Monday, December 30, 2013

I'm not a Dog Person, So I Must Be Dumb

Whenever I meet someone and get to know that person, somehow the conversation frequently arrives
at talking about whether or not I like dogs.  The person may start talking about his/her dog and how awesome the animal is.  And of course, after a lengthy description about how cute, cuddly, and smart Rover is, they always ask me: are you a dog person?

No.

Astonishment and disbelief are typically the first attitudes they express, and inevitably they ask "how can you not like dogs?"  Well, for one, they're gross to me.  All dogs--no matter how well groomed and cared for--have the "dog smell."  I have a fairly sensitive olfactory sense, and I can't stand dog smell. I tolerate it when I'm over at a dog owner's house (afterall, it's their house) but I could not live with a dog.  Secondly, even dogs with really short hair still have hair, and it sheds.  I can't stand shedding hair.

Third: they slobber, and lick, and it's gross.  As if all of that isn't enough, dogs also need a good deal of attention and care--forever.  They'll never be able to do much of anything on their own.  They'll never be able to cook for themselves, give themselves a bath, take themselves to the vet, or even relieve themselves on their own without making a mess.  It's like having a perpetual child--a child that smells, sheds, slobbers, tears up your trash, and barks in the middle of the night because he sees a racoon tooling around the back yard.

After explaining all of that, very visibly expressing my discomfort with slobber-factories, the person is usually still in disbelief.  And, as if there is some silently agreed upon unwritten rule, every single dog owner says the same, exact thing--and I swear to you, this happens every. single. time.

"You must not have grown up with dogs."

When first said to me, I didn't think much of it.  I politely informed the person that I did, in fact, grow up with dogs.  My parents were divorced, and in both households I had a dog.  They were really, really good dogs, too.  My dad had a miniature pincher named Seti (because his ears were cropped, and he sort of looked like Anubis).  My mom had a chocolate-brown lab, Buddy.  What a dog he was.  He was kind, pretty laid-back for the most part, and very loyal.  And even when I was married we had a dog, a little dachshund named Hanz.  He was a good dog, but a bit of a pain in the ass.

But damnit, I'm still not a dog person.  I started to be less polite about it because I realized the statement "you must not have grown up with dogs," actually highlighted a major problem with American political discourse: people have lost the ability to understand differing opinions.

"You must not have grown up with dogs," indicates an assumption from the dog owner that since I do not like dogs, I must not have had the same experiences as the dog owner.  The dog owner is essentially saying "well, if only you had grown up with dogs, then you would assuredly still love dogs."  The dog owner believes this--consciously or subconsciously--because knowing his own love for dogs, he simply cannot fathom that another human being could have been exposed to dogs and somehow not love them.  Do you see where this is going?

"He clearly has never talked to someone who is on welfare, or else he wouldn't want to scale down
welfare.  If only he would talk to these people in poverty, he would want to keep a robust welfare system."

"He must not have ever been exposed to Christianity, or else he would be a Christian.  If only he knew Jesus the way I do, he would love Jesus and be saved."

"If only he had met, or talked with, a gay person, he would not hate homosexuality.  He must be uneducated, because educated people can't believe homosexuality is a sin.  He must not have thought about X, Y, or Z, because if he did, he would believe homosexuality is okay."

"He probably hasn't read the bible, because if he did then he would believe that homosexuality is wrong, because the bible says so.  He's probably not even a real Christian--he's probably one of them Catholics or something."

"He must be ignorant/uneducated/unintelligent/intellectually dishonest, because he doesn't believe in the Liberal message.  Only smart, educated people are capable of understanding liberal ideas."

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but the problem is that nearly everyone believes that their opinions are absolute, objective truth.  It's an exercise in cognitive dissonance on a massive scale because when asked, people will admit that they're not always right and that they're not perfect.  Most people will honestly admit that they do not, in fact, have all the answers.  Yet when people are challenged on their opinions and beliefs, rarely will they admit that they're wrong, and essentially people subconsciously believe that they are always 100% right about their opinions.

Political and intellectual discourse never goes anywhere in America because no one ever bothers to figure out how someone arrived at a conclusion so different from their own.  Instead, all they do is scoff and snicker to each other about how "ignorant" the other side is.  Such attitudes are indicative of what I like to call insular intellectual stagnation.  They are so set in their opinions that they have trapped themselves inside their own minds, and they have rendered themselves incapable of understanding what transpires outside their inner-world.  Newsflash: educated people who study the same information can still arrive at vastly different conclusions.  It happens all the time.

I admit that I am guilty of saying "how the hell can someone actually think this way?"  But thetry to understand how the other person arrived at their conclusion.  I examine their logic to determine if their position makes logical and intellectual sense.  Few people do that anymore, because they're afraid they may have to change their minds.
difference is that I actually

So for anyone who thinks that Republicans are jackasses because of their beliefs (because men like Michael Moore aren't jackesses since their causes are "righteous), perhaps you should stop assuming that you're always right.  I guarantee that if you actually examined the logic behind your ideas, you would see the gaping holes in your belief system.

In a world where everyone is always right, then who the hell is actually wrong?

25 comments:

Micky said...

Just be glad your wife is not a cat lover

Anonymous said...

Drummed up a lot of stuff here mang.

4 things to note on the first half of the article:

Some "Dog People" aren't dog people if you get my drift. They simply have a profound attachment to their own dogs, almost as if they are children. Other people's dogs are just fleabags. George Carlin "Have you ever noticed that your stuff is stuff, but everyone else's stuff is shit? Get your shit out of here!"

The relationship between domestic dogs and mankind is unique and stands alone. There is very compelling evidence that the domestication of dogs allowed the transition of humans from hunter gatherers to agriculture, which is the very bedrock from which our civilization emerged. Humans are pack animals who have a social hierarchy, hunt in groups, and will seek mutually beneficial relationships... just like dogs.

Furthermore because of their lifespan, evolution happened *RAPIDLY* in canines and now they have gained the ability to sense human emotions and obey human commands and gestures.

That being said, I know you aren't much of a "dog person", but that does not mean you hate dogs. I know this, but that is what other people automatically assume. Neoteny, tradition, sheer utility and uniqueness is what is driving modern humans to have dogs.

Finally, Buddy was an awesome dog... if he didn't "convert" you, then yes I would admit you are not going to change your mind without a hell of a lot of persuasion.

On the second half... the need to be "in the right" is a symptom of many things, I could write a book about it. In a nutshell, human beings are hyper-advanced compared to everything else that shuffles around, we teach our young certain things about the world as we see it and when those lessons are challenged or have the curtains pulled back it feels like a violation.

Also, people view their time as personally precious, and they don't want to feel as though they failed for so long to see what was evident to someone else. The time spent under even a mild delusion feels like a betrayal.

It is a product of many things, many people with higher education have been duped into believing they are superior beings. Society is always trying to condition people to conform, because the majority of people simply have to work a 9-5 job for the top of the wealth chain to function the way it does.

I would say that these knee-jerk reactions could eventually be reversed, but it would require a tremendous effort on the part of the individual to actually want to see the truth, or the closest thing to the truth they are capable of.

In order for society at large to adopt this actual truth and knowledge seeking mentality would require a massive evolutionary leap forward and all we can realistically hope for is an incremental shift towards discovery generation by generation.

Jersey McJones said...

Well, you have to differentiate Republican pols, pundits, and fundraisers from Republican voters. The voters may be fools, but the other guys are crooks.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Ghandi Dancer says:

Life is nothing but a great big smorgasbord, kid. There's plenty there for everybody. Nobody can like it all any more than they can eat it all.

Quit worrying so goddam much about what other people think and what other people like. If they don't like your not liking dogs or whatever, then fuck 'em.

Being open about their likes and dislikes is what gets people to decide if they wanna be friends or not. You wouldn't want to know anybody who hates the way you think and feel, would you?

So why worry about 'em?

You know what wrong with you, kid? You think too goddam much.

My advice is this: get outta the house, find somebody you wanna fuck and fuck 'em. You'll feel a lot better I can almost guarantee.

Fucking beats thinking every single time, as long as you wear a rubber. Yagotta wear a goddam rubber, kid.

Jack Camwell said...

"You know what wrong with you, kid? You think too goddam much."

Why do you bother reading blogs if it's all too much thinking?

Jersey McJones said...

Why do bloggers bother asking why other people bother to blog? (It just keeps spinning round...)

Here's the difference between a nice conservative fellow and a jackass conservative fellow:

Asked, what do you think of homosexuality...

Nice con says, "It's really none of my business."

Jackass con says, "As a strong moral Christian, I believe Homosexuality is sin on par with eating babies and that all gays will burn in hell for an eternity."

And then there's the Passive Aggressive Jackass con, who says, "That is between homosexuals and God, as I love all people just the same, but I do not condone what they do."

You see the differences here, Jack?

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

"Why do bloggers bother asking why other people bother to blog?"

My original question was a rhetorical one. It's pretty silly to say "well no one cares what he thinks, so he should shut up," while you spend quite a bit of time telling other people what you think. The point is that it doesn't matter who cares.

Once again, the problem here is that you're saying people who express the opinion that homosexuality is wrong are automatically jackasses.

And yet again, the sad irony is that you're using hate speech to condemn them for engaging in what you PERCEIVE to be hate speech.

Phil Robertson expressed an opinion. "I think homosexuality is a sin." You expressed hate: "I think he's a jackass." Notice how you're the one doing all the name-calling?

Jersey McJones said...

It's a sin to be a jackass too, Jack. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, but he had a lot to say about judgmental assholes like Robertson. Robertson's a douche bag.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

"It's a sin to be a jackass too, Jack. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, but he had a lot to say about judgmental assholes like Robertson. Robertson's a douche bag."

I am just trying to highlight the hypocrisy. Which is pretty much that whole thing.

The duck man can't judge anyone, but it's cool when you judge people?

I can already see a witty judgmental remark now... "Silly" "you are ridiculous" "You just want to hate gays" "bla bla bla"

I have given you praise intellectually in the past for some of your insights, now I am starting to think that perhaps that was unfounded.

Jersey McJones said...

Well, you're making one of those endless circular arguments. It's like when someone says that other people are "intolerant" because they are not tolerant of intolerance. The last point I was making is that by Robertson's own moral code, the one he derives from Christianity, it is not his place to condemn homosexuality.

JMJ

Micky said...

Jerseys going to fucking hell

Micky said...

" it is not his place to condemn homosexuality."

Of course it is.
Who the fuck are you to make that decision ?
Would it be fair then to say its not your place to condone it ?

Jersey McJones said...

I'm not making any decision, Micky. Christ said so.

JMJ

Micky said...

Jersey, intolerance is measured many ways.
The point is that the tolerance afforded to Phil in no way stands up to the tolerance afforded to pro gay advocates who are given huge platforms to voice beliefs on their part. We see it everywhere as gay lifestyles are being presented to us in every form as acceptable, kids in our schools using each others restrooms, prime time gay sitcoms, gay cable outlets, gay marriage advocates etc...
But when someone denounces it as a sin in the eyes of God they are not tolerated on an equal basis.
Its a very simple argument with very clear implications to the level of hypocrisy coming from the left.
Regardless of how you view Phils comments, be him a Christian or not, hes within his rights to be as tolerated as any pro gay voice.
Whens the last time a gay advocate claiming to also be one of Gods children was ousted from their platform be it a reality show or pulpit ?
Jacks right, you're all just as intolerant as those you claim are intolerant.
And trust me, I can give you quite a list showing examples of liberal intolerance.
So you best quit this stupid argument while you're ahead

AHB said...

I get what micky is saying...

Say ellen degeneres gives an interview and says that she doesn't feel her being a homosexual is a violation of any natural order, and in fact it his or her nature and his or her psychology, and she believed god made her this way for a reason.

I don't think ANYONE would gain traction by raking her through the coals.

It's not because one side is right or one side is wrong, it's because any challenge to a minority is seen as an offensive action.

Truly, the one way to secure "gay rights" (which is a term I loathe but it gets the point across) is to have an open and truthful dialog about it, just as the "racism" problem.

If black people were collectively open to the idea it was themselves and their communities and not whitey who is largely responsible for the struggles of black america, then you would be getting somewhere in a hurry.

That is not to say genuine racism does not exist, it certainly does, but that is both directions. Plenty of black people are prejudiced and racist against whites, but no one gives a shit about that.

Yes, that is AHB I am posting under, to prevent any further confusion.

Jersey McJones said...

Micky, anyone who thinks it's easier to be a gay American than it is to be a common stupid hick is a moron.

JMJ

AHB said...

Even with people like you breaking them down as "gay americans" and "common stupid hicks"

What if I said, common stupid gays and hick americans?

Let me guess, only your statement has merit.

Jersey McJones said...

In this case, yes.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Arena Momma says

Micky is one of the shittiest, smelliest assholes in the blogging world. How can you stand having him around? He reeks.

Jack Camwell said...

So essentially what you're saying Jersey, is that since you think you're in the right on this issue, that gives you license to be a child and call people names?

Well in that case, since I think you're wrong to do that, I think you're a pedantic asshat.

It's okay for me to say that, because in this case I'm on the moral high ground.

Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Anonymous said...

T. Levesoor Larebil said

People who feel no sympathy for animals in general, and see no connection to themselves when they look into the eyes of a mammal often suffer from a want of feeling for fellow human beings.

Anonymous said...

T. Levesoor Larebil said

Arena Momma is right about Micky. He is offensive, and should be censored.

Jack Camwell said...

Thank you Arena Mommy and T. Levesoor for your comments.

It's not that I don't feel sympathy for animals, it's just that I don't want to have to take care of one.

As far as Micky, I don't censor anyone here on CFGM. Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek about it, but Micky doesn't really say anything worse than Jersey, so I'm not sure why people attack Micky so much instead of Jersey.

Micky said...

"Micky, anyone who thinks it's easier to be a gay American than it is to be a common stupid hick is a moron.

JMJ"

Anyone who would come to such a rendition is an asshole.

See how easy it is to be like you Jersey ?

I'm a stupid hick, and its just as hard for me to be around guys like you as it is for gays to be around stupid hicks.
But, this trajectory as I said above, is a stupid argument because first...Jersey, I never said it was easy for anyone.
That doesnt change the hypocrisy factor coming from the left.
You guys are full of so many outrages, be they feigned or sincere, its a wonder you guys can go a day without clusterfucking your heads into a hypo-critic explosion.

@ Arena Mom

The difference is that I know I'm an asshole and have known Jersey for seven years.
When I say hes going to fucking hell he and I understand the inside joke pertaining to him not believing in either heaven or hell.
In the end, if either Jersey or I were laying in the gutter on the worst day of our life we'd give each other a hand.
I could also say that you're a prime example of the intolerance being voiced for those of a different voice without knowing what the hell is really going on.
But I wont.
But

Micky said...

"Blogger Jersey McJones said...
It's a sin to be a jackass too, Jack. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, but he had a lot to say about judgmental assholes like Robertson. Robertson's a douche bag.

JMJ"

Why do you and every liberal mouth conveniently keep leaving out the fact that Robertson said he leaves final judgement to God, that we are all his children and that he wants no harm done to anyone ?
Matter of fact the bible does condemn homosexuality in terms called "laying with another man" or "abomination".
Are you that intellectually dishonest that you think just because the word "homosexuality" was never in the bible you've made some eloquent point ?
Guess what Jersey, the bible doesnt say you shouldn't dismember people with a laser scalpel til they die either.

The real question Jersey, is this.

Why are liberals allowed to be vindicated of their intolerance so much quicker than any other belief system ?
Will liberals admit that morality and ethics are conveniently interchangeable on their part ?
Tell me, please, how do you explain the majority of liberals (70%) who call themselves Christians ?
Does the answer to that question not make you all the largest group of hypocrites in this country ?