Modern relationship between man and dog

>>2987791
>turn into sjws when it comes to dogs
What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about?

>>2987828
/b/ is famously unforgiving towards animal abusers. Think Dusty the Cat.

>>2987844
But how does that make them SJWs? All sane people with functioning moral compasses are dismayed by the needless infliction of suffering on animals.

>>2987844
>being morally disgusted by somebody abusing a lesser creature makes me an SJW
It's the same principle as being opposed to beating women, cripples and children. Unless they're trying to physically harm you then beating on them is just a testament to your inability to control yourself or figure out a better way to deal with the situation.

>>2987860
Dogs have reached a very special place though; I kinda see what OP is getting at. To the level that they are quite often seen as actual family members instead of just a pet/animal/work aid.

>>2987867
>>2987860
I think OP considers that to be SJW-level stuff from 4chan

>>2987868
To expand on that, as mentioned before where for the bulk of history (and especially in rural areas where it still sometimes persists) dogs were seen as workmans' aids, and kept in "livable" conditions (i.e. fed and maybe provided minimal outdoor shelter), whereas now if you'd still take care of your dogs by feeding them well and giving them a roof such as a doghouse, but not ever letting them in your home or doting on them every second that you're around them, a lot of people would probably actually try and have it taken from you for "abuse" or "neglect"

I love dogs as much as most people, and they can be beloved pets and companions, but to sperg out because someone lets a hardier animal live in an outdoor environment where it is well-suited to live its life is really overreacting in my book.

https://youtu.be/wUurm6fQ750

Doggos are good boys we don't deserve them

>>2987867
>>2987860
It's not restricted to just animal torture or violence. Anytime the topic of eating dogs comes up, the argument that dogs are too special to eat comes up, essentially humanizing dogs and dehumanizing those that would eat them.

>>2987885
>because someone lets a hardier animal live in an outdoor environment where it is well-suited to live its life is really overreacting in my book

Naa fuck that. My Sibe loves lying in front of the roaring fireplace. Would never leave him outside. Even if I did he would just howl incessantly

>>2987828
OP might actually be a psychopath.

>>2987828
I think he is referring to the "white knighting" people do over dogs. Whenever a dog is seen being hurt by a human online, dozens of people will voice their sympathy for the dog, while this rarely happens when a human is seen hurting another human.

>>2987930
Humans are shitty
Doggers are pure

>>2987868
>. To the level that they are quite often seen as actual family members instead of just a pet/animal/work aid.
That goes back to ancient Egypt
>>2987791
Just like cats can be used as impersonal mouse control, dogs can be used for purely "work" related uses. However, dogs have a long history of being used as sources of companionship, entertainment, joy, happiness and partners recreational activities such as catch, walking or hunting. Dogs are multipurpose beings. The idea of treating dogs different from mules or goats isn't new however and has existed since man domesticated dogs.

>>2987911
That's a little bit my point though. The more I think about it the more I think going so far as calling those who overreact about dog treatment SJWs is a little bit much, as the dogs and multitudes of breeds therein that we have now are much different than dogs all throughout the majority of history, and most, if not almost all, anymore are bred for companionship as their primary role. changing times, changing ideas, etc.

Now that I've thought about it more, to answer OPs question I'd say yes the dynamic is definitely different. While selective breeding has been going on for hundreds of years, the shift from useful purpose to general companion is more recent, especially since companion dogs have become so much more of a general societal thing and not so much for upper classes anymore, and especially considering the length of history behind the domesticated canine.

>>2987951
You can't possibly think only the upper classes had domesticated dogs. Perhaps I misread what you wrote.

>>2987951
OP here. Why wouldn't upper classes or perhaps royalty also keep dogs for just companionship? Wouldn't that result in the same dynamic, just more isolated?

>>2987958
No, just that they would've been the ones more likely to have/breed dogs for more companion purposes through history whereas they would've been more of working animals for the general masses

I'm really just surmising though so whatever

>>2988011
I've read that in the Middle Ages peasants used small dogs to keep warm at night. Such dogs would have been domesticated for house purposes and would have had a companion role.

>>2987791
Yeah in some countries, people still see them as dirty animals and don't even let them in the house. I've noticed though that it is mainly in countries where most people generally can't afford to or have better things to do than take care of dogs well (vet visits and vaccines, flea guards, regular bath with dog shampoo). So it's more of a class problem/ cultural mindset.

>>2987791

>>2988069
Oh and yeah no one gives a shit about animal rights in those countries.

>>2988069
>>2988076
That's a gross simplification. Certian cultures evolved to treat animals in different way. Mudslimes treat dogs as dirty animals because it's cultural, not because they don't have money to spend. Same in China and Korea.

>>2987791

>Historically speaking

>Modern subject

Wtf?

>>2988076
>>2988069
>>2988088
Follow up, compare the way a "poor" nation like India treats animals to Muslim nations. It's all cultural, none of it's socio-economic.

>>2988088
No, I didn't mean those two reasons were the same my bad. I mean either or and I meant the general population can't be arsed to take care of the dog well due to lack of money(economical) OR they just don't find the need to waste their time and energy on doing such(cultural).
I was referencing African countries and India that still have areas of extreme poverty and villages.
I was not aware the cultural treatment of dogs in some Muslim countries.
I'm not sure in all of those instances the general population has enough money to spend on those dogs. I'm not just talking about the rich people but the general population like here in the U.S. or in England or something.

>>2988165
Dogs don't take a lot of money to take care of though. It's like a owning a chicken or a cat in a rural, third world area.

>>2988343
The point is they own the dogs but they are dirty animals and the general population cannot afford OR have the TIME to make sure they are clean, flea free, and vaccinated at all times.
For that reason, they remain filthy. For that reason, most people in that country form a culture of leaving the dogs outside. It can also just be a culture of believing animals are filthy naturally and don't deserve to be inside or have rights.

>>2988366
I get your logic but don't think it's accurate. If Indians have cows literally poop in their homes for good luck, why would a dog be considered dirty?

>>2988369
Dogs aren't part of Hindu religion though so it's going to be viewed differently. Why bring dirty dogs in your house when you already have cows?

>>2987791
>On the other hand, I've heard accounts of people in rural America who still treat dogs like other animals and wouldn't even consider letting them inside the house.
Those are work dogs and farm dogs largely. They are dirty and stinky and great, but they don't come in the house any more than e.g. the livestock they may be guarding.