Search Box

Monday, February 3, 2014

If liberals controlled the dialogue on dogs

The recent post about white women and their dogs got me to thinking, if liberals moderated the discussion about dogs, what sorts of conclusions would we be allowed to draw?

The fact that border collies are smarter than beagles would be purely a function of the more intellectually stimulating environments they grew up in. ("Border collie privilege.")

If a newborn bull mastiff puppy was raised by a family of poodles, it would grow up to be a poodle.

The fact that Labrador Retrievers make better guide dogs than Chihuahuas would be attributable only to their superior prenatal nutrition.

That greyhounds are faster than other dogs is mostly a function of the fact that they're not allowed to succeed in other areas of doggy endeavor. (Though suggesting that there may be a genetic link here is not quite as heinous a crime as suggesting there might be such a link in other areas.)

That pit bulls are more likely to be violent than Golden Retrievers is purely a function of their deprived environments and the "despair" they feel.

If a dog were not heterosexually inclined, and you saw this as anything but a genetically/hormonally dictated precondition, you would be considered a horrible person. But if you looked at any of the other differences between dogs as a genetically/hormonally dictated precondition, you would be considered a horrible person.

The variation within a dog breed would constantly be said to be greater than the average difference between breeds.

Every doggy park would have to maintain proportional representation of all major dog breeds.

Any uncastrated male dog which tried to mount more than one female dog would be labeled a "chauvinist" and a "pervert" and a "harasser" and would become an immediate candidate for castration.

An attempt would be made to convert all dogs to vegetarianism.

The fact that dogs are more loyal than cats is purely a function of upbringing and not instinct.

If we let dogs roam free, they would immediately revert to being wolves.

The fact that wolves are smarter than dogs (all of which descended from wolves) has nothing to do with the artificial environments and lack of natural selection that dogs were bred in.

You might therefore say that human society had a dysgenic effect on dogs.

Or rather, you might not, since liberals would control the way we speak about them.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I actually do know a liberal who has tried to convert her cat to vegetarianism. Attempting to convert a dog is bad enough, but a cat?! I wouldn't be surprised if the poor carnivore spends its life hunting mice.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
That poor cat. The really funny thing is, liberals constantly deride conservatives for being anti-science while they constantly trying to deny the natural order of things.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. I think both conservatives and liberals are guilty of being anti-science, but liberals are worse for it. Only a fraction of conservatives believe in young earth creationism and think homosexuality unnatural (at least in Europe). Almost all liberals worldwide deny that IQ is due to nature, and think that gender is a social construct (as if the David Reimer tragedy meant nothing). They seem to think that upbringing is everything, and don't want to listen to psychologists who can prove that the human mind is not so malleable after all.

You're right in saying that humans have had a dysgenic effect on dogs. I used to have a Labrador and he was pathetic: he would whine and howl whenever we left him alone for too long. There's no way he could have survived if we'd abandoned him as the only way to get food he knew of was begging. Cats are introverted and independent enough to have avoided this; they still know how to hunt.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
That's a great summation of the ways in which both liberals and conservatives are anti-science. The difference is that there are no political issues or policies which revolve around how life on earth started, and there are lots of current issues which revolve around the question of IQ and gender differences.

I could see a pack of German Shepherds or Huskies or border collies or Kangals and a few other breeds possibly surviving in the wild. But most breeds would almost immediately perish. (Not that I should talk; put me in the woods to survive Tarzan-style and I'd be close to the bottom of the food chain.)

Pavonine99 said...

It's true that most dogs would not survive in the wild-but those are the dogs that have been bred for/adapted best to human society. You wouldn't want a wild dog in your home. My uncle once had a dog that was half or three-quaters wolf-I forget which-and life with her was interestng, to say the least. A liberal of the type we're discussing would probably describe her as "antisocial".

John Craig said...

Pavonine --
Yes, I've heard that half-wolves are extremely dangerous; in fact, it's illegal to own one here. You never know whether they're going to react to situations as wolves or dogs, and their predatory instincts kick in at the most inopportune times.

Baloo said...

Good stuff, but reality is catching up with parody. I've reprinted this with other stuff, a quibcag, and commentary here:
Les Races de Chiens