@BuggleBear: As a child who was literally tortured because of the beliefs that give my parents comfort... yeah, I don't think "it gives people comfort" is a good reason to say "reality must be ignored here."
Obviously anyone who wants to believe anything, can. And if they do it without harm, that's awesome. But equally obviously, I don't have to pretend I think a silly idea isn't silly, even if it's harmless.
Which is what this thread is about, yeah? Our opinions on this idea?
@BuggleBear
I...didn't say that? I'm saying that misguided beliefs are misguided beliefs, and that they can (and do) result in bad things.
Do all people who believe in reciprocal love between them and their pets do awful things? No.
But that idea, that firmly-held belief based on scanty evidence, can be hurtful to a creature that doesn't have the capacity to think "Oh man this sucks, I better scram before this human who says they love me makes me get diabetes."
All I've been advocating for here is a bit of realism when it comes to pets. I'm not saying one's relationship with a lesser animal can't be awesome, or full of love on the human's part. But when the human assumes something, mainly because it feels nice for them, it can cause problems for the pet. This isn't always the case, of course—I really shouldn't have to clarify here—but that it happens at all strikes me as awful and worthy of condemnation.
It's clear that neither of you understand what I've been saying. It doesn't affect you in the slightest if I believe my dog loves me. Let me live my sad, delusional life with his unreciprocated affection. After all, I have no friends and can't form bonds with sentient beings capable of returning my love, so I'll just use this bundle of fluff as a living accessory.
Believe what you want, I'll stick to my 'silly ideas'. Easy.
@BuggleBear: Agreed.
As from the beginning, no argument against the truth of this idea, nor any condemnation of the harmful actions that sometimes result, is meant to convince you to believe or not believe anything.
It's just argument against the truth of the idea and condemnation of harmful actions.
You're right. Because I believe my dog gives a shit about me, he's clearly abused. I mean, look how traumatised he is. I'm a monster.
@BuggleBear: Your actions aren't harmful, yeah? Then your actions are not being condemned.
You want to believe your dog loves you in a meaningful, human sort of way, yeah? You can do that. There's nothing that says you can't believe something that isn't true. Just... ignore every argument against the truth of the belief, if they're giving you trouble.
You can do that. I swear I am fine with it.
I really hope that the point I was trying to make is abundantly clear to everyone else.
If not, here it is, once again:
Believing that your pet loves you back can be a bad thing. It can, in some cases, hurt the pet.
Here is an example:
Mr. Dragopuss loves his dog, Marge. He believes that Marge loves him back. Mr. Dragopuss thinks that giving Marge tons of food from the table is an adequate means of expressing that love—look at how happy it makes her, and it makes him happy to see Marge happy.
Marge becomes morbidly obese. This is not natural. This is a form of cruelty, as dogs don't ever really get obese of their own accord. This is bad because Marge's largeness results in her suffering.
That is bad, and it stemmed from the belief in a mutual love.
Does belief in a mutual love between a person and their pet always result in bad things?
No, it does not.
But it can. And it does. With some regularity. This is what I, HogboblinZwei, take issue with. When a belief that can't be entirely proven hurts a creature that isn't smart enough to save itself from toxicity.
Be smart. Don't hurt your pets in any way, shape, or form. If you hurt your pets, or any animal that relies upon you, even if you love them dearly, I firmly believe that you should be lit on fire and beaten with a sack of bricks.
Thank you for coming to my lecture.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Oh, I'm so glad you're fine with my completely harmless beliefs that don't affect you in the slightest. Thank you so much for your benevolence. It wasn't patronising at all.
And if you had bothered to actually read anything I had written, instead of being so quick to point out how delusional people that believe their pets love them back are, you'd have seen that I never said that I believed my dog loves me in any kind of human way. For someone who can read in four languages you seem to have failed at that particular English reading comprehension.
Nobody is disputing that.
When a belief that can't be entirely proven
So... We'll just ignore all of the scientific evidence that proves that dogs have positive neurological responses towards seeing their humans? OK, if that suits you...
To summarise, what you seem to be saying is that, though the idea of mutual love and affection between an animal and a human doesn't ALWAYS result in an animal being abused, it CAN result in it, so therefore you think anyone that believes their pet loves them back SHOULDN'T believe it, even if it gives them comfort, because OCCASIONALLY people who believe things that give them comfort do damage to other living creatures.
Perfectly reasonable and rational.
This is what I, HogboblinZwei, take issue with. When a belief that can't be entirely proven hurts a creature that isn't smart enough to save itself from toxicity.
Agreed. This one specific thing is condemnable.
You can have the belief without it leading to this one specific thing. That is possible. Feel free, by all means, to have the belief—and then don't hurt your pet. Not, perhaps, as easy as it would be without the belief, but definitely doable!
Just having the belief is fine so far as I'm concerned. The only thing Zwei and I are condemning here is hurting your pet out of "love."
That one, specific, avoidable thing.
Nothing else.
The only thing Zwei and I are condemning here is hurting your pet out of "love."
So are we all supposed to ignore the judgement previously placed on people who believe their pet loves them? That sounded like condemnation to me.
The problem I have with what you're saying is that you have not only missed my point entirely in your mission to be 'correct', but you have also undermined the relationship that every person here that had expressed a bond with an animal has with said animal.
Is your need to be right and hammer home your point more important to the pair of you than letting people believe what makes them happy (when nothing or nobody is being hurt, abused, neglected, traumatised, violated, tortured or anything else negative, of course)
Pretty sad that you both feel the need to be 'right' so badly that you treat a friend like this. Glad I know where I stand with you both.
@BuggleBear: Well, you seemed bothered by the idea that I wasn't okay with you believing something I think is false... you acted like I was trying to tear the belief away from you or something, when all I did was say I didn't think it was true.
I thought I'd let you know that it's okay, I'm fine with you having it, I'm not trying to take it away from you.
In fact, it seems like we're not even talking about the same belief. You responded to my criticism of the idea that pets can love their owners in any way that requires a level of sentience most lower animals don't have with such passion, presenting yourself as holding the belief—why, I thought that was what you believed!
...You must have missed "Obviously anyone who wants to believe anything, can. And if they do it without harm, that's awesome."
What I'm saying is:
• The idea is false. • It is fine to believe. • Except when it leads to harm. • It doesn't always lead to harm. • It is fine to believe; just don't do harm.
The judgment earlier, if you recall, was on
people who have a sickening need for living life accessories. People who "just know" things that they can't know, because they have some void in their life that only a ball of fur can fill.
Specifically that subset of people who believe the human love they have for their pet is reciprocated.
I've trained dog and horses. It's more than anthropomorphism.
If in humans, love is a factor of chemistry (neuro-transmitters), how we feel around each other, how others make us feel, how we act around each other. It's the same systems and chemistry in animals. Just like animals, humans are conditioned by the environment and each other.
The original topic/question was, "Do pets love us or do they view us as reliable food sources which they have become accustomed to, where we are familiar to them / safe / & approachable? (Example: would they miss us if we go away for days / weeks / months ect)"
If you work with animals closely and for a long-enough period of time, you will find that animals of different species form bonds with each other and with humans. You will find that just like having 2 kids, who are completely different from each other, animals have personalities, moods, depression. They solve problems differently. 2 animals will respond to the same human, in distinctly different ways. Where one animal may approach, another may avoid. They anticipate, they fear, they love.
You'll also find that they will approach or avoid, in different ways, at different times. Food and hunger give one approach. Desire for play, different. To nuzzle and cuddle, another approach. There is subtilty and nuance. People can say and believe what they want. I have enough evidence to be convinced.
At the same time, having someone doubt or question the definition and existence of love between us and our pets is just discussion. I can't take it as a personal attack because, frankly, nobody's opinion of me matters. They don't know anything of my experience and I have none of theirs. It may be an uncomfortable conversation. But it's just that. I don't take it personally.
"So... Well just ignore all of the scientific evidence that proves that dogs have positive neurological responses towards seeing their humans? OK, if that suits you..."
No. I mentioned that in an earlier post. The important thing here is context. Whatever idea that a person has about love, I think it's safe to say that a dog doesn't quite have the same idea.
Mainly because they're a f___ing dog.
So, you see, there's an imbalance. There isn't a mutual understanding of what love is, or how it applies to the relationship in question.
The human is assuming things.
This isn't always bad. It can be good, and beneficial for both parties.
But it can also be bad. And bad things can happen expressly because of that assumed mutual love.
It can be like a toxic relationship between humans. But the intelligence of one of the members is similar to that of a three year old who has been huffing glue non-stop since being born.
Believing something unfounded isn't bad of itself. It's bad when it makes you inflict pain on others. Especially an other that isn't very bright, who relies upon you to be well.
It's pretty naive to assume that people love their pets to death because they assume the pet loves them.
People overfeed their pets because they love the pet. It's misplaced affection but it has nothing to do with whether they think the pet reciprocate said affection, thus making the majority of your argument null and void.
To explain further: a short play.
[Interior: house, evening. Mr Dragopuss and his dog, Marge, sit at a dinner table. Marge is being spoon fed steak tartare from a silver salver. She is morbidly obese and had a pink ribbon tied to her diamanté collar]
Mr Dragopuss [in a silly voice] :Who's my little snookie-pookie? Who's my bestest girl? [kissing noises]
Marge: [silence]
Mr Dragopuss [still in silly voice] : I love you so much, my little babykins. Only the best for my precious babykins. [He feeds her another heaping spoon of steak, which Marge half-heartedly chews]
Mr Dragopuss [in normal voice] : I love you very much, my little pumpkin, that's why I do all of these things for you. The steaks, the collars, the custom fur dyes, the bright pink pawdicures. Its all because I, MYSELF, love YOU. I have no idea if you love me back, because the science is inconclusive.
[AS AN ASIDE TO AUDIENCE] : despite overwhelming scientific evidence that animals do in fact experience intense positive emotions when they see the face of 'their human'
[TO MARGE] : So I cannot assume either way, but regardless, it's a moot point, because I do this because this is my way of showing that I love YOU, and not through a potentially misguided belief that you reciprocate my emotions. Do you understand, my sweet little angel cake?
Mr Dragopuss: [chuckles] Yes, I know my sweet princess, Dada loves you very much. Now, eat up, Dada made this especially for you because he loves you very much, whether you love him back or not!
[END SCENE]
That's well said, @Gallowglass.
Maybe a lot of the problem is in the definition: I don't consider the warm feelings produced by oxytocin and dopamine and so on to be love unless the being experiencing them has the ability to understand the context within which the feelings are produced, and say to themselves (with or without words), "This is love."
@HogboblinZwei
Yes! Its been very clear what you’ve been trying to communicate.
So basically, because you have Googled the question 'do pets love us' and have got an answer for the question (ignoring potential researcher bias based on your own past experiences around humans treating animals badly) you have made yourself the presiding authority over animal emotions (or lack thereof) and are purposefully missing every point I have made in order to continue feeling like you are right.
I'll bulletpoint.
Yes, some animals get abused.
Most animals do not.
The animals that do get abused are not abused because their human believes that the animal loves them.
Animals may be abused for many reasons, including the human not knowing how to show their love for said animal in a healthy way.
People believing their animal loves them in return makes people feel nice.
People are allowed to believe things that make them feel nice. For example, child is allowed to believe in Santa. No doubt you do not believe in Santa, but why would you take something away from someone when the belief makes them happy and hurts nobody?
People who believe things you don't agree with are entitled to believe whatever makes them feel good, as long as no harm is caused.
People believing things you perceive to be falsehoods does NOT harm you.
Your need to be right is not more important than people finding comfort wherever they can.
People's belief surrounding whether their animal loves them back has little effect on the way they treat the animal.
People treat their animal a certain way because of the emotions they have towards the animal.
I literally cannot make this any clearer, and if you keep purposefully missing my point to promote this 'I'm right, you're wrong' rhetoric, then that says a lot about you. Sometimes it's better to be liked, than to be right, you know. It gets lonely up there on your high horse.
Do our animal companions “love” us? How would we know? First we would have to define what we mean by “love” and then we would have to determine how we could identify if animals have the same experience we do.
Animals certainly engage in activity where they have put themselves in possible harm’s way to alert/help/assist another being - human, other animal of their own or other species. Is that love? Is it instinct?
I know this: my bunny grooms me. She licks me for extended periods of time. She does not have to do that in order to get food. In bunny language this is bunny love.
I try not to anthropomorphize too much. I think animals are fascinating just as they are. When I start to put my own interpretation on their behavior it clouds my ability to see them as they are. Same with humans.
Don’t know if she loves me but she trusts me enough to fall asleep in my arms.
Dogs have waited for their owners for years after their owner has died, so I'd say dogs can love their owners. However, I think cats are different, they are much more independent. That being said, I'm a cat lover. I don't care if they love me back. As for other animals I have no knowledge of them.
Update: Mr Dragopuss got a pet rock after Marge died. He said it was too painful to shower his affections on something that reciprocated so wholeheartedly, only to pass over to the untimely void.
Having successfully faked her death, Marge now lives a flexitarian lifestyle on the south coast of France. She declined to comment on whether she had loved Mr Dragopuss.
@BuggleBear: Those are some good arguments for beliefs about the pet's state of mind being irrelevant to harmfully "loving" behavior. And so amusingly written, too!
I'm gonna have to think about that for a while. Excellent points. Thank you.
@DaringSprinter no worries. Thank you for reading.
@BuggleBear I love the pics you posted of what I can only assume is your pet dinosaur or baby dragon 🤣🤪 seriously Adorable! Yesterday I got some full body cuddles from a 9 foot python and unfortunately cannot post them as they just exceed the file size permitted! I’m sure this snake enjoyed the warmth of my body more so than wanting to hug me… he currently eats rabbits so I wouldn’t wager he was sizing me up for a prospective meal… but… 🤷♀️🤪
Recently had a conversation regarding ego and when people are “altruistic,” but with other motives, consciously or otherwise.
I referenced a point in my life where I felt compelled to give and volunteer for external validation based on some inner insecurities and a point which another party to the convo brought up was that animals sacrifice their lives for their caregivers - think of a dog protecting a child from a snake, pulling a child from a fire, ect. Do they do this with alternative motives or would this be instinct? Do they do this out of love? All of the prior conversation points shared are intriguing.
I have really enjoyed reading all of this ~ 🥰
Lots of food/table scraps/specially prepared delicacies to consume and think about while I rub my overstuffed belly/brain. My poor Marge. She is now forever the name of my glutinous side.
But for real ~ lots to think about as my stink weasel snuggles under the blanket with me.
@Nature_Lover_ not my pet dinosaur I'm afraid, though I do like to cuddle them! They're surprisingly affectionate (and I'm very warm, so it's a win-win for the me and the dino)
@quixotic_life Marge is living her best life🎉
@Babichev I popped on this thread pre coffee and noticed your prior post was echoed by mine. I just wanted to acknowledge that and say I appreciate the facts and science you so often reference 😊
@BuggleBear I approve that synergy 🤣😁
Turtle in Low-rider, feedme mood. "Who's a handsome turtle, then?"
My, Ride-or-Die
Oh my goodness what a handsome turtle indeed! My father once found and raised the tiniest little turtle 🐢 ever down in Texas and lovingly fed and nurtured it. I remember he once sent a picture and he wasn’t much larger than a quarter.
What I think is abundantly clear is that while our animals often protect, groom and give us affection - we without a doubt WE love our animals and this type of thread and sharing brings my little heart some much needed joy !
💗