Articles