← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 18058 | Posts: 51 | Started: 2005-05-01
2005-05-01 22:28 | User Profile
We go ga-ga for dogs, horses, cats, goats, you name it. Our young women want to be vets, our older women collect animals by the dozen. Sometimes it gets freaky, like when they discover a hundred cats living in a house occupied by an old white woman.
Why?
I suspect it's partly evolutionary: since before agriculture, dogs guarded us and helped us hunt or find food. Other animals could be eaten or were otherwise useful. So it made sense for us to form affinities with animals.
Other races and cultures don't share this:
[url]http://frostywooldridge.com/articles/art_2004feb18.html[/url]
2005-05-01 22:50 | User Profile
We've used animals as cheap energy sources for a long time. Carrying things, plowing fields, turning wheels, transportation, etc. No doubt this helped us develop higher technologies. It totally makes sense to take care of your helper animals, the same way you would maintain your car and other machines today.
The third world doesn't make nearly as extensive use of animals as whites (and to a lesser extent, asians) have, so what reason would they have to take care of them?
2005-05-02 04:16 | User Profile
The domestic animal is employed for a reason. There was no sentiment initially.
The dog is loyal to its ownership. It is a defender. A hunter. A retriever. A herder of lesser animals. Therefore it is useful.
The cat is a rat-catcher. And once used for that reason only. It was never meant as 'pet'. And rats require eradication.
Understand the meaning of it. Evolution has no part in it. For many consume the pig and cattle. And the oriental kill and eat the dog and cat - in cruel and unspeakable fashion.
It is the use of means available and what is presented and also permitted.
Mentzer
2005-05-02 05:06 | User Profile
That's a fascinating question, Hugh. I've never thought about it in terms of different races, but now that you bring it up, it does seem to me that Whites seem to have more fondness for animals than other races. Whether or not that's the case, I don't know -- it might just be my own bias -- but it's an interesting hypothesis.
I've actually heard it said somewhere (sorry, I don't have a source, but I think it was some TV news show) that fondness for animals is thought to have a genetic component; it might run in families. Of course, you also have to account for the fact that sibling general grow up together and learn a lot of behaviors and attitudes from their parents. So I'd be interested to learn about the evidence for such a genetic trait.
Leaving aside possible genetic underpinnings, I think that for animal-lovers (of which I'm definitely one, BTW), animals fill a need that satisfies the "parenting instinct" that's in nearly all of us to some degree (especially women, but men too). People have a natural instinct to want to care for someone (or something) who's dependent on them. Higher animals such as cats, dogs, and horses generally return the favor with unconditional affection, and that creates bonds.
2005-05-02 05:10 | User Profile
A search engine just turned this up:
[url]http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/freya/living.htm[/url]
The author is a female philosophy professor and apparently a hippy, but she makes some interesting points in the essay.
2005-05-02 07:01 | User Profile
Jesus Christ!
What is this nonsense.
Unbelievable!
Mentzer
2005-05-02 07:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Jesus Christ!
What is this nonsense.
Unbelievable!
Mentzer[/QUOTE] What's wrong? :confused:
2005-05-02 13:03 | User Profile
Animals can be friends to those who would otherwise be lonely. That's why pets are so popular among old people who have no utilitarian need of animals.
2005-05-02 15:43 | User Profile
This affinity for animals backfires sometimes: look at the failed domestication of the negro. I know, I know, the process of domestication was cut short and the animals allowed to run wild :D
2005-05-02 16:00 | User Profile
Ha!
What's funny is how much whites prefer their dogs and cats to blacks. As a journalist once noted, when it's reported that a puppy was somehow mistreated, the newsroom is flooded with calls from concerned and outraged readers, and the letters to the editor pour in. When a black child is mistreated (and sometimes a white one), nobody gives a shit.
Also interesting how dogs hate blacks. Even liberal journals have noted this:
[url]http://slate.msn.com/id/2079214/[/url]
2005-05-02 16:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]What's funny is how much whites prefer their dogs and cats to blacks. As a journalist once noted, when it's reported that a puppy was somehow mistreated, the newsroom is flooded with calls from concerned and outraged readers, and the letters to the editor pour in. When a black child is mistreated (and sometimes a white one), nobody gives a shit.[/QUOTE]
The difference here isn't who is being mistreated, but who is doing the mistreating.
2005-05-02 17:00 | User Profile
I used to live near Little Saigon in Westminister in California back in 1994 and one day I was looking for some good shipping boxes and I went behind this restaurant to look for some of the same, I saw what appeared to be some cages and after getting closer I saw about eight dogs in the cages and I knew right away what was going on.
I went to the cages and startd to open them up I had done three of them when this cook came out and started to yell at me and the he turned around and called out to someone, two more guys came out and came at me but I was so angry that I got hold of a stick laying on the ground and went after them.
They ran back into the restaurant and I then went back and let go of the other five dogs and shoo them away from the area.
I then went around the front and asked for the owner-manager and I spoke to him, he knew who I was and didn't looked very happy, and told him that I would be coming around once in a while and didn't expected to see any more dogs in the area.
I went around at least once a week and some times twice and never saw any more cages, before I left California in order to come to Oregon I went to the animal shelter and asked them to keep an eye on the place.
I don't mind saying that one time I did eat dog meat by accident when I allowed one of my live in girl friends to order my meal for me at a restaurant, it was pretty tasty with the "home rice".
2005-05-02 22:54 | User Profile
Ponce and PETA: A rare eclipse, but an eclipse nevertheless.
2005-05-19 14:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]We go ga-ga for dogs, horses, cats, goats, you name it. Our young women want to be vets, our older women collect animals by the dozen. Sometimes it gets freaky, like when they discover a hundred cats living in a house occupied by an old white woman.[/QUOTE]
Example of what I'm talking about:
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/19/ncruel19.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/19/ixhome.html[/url]
2005-05-19 14:24 | User Profile
From Hugh's link--an obsessive surrogacy for the maternal instinct?
Woman kept 246 dogs, 16 cage birds and 7 cats in her home By Nigel Bunyan (Filed: 19/05/2005)
An obsessive collector of animals kept a menagerie of 246 dogs, 16 birds and seven cats in her four-bedroom house, a court heard yesterday.
Rosalind Gregson, 55, confined most of her pets to cages, often in pairs and often piled on top of each other in conditions so cramped they could not stand to their full height.
RSPCA officers found dogs in cages piled on top of each other Many of the dogs were flea-ridden, emaciated and stricken with eye infections. Others had ulcers. Nine were in such a poor state that RSPCA officers had to put them down.
A district judge at Preston magistrates' court heard that when the RSPCA team raided Gregson's ã500,000 detached house at Silverdale, near Carnforth, Lancs, they were initially "overwhelmed" by the stench of ammonia and faeces. They found the animals living in virtually unlit, rat-infested rooms with little water and food. Most of the water they did have was contaminated with cat litter.
District judge Peter Ward was shown an RSPCA video which showed officers viewing the "dismal and depressing conditions". The camera pans from cage to cage, showing dogs barely able to sit up. One RSPCA officer is heard to say: "How can they live in this? This is appalling."
Rosalind Gregson Some of the dogs are lifted out of their cages and held up in view of the camera. One, a Maltese terrier, is shown with her fur matted with what appears to be excrement. An officer says: "She's in a terrible state."
Another, a Shih-tzu, has matted fur and appears emaciated. Its weakness and reluctance to stand is attributed by a vet to the muscle wasting in its hind legs. The animal was later put down.
An emaciated Yorkshire terrier had a discharge coming from both eyes. Few of its teeth remained, its nails were overgrown and it had a severe skin infection. It, too, had to be put down. Tim Bergin, prosecuting, said: "It is not the prosecution case that she maliciously caused cruelty to the animals in her home; simply that she allowed her obsession to collect animals to overwhelm her.
"She lost complete control to properly care for the animals in her charge. The net result was that the animals were living and surviving in what can only be described as dismal and depressing conditions where their needs were simply not met." He said the animals' poor health was solely the result of Gregson's "obsessional behaviour in collecting a large number of animals".
RSPCA officers, who raided Well Bank Cottage with environmental health officers from Lancashire county council, had never seen such a large number of animals in a single house.
"Not in their wildest dreams did they expect to be confronted with what they saw," said Mr Bergin.
Gregson denies 49 counts of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal in September 2003.
The trial is expected to last 12 days.
2005-05-19 17:19 | User Profile
As with so many things, affinity for animals is something that is wonderful when rightly practised, but unhealthy when taken to an extreme. For example, torturing kittens is very sick, but so is anthropomorphizing your pets instead of propagating your own race.
2005-05-19 21:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Other races and cultures don't share this:[/QUOTE]This is just not so! There is love for animals in every race that I have witnessed; there is also cruelty. Many Africans name their children after cherished animals; in many of the native religions there are animal guardians. Sometimes, I do wonder what planet you white racists live upon; you speak as if black people do not keep and love pets. That is simply false beyond all belief. White people also lack such a lovely record with animals as you pretend. Why do you think Europe lacks her ancient forest and many of her native animals are long extinct? Not love for animals. Why do the whites of Spain so love bullfighting... the whites of America and many places so love dogfighting, cockfighting, etc.? So many whites I have seen are so far from loving animals, I have seen some torture cats for example. Speaking of which, guess where cats were first domesticated? Arabia and Africa... not exactly hotbeds of your precious Whiteness.
2005-05-19 21:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Jesus Christ!
What is this nonsense.
Unbelievable!
Mentzer[/QUOTE]Sadly it is all too believable. White Racism has a habit of turning the brain off. So much for the White superiority.
2005-05-19 21:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]That's a fascinating question, Hugh. I've never thought about it in terms of different races, but now that you bring it up, it does seem to me that Whites seem to have more fondness for animals than other races. Whether or not that's the case, I don't know -- it might just be my own bias -- but it's an interesting hypothesis.
I've actually heard it said somewhere (sorry, I don't have a source, but I think it was some TV news show) that fondness for animals is thought to have a genetic component; it might run in families. Of course, you also have to account for the fact that sibling general grow up together and learn a lot of behaviors and attitudes from their parents. So I'd be interested to learn about the evidence for such a genetic trait.
Leaving aside possible genetic underpinnings, I think that for animal-lovers (of which I'm definitely one, BTW), animals fill a need that satisfies the "parenting instinct" that's in nearly all of us to some degree (especially women, but men too). [/QUOTE]Oh yes, white women surely have a natural parenting instinct. That must be why so many kill their children (legalized abortion, and infanticide!). That must be why most do not have children at all, if they have a choice in the matter.
2005-05-19 21:21 | User Profile
You present some good counterexamples, Malika. But I think dogfighting is more popular among blacks than among whites, and I always thought it was mainly Mexicans who were into cockfighting. I don't have statistics handy to prove it; this is just my general impression.
2005-05-19 21:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Malika]Oh yes, white women surely have a natural parenting instinct. That must be why so many kill their children (legalized abortion, and infanticide!). That must be why most do not have children at all, if they have a choice in the matter.[/QUOTE]Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a greater proportion of blacks kill their children than whites? I think that's the case.
Your second claim -- that most whites don't have children if they have a choice -- is demonstrably false.
2005-05-19 21:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Malika]Sadly it is all too believable. White Racism has a habit of turning the brain off. So much for the White superiority.[/QUOTE]It depends on what you mean by "racism." Blind hatred of people of other races is pointless, but recognition that the races are different in significant ways is merely recognizing reality as it is. Whites are more intelligent on average than blacks. Asians tend to be slightly more intelligent than whites. The races differ in other traits as well -- though again, we're only speaking in terms of averages, not characteristics of individuals.
2005-05-19 21:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a greater proportion of blacks kill their children than whites? I think that's the case. In traditional black Africa, black women tend to have large families.> Your second claim -- that most whites don't have children if they have a choice -- is demonstrably false.[/QUOTE]Are you aware that in much of Europe, most white women have no children at all? Many white countries are now experiencing negative population change, aside from immigration. Black African countries, are among the most fertile in the world.
2005-05-19 21:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]You present some good counterexamples, Malika. But I think dogfighting is more popular among blacks than among whites, and I always thought it was mainly Mexicans who were into cockfighting. I don't have statistics handy to prove it; this is just my general impression.[/QUOTE]Let me presume that you have never spent much time among white "roughnecks", for many have no love for animals at all. When in America, I have seen them put firecrackers inside cats and set them off; I have seen them abuse dogs in the worst ways. Let us be realistic: there is hatred and love for animals in every race. Trying to pin this on race, as Hugh Lincoln did, is simply foolishness. Many black Africans literally worship animal gods, and hold animal guides to be holy. The same is true for various nonwhite natives around the world.
The process of factory produced meat in white countries, is often as far from "humane" you can get. Bullfighting is no more "humane" either. Yet white people practice it. There is nothing in white genes that makes white people more humane toward animals.
2005-05-19 21:50 | User Profile
I don't think it's correct to judge the strength of the parenting instinct based on the number of children produced. A mother can end up with a lot of children through a simple lack of sexual restraint, then neglect them. On the other hand, a mother might have only one or two children, yet devote her life to them.
Blacks in Africa may have large families, but many of them obviously should not. Many of those people don't even have enough food and water to nourish themselves, let alone their children. What business do they have reproducing under such circumstances?
2005-05-19 21:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Malika]Let me presume that you have never spent much time among white "roughnecks", for many have no love for animals at all. When in America, I have seen them put firecrackers inside cats and set them off; I have seen them abuse dogs in the worst ways. Believe me, I utterly despise such people, no matter what their race. I would even probably shoot someone in the kneecap if I saw him torturing an animal.
Let us be realistic: there is hatred and love for animals in every race. Agreed.
Trying to pin this on race, as Hugh Lincoln did, is simply foolishness. Many black Africans literally worship animal gods, and hold animal guides to be holy. The same is true for various nonwhite natives around the world. Well, Hugh could be wrong, or he could be right. It's just a hypothesis he came up with, and evidence both supporting and refuting it can be found.
The process of factory produced meat in white countries, is often as far from "humane" you can get. That's true in nonwhite countries as well.
Bullfighting is no more "humane" either. Yet white people practice it. I don't like that tradition.
There is nothing in white genes that makes white people more humane toward animals.[/QUOTE]I don't know if that's true or not. However, I do know that black countries such as those in Africa are a lot more corrupt and violent toward human beings than majority-white nations. I also know that blacks commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than whites. From those statistics, it's not too much of a stretch to suspect that blacks might mistreat animals at a higher rate.
2005-05-19 22:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Believe me, I utterly despise such people, no matter what their race. I would even probably shoot someone in the kneecap if I saw him torturing an animal. I agree. Such behavior reveals a diseased soul. > Well, Hugh could be wrong, or he could be right. It's just a hypothesis he came up with, and evidence both supporting and refuting it can be found. But to make such a "hypothesis" he must ignore so many contrary truths in the first place. That is more a foregone "conclusion" sealed by racism than an actual hypothesis.> That's true in nonwhite countries as well. That style of factory mass production did not exist in many nonwhite countries before white colonization. Curious, how do you feel about the rape of Africa by the colonial powers? What about the transatlantic slave trade? How about the arbitrary cramming of different tribes into artificial countries? Surely you can see how these practices helped to destabilize black Africa.> I don't know if that's true or not. However, I do know that black countries such as those in Africa are a lot more corrupt and violent toward human beings than majority-white nations. In the 20th century, more whites died in WWII than all the blacks killed by other blacks combined. Perhaps if you ignore the Holocaust, the rape of Africa and the Americas, the Inquisition, WWI, WWII, the Dark Ages, etc.; in short, the reality of history: then you might have a case that blacks are more violent than whites. But in the real world, that just won't fly. > I also know that blacks commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than whites. No. It depends on which blacks and which whites. Bermuda is a nicer place to live than, say, Bosnia.
From those statistics, it's not too much of a stretch to suspect that blacks might mistreat animals at a higher rate.[/QUOTE]Considering the Holocaust, and the planned enslavement/extermination of Slavs, perhaps we should say the Germans are more likely to mistreat animals?
2005-05-19 22:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Malika]Curious, how do you feel about the rape of Africa by the colonial powers? What about the transatlantic slave trade? How about the arbitrary cramming of different tribes into artificial countries? Surely you can see how these practices helped to destabilize black Africa. First of all, blacks played a role in the slave trade, and not just as slaves. Some were involved in the selling of slaves as well.
Anyway, I don't think slavery in the distant past or more recent colonialism can even be remotely considered the reason for the current strife in African countries. Look at white nations that have been to hell and back only to recover nicely. Take Poland, for example: it was leveled by the Nazis and then suffered under a Communist occupation, yet it's doing fine today. There's some trouble with petty crime there due to post-Communist poverty in many areas, but the violent crime rate is nowhere near on the order of what you see in an African nation.
In the 20th century, more whites died in WWII than all the blacks killed by other blacks combined. Perhaps if you ignore the Holocaust, the rape of Africa and the Americas, the Inquisition, WWI, WWII, the Dark Ages, etc.; in short, the reality of history: then you might have a case that blacks are more violent than whites. But in the real world, that just won't fly. One could argue that if more people have been killed by whites, that's merely because whites were able to develop more effective methods of warfare than blacks. On the other hand, whites have also invented better methods of saving lives. The vast majority of all major technological inventions have come from whites and Asians.
No. It depends on which blacks and which whites. Bermuda is a nicer place to live than, say, Bosnia. But the general trend can be seen more clearly by comparing whites and blacks who live in the same country, such as the USA. That's when it's most apparent that blacks commit crimes at a much higher rate than whites -- even poor whites.
Considering the Holocaust, and the planned enslavement/extermination of Slavs, perhaps we should say the Germans are more likely to mistreat animals?[/QUOTE]I think the crimes committed by the Nazis against the Slavs, while often barbaric, pale in comparison to what African blacks often do to each other. Good Lord, witches still get burned in Africa. I'd hate to see what would happen if Africans ever developed the technology to make nukes.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not a white supremacist. I don't hate people just because they're not white, and I probably hate more whites than I like. I'm more of a white separatist who holds that different races are generally better off living apart, in their own nations. Why that should offend anyone, I have no idea.
2005-06-21 17:36 | User Profile
Observe:
White man leaves half a million dollars to the animals of the county.
[url]http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=LNA/MGArticle/LNA_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783343970&path=[/url]
Find me a black who's done such a thing, and we'll crown Malika the winner of this thread.
2005-06-22 02:31 | User Profile
Is this for real? this fool left a million dollars to ANIMALS? No, I can't think of a Black man ever doing anything like that.Whites do indeed have an "affinity for animals', sickeningly outweighing their affinity for other human peoples!The whites' disposition to animals often borders on the perverse, and sometimes crosses the border. A friend of mine said he saw a white woman f---ing a dog as a sideshow act at a bar. This "friend" is a bigot, so if the woman was not white, that'd be the first thing he'd mention. We all know about Catherine "the Great" and her trist with Mr. Ed. I once worked in a store overrrun with bigoted whites, and I saw, with my own eyes, a White man take a dog's tongue in his mouth. He and the others acted like nothing unusual had happened.
2005-06-22 02:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=obadiah]Is this for real? this fool left a million dollars to ANIMALS? No, I can't think of a Black man ever doing anything like that.Whites do indeed have an "affinity for animals', sickeningly outweighing their affinity for other human peoples!The whites' disposition to animals often borders on the perverse, and sometimes crosses the border. A friend of mine said he saw a white woman f---ing a dog as a sideshow act at a bar. This "friend" is a bigot, so if the woman was not white, that'd be the first thing he'd mention. We all know about Catherine "the Great" and her trist with Mr. Ed. I once worked in a store overrrun with bigoted whites, and I saw, with my own eyes, a White man take a dog's tongue in his mouth. He and the others acted like nothing unusual had happened.[/QUOTE]
Take a hike, nigger.
2005-06-22 02:46 | User Profile
Hey bonk-a-mule, I mean Bardamu, dignify yourself. I didn't say "Bardamu's momma f---ks dogs", I merely stated a historical fact, a rumor from a white friend, and something I saw personally with my own eyes. The disgusting behavior of some of your fellow whites should make you angry, but at them, not me.
2005-06-22 02:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=obadiah]Hey bonk-a-mule, I mean Bardamu, dignify yourself. I didn't say "Bardamu's momma f---ks dogs", I merely stated a historical fact, a rumor from a white friend, and something I saw personally with my own eyes. The disgusting behavior of some of your fellow whites should make you angry, but at them, not me.[/QUOTE]
A well-known historical falsehood and two instances of anecdotal evidence mean very, very little.
2005-06-22 02:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I've actually heard it said somewhere (sorry, I don't have a source, but I think it was some TV news show) that fondness for animals is thought to have a genetic component; it might run in families. [/QUOTE] Perhaps it extends to whole ethnic groups such as the English, who are famous for their love of animals (especially dogs and horses).
2005-06-22 02:54 | User Profile
OD doesn't need pet niggers. Flush this toad downstream. :dung:
2005-06-22 03:01 | User Profile
Barnanimal, show me some respect. I could of been your father but the line was too long.
:starwars:
2005-06-22 03:36 | User Profile
Eff off, kaffir.
[QUOTE=obadiah]Barnanimal, show me some respect. I could of been your father but the line was too long.
:starwars:[/QUOTE]
2005-06-22 03:42 | User Profile
Oh, isn't that cute. Stuka's sticking up for his butt-buddy. :dung: :dry:
2005-06-22 03:46 | User Profile
Go back to Africa. You don't belong here.
[QUOTE=obadiah]Oh, isn't that cute. Stuka's sticking up for his butt-buddy. :dung: :dry:[/QUOTE]
2005-06-22 04:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]Go back to Africa. You don't belong here.[/QUOTE] You payin'? you brought us here. Being a small part Powhatan, I'm not sure you belong here. But, fact is, we're both equally American now, whether you like it or not. Why don't you go back to Europe? or at least San Francisco. Your kind seem to run the place-you give "rainbow coalition" a whole new meaning.
2005-06-22 06:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ponce]I used to live near Little Saigon in Westminister in California back in 1994 and one day I was looking for some good shipping boxes and I went behind this restaurant to look for some of the same, I saw what appeared to be some cages and after getting closer I saw about eight dogs in the cages and I knew right away what was going on.
I went to the cages and startd to open them up I had done three of them when this cook came out and started to yell at me and the he turned around and called out to someone, two more guys came out and came at me but I was so angry that I got hold of a stick laying on the ground and went after them.
They ran back into the restaurant and I then went back and let go of the other five dogs and shoo them away from the area.
I then went around the front and asked for the owner-manager and I spoke to him, he knew who I was and didn't looked very happy, and told him that I would be coming around once in a while and didn't expected to see any more dogs in the area.
I went around at least once a week and some times twice and never saw any more cages, before I left California in order to come to Oregon I went to the animal shelter and asked them to keep an eye on the place. [/QUOTE]You did exactly what I would hope I would have the nerve to do in a situation like this. I do know for a fact, I would not have been able to look at those dogs and leave them to be killed, cooked and eaten. [QUOTE] I don't mind saying that one time I did eat dog meat by accident when I allowed one of my live in girl friends to order my meal for me at a restaurant, it was pretty tasty with the "home rice".[/QUOTE]there was an asian restaurant near my grandparents house, that I ate at many times, where similar things were found, so I probably have as well.:shocking:
As for people who keep pits and other dog breeds and train them to fight,etc. I don't even have the proper words to describe what I would like to do to these people.
2005-06-22 07:28 | User Profile
Except for the barbaric entertainment purpose of fighting each other, the Pitbull is a stupid, useless breed.
What is amazing is how dogs were bred for very specific purposes and how intelligent some breeds are; just incredible.
There is no doubt that primitive, lower IQ demographics have psychological needs fulfulled by demostrating "dominance" over animals. This may also explain the aggressive and violent nature of non-Whites toward others.
2005-06-22 07:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Snouter]
There is no doubt that primitive, lower IQ demographics have psychological needs fulfulled by demostrating "dominance" over animals. This may also explain the aggressive and violent nature of non-Whites toward others.[/QUOTE]
And the violence of Whites to non-whites? I guess those noble geniuses were just having a bad five centuries.
2005-06-22 07:45 | User Profile
Listen up good, Levi Coon.
If you think you're gonna come on here and insult our long time members, you are sorely mistaken.
The moral of this story Is as plain as it can be (You need to) mind your business And let us white folks be
Bye-bye Levi.
2005-06-22 07:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
Except for the barbaric entertainment purpose of fighting each other, the Pitbull is a stupid, useless breed.
[/QUOTE] Well in the very least pits can be very protective, but they are also very unpredictible in their aggression.
2005-06-22 08:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Woman kept 246 dogs, 16 cage birds and 7 cats in her home[/QUOTE] This is sad in its stupidity. Anyone should be able to figure out that they are not going to be capable of properly caring for this many animals. Feeding them, providing for their medical needs, keeping things clean, having enough room for them all,etc. I think these situations start usually with people like this having the best of intentions in maybe thinking they are providing homes for animals that are possibly unwanted,etc. But it almost seems to turn into an addiction in a way.
I like dogs and wouldn't mind having a few, but 246 seems to be a bit much. LOL.
2005-06-22 09:00 | User Profile
How much of this affinity for animals is ingrained, and how much is due to the urban lifestyle of most white folks nowadays?
I notice that folks who actually live and work around animals on a daily basis (particularly wild ones) tend to be much less sentimental about them
2005-06-22 10:49 | User Profile
I have noted, here in multicultural San Jose, that Blacks, Hispanics and east Asians all seems to regard dogs as fearsome beasts, rather than as the lovable creatures Whites tend to perceive them to be.
2005-06-22 10:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BrianTheDog]How much of this affinity for animals is ingrained, and how much is due to the urban lifestyle of most white folks nowadays?
I notice that folks who actually live and work around animals on a daily basis (particularly wild ones) tend to be much less sentimental about them[/QUOTE]
There's some truth in that, but Blacks tend to be more urban than Whites (indeed, "urban" is often a euphemism for "Black"), yet Blacks seem to have much less affinity for dogs than Whites.
2005-06-22 14:04 | User Profile
OBADIAH? you took it to far, by loosing your temper you allowed them to control the situation.....and as Tex says "bye bye".
2005-06-22 14:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Snouter]Except for the barbaric entertainment purpose of fighting each other, the Pitbull is a stupid, useless breed.[/QUOTE] This is an absolutely untrue statement. A well-bred Pit bull terrier is one of the best dogs one could own. They are loyal, protective, tenacious, intelligent, and very good with children. They will also do absolutely anything to please their masters. They do tend to be dog-aggressive, but they are rarely aggressive towards people. The 'Our Gang' dog, Petey, was a Pit Bull. The United States was represented by a Pit Bull on WWII-era propaganda posters (like England was represented by the English Bulldog). The bad reputation of Pit Bulls is a recent (last 20 years or so) thing, and it came about because of clueless gang members and crackhouse proprietors cross-breeding Pits with other dogs, such as Rottweilers, and breeding Pits specifically for wanton aggressiveness, instead of for sound temperament.
This website may prove informative -- [url="http://www.colbypitbull.com/"]http://www.colbypitbull.com/[/url]