Dogs as Family Members – A Sign of Cultural Decay

03 May

“Dogs are still used in scientific research. I live near a facility where lots of dogs go in but don’t come out. A society that on one hand does that but on the other hand treats dogs as stand-ins for children and husbands is suffering from schizophrenia.”

Agreed. Same as a society that on the one hand, acknowledges that unborn children can learn things, and encourages pregnant women to talk to their unborn children, play them music, etc., but then on the other hand, permits them to kill them if they don’t want them.


Posted by on May 3, 2015 in The Decline


24 responses to “Dogs as Family Members – A Sign of Cultural Decay

  1. Socially Extinct

    May 3, 2015 at 10:44 am

    The whole dog thing puzzles me. I too love dogs…I’ve had dogs most of my life. Not until recently, living in an apartment, have I been dogless. They are wonderful companions, but it seems society has taken dog ownership to another level of pathology I can’t quite make tails of (heh).

    Is it the inability of people to relate to people? What does it say about us that we anthropomorphize them so much and treat them as human stand-ins? I personally feel that our developed First World has become very lazy and complacent and detached from reality. We elevate symbolism above genuine experience.

  2. Will S.

    May 3, 2015 at 10:56 am

    For ‘shacking up’ couples, it really does seem to be their substitute for actual children – less costly, less responsibility – unless and until they decide to legitimize their relationship, actually tie the knot, and have children. You’ll often hear young women cooing over their dogs, “He’s my baby!”. So it’s some twisted perversion of the motherhood instinct, which they deny while focusing on careers; one way to sort of satisfy it, in the same way that chewing gum is sort of like eating food.

    Many single women have dogs too; partly for similar reasons – they can think of it as a substitute baby – but also because dogs can be protection. So, instead of having a man to protect her, they have animals, instead. Fucked up, that, but makes a certain sense, I guess…

    I think if people had child-making and family formation as higher priorities, animals wouldn’t be so anthropomorphized as they are today.

  3. Socially Extinct

    May 3, 2015 at 11:01 am

    So it’s some twisted perversion of the motherhood instinct, which they deny while focusing on careers; one way to sort of satisfy it, in the same way that chewing gum is sort of like eating food.

    Well said and great analogy 🙂

  4. Will S.

    May 3, 2015 at 11:26 am

    Thanks! 🙂

  5. Sanne

    May 3, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    Dogs are otherwise great for empty-nesters. Lots of elderly widows whose children are too busy to visit Mom enjoy taking care of a dog. The same goes for childless couples. Not everybody is blessed with children, you know. I agree they aren’t really humans though and shouldn’t be treated as such. You all are talking about women, I’ve seen guys kissing their dogs like they were children:)

  6. Will S.

    May 3, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    Yes, guys can behave that way, too. 🙂

    I agree, they’re great companion for the elderly, widows and widowers, etc.

    I’m not against people having dogs; I had one growing up, and he was a great childhood companion.

    It’s the way young couples and young women seem to substitute them for children, that is sad.

    Ever see this?

    That’s pathetic.

  7. Sanne

    May 3, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    Yeah, especially that big one with a pacifier;), however, the old couple were just touching, they are probably the empty-nesters I was talking about.

  8. Eric

    May 3, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    I would wager that nearly of the people who see dogs as substitute are invariably pro-abortion. This is again, the symptom of a culture of death.

  9. Will S.

    May 3, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    @ Sanne: I agree, that is sweet.

    @ Eric: I hadn’t considered that, but indeed, the fact that they devalue a human life enough to let an animal’s substitute for it, might well correlate greatly with devaluing unborn human life, too.

  10. A.B Prosper

    May 3, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    Dogs are a heck of a lot more reliable, loyal and better company than most people. Less work too,

    Anyway dogs have been regarded as near family members forever even when families were intact though granted the baby strollers are obnoxious.

    As for abortion, well I’m Christian granted lousy at it but Abortion is a bugaboo I just do not understand, Before 5 to 6 months or so, no fetus can survive on its own and its not developed enough to be a person, Why would it bother me if someone has an abortion. After that? Yes. Its a potential person. But a fetus before a certain point probably has neither soul nor identity. If you disagree, fine there is little evidence for either,

    Also its not morally different than using a condom or having an alternate sex act or even the rythm method to avoid getting knocked up , in any case a potential human is not being born. Granted some Anti-Abortion people are anti-birth control and anti .alt sex but most are not and that’s inconsistent to say the least

    Most abortion is a net social good anyway it serves eugenic value (grossly reducing Downs Syndrome for example ) and reduces the number of dysfunctional people. I remand folks in the US (and I am not speaking for Canada or elsewhere here) that abortion isn’t nice well off Christian couples but almost all poor and dysfunctional people, single Moms, Ghetto dwellers etc.

    Also re: population. Some of the Anti-Abortion issue is related to family size Don’t expect large families except among the most devout ever again. Cities have been population sinks since Sumer at least and with modern tech eliminating jobs family size is going to go down.

    It is possible to get it larger but its going to require economic shifts. Counting on a moral revival for cheap social capital might work but its a century plan at the least. Even Quiver-Full Evangelicals and LDS don’t have high retention and long term high family sizes. Catholics tend too but that’s about as close as you are going to get and speaking for the US, almost all Catholics use family planing anyway

  11. Will S.

    May 3, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    Psalm 139:13-16 Authorized (King James) Version

    For thou hast possessed my reins:
    thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

    I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
    marvellous are thy works;
    and that my soul knoweth right well.

    My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret,
    and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

    Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;
    and in thy book all my members were written,
    which in continuance were fashioned,
    when as yet there was none of them.

    From this, we see that God had a plan for our existence before we came into being – he had even numbered all of our days – and he created us in our mothers’ wombs, as this text reminds us.

    The point is, from start to finish, from the zygote to the newborn baby, God is at work in the process, carrying out the creation of a potential human being (unless He chooses for it not to be, and the woman then miscarries); He is putting the human together.

    It would be absurd of us to try to figure out when ‘ensoulment’ of the matter happens; the point is, God is at work throughout the process, and in the normal course of events, barring a miscarriage, a new human comes into existence, possessing both a body and a soul.

    Interfering with this process is just wrong; that’s all there is to it. It may certainly be expedient, both for the mother, and possibly for society. Eugenics might be expedient for society, too.

    But some things are just wrong, period.

  12. ddswaterloo

    May 3, 2015 at 7:17 pm

    I like animals and enjoy them—- but its a one-sided relationship.

    I am the boss, they receive protection/benefits from me on my terms.
    To pretend this is a real relationship of equals in kind is ridiculous.

    I do care for my animals and they in their simple way are submissive and loyal to me, but this is not the same as a relationship with a human being. Something that is in fact far more difficult and challenging with more potential for good AND harm.

    We denigrate human relationships and humanity when we do this.

  13. Will S.

    May 3, 2015 at 7:23 pm

    @ A.B. Prosper: “Anyway dogs have been regarded as near family members forever even when families were intact though granted the baby strollers are obnoxious.”

    Sure, in the sense that they belong to the family, as property (albeit living property, capable of love and affection, both receiving and giving).

    But we put animals down i.e. to death when they are severely ill / injured and in pain; we do not condone doing the same to humans.

    There is a difference.

  14. bluebird of bitterness

    May 3, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    But Will, animal rights fanatics will tell you that we SHOULD put human beings down when to do so would be expedient or convenient. They see no meaningful difference between euthanizing a dog that is sick or injured and aborting a baby whose mother finds it inconvenient. I have heard them say so. As far as they’re concerned, human beings are just animals, nothing more.

  15. Will S.

    May 4, 2015 at 12:04 am

    Oh yeah! I forgot. You’re right; now we should have euthanasia, and abortion, etc.; now it all makes sense! {/sarcasm} 😉

  16. Will S.

    May 4, 2015 at 12:05 am

    They are truly mad, them progressives…

  17. A.B Prosper

    May 4, 2015 at 1:41 am

    1st, Will thanks for the explanation of the theology behind anti abortion thinking. Much appreciated !

    And to note parts of the West do condone euthanasia for humans and its a growing thing. I’m quite iffy on euthanasia myself, generally opposed though it has historical precedence in Christendom and along with suicide may have even been allowed at times.

    . Like anyone I fear the slippery slope though and while but there are a lot of good reasons for it under some limited circumstances , the utilitarian ethos that pervades our current system makes it a non starter for me,

    FWIW I’m also opposed to the death penalty . Its biblically allowed I suppose but I prefer a Romans 12: 19 approach

    Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

  18. Will S.

    May 4, 2015 at 5:58 am

    “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

    “And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.”

  19. Will S.

    May 4, 2015 at 5:58 am

    You’re welcome, A.B. Cheers!

  20. Mark Citadel

    May 4, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    You may want to check out the article discussed here, where the issue of animal souls is debated.

    I’m still probably of the position that animals lack spirits, but may have souls (a distinction is made in some theology, with soul being simply an animating life-force). I can understand why people grow increasingly fond of animals however. Modern man is increasingly vulgar and profane.

  21. Will S.

    May 4, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    Thanks Mark; interesting discussion there.

    We had a similar discussion once, here:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s