Fun talk:Dog

Content is irrelevant to the mission. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Completely re-written and on-mission now. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure that cat's need a box to do their business indoors. I remember when we had cats they always went outside to the garden - I suspect that litter boxes are for those who do not have regular access to the outside.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dogs don't poop in a box. Well, actually, maybe that's not such a great thing. All I know is dog=awesome and cat=sucks. That was the idea anyways. Maybe I shouldn't focus on the dog vs cat thing so much. This is fun! PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 08:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lacks scientifick name in lead. Canus familiaris or some such shit - on the carpet, of course. ħuman 08:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Want a picture of my dog?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

See pic.

Bob's dog

Bob's dog looking fit

Bob's dog looking grey

--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Uses for dogs

I'd go more for dog utility stuff. Guide dogs, dogs finding people lost in the mountains, tracker dogs. They have lots of wonderful abilities.

On the evolution side you could go go for humans and dogs being co-evolved species. It is suggested that we have a suspiciously good ability to understand each other. You should probably say something about wolves as well. Brain 20% larger than a dog's brain for example.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob, I appreciate your input. Great pic of your dog, too. Definitely going in the article. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW what breed is your dog? He(?) looks like a German Shepherd, but I can't tell. Mixed? PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

She's mostly German shepherd but with some Czechoslovakian Wolf-dog - which is largely German Shepherd anyway. But that slight mixture tends to confuse people. Some people confuse her with a Belgian Shepherd but she's quite distinct from one of them. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say

This is getting close to mainspaceable. maybe move the cat hate lower though? Not delete it, just move it low enough that Susan can't find it on her cellphone without spraining her thumbs. ħuman 06:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add some more stuff above the dogs vs cats section. Give me another day or two to work on it, then I'll move it over to mainspace. Please feel free to add to it while it's in the sandbox if you want. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This New Scientist article had a fun shot at giving a "scientific" analysis of the difference between cats and dogs. I've got a NS subscription and I could send you the full text if you're interested. I'm not entirely convinced about mainspace though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if you can send me the full text, that would be great. Looks like an interesting read. Thanks. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've sent it to you. It looks at 11 differences between cats and dogs and decides (semi-humorous manner) which is "better" in each case. But you've got to read the article to find our who they declare is the winner. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mainspace or funspace...

...I'll let you decide (but the answer is mainspace). PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 02:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of comparison, here's a link to your cat article. It is currently located in the mainspace. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 04:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I don't think that either should be in mainspace.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dogs versus cats

. . . is full of nonsense. I've removed "choosing to own a cat will usually involve a willingness to keep at least one box of scat in your house". That mostly only applies to people who live in apartment blocks. Anyone who has a garden & a cat flap will have minimum involvement in their pet's toilet habits, unlike dog owners who usually have to take their dog out to do its business & then scoop it up for disposal.

". . . suppose you were to die unexpectedly in your own house. Your dog will sit by your body and mourn your death, and he will likely stay there until he starves if no one intervenes. Your cat will start to feed upon your carcass after a day or two with no intervention."

Is this based on any actual research or just cliché? Besides which, what's so great about putting veneration of a corpse above the survival instinct? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the starving to death bit. There a number of stories about dogs who only left their master's graves to eat though. One of the most famous being Greyfriars Bobby. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was going to be Fun:Dog when I wrote the dog vs cat stuff. If it doesn't belong in a mainspace "dog" article, that's fine. I understand :) PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 17:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I could remove "dogs vs cats" and "famous dogs" altogether and make a Fun:Dog article where they would be more appropriate. Thoughts? PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My personal feeling (as I mentioned above) is that both this and cat should be in Fun. I've been trying to think of something to make this mainspace worthy and the only thing that occurs to me is this madness in the Daily mail trying to link dog vaccination and autism. It's not a very strong hook for mainspace though. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to set the mainspace bar much lower than I do.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have a problem with the whole thing being in Fun, but cat would have to be there also, and apparently that has been argued to death already. I'll remove the parts I mentioned above and try to beef up the "serious" content later today, and make a Fun article for all the snark. Cool? PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cat dates from the early days of RationalWiki. In itself that's not necessarily a good argument for mainspace status, but it's always been there & likely to remain. See also goat. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The bit about the cat eating you is a plus for cats because it's the rational thing to do. Dogs can fuck the dead up, but usually out of trying to wake them up. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Dogs are Man's peers at the top of the food chain in most places -- at least where there are no orcas, sharks, alligators, crocodiles, giant snakes, bears, hyenas, big cats, hyenas, or wild wolves (dogs really are wolves) to challenge them by killing and eating them. Those are all also man-eaters. Dogs are about the most unfussy hunters in the world, capable of killing animals ranging in size from insects to cattle.

If anyone wonders why dogs lick us -- one explanation is that WE TASTE GOOD. What can one expect of an animal so functionally similar to bears, hyenas, and Big Cats?Pbrower2a (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Dog eats owner

Well, shit. Guess I was wrong about dogs all along. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 07:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

List of famous dogs

Does this do anything for the article (apart from make it longer)?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

About the whole "dyslexic agnostic" thing.....

Is it really necessary? I don't think it should be there. It is only a myth that dyslexia makes letters or words appear backwards (go watch the BrainPOP movie on dyslexia). I see it as hypocritical for us to say that others should rethink the myths they see as true when we keep something that is knowingly false here! I think adding a template:Lie or a Poe's Law warning wouldn't really fit in this case, and be too cumbersome anyway, so I think we should just get rid of it. I just want us to talk about it here first before I delete it. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You put in the spongebob squarepants thing & you're objecting to an often made reference to dOG being the reverse of gOD? Do me a favour. Scream!! (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out where I put in SpongeBob? I've went through the list of contributions I've made, and I don't see anything. Please link me the article where I did that. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your wish is my command: here. Scream!! (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer your original question, yes, it is necessary. Because it is a joke. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Trivia lists

Banal trivia lists make up about three quarters of the page, & don't make for good mainspace content. Either we should cut them out or kick the whole thing to funspace. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. ^{d hominem} 11:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Would anybody be adverse to my creating a Fun:Dog page, so that the deleted banal trivia list can have a new home? --Tracer (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Funspace is for precisely that thing. "Too shite for mainspace but one person likes it" is how funspace goes. Some stuff there is even fun, if you look long enough. Sophie^Wilder 20:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. May the Lord Dog forgive us! --Tracer (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

BBC: Dogs prefer reggae and soft rock to other music genres

The moar you know! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

My wife is convinced our dog prefers Chopin piano concertos.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ding ding ding ding! Point to Bob's wife! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting - I always say that we should play the dog Mozart to improve her spatial reasoning capability. It might make her better at catching frisbees.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Bob's Wife: 1 point.

Bob: -1 point.

Sorry Bob. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, humour does not work well in plain text.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Vaccinations

I'll preface this by saying I am most definitely not an anti-vaxxer but... In my opinion and in the opinion of a sizeable minority of vets I've encountered over the years the need for yearly boosters is at best based on some fairly shaky science and at worst a complete scam. I've always ensured my dogs have had their first shots and the first annual boosters but having come close two losing two dogs over the years due to adverse effects of annual shots I'm far from convinced the benefits outweigh the risks.

A scary experience

In 2010 I was doing some work on the US Census, and in the middle of the day I went to someone's house. Perhaps figuring that I had come there for all the wrong reasons, such as burglary, the four medium-sized dogs charged the door. I did a little math and figured that four 80-pound dogs were about as deadly as one 320-pound predator of Ursus or Panthera genera. I was not sure how long the latch would take to break, in which case I could have been killed. I got out of there. I did not want to qualify for a Darwin Award.Pbrower2a (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Dogs probably kill more people than you think, and they definitely kill more than sharks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Dog bites and attacks are only a small cause of deaths due to dogs, with other issues being dog-carried diseases, and people crashing their car because of their dog jumping around inside: "Tens of thousands of car accidents are believed caused every year by unrestrained pets, though no one has solid numbers."[1] --Annanoon (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Feral dogs are highly feared in India, where canine rabies is commonplace. Dogs likely kill more people in India than does a more infamous mammal of similar build.

Causing vehicle crashes? One insurance company offers free veterinary coverage in the event that a driver's pet is injured in a vehicle crash. Insurance companies are generally not known for generosity in providing bonus coverage to their clients, but all that I can figure is that people drive more carefully with their beloved pooch in a car. More problematic is panic stops and evasions of loose dogs that may lead to vehicle crashes. But if people are driving more carefully because of a pet in the car, then the insurance company will pay out fewer claims. (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I also suspect that people generally do not take unreliable pets along with them. When multiple persons are in the car with any dog that our family has had, the general rule is that the dog is not to have contact with the driver. When I have had the dog as a sole passenger I make it a point that the dog not pay attention to me unless I am stopped or parked, as at a fast-food window. The dog loved to devour plain hamburger patties. People can put dogs in a carrier for their own safety. Panic stops can throw a dog into a window or dashboard, which may cause severe injuries to them. Pbrower2a (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Statistically, deer, pigs, horses, cattle, and especially moose (for their numbers)are far more dangerous in causing fatal collisions. Pbrower2a (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Protect

Can someone protect this page? It's been vandalized a lot recently. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@LongStylus Can you protect the page? This is the 4th time in ~2 days it was vandalized. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Already done by User:Cosmikdebris. Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism by the way. LongStylus (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Adam Ruins Eveything

Please remove the Adam Ruins Everything video. It is very misleading and provides no nuance. Some of the things they say CAN be somewhat true if you're getting your dog from a puppy mill or other type of for-profit breeder. But, purebreds can be extremely healthy. Mutts are not inherently healthier than purebreds. If you go through a responsible breeder, your dog's health and temperament will likely be more predictable than picking up any random mixed-breed dog from the pound. That video sadly, seems to believe that all dogs are the same and that is just not true. Each breed was bred for a specific purpose and as a result, they have a relatively predictable set of physical and temperamental traits. The claim that all dogs were mutts before the 19th century is also not true and very easy to debunk. Many Asian breeds date back way further, as do some sighthounds. Cinnabar (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair use?

I have added a short quotation from a book by Anne Rule relating that her pet dog saw through the serial-killer Ted Bundy as a dangerous person despite his careful cultivation of an image of innocuous trustworthiness. I am citing another website that had that extract. It is but a small piece of the book, and unlikely to deter anyone from reading it. It is not public domain, but it seems like fair use. I could condense it, but that would take much of the rhetorical power of Anne Rule's expression of a situation unlikely to be replicated.

It also suggests that people can feel much safer with an animal that "reads" people well. If keeping a dog with one deters violent crime, then so be it. Pbrower2a (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am an (ex) dog owner. In fact a picture of my dog appears on this page. Nevertheless, I would like to see results a a double blinded trial showing that dogs actually have this ability. Rather then, for example, picking up cues from their owners.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

With Ted Bundy one discusses one of the cleverest criminals to have ever done two of the worst crimes (rape and murder) without the consent of the State and gotten way with 30 or more instances of both.

Ann Rule had no idea that under the surface Ted Bundy was the monster that he was until the cops warned her about that horrible man. Do dogs "smell fear"? That is exactly what one would expect of a large and lethal predator. They can detect signals that we humans readily ignore.

It is also possible that Ted Bundy reeked of the scent of violent crime (rape or murder) from an object such as a belt, shoe, or wallet that had traces of a murder victim. People do not change these even once a week; we humans have weak senses of smell in contrast to a dog. If Ann Rule's dog picked up cues, then those more likely came from a rapist and killer with whom the dog wanted her to flee for her life. Whether scent or Bundy's behavior is not clear.Pbrower2a (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You know the difference between an anecdote and evidence, right?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The dog may have smelled evidence of human death while sensing deceitful behavior. To be sure, some people might have the scent of death upon them due to legitimate work (undertakers, medical personnel), but they are truthful about what they do and don't try to fool anyone, human or canine, about what they do. Bundy was neither an undertaker or a medical professional. Dogs may be capable of very rational thought at a certain level, that of judging humans or fellow dogs for trustworthiness. Remember that dogs are still wolves, and one of the most difficult parts of a wolf's life is determining which lone wolves can be suitable additions to the pack.

Bundy could tailor his deceit to fool people. Few people are good at deceiving dogs and humans at the same time. OK, he was extreme, a person adept at fooling victims and law enforcement until he left too much evidence behind. The dog detected something that people couldn't. Scent or behavioral cues that dogs could detect and we can't as humans? We will never know. Dogs do not express themselves in human language. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)