If it's true what they say about dogs and their masters, I don't ever want to meet the fellow that owns that dog
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
That... is a Neopolitain Mastiff.Originally posted by Tom R
One of the finest animals around, IMO.
C'mon and get me you twist of fate
I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
If you want to talk well then I'll relate
If you don't so what cause you don't scare me
You may use the terms companion, companion animal, provider, or others, but please do not refer to the canine-human relationship as one of ownership. To refer to an animal as a "pet" or to the human as its "master" is belittling and negates the rights of the animal to self-determination and autonomy.Originally posted by Gedunker
Anyone want to adopt a dog?
How about "Alternative Species Housemate?"Originally posted by Cardinal
that fits some of my prior room mates that were NOT dogs
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
Remember this motto to live by: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO- HOO what a ride!'"
No arguement.....but ugly.Originally posted by Mastiff
It looks like I felt with my worst hangover.
I see you're now fully acclimated to the People's Republic. Namaste!Originally posted by Cardinal
They may be great dogs and all, buit Neapolitian Mastiffs are uuuuugly! The wrinkled faces, and the drool ... yeesh!
Chinese Cresteds and strange terrier mixes tend to win the ugly dog contests I've seen. I don't think a Portie could.
Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey
That Mastiff is not unattractive! He is rather cute! I think the rule should be that you can only enter your own dog into the contest.
That had a bit of Monty Python's "Holy Grail" to it.Originally posted by Cardinal
Here is my Ugly boy. Gizmo.
Please don't miss the tooth.
He can't help it!
His daddy was a poodle, his grandma a laopso, the vet says there is some chow, but I usually say he has a Pom mix because people get more nervous when you say chow.
It is all a matter of perspective!!!
Even ugly dogs can be cute and lovable. When I was a kid we had a (mostly) beagle. (No pictures) She was mostly white with odd black markings and one white eye. A very nice dog and an excellent hunter...but ugly.
This picture looks like an extra from Constantine. It will haunt my nightmares!Originally posted by Queen B
Ehhh I don't find that to be that ugly. At least it does the melting face thing well. I hate the ugly little dogs that are all scrawny and patchy-haired. And loud. Goddamn they're loud. Kill them all!Originally posted by Tom R
You win! (a face that only a mother could love?)Originally posted by Queen B
From the Economist:
Love me, love my dog
Feb 10th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Dogs and their owners really do resemble one another
A FEW years ago, some researchers studying human mating patterns tried the following experiment. They took photographs of individuals in established relationships, mixed them together, and asked their experimental subjects to pair up likely looking couples from the pictures. More often than chance, the photo-couples thus created were also real couples.
This is an example of what biologists call assortative mating—that who chooses whom (and also who is willing to be thus chosen)—is to some extent predictable. But despite the corny observation that owners grow to look like their dogs and vice versa, no one really expected the same rules to apply to people and their pets.
But it seems they do. A paper published in the Journal of Ethology by Christina Payne and Klaus Jaffe, of Simón Bolívar University in Venezuela, describes a visit they made to the National Canine Exposition in Caracas. There, they photographed 36 purebred dogs and their 36 owners. The pictures were manipulated to remove the background and the owners' clothing (fear not—the clothes were just blanked out to create a shot of the head). The prints were then split into six groups of pairs, and each group was shuffled.
Dr Payne and Dr Jaffe asked their volunteers to try to guess which dogs within a group belonged to which human. As in the case of human couples, correct guesses were made significantly more often than chance. It seems, therefore, that owners really do resemble their dogs.
That is not, however, because dog and owner have grown alike over the years. Dr Payne and Dr Jaffe checked this by looking at the correlation between the likelihood of a volunteer making a correct pairing and the amount of time dog and human had cohabited. There was none.
More intriguingly, the volunteers were unable to make reliable pairs in a follow-up study in which the dogs involved were mongrels rather than pedigree. That, the two researchers reckon, may be the key to the mystery. When you buy a pedigree puppy you have a good idea what the adult will look like. Not so with a mongrel.
Although they have yet to prove it, the hypothesis that Dr Payne and Dr Jaffe are considering is that people's preferences for dogs that resemble themselves is an accidental manifestation of another phenomenon. This is the well-established observation that people are more trusting of those who look somewhat like them, presumably because resemblance suggests genetic relatedness. In experiments where contestants have to bargain for money, for example, a potential “business” partner elicits more trust if he or she has a face similar to the bargainer. And if dogs are truly man's best friend, then trust is surely an important part of the friendship.