/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16195460]

Was he right? Is loving a dog truly pointless? I don't want to believe it

[Anonymous No.16195478]

>>16195460
Either you love someone/something or you don't you can't attach a value to it like volume or mass. Additionally love is not a limited resource, man is able to love as much or as little as he desires.
Btw I only read the headline. I value my time because my time is not limitless.
Have a nice sunday anon.

[Anonymous No.16195479]

>>16195460
why does a r*dditors opinion hold any weight to you?

[Anonymous No.16195490]

>>16195460
>reddit posts as a basis for making threads
just as bad as twitter screen caps
that said i'd save a dog before i help avoid million of migrants starving to death or something lol

[Anonymous No.16195495]

>>16195460

[Anonymous No.16195496]

>>16195460
Tell me about the rabbits George.

[Anonymous No.16195498]

>>16195460

go back to re.ddit faggot

[Anonymous No.16195504]

Love is something you do, not a relationship between equals. You can love a stone as much as a man, and maybe get just as much in return.

[Anonymous No.16195505]

>>16195460
please leave, reddit poster

[Anonymous No.16195531]

This person's failure is not undervaluing a dog's mind. It's overvaluing a human's mind.

I mean this in the most sincere, non-edgy way: most people operate on very primitive impulses, couched in a thin veneer of civility and sociability.

We connect with dogs because theiy have been purposefully bred to be our friends. Yes, friends. You can be as reductive as you want with regards to social connections, but at the end of the day something that's loyal to you and gives you comfort is better than 95% of people you'll meet.

Compared to humans, dogs have lower self-awareness and more connection to their base nature (which, again, has been designed to help humans). This guy is just too pretentious to realize that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.16195542]

>>16195531
yeah, and then he puts stuff like consciousness or feelings like if they should have any bearing whatsoever on what you love or do not
I'm not being sarcastic, I really fail to see the connection here. Reminds of the little prince desu, there's more to love then whatever "I LOVE SCIENCE + PSYCHOLOGY" shit he's trying to use to justify himself

[Anonymous No.16195558]

>>16195460
That person clearly does not understand love. He should read more poesy, or kill himself since he wont be able to appreciate it anyway.

[Anonymous No.16195563]

>>16195542
I think, and this is pure conjecture, that he's in the early stages of grappling with some cogsci concepts, and he hasn't even begun to flesh out their implications.

If you continually reduce complex and powerful feelings to basedjack scientism, the worldview you eventually stumble upon is very cold indeed.

[Anonymous No.16195569]

>>16195563
Oh, there's a filter for s o y now.

[Anonymous No.16195583]

>>16195460
>"the cold hard facts"
What cold hard facts? Is he a mind reader? He can tell what dogs are thinking? How can he instantly disregard new research into the neurology of dogs? Dog moms and dogs-are-so-good-we-don't-deserve-them types are embarrassing, but that doesn't diminish the fact that this guy is selling dogs extremely short. And he's weirdly proud of it.

And then the faggot goes on and brags about how much he cared for his (300 lb. ugly) girlfriend's mom. What kind of freak brags about their mourning?

[Anonymous No.16195592]

>>16195531
He does undervalue the dog's mind though. Dogs do genuinely build up a bond with their owners. They do genuinely have feelings approximating love and happiness. And they're not "barely sentient", they're actually quite intelligent compared to other animals. I think this guy read up on some philosophy of mind/cognitive science stuff, or heard his favourite youtuber talk about it (more likely), and then simply formed these conclusions thinking that he's smart and edgy and above everyone else. It's a very teenage-level mindset.

That's not his greatest sin in this post though. His greatest sin is completely misunderstanding what love and bonding is. He seems like a broken person.

[Anonymous No.16195599]

>>16195563
I mean even if he did, I could figure out where he's coming out from. Basically consciousness has become the basis for loving a thing, and if he loves thing based on how conscious it can be, then I figure he realizes that more consciousness = more deserving of love, which is what I find to be a serious none-sequitor.
That said, he's not the first one to say (indirectly) that animals do not suffer just as much as a human being for being less conscious (the first one I can remember that mentions this was Schopenhauer).
Still, regardless, I don't think one's capacity for experiencing suffering should become the basis of justifiying someone's loves towards him. I just don't see how this should serve as any reason for loving someone or not.

[Anonymous No.16195618]

>>16195479
Why would yours?

[Anonymous No.16195629]

>>16195460
yes I want to agree, recently my two good friends lost their pets
actually one will lose it this Monday when they will put her german shepherd guard dog "to sleep"
he has been ill for the past 1 year, and the other friend lost her whippet, due to some complications in his legs just 2 weeks ago, after spending 1,300 euro on his operation that failed.

I felt kind of sad, but mostly for my friends since they were responsible for animals, and lost a lot of money, time, and even argued whit their family over what is the right thing to do, aka. conflicting of morals, ower trying to put it out of its misery early or try to save it (maybe it would work out, but it didn't at the end).

all of that trouble for what, those animals were nothin but a guard dog that was hard to approach due to him being unfriendly as he should be, and the whippet that was winning pain in the ass that just cried, and was expensive to feed.

>weist of time and money

[Anonymous No.16195632]

>>16195460
chink hands wrote this post

[Anonymous No.16195665]

>>16195460
He isnt wrong, however all of it applies to normalfags as well

[Anonymous No.16195674]

>>16195460
Nah, I can't even be bothered to take it down. You can ask the obvious gay-ass question of "what is love?" He doesn't have a good answer because noone does.

[Anonymous No.16195681]

I love my dog, but I wouldn't go into a burning building to save my dog, and I certainly wouldn't spend any money on surgery for my dog. It's just an animal

[Anonymous No.16195776]

its funny, i posses a remarkable ability, i can detect the ethnicity of the poster based upon his answer in this thread

[Anonymous No.16195783]

>>16195460
He's wrong and delusional

[Anonymous No.16195894]

>>16195460
We're sad when our tea cup breaks. It isn't that difficult to extend empathy to a dog, or any other pet for that matter.

[Anonymous No.16195905]

>>16195681
>It's just an animal
so is your mother

[Anonymous No.16195908]

>>16195460
There's such a thing as misplaced love. When you don't view created things as they are but how they are in your imagination, you believe false things. And moreover, it can extend into having love for creation that is meant for God. Just look at the ancient Egyptians.

[Anonymous No.16195963]

>>16195460
I’m not going to read that because it’s not literature related but I can tell you that his title line is correct. People who hold animals on the same level as humans are extremely cringe, that is not to say that dogs cannot love their masters, but if you think that the love of a pet is as beautiful and complex as the love between humans then you’re a retard. I’m sure the Redditor in your image (incidentally you should go back and join him, faggot) goes way too far and claims that dogs cannot love, they can and you can love them, but it’s not the same as between humans, it never can be. While his post is probably too harsh, it’s what other Redditors (and people here who totally aren’t newfags) might need to hear so they don’t treat their dogs as if they were their children

[Anonymous No.16196268]

>>16195592
Dogs are as intelligent as a two year old human, so if you can't love dogs you can't love toddlers or babbies.

Yet we euthanize dogs and scream about aborting fetuses.

The most important takeaway is that you don't have to justify anything you do to anyone. If this redditposting faggot comes at you, just fucking murder him. All the world is yours to rape.

[Anonymous No.16196301]

>>16196268
> Dogs are as intelligent as a two year old human
Are you insane? Two year olds can speak, operate complex machinery and engage in multilayered social manipulation and scheming.

Have you actually ever seen a human child?

They're not dumber than adults, just less experienced and more autistic.

[Anonymous No.16196316]

>>16196301
>Two year olds can speak
So can dogs, retardo. They just speak a different language.

This remark exemplifies the "hurr durr humans are special" arrogance that people have. If you can't understand it, it doesn't exist. If you don't recognise it, it isn't real. The only things that "count" are things that fit within your value structure. It's dumb and you're dumb.

And children are absolutely dumber than adults in a very real sense.

[Anonymous No.16196352]

>>16195460
should we not love young children or disabled people just because they are unable to relate to us on the same level? nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16196363]

>>16196316
> They just speak a different language.

[Anonymous No.16196366]

>>16195460

People love to claim that humans are the only cognizant species literally just to feel better about slaughtering and eating other animals. There is no evidence to support that notion.

[Anonymous No.16196370]

>>16196301

A two-year-old can operate "complex machinery"? Do you mean "press a button or lever"? Because animals can do that too

[Anonymous No.16196372]

>>16196363
>dogs have no language
WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF

[Anonymous No.16196374]

Reminder pet owning is inherently fascist

[Anonymous No.16196393]

>>16196316
>Equating animal language with human language
Imagine being such a brainlet that CHOMSKY btfos you

[Anonymous No.16196398]

>>16196370
Have unprotected sex
It will be an enlightening experience

[Anonymous No.16196406]

>>16196393
>equating human sense of smell with dog sense of smell
Oh but wait let me guess, one is "smart" and the other requires no intelligence whatsoever.

Besides, it's a dumb tangent. Dogs are capable of understanding up to 250 words and gestures and perform simple maths, which is about what two year old children can do. Hence why we say dogs are as smart as two year olds.

You're not special. If you can't love dogs then you can't love children. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.16196415]

>>16196406
>He talks about language with such arrogance with 0 understanding of basic linguistic concepts
Yeah, no
Bye

[Anonymous No.16196435]

>>16196415
>he talks about dog intelligence with zero understanding of animal psychology
Don't try and fucking highroad me you arrogant cunt.

[Anonymous No.16196437]

>>16195460
I have always felt uncomfortable with what I call animal sentimentalism. The way most men and women talk to dogs with baby voices. The overt care and concern for animal lives. The agony over roadkill. Other such behaviors. There is something disgusting about this kind of empathy for animals. Dogs and cats are dirty creatures that carry other dirty creatures and many people let them sleep indoors or even in their beds. I don't have an issue with a pet if they serve a purpose. But many people only have pets for some kind of emotional connection because they are lonely or damaged and this warps the proper relation between man and animal.

[Anonymous No.16196442]

>>16196437
>because they are lonely or damaged
Functional humans are inherently lonely because we're social creatures.

If you're alone and not lonely you are the one who is damaged.

Your "superiority" is just a constructed cope to preserve your ego in the face of a society of happy people living superior lives that gets along just fine without you.

Such is the way of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.16196455]

>>16196398

Cool non-argument bro

[Anonymous No.16196470]

>>16196442
lmao looks like I hit a nerve, animalfag.

[Anonymous No.16196471]

>>16196470
Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.16196505]

>>16196470
you will have a bad death

[Anonymous No.16196579]

SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP

[Anonymous No.16196596]

>>16196437
People who talk with baby voice and refer to themselves as the parents of their pets should die. But you should also die, you're overreacting.

>>16196442
>Functional humans are inherently lonely because we're social creatures.
Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.16196610]

>>16195460
More than half of this is creating a straw man out of reducing all dog loving people to reddit faggot OOOOOHH HECKIN CUTE DOGGO DOGGO. But literally everything here is just more reason to like dogs, except explained in reductionist smart ass populist science talk. Self absorbed little animals that are full of only love and need caring for, how can I not love something like that back.

[Anonymous No.16196641]

lol, how much cognitive dissonance you need to say "feelings for dogs are fake" but for humans are "the real deal"

[Anonymous No.16196697]

>>16196596
>Can you elaborate?
Grug weak. But many grug strong. Grug find other grug be strong together.

[Anonymous No.16196712]

>"man's best friend" is a castrated and genetically manipulated drooling slave
HMM

[Anonymous No.16196742]

>>16195460
He's edgy but he isn't wrong. It's why the consumption of meat is morally acceptable, we accept that on an aggregate animals tend to be worth less then humans and our pleasure.

[Anonymous No.16196816]

>>16195504
I'm sure you can try to make love to a stone, anon. That's not the kind of loving we're talking about here.

[Anonymous No.16197350]

>>16195460
The Redditors thesis is absolutely true. Animals don't really have any rights; any mercy we show them is entirely our benevolence and good-will. For every cute seal and dog video, there are many more animals mindlessly ripping each other apart. Crocs ripping a pregnant deer apart and feeding on the unborn fetus and so on. Yes, humans have commited atrocities as well but proponents of animals would put forward the argument that the animals are innocent in their inability to conceive of good and evil, cruelty and mercy and so on. I agree, and this very absence of a soul and self makes them far below us. Yes many are beautiful but one should be wary of even fathoming the possibility of loving an animal if one respects his/herself.

[Anonymous No.16197791]

>>16196301
Lol cope. I used to babysit a border collie which is the most intelligent breed in existence and he was definitely smarter than any 2 year old, maybe even a 3 year old. Kids are fucking retarded until they are 9-10 years old, being able to speak and know the meaning of more words means shit.

[Anonymous No.16197801]

>>16195460
Not /lit/ related. Kill yourself immediately in shame.

[Anonymous No.16197833]

>>16195460
>actually subscribes to a view that goes "theory of mind -> projection on external entities"
Enjoy your insuperable philosophical difficulties, you unthinking plebbit fuck.