Metaphorical Shouting as Substitute for Discussion, elsewhere on the

[Ste11aeres]

Here on AC, we have discussions. And we talk about things which are very controversial. And we talk about them with members who have different views. And people of very different viewpoints contribute to the same thread. Once in a while, it can get nasty. But not usually.

I've been spending time elsewhere on the internet, including on Reddit. And it is frustrating. People don't give actual arguments, they don't give true evidence, or premises leading to conclusions. It's neither inductive, deductive, nor abductive. Instead, it's a shouting match. And if you are on the side that the majority doesn't agree with, you will be shouted into oblivion.
(Speaking of reddit, most subreddits there have a system where if your post gets enough downvotes, it automatically disappears. There are other subreddits that don't allow anyone to post in there who has posted a single post to certain other subreddits).
Anyone who reads my posts knows that I am interested in dogs. And I am on the minority side in the internet dog-lover world. I believe that "dominance" and "submission" are legitimate terms in the dog world.
But according to most of the online world, if you use those words, you are branded as the worst type of animal abuse.
And the thing is, people won't actually argue with you. They'll just shout you down. They'll say: "Dominance and submission are...(choose one) outmoded concepts/disproven by science" They'll never produce a single piece of evidence to support this.
They'll talk about how dogs are different than wolves, and then act like that proves that dogs must be treated as our equals (even though scientific research indicates that unquestioning obedience is important to dogs, but not to wolves).
I've collected scientific research that indicates that dogs to operate according to dominance and submission/obedience, and I've not found any actual scientific research that indicates any differently. My experience with dogs tells me this is true. Dogs love to please their owners, and they love to obey.
I don't mind being contradicted, but I wish someone would do so in the spirit of actual discussion, with evidence, and actual arguments (in the philosophical sense). Instead, they just shout me down.

 

[Judge]

Are you in essence, referring to those who espouse the debunking of pack theory?

https://positively.com/dog-training/myths-truths/pack-theory-debunked/

http://www.petful.com/news/cesar-millan-critics/

 

[Ste11aeres]

Are you in essence, referring to those who espouse the debunking of pack theory?

https://positively.com/dog-training/myths-truths/pack-theory-debunked/

http://www.petful.com/news/cesar-millan-critics/

In part, but my post was more about the nature of online discussion, rather than the nature of articles. The first article ended by saying that we should "lead without domination". That's only a difference of language between them and me, since what I refer to as "dominance" is exactly what they mean by "leading." (I usually change my words according to the audience when I realize that semantics could become an issue). The people I'm really complaining about, don't believe even in "leading." So they would actually disagree with that sentence from that article.

 

[ancusmitis]

Well, there's probably a lot of emotion involved. The only dogs I've ever really owned were golden retrievers. But my brother had a mastiff for some time, and when they moved in with us it couldn't have been clearer that this was not the same breed of dog. You really can't treat them the same way.

The mastiff is gone now, but they stayed at our house recently, and just tonight when I was going to walk the dog, I found one of those barbed collars with the poky-things designed go into a dog's neck and cause pain if they pull on the leash. It made me very angry. Sometimes my boy might dawdle a little too long at a stop sign or a mailbox, but he is extremely compliant and as soon as I let him know it's time to start walking again, he comes right along.

I know some breeds have been bred to be more aggressive and dominant, and less sensitive to pain. The golden retriever breed is not one of them. Even a regular old choke-chain is more than is necessary. Poky things are just absurd. A golden retriever just doesn't need to be treated like that, and it makes me upset to think some people may do so.

 

[Judge]

In part, but my post was more about the nature of online discussion, rather than the nature of articles.

With this same group of posters, do you regularly discuss any other highly polarized or controversial issues ?

 

[watersprite]

Quote from David Mech:
Outmoded notion of the alpha wolf
The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book's info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. "Alpha" implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that's all we call them today, the "breeding male," "breeding female," or "male parent," "female parent," or the "adult male" or "adult female." In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the "dominant breeder" can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a "subordinate breeder."

On a lighter note, a video about "rage" mocking Cesar Millan:

 

[Ste11aeres]

Quote from David Mech:
Outmoded notion of the alpha wolf
The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book's info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. "Alpha" implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that's all we call them today, the "breeding male," "breeding female," or "male parent," "female parent," or the "adult male" or "adult female." In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the "dominant breeder" can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a "subordinate breeder."

On a lighter note, a video about "rage" mocking Cesar Millan:

Ok. I think I might be being misunderstood.

I am not advocating bullying a dog.
I am not advocating harshness towards a dog. I am not advocating battles with a dog.
And the described picture of wolf families is exactly the picture that I have of wolf families, one which I have never contradicted. (and the video misportrays Millan).

There is a semantics problem. The people who hate the word "dominance" hate it because they associate it with cruelty, bullying, competition, and beating the other creature into submission through nastiness. But the word has more than one meaning. And it can simply mean "being the person who makes the decisions." And even those who hate that word, even they are the ones who make decisions in regards to their dog. They decide what house they and the dog will live in. They decide whether or not to neuter it. They decide what chew toys to give it, how much time to spend on walks. They prevent it from running into the street in front of cars. They prevent their dog from killing the neighbor's cat. They are dominant in practice, even though they hate the word. It doesn't mean being cruel. It just means making decisions.
And the dominance/obedience relationship doesn't apply very well to wolves. But it does apply to humans and dogs. And not because wolves are that way, but because humans are that way.

 

[Ste11aeres]

With this same group of posters, do you regularly discuss any other highly polarized or controversial issues ?

Finally.
My real point in this thread wasn't supposed to be about dogs-it was supposed to be about the lack of true discussion on the Internet outside of AC.
The dog thing was only one example of how such discussion fails to take place.
But the same thing happens in regards to other topics. In regards to pretty much any topic.
Sometimes people could share knowledge with each other, or could have good discussions with people with whom they disagree. Instead, they pool together with those of similar viewpoints, and if someone with a different viewpoint shows up, they silence that person by nastiness.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Judge, kestrel, ancusmitis, BTW, I realized I've been kind of foul-tempered lately. It's partly the result of my life having been kind of weird lately.
Sorry guys.

 

[Beverly]

I see it too - crowd mentality, safety in numbers seems to work online just as it does anywhere else. One outspoken person states something, a few dozen "sheeple" agree, one lone wolf disagrees. next thing you know, there are a hundred sheeple and that one wolf being flamed by all of them even though it was the wolf wo provided clear, reliable, honest, trustworthy evidence to support disagreeing with the masses.

Sure people COULD have a constructive debate with the wolf and both sides would probably learn something but, the sheeple would rather try to out articulate, out insult and out macho the other sheeple and, aim all of that negativity at the wolf rather than stop following the crowd and actual act like a human being.

As for the dominance thing, any group of two or more animals of the same species who share territory and/or living space will establish a hierarchy among themselves and, that includes humans. Even in your own home, if there is a disagreement over what should be done or who should have something that there is only enough of for one of you, there is one person who makes the final decision. Same with animals except their social structures are a lot more simplistic that ours. Still one eats their fill before the others if there is only one bowl or piece of food available, on pushes close for human affection, if that's what that type of animal desires, before the others and so on. That's dominance and submission at work. it isn't violent or cruel, just natural is all.

 

[Judge]

Finally.
My real point in this thread wasn't supposed to be about dogs-it was supposed to be about the lack of true discussion on the Internet outside of AC.
The dog thing was only one example of how such discussion fails to take place.
But the same thing happens in regards to other topics. In regards to pretty much any topic.
Sometimes people could share knowledge with each other, or could have good discussions with people with whom they disagree. Instead, they pool together with those of similar viewpoints, and if someone with a different viewpoint shows up, they silence that person by nastiness.

Uh huh. The tyranny of an online social clique often defined along ideological lines.

And if you're on the outside, you're always on the outside- no matter what the issue. Yes- I know it well.