UK Pet Forums Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

In response to Collette

694 views 1 reply 2 participants last post by  canuckjill 
#1 ·
gave my reasoning why I believe that using physical violence in puppy

You chose to post in this forum; a controversial theory that contains a number of controversial methods. I assume you posted it to get some sort of feedback (otherwise why bother posting it?)
You also told me you have4 no experience using corporal punishment system and have not ever stated a reason why anyone would "simply only use that technique(corporal punishment)".
To make excuses for not detecting and blinkering and bypassing and hiding the safety checking of a hypercarnivore endangers everyone, much more endangers everyone when attempting to stigmatise a technique that checks various facets of the creatures mental health.

and it DOES cause suffering (ie pain, distress and fear). No lies there - just good old facts being used to support my oinion.
Medically, pain and as much its' resultant effect can be measured in a clinical experimental environment for accuracy. As i said you "ham" your non scientific personal preducially learned opinion that you purvey.
As a note on Septimius to that your saying , i have no doubt of him finally that he had suffered because it requires the underlying ability to for him bond for him to not suffer by "TRUST" in the disciplinary action and in some way you make it so much easier to destroy the animal and simply declare that "whatever the disorder there is too much damage to allow the animal to live because it cannot handle that which a normal puppy will not worry much about and inclusively at first re-offend anyhow based on what little quantity of corporal pishment is ever used and committed".
I totally dispute that "a healthy puppy in body and mind" when treated sensibly by corporal punishment is ever actually worried , note too that using the name "corpaoral punishment" may be too harsh a nomenclature of the technique being used because it is simply an unpleasantness "designed to be precisely associate a" totally identical environmental aspect or action that can then be read by the puppys' memory if it encounters those properties later and the properties are attempteds to be fastend with the word "no" many many times in incidence of the properties before any "corporal punishment" is used.
Firstly these are work dog breeds or X breeds i want aggressive , and the technique is used to promote any underlying unreasonable and dangerous aggression to surface because it is a must to know about if it is there.
But you reinforce not determining the cause of such properties of a disorder in them and to destroy them because they obviously will never be a safe animal for anyone to keep.

of "minimal socialisation" with ZERO evidence of any sort to back it up.

2) That there is a vast body of evidence (both scientific and anecdotal) to the contrary.
Are you suggesting that none of the behavioral problems properties of the two puppies i listed were existent and if so how would you know they are non existent when i have explicitly stated the behavioral problems and attributes?
I'm sure that is contradictory enough as much when in both puppies history were mention to me they "had been either owned or had been in the care of other people for some period"(this last double quoted text and the behavioral properties mentioned are support of "minimal socialisation" , and recent in the last 10 years accepted human psychiatric research and declaration of a disorder of children called "Attachment Disorder").
So there is plenty of evidence to back up "minimal socialisation" as you call it.

With number "2)", as i said before you have very little journalised base knowledge and are only hamming by personally prejudiced uninformed uncalculated personal knowledge.

I have simply pointed out that positive punishment - particularly physical violence - is not necessary, and can have harmful consequences. All that is fact, based on solid irrefutable evidence.

...and can have harmful consequences...
Presuming here you mean they can be intimidated and afraid(...and can have harmful consequences...). An animal such as the ones i am creating, intimidated and afraid would simply kill the person committing it or maul them horribly unless they were bonded and simply trusted something was a reason , However , beyond this to try to argue that corporal punishment were to intimidate and cause fear the animal will need a disorder that prevents bonding and trust.
DON'T TELL ME WHAT I DID PHYSICALLY , I WAS THERE PRESENT AND KNOW PERFECTLY WHAT I DID.
DON'T TELL ME I HAVE DONE SOMETHING THE SAME WAY AS PEOPLE WHO CAUSE FEAR AND INTIMIDATION AND STRESS WHEN THEY USE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON THEIR ANIMALS, AS THAT IS THEY USUALLY ALMOST ALL OF THEM DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PROCESS THAN A SIMILARITY TO SIMPLY BE A THUG , MEANING I DON'T LIKE THAT SO I STRIKE(this last is what your really stating and most people manage that to be at least the same type of behavior/action problem they strike about BUT NOTHING MORE and because it is also the first the animal learns anything of there being a problem it has).

Such animals must not have any disorders.
The item is required to be found "if it is unreasonable from it and if it is there in an animal" that is to have its base instincts of aggression quite kept deliberately reactive similar to the problem wolves have when they start to attack they can only be stopped by loyalty and disciplined(context: carrying out sequences exactly as have taught against their own personal wish/wants) obedience.
 
See less See more
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top