| Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is owning a pet the same as slavery and is it wrong or right?; look at Title. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 4 2013, 09:00 PM (2,184 Views) | |
| Huzzahfortimelines | Jul 11 2013, 05:13 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
You've proven my point here. I'm saying that a dog will not know the owners perception of right and wrong with words. The dog understands that if he follows the order of his owner, he will get rewarded. He doesn't do it because it's "the right thing to do". He does it for the reward. Sure, you can eventually stop giving him the treat from time to time, making it a habit, but the dog will always want to be rewarded for a good action. Secondly, I doubt your brother says: "Time out" to the dog, and leaves it at that. He'll either put him outside, limiting the dogs enviroment by cutting off the house, or your brother refuses to react to the dog, which takes away the dog's natural need of companionship for a moment of time. The dog has not developed a moral standpoint, it just knows which type of behavior is benificial to him.
Their limitation of the enviroment prevents them from gaining knowledge of the world, and that affects the amount of preferences it has. If, let's say, dogs had the entire world for themselves, able to evolve how they saw fit, they could gain the same kind of intelligence humans have. However, they can't. Humans already have domination over the food-chain, and that's not going to change unless there is an event that wipes out humans off the planet. Dogs aren't like robots, that develop intelligence extremely quickly. Evolution takes thousands, if not millions of years, and the main reason why evolution exists, is so that a species is able to adapt to his current, troublesome situation. The average pet lives in ignorance, but still, comfortable bliss. What natural advantage would a dog gain from having the same intelligence as humans? And why would evolution allow this, when they live, in comparison to a few thousand years ago, such comfortable lives? |
![]() |
|
| Penguins4Freedom | Jul 11 2013, 05:57 PM Post #12 |
![]()
The Lord of Misrule & The Abbot of Unreason
|
You are correct in saying Size doesnt matter, but Surface Area does. What I was trying to say about Dog brains is that their brains are simply not capable of sophisticated intelligent thought, by any known measurement.
A parrot mimics, it does not understand or wield language like an adult human. And true, babies repeat when they are young but their brain triples in weight and surface area the first three years to the point where they have trillions of synapses and are capable of dazzlingly complex thought. I cannot stress this enough: You cannot teach a dog to speak. You cannot. Unless you hold it's mouth to say 'Sausages'.
Dogs do not have a dictionary. Dogs do not have slang, dialects, homonyms, synonyms. They do not have a word for treat. When a dog barks it is not barking 'Hey look I have found a peice of rabbit in bernaise sauce', it barks 'Food'. And even that isn't true because barking is a symbol and not a word. You could argue that the barking has a range of communication from a yelp of pain to a growl of protection but in all freaking honesty that is not enough. These are primal vocalisations, not something equivelant to a book or a symphony or a child's poem or a neanderthals artwork.
Yes but you use them. You don't know them consciously but you use them all the time in everyday speech. You can communicate with a varied syntax, a vast vocabulary using complex structured sentences to grasp at the meaning behind the words. (although tbh english isnt that great.) Dogs do not, can not, and will not without a magical evolutionary leap by some genie in a lamp.
You can't just define words as you see fit. You may believe that intelligence is following simple commands like sit, but it is not. We are not talking about mere sentience: the ability to react to ones surroundings, we're talking about complex reasoning and deductive skills. Because a bird can click a button and get a treat from it, doesn't mean you can talk to it. Just because a pig can solve simple mazes, does not mean it knows what amicable, familial, erotical love is. The level of intelligence we are talking about is streets ahead of whatever a dog can think, no matter how hard it furrows it's cute fuzzy brow.
You are underestimating the vast chasm of experience needed for proper communication. The whole idea of the collective unconscious is something that would take too much time to explain, but suffice to say, that the brain is like a window. Through this window we interpret the various stimuli we recieve (sound, sight, smell) and it helps us percieve the world around us. It is a frame of reference through which we understand and know the world. A humans window can vary from person to person but it still has an underlying humanity to it. A dog's window would be something completely alien, otherworldly and incomprehensible. We may share the base needs of food and shelter but we do not share the same point of reference and it limits how much we can relate to it. A dog would not be able to learn what a government is, because the entire concept is utterly alien to it. You could spend decades trying to teach it even the simplest facts about human existence and even it may not be able to grasp anything at all whatsoever. And you again compare a dogs brain to that of a baby, which is just patently false. A baby's brain and a dog's brain are not interchangeable, they are not the same, do not compare them. If you want to swap brains and find out, be my guest Frankenstien.
It is not the same as cloning. This is not a technical problem that can be overcome, but is an essential fact that can only be changed by the slow march of evolution if anything at all. You can clone Dolly but you cannot play Chess with it.
Again, you cannot just change the definition of words to suit your purposes. Language is not communication but a incredibly complex form of it. If you include any form of communication from one being to another, bacteria and fungi and plants and the ladbug also have languages.
My point was that you confuse empathetic beings like dogs, which like you said have been trained for generations to react to human emotions, than more intelligent beings. You confuse a dog reacting to your mood as a sign of intelligence when it really isn't. Ask a pig farmer.
I'm sorry but cat's going purr does not constitute a language. What I mean by little meaning and subtlety, does not mean that a dog can bark in 8 different ways. Nor does teaching your cat to when it is hungry to do a little dance. Vocalisations and learned actions like sitting and barking on command are reactions to base needs and animal desires. Their thought is simply not sophisticated enough to hold a proper language with rules and systems.
"A different way" is not culture. Abandoning the runts of the pack does not exemplify a culture not a use of morality. I could argue about the nature of morality itself and wether it comes from our baser natures, is something incoded into society for our benefit, or is some sort of objective truth but that wouldnt change the fact that 1. You cannot define terms how you want to define them. and 2. That you can give animals human motives. You cannot say that the abandoned the wolf out of morality or by their culture, because you are imagining the animals to be humans, something you have been doing through out this argument. I am not an expert on sociology or on linguistics or on neuroscience or anything of the sort. So more often than not my assertions here will probably be false in many varied and different ways. So feel free to contradict my obvious lies and half truths. But I am certain of this: Dogs will never be able to talk to humans without a fundamental change in the way they are, and by that time they may no longer be dogs. |
![]() |
|
| Torabisu | Jul 18 2013, 06:10 AM Post #13 |
|
"You are correct in saying Size do not matter, but surface area does. What I was trying to say about Dog brains is that their brains are simply not capable of sophisticated intelligent thought, by any known measurement." - Penguins4Freedom What I"m saying is that we could teach them over generations and they will evolve just as we have breaded and trained the ideal dogs that we have today. Do you think the first human had a language to express there thought? I doubt that because I think over time humans gotten better and better as they came up with systems and other ideals of which they have pass down to there kin. "A parrot mimics, it does not understand or wield language like an adult human. And true, babies repeat when they are young but their brain triples in weight and surface area the first three years to the point where they have trillions of synapses and are capable of dazzlingly complex thought. I cannot stress this enough: You cannot teach a dog to speak. You cannot. Unless you hold it's mouth to say 'Sausages'." - Penguins4Freedom What I"m saying is that we could teach them over generations and they will evolve just as we have breaded and trained the ideal dogs that we have today. Do you think the first human had a language to express there thought? I doubt that because I think over time humans gotten better and better as they came up with systems and other ideals of which they have pass down to there kin. "Dogs do not have a dictionary. Dogs do not have slang, dialects, homonyms, synonyms. They do not have a word for treat. When a dog barks it is not barking 'Hey look I have found a peice of rabbit in bernaise sauce', it barks 'Food'. And even that isn't true because barking is a symbol and not a word. You could argue that the barking has a range of communication from a yelp of pain to a growl of protection but~ in all freaking honesty ~that is not enough. These are primal vocalisations, not something equivelant to a book or a symphony or a child's poem or a neanderthals artwork." - Pengions4Freedom "Symbol: noun 1. Something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign. 2. A letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au. 3. (Especially in semiotics) A word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that which is symbolized: usually conceived as deriving its meaning chiefly from the structure in which it appears, and generally distinguished from a sign. verb 4. To use symbols; symbolize." - Dictionary.com I think from this definition we both can see that an symbol is what a word is and that an bark could be an symbol for food because we both know that in Japan they do not say food to describe the definition of food but a different word in there language. Also I'm not debating that its as complex as a poem or dictionary but that its is there and that it may become more or less complex as the creature evolves. "Yes but you use them. You don't know them consciously but you use them all the time in everyday speech. You can communicate with a varied syntax, a vast vocabulary using complex structured sentences to grasp at the meaning behind the words. (although tbh english isnt that great.) Dogs do not, can not, and will not without a magical evolutionary leap by some genie in a lamp." - Penguin4Freedom Like I said I'm not debating that its as complex as a poem or dictionary but that its is there and that it may become more or less complex as the creature evolves. Also yes I think that a macguffin could happen. English I do not think that its bad or anything just that it has its advantages and weaknesses just like every other language. "You can't just define words as you see fit. You may believe that intelligence is following simple commands like sit, but it is not. We are not talking about mere sentience: the ability to react to ones surroundings, we're talking about complex reasoning and deductive skills. Because a bird can click a button and get a treat from it, doesn't mean you can talk to it. Just because a pig can solve simple mazes, does not mean it knows what amicable, familial, erotical love is. The level of intelligence we are talking about is streets ahead of whatever a dog can think, no matter how hard it furrows it's cute fuzzy brow." Penguin4Freedom "Intelligence: noun 1. Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 2. Manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit. 3. The faculty of understanding. 4. Knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information. 5. The gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information." - Dictionary.com What I take is that your saying that humans and animals are on two different levels. I agree if thats what your saying, What I'm saying is that they could learn if we researched and tried. "Love: noun 1. A profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. A feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend. 3. Sexual passion or desire. 4. A person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart. 5. (Used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?" - Dictionary.com I say that at least a dog knows how to love, maybe not the concept of it but they can from my personal experience. If you chose to believe that they can feel love is your choses, I shall not go into more detail on that. "You are underestimating the vast chasm of experience needed for proper communication. The whole idea of the collective unconscious is something that would take too much time to explain, but suffice to say, that the brain is like a window. Through this window we interpret the various stimuli we recieve (sound, sight, smell) and it helps us percieve the world around us. It is a frame of reference through which we understand and know the world. A humans window can vary from person to person but it still has an underlying humanity to it. A dog's window would be something completely alien, otherworldly and incomprehensible. We may share the base needs of food and shelter but we do not share the same point of reference and it limits how much we can relate to it. A dog would not be able to learn what a government is, because the entire concept is utterly alien to it. You could spend decades trying to teach it even the simplest facts about human existence and even it may not be able to grasp anything at all whatsoever. And you again compare a dogs brain to that of a baby, which is just patently false. A baby's brain and a dog's brain are not interchangeable, they are not the same, do not compare them. If you want to swap brains and find out, be my guest Frankenstien." - Penguin4Freedom But theres an small part of the human window that have a small amount experience thats similar to that of an animal and by this is were we could begin to explain things thats the closes to not being alien to them and building up from that intern overtime the two windows will grow wider and understand more, sure it may take a long time unless an mcguffin happens but "Every journey is a series of choices. The first is to begin the journey." - AnitChamber. The comparison with the dog's and baby's brain is not that they are similar but that over time humans evolved to take in information because of natural selection and by this I'm saying that we could "train" dogs to do the same (I'm not saying kill every dog that does not speak!) by breading certain breads and research on how to increase the animal's brain weight. *Grabs a butcher knife and slowly walks towards Penguin* Maybe I'll start with you!!! Mahaha!!! *He says as he swings the knife* "it is not the same as cloning. This is not a technical problem that can be overcome, but is an essential fact that can only be changed by the slow march of evolution if anything at all. You can clone Dolly but you cannot play Chess with it." - Penguin4Freedom What I was referring to was that as time pass the world changes and cloning was an example of it for me I recently learned that it was possible, before I thought it was something of which I would never see unless I lived a few thousand years old but the truth is that we have that technology in modern times. I'm not saying that cloning is the answer but was using it as an example that the technology could come sooner than expected. Also it could be evolutionary like you say after some time has pass but what I'm referring to is a what if scenario lets say an "billion-near" decides that he wants a talking animal with an intelligence for it self so he looks into it and finds a way to mess with the genes of an animal increasing the animals wight and surface area. My point is that theres always a possibility for anything and that what we may find impossible today may become a reality tomorrow.(there was a time were people thought the earth was flat.) "Again, you cannot just change the definition of words to suit your purposes. Language is not communication but a incredibly complex form of it. If you include any form of communication from one being to another, bacteria and fungi and plants and the ladbug also have languages." - Penguin4Freedom "Language noun 1. A body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition: the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language. 2. Communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech. 3. The system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech ). 4. Any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another. 5. Any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.: the language of mathematics; sign language." - Dictionary.com From this how I interpret it its a system thats allows one to communicate to another and it may not be as complex as English but nether the less animals, plants, fungi and etc due have there own language it is just not the same as humans for instance because sense an person from Yemen does not speak English does not mean that they do not have an language. "My point was that you confuse empathetic beings like dogs, which like you said have been trained for generations to react to human emotions, than more intelligent beings. You confuse a dog reacting to your mood as a sign of intelligence when it really isn't. Ask a pig farmer." - Penguin4Freedom "Intelligence: noun 1. Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 2. Manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit. 3. The faculty of understanding. 4. Knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information. 5. The gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information." - Dictionary.com How I'm interpreting it as to understand one's surroundings. Because a dog does not know that theres a war going on does not say that they do not understands one's environment, because a dog knows that if she does a trick at the right time and place than she shall be rewarded. They may not have the same amount of intelligence as you an I but they do have a small amount of understanding. Also on a side note saying " You confuse" is a bit of insulting word. It does not bather me at all sense I'm having a blast and i consider that you might be tired or something but know that others will take it to heart. Try using other words like "I disagree because" or "I differ because". Just thought I be that friend that points out the snot hanging out instead of the one who lies and have get embarrass later on. = D "I'm sorry but cat's going purr does not constitute a language. What I mean by little meaning and subtlety, does not mean that a dog can bark in 8 different ways. Nor does teaching your cat to when it is hungry to do a little dance. Vocalizations and learned actions like sitting and barking on command are reactions to base needs and animal desires. Their thought is simply not sophisticated enough to hold a proper language with rules and systems." - Penguin4Freedom "Language noun 1. A body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition: the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language. 2. Communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech. 3. The system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech ). 4. Any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another. 5. Any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.: the language of mathematics; sign language." - Dictionary.com Do not feel sorry have fun. They may not be as complex as a human but nether the less the brain is the firing of all sorts of chemicals and all the brain is a list of rules of what to do when something happens for example when an human heres the word "Help!" they act in response to it base off the "list of rules" the brain holds, yes its complex but if we did not have this list of rules (brain) than well be a pile of flesh. A animal "set of rules"/Brain is not as complex that of a human but they do have one. ""A different way" is not culture. Abandoning the runts of the pack does not exemplify a culture not a use of morality. I could argue about the nature of morality itself and weather it comes from our baser natures, is something encoded into society for our benefit, or is some sort of objective truth but that wouldn't change the fact that 1. You cannot define terms how you want to define them. and 2. That you can give animals human motives. You cannot say that the abandoned the wolf out of morality or by their culture, because you are imagining the animals to be humans, something you have been doing through out this argument. I am not an expert on sociology or on linguistics or on neuroscience or anything of the sort. So more often than not my assertions here will probably be false in many varied and different ways. So feel free to contradict my obvious lies and half truths. But I am certain of this: Dogs will never be able to talk to humans without a fundamental change in the way they are, and by that time they may no longer be dogs." - Penguin4Freedom "Culture: 1. The quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc. 2. That which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc. 3. A particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture. 4. Development or improvement of the mind by education or training. 5. The behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture." - Dictionary.com Better than killing the runt and maybe the runt can join a lesser group and over time become strong instead of being eaten on the spot. Also what I meant to say was that those within the pack which one another back and help each ether get food together to survive. Here an motive that animals and humans share survive. "You've proven my point here. I'm saying that a dog will not know the owners perception of right and wrong with words. The dog understands that if he follows the order of his owner, he will get rewarded. He doesn't do it because it's "the right thing to do". He does it for the reward. Sure, you can eventually stop giving him the treat from time to time, making it a habit, but the dog will always want to be rewarded for a good action. Secondly, I doubt your brother says: "Time out" to the dog, and leaves it at that. He'll either put him outside, limiting the dogs enviroment by cutting off the house, or your brother refuses to react to the dog, which takes away the dog's natural need of companionship for a moment of time. The dog has not developed a moral standpoint, it just knows which type of behavior is benificial to him." - Huzzahfortimelines Humans are the same as what I've seen. um... maybe I was not clear but what I meant is that he tells the dog "time Out!!!" and if the dog does not behave than shes put in her pin for 5- 15 minuets and also are not humans the same as they know what will be the most beneficial for them because thats what it seems to me. "Their limitation of the enviroment prevents them from gaining knowledge of the world, and that affects the amount of preferences it has. If, let's say, dogs had the entire world for themselves, able to evolve how they saw fit, they could gain the same kind of intelligence humans have. However, they can't. Humans already have domination over the food-chain, and that's not going to change unless there is an event that wipes out humans off the planet. Dogs aren't like robots, that develop intelligence extremely quickly. Evolution takes thousands, if not millions of years, and the main reason why evolution exists, is so that a species is able to adapt to his current, troublesome situation. The average pet lives in ignorance, but still, comfortable bliss. What natural advantage would a dog gain from having the same intelligence as humans? And why would evolution allow this, when they live, in comparison to a few thousand years ago, such comfortable lives?" - Huzzahfortimelines What I'm saying is that an macguffin happens and allows animals to communicate with humans and it may not be evolution. It could be a humans sciences experiment, mutation with the dog threw radiation, aliens come with advance technology, what it is not my point. My point is that its possible. Do I think that owning a pet is slavery? My answer is yes because unless you treat your pet like you would yourself than your exploiting them for some sort of cause. Is it right or wrong? I honestly think neither because I'm a person who believes that nothing is "right" or "evil". I do think what will be the most beneficial to one's self and call that good but not that its the "right" thing to do. Also one's perspective may very depending on the scenario for instance if an owner beaten his pet than probity you would be against owning a pet and say that its slavery mean wile on the other side of the coin theres an owner who treats there pet better than themselves and with out the owner than the animal will suffer without the owner. Theres always perks and setbacks to every choice we make but what benefits one self vary by perspective. Edited by Torabisu, Jul 18 2013, 06:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Huzzahfortimelines | Jul 18 2013, 11:47 AM Post #14 |
![]()
|
Slave 1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. 2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon). 3. One who works extremely hard. A dog is rarely taken as a free worker, and if he was, he is not bound by the servitude of it's master. It is in ownership of a person, but it is not a slave, following the 3 defintions above.
So the dog does receive some sort of punishment. It's pretty clear that humans have a higher moral sense than an animal. Sure, a dog can have a bond with a human, but this is rooted in by their instincts to have a pack. Humans have the ability to help out complete strangers, without any personal gain, and it happens very often. Rarely is this seen by animals. Edited by Huzzahfortimelines, Jul 18 2013, 11:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Vosoros | Jul 20 2013, 02:09 AM Post #15 |
|
Comminication is completely possibly with a dog. Just because they don't comminicate in the manner that humans do is irrelevant to the prospect of intelligence, compassion, individuality...and the "right" to freedom! But I never been able to convince others of my thoughts on such matter, no matter how eloquent my tounge or logically compelling my argument. Ah well...
|
![]() |
|
| Torabisu | Jul 20 2013, 02:25 AM Post #16 |
|
"Communication is completely possibly with a dog. Just because they don't communicate in the manner that humans do is irrelevant to the prospect of intelligence, compassion, individuality...and the "right" to freedom! But I never been able to convince others of my thoughts on such matter, no matter how eloquent my tongue or logically compelling my argument. Ah well..." - Vosoros I completely agree with you and also a side note for everyone my aim is to persuade the third party audience, not those who I debate for they are great to have to debate with and without them than wears the fun of a debate. |
![]() |
|
| Warden of Wisdom | Jul 20 2013, 04:50 AM Post #17 |
![]()
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
|
I think the two are just so absurdly far apart and it's extremely unfair to slaves to say they're the same. Even work animals aren't slaves, and I think it's hyperbolic beyond reason to say they are. At worst, one can abuse an animal, which is terrible. But enslave? No, I think it's absolutely worlds away from slavery. |
![]() |
|
| bluwolfie | Aug 9 2013, 10:25 PM Post #18 |
|
I've pretty much always thought this. Empathy is a means of communication. Granted, it may not be defined as "language" but it is a form of speech all it's own. Often a dog will know what it's owner needs, all on instinct. Who cares where it comes from, it doesn't change the fact that dogs are able to sense such things. Sure, maybe they can't vocalize extremely complex concepts or fully understand what it is they are feeling, but they often know exactly how to react to it. Though, I don't think it's slavery.. And I don't really understand your argument for them to be "Free" if you mean to not be owned, I don't think dogs would care either way because they are pack animals. The pack is life, Alphas are sought out by their very nature. Can't get more true to dog nature than that. |
![]() |
|
| Vosoros | Aug 10 2013, 04:24 AM Post #19 |
|
The state of one's prefered exsistence is not in question...but the freedom to choose IS. If a dog see's a better owner (or alpha might be a better term), shouldn't the individual dog (if not a slave), have the choice to leave its current pack for a better one? Also, when a human works, they have the choice to opt out or change their vocation. The nature of freedom and free will is such, it's absence being slavery...or at least akin to slavery. Soooo, should a dog (as an intelligent and feeling sentient being) not have the same choice? Should the same definations not apply as to the nature of freedom and slavery by extension? I fear thousands of years of social and religious conditioning (which many vheomently argue, isn't), blinds us based on species... But there we go anyhow. A few more cents worth you may care to contemplate.
|
![]() |
|
| ClassicGamer102 | Aug 10 2013, 11:45 AM Post #20 |
|
No, dogs shouldn't have vacation time because if your dog is a pet then it doesn't really do anything. I have a dog and all he does is sleep, eat,vacate his bowls/colon, and bark. What would his vacation be? Doing all of this but not getting in trouble when he pisses and shits somewhere he shouldn't? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic » |







1:50 PM Jul 11