cat is a bully

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:10:36 GMT, Diane Schirf
wrote:

In article ,
John Doe wrote:

... that particular position is not defensive, it is completely
submissive

Actually, it's not -- depending on other factors, it can be an attack
position. (Trust me -- I've seen this many times.)
--

Yes, and the attacking cat knows this as well. Just because the
attacks don't stop doesn't mean that the victim is being submissive.
The bully may think he his playing and just getting rougher in the
play. Or he may just think the fight has escalated.

When I got my current sheltie, she was extremely submissive. And did
the dog version (on her back) submissive posture for everything. The
cats, however, took it as part of the game. It never occurred to them
that the dog was begging them to stop.

There were some definite misunderstandings between the species.

When it comes to cats, that position is agressive, either in play or
fighting. But it is NOT a submissive posture. They will do it in
submission, nor will they read it as submissive.


--
Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com

wrote in message
Sorry to piggyback but this post pretty well sums up the original
thought that I don't want to be bothered either to look up at the
moment.
Barry, she is right. You post very carelessly, and sometimes it seems
like you just start typing every thought that bounces through your head
at the moment you're writing. If you'd say what you mean, and mean what
you say, you'd spend less time backpedaling and explaining.
You said "bust the cat's ass." That is EXACTLY what you said, and it's
not the first time you claim to be "misunderstood" about your violent
tendencies toward behavior modification. Lyn called you on the exact
same thing way back, and you made a big deal out of explaining what you
meant.
I don't think you'd ever intentionally hurt cat. Then say it like you
mean it. THINK before you post.

I knew Barry would go to the "Wah, I'm misunderstood" line. Now instead of
"busting the cat's ass" he's saying he means swatting the cat with
newspaper.
I'm undecided as to whether he really means what he says the first time, or
just has a very poor communication style.

Hate to be a Public Plonker, but I did plonk Barry shortly after he got
here, then thought I was being hasty and decided to unplonk. Looks like I
was right the first time.
--
-Kelly

KellyH wrote:

You know damn well what I meant.

Looks like someone got up with a hair across their ass.


I knew Barry would go to the "Wah, I'm misunderstood" line. Now instead of
"busting the cat's ass" he's saying he means swatting the cat with
newspaper.
I'm undecided as to whether he really means what he says the first time, or
just has a very poor communication style.

Hate to be a Public Plonker, but I did plonk Barry shortly after he got
here, then thought I was being hasty and decided to unplonk. Looks like I
was right the first time.
--
-Kelly

On 10 Jun 2005 18:41:32 -0700, "bigbadbarry"
wrote:


I got new for you, everybody that chastises a child or pet is not a
character from deliverance, or ignorant either. I don't use treats and
rewards. Treats are for dogs doing parlor tricks, cat's walking high
wires. I am good all the time, or at least I try. This is no
motivation, this is...how you train an animal.

Really, no it's not how you train an animal. I am a
*professional* trainer/behaviourist. I solve problems with aggressive
animals all the time for my clients. My cats do ICAT, and have
dog-style basic obedience. I foster the aggressive, abused, or
otherwise 'difficult' dogs for Papillon Rescue. I volunteer train
with Lab Rescue. I have helped train detection dogs.
When rehabilitating abused or aggressive animals, you *never*
use physical force. You use a combination of reward and verbal
correction.
When training any dog that must work on a high level (Search
and Rescue, detection, police dogs, military K-9s) the dogs are
*never* *ever* trained with force. They are trained with reward --
usually a special ball or tug toy and lots and lots of praise. I
regularly tell my clients and students that the stupider you sound to
yourself (high-pitched voice, goofy sing-song, lots of 't' and 'd'
sounds) the better the dog likes it and the better he will work for
you.

After all, you do your work for reward -- why shouldn't your
pets?


Orchid
See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid

Orchid wrote:

Yeah, well Brak still needs a swat and he will stop.
You don't throw a treat up into the middle of a cat fight.

I got new for you, everybody that chastises a child or pet is not a
character from deliverance, or ignorant either. I don't use treats and
rewards. Treats are for dogs doing parlor tricks, cat's walking high
wires. I am good all the time, or at least I try. This is no
motivation, this is...how you train an animal.

Really, no it's not how you train an animal. I am a
*professional* trainer/behaviourist. I solve problems with aggressive
animals all the time for my clients. My cats do ICAT, and have
dog-style basic obedience. I foster the aggressive, abused, or
otherwise 'difficult' dogs for Papillon Rescue. I volunteer train
with Lab Rescue. I have helped train detection dogs.
When rehabilitating abused or aggressive animals, you *never*
use physical force. You use a combination of reward and verbal
correction.
When training any dog that must work on a high level (Search
and Rescue, detection, police dogs, military K-9s) the dogs are
*never* *ever* trained with force. They are trained with reward --
usually a special ball or tug toy and lots and lots of praise. I
regularly tell my clients and students that the stupider you sound to
yourself (high-pitched voice, goofy sing-song, lots of 't' and 'd'
sounds) the better the dog likes it and the better he will work for
you.

After all, you do your work for reward -- why shouldn't your
pets?


Orchid
See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid

"bigbadbarry" wrote in message
oups.com...


Catnipped wrote:
But Barry, how does causing pain create morality?

I think you misunderstood my meaning.

And yes, the thief will
have a child who is a thief because that is what the child has been
taught
by emulating his father?

I did not say a thief will begat a thief (he probably will, but this is
not what I said), I say, a thief can abstain from spanking his child.
Yet the child still be immoral. I said this as I thought you was
linking your method with morality. Plenty of hoodlums I have known,
have never got a spanking (and they are hoodlums for a reason I know.)
Spankings or No, does not have an effect on morals. As I say, I got my
share of beatings, and I am moral. I am the exception to your rule, and
if the rule is broken it is not a rule it is your belief...what it is
rooted in, I have not come to conclusion yet.

Barry, I know plenty of people who got spanked a *lot* and still grew up bad
with no morals. Just as you say I shouldn't link not spanking with morality
(although I can argue for doing so), neither should you link spanking with
morality. If you have a choice of two ways to correct a behavior, both
equally effective (although, again, I can agrue that the reward method is
*more* effective), then how is using fear and pain justified? If you can
accomplish better results without using fear and pain, why on earth wouldn't
you???!

then won't a person who causes pain have a child who causes pain? And
isn't
there enough pain in this life without us adding to it?
What does causing
pain really teach? Avoidance of the behavior that results in that pain?

I hardly think a swat is painful. It is not. It is the temporary sense
of feeling disconnected that is the motivator. To take my light from
you.
To hide my face from you, this is the motivation.

If you'll read my response to Killy you'll see that I said it's not the pain
that damages, it's the fear that you instill that causes the damage - damage
that's *MUCH* harder to repair than mere physical harm.

Yes, but again I'm saying it's better to run *toward* something than it
is
to run away from something. You run towards the person who makes you
feel
good (especially if they can make you feel good about yourself), you run
away from what or who hurts or frightens you.

I think it's ok to not spank a child, so long as the child minds. You
know.

Even if the child doesn't mind, it's OK to not spank a child because there
are other ways to change the child (or animal's) behavior.

Basically it's called behaviorism. Have you ever read any of B. F.
Skinner's research results? It's real and it's well documented.

No, I've never heard of this author. Thanks for the reccomendation.

B. F Skinner was a psychologist. Here's a quote from one of the web
sites
about his work...

"B. F. Skinner's entire system is based on operant conditioning. The
organism is in the process of "operating" on the environment, which in
ordinary terms means it is bouncing around it world, doing what it does.
During this "operating," the organism encounters a special kind of
stimulus,
called a reinforcing stimulus, or simply a reinforcer. This special
stimulus has the effect of increasing the operant -- that is, the
behavior
occurring just before the reinforcer. This is operant conditioning:
"the
behavior is followed by a consequence, and the nature of the consequence
modifies the organisms tendency to repeat the behavior in the future."

Imagine a rat in a cage. This is a special cage (called, in fact, a
"Skinner
box") that has a bar or pedal on one wall that, when pressed, causes a
little mechanism to release a foot pellet into the cage. The rat is
bouncing around the cage, doing whatever it is rats do, when he
accidentally
presses the bar and -- hey, presto! -- a food pellet falls into the
cage!
The operant is the behavior just prior to the reinforcer, which is the
food
pellet, of course. In no time at all, the rat is furiously peddling
away at
the bar, hoarding his pile of pellets in the corner of the cage.

This is fundamentally flawed becuase it assumes that all organisms are
good.
They are not, it does not give consideration to the foolish.

LOL! generations of experts on human behavior would disagree with you that
this is flawed. The methods Skinner used have become basic research tools
for every student of medicine, psychology or psychiatry (or, really, any
other field of study.

I get the theory, but see humans would find a way to leave the cage, go
get a job and buy many pellets. It's just the truth. but I get the
theory.

You still don't get it, Barry, a human working at a job is equivalent to a
rat pushing the lever - it's doing behavior you wouldn't instinctively do
just to get the reward.

Doing good as a course of life has it's own set of rewards. Reaping and
sowing, what I might think good for myself, someone else might consider
it meager.

No, for any being with nerve endings there is a basic concept of good and
evil: pleasure = good, pain = evil.

I never said that pain or punishment doesn't work, but I did say that it
only works as a short-term (or partial) solution.

I think this is subjective.

No, not subjective, not relative, just fact.

***************
***************
How do you know that
Ruprecht doesn't continue the behavior when you're not there.


Here is the logistics.

When I swatted Ruprecht he felt disconnected, he didn't like that
feeling, and all he has to do to get the feeling back (what feeling?
LOVE) is not chew the chords no more. I didn't expect him to know it
could kill him, I just wanted him to sample the feeling of losing me.
Cause this is what he was fixing to do, loose me.

See, right there you are telling me that, even for just an instant, you took
away Ruprecht's feeling of LOVE. Why? Because the person he loved hurt
him, because the person he loved and trusted frightened him. No matter what
my children, grandchildren, or *CATS* do, I *never* want to take away their
feeling of being loved. What happens when a person has not feeling of being
loved? They become anti-social or even a sociopath. Animals become
agressive and dangerous. They become the opposite of what you're trying to
make them become.

Now take it further, some parents will disown a child. and vica versa,
this is extreme. Some angels are fallen, and they are cut off from his
face. (forever)
****************
****************

??????

a mother and child was walking
out of WalMart and apparently the child had done something she wasn't
supposed to because the mother stopped and spanked her.

I agree, the girl was probably humiliated.

No, not *just* humiliated, the girl was betrayed. The person she most
trusted, loved and depended upon took away that trust, love and feeling of
dependability and replaced it with pain and fear.

Exactly. And a hypocrite is a person who tells a child to play nice and
not
hit his sister and then hits the child for hitting his sister.

"Hits the child" children hit. Parents spank.

Ohmygawd! Are you telling me that calling a piece of **** a rse will make
it suddenly smell sweet????!!

If you assign terms that in people minds are commonly used in
association with something, then you are skewing the philosophy.

OK, this is now becoming sick. Not only do you want to inflict pain and
fear, but you want to brainwash a child that inflicting pain and fear is a
*GOOD* thing???! Talk about skewing philosophy - you are talking about how
to create a warped serial killer now.

You could say, The parent warns the child not to hit his sister.
He does it anyway right in front of you.

You don't just warn the child not to hit his sister, you praise and reward
him for not hitting his sister and the not hitting is sister has become a
*GOOD* thing that he strives to achieve because ti results in good things
for him.

Now, did he, throw a rock and bust her lip?
or did he just barely tap her arm to show his protest to your
instruction?

EIther act would result in consequences that he does not want (time spen in
his room, privileges taken away, etc. But not violence to him - violence to
him only perpetuates the violence by instilling the idea that violence is an
answer to a problem.

You cannot remedy all actions with one prescription. The punishment
should fit the crime.

Yes, if it were a tap on the arm he might get a 5 minute time-out, if it
were a rock to the head he might not get to watch TV for a week. The injury
to his sister will not be healed by hurting her brother - in fact hurting
her brother will likely lead to worse injuries to her in the future because
you've taught her brother to inflict pain to get the results he wants from a
person.

I could also say, that now the one who got hit, feels protected.

No, seeing her brother hurt and seeing her protector lose control and use
violence would *NOT* make her feel protected. Seeing her parent react in a
controlled matter and remedy the situation is what would make her feel
protected.

When the hypocrite spanks his child, that child associates pain and
fear with the giver of that pain. The hypocrite is building a time
bomb. I could go on....I could repeat your writings right here by
memory. I just think there are times when a swat says it all.
A swat says that you think violence is the answer to a problem.

You comment assumes that a swat is violence. This is your definition.

No, it is the dictionary's definition:
swat
n : a sharp blow v : hit swiftly with a violent blow; "Swat flies"

See the word "violence" in the definition?

Judgement is key. You got an inch, you got a mile, and all points in
between.

We can't let the sots ruin it for the parent who lovingly set thier
child in the right path.

But teahcing a child that violence is the solution to a problem is *NOT*
setting them on the right path.

Anger/Love

Love should be the reason to control your anger.

Respect/Fear

Fear is not the same as respect.

Fear/Respect
You cannot have one without the other

No, you couldn't be more wrong. I have *NEVER* respect someone wohm I fear.
I'd fear a 6'10" child molestor - but I certainly wouldn't respect him!

This is why we have capital punishment. It keeps would be murderers
from killing. It makes people change thier minds about killing.

No, Barry, statistics show that states that have capital punishment have
just as many murders as states that don't.

"KellyH" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
Sorry to piggyback but this post pretty well sums up the original
thought that I don't want to be bothered either to look up at the
moment.
Barry, she is right. You post very carelessly, and sometimes it seems
like you just start typing every thought that bounces through your head
at the moment you're writing. If you'd say what you mean, and mean what
you say, you'd spend less time backpedaling and explaining.
You said "bust the cat's ass." That is EXACTLY what you said, and it's
not the first time you claim to be "misunderstood" about your violent
tendencies toward behavior modification. Lyn called you on the exact
same thing way back, and you made a big deal out of explaining what you
meant.
I don't think you'd ever intentionally hurt cat. Then say it like you
mean it. THINK before you post.

I knew Barry would go to the "Wah, I'm misunderstood" line. Now instead
of "busting the cat's ass" he's saying he means swatting the cat with
newspaper.
I'm undecided as to whether he really means what he says the first time,
or just has a very poor communication style.

Hate to be a Public Plonker, but I did plonk Barry shortly after he got
here, then thought I was being hasty and decided to unplonk. Looks like I
was right the first time.
--
-Kelly

Kelly, do you live alone? Or with an emasculated male? Try reading Barry's
posts for their emotion and then re-read for message. Clearly he runs on
both levels with his posting and he's quite philosophical which ... is lost
or wasted on those not so inclined (yourself) and those who are not
introspective.

"bigbadbarry" wrote in message
oups.com...


KellyH wrote:

I knew Barry would go to the "Wah, I'm misunderstood" line. Now instead
of
"busting the cat's ass" he's saying he means swatting the cat with
newspaper.
I'm undecided as to whether he really means what he says the first time,
or
just has a very poor communication style.

Hate to be a Public Plonker, but I did plonk Barry shortly after he got
here, then thought I was being hasty and decided to unplonk. Looks like
I
was right the first time.
--
-Kelly


You know damn well what I meant.

Looks like someone got up with a hair across their ass.


That wasnt'a hair ... it was a bloody lesion. LOL

"Meghan Noecker" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:09:51 -0500, "Catnipped"
wrote:


I don't think that correction means malice, I think correction means just
that - correcting bad behavior by exampling restraint and rewarding good
behavior. Children who are not spanked are not unhappy - children who are
not disciplined are unhappy, but as I've explained spanking and discipline
are not only two different things, they are polar opposites.


Especially with animals and very small children. The punishment
(discipline) needs to be understandable to the child/animal.

And very small chidlren (and animals) are not capable of planning for
the future. Thus, they do behaviors without thought to future
punishment. And they often cannot relate the punishment to the crime.

For example. If you find a mess (overturned trash can, or bathroom
accident), the dog or cat will not associate the punishment with the
mess. They will associate the punishment with whatever happened at the
moment you punished them.

So, when I finally got mad and screamed at my dog for yet another
indoor accident, she associated it with me entering the room. She
cowered every time I entered the room for over a week. It didn't solve
the problem, and I made my dog afraid of me.

What solved the housebreaking issue? I put her on a leash. It was that
simple. Three days of keeping her on a leash in the house. The main
reason was so that I could not accidentally leave her alone. Since she
was never alone, she never had the chance to mess in the house. Also,
by putting her on the leash and making her follow me around the house,
I showed her that I was in charge. Not only did I establish that I was
in control (leader of the pack), I gave her the confidence that I
would take care of things. She became more relaxed the very first day.
She no longer had to worry about things. I was in charge. And the
"rules" were now obvious.

I never hit her. Even a firm "NO" was punishment enough for her.

Discipline is more about consistency and making the right thing easy
to do and the wrong thing hard to do.

Make it easy for them to do the right thing and then reward them for
it.
--
Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com


Good points, Megan! Where kids are concerned, your statement "Dicipline is
more about consistency ..." was SO HARD for my wife to learn. She wanted so
desparately to be The Momma that her smothering love became toxic to both
kids. She would undermine me with both kids just for points. My son broke
away from her at age 10 which made it all that much harder for my daughter
to become independent ... which didn't happen until about age 14 when ...
she became an estrogen bomb in her own right. LOL

"Orchid" wrote in message
news
On 10 Jun 2005 18:41:32 -0700, "bigbadbarry"
wrote:


I got new for you, everybody that chastises a child or pet is not a
character from deliverance, or ignorant either. I don't use treats and
rewards. Treats are for dogs doing parlor tricks, cat's walking high
wires. I am good all the time, or at least I try. This is no
motivation, this is...how you train an animal.

Really, no it's not how you train an animal. I am a
*professional* trainer/behaviourist. I solve problems with aggressive
animals all the time for my clients. My cats do ICAT, and have
dog-style basic obedience. I foster the aggressive, abused, or
otherwise 'difficult' dogs for Papillon Rescue. I volunteer train
with Lab Rescue. I have helped train detection dogs.
When rehabilitating abused or aggressive animals, you *never*
use physical force. You use a combination of reward and verbal
correction.
When training any dog that must work on a high level (Search
and Rescue, detection, police dogs, military K-9s) the dogs are
*never* *ever* trained with force. They are trained with reward --
usually a special ball or tug toy and lots and lots of praise. I
regularly tell my clients and students that the stupider you sound to
yourself (high-pitched voice, goofy sing-song, lots of 't' and 'd'
sounds) the better the dog likes it and the better he will work for
you.

After all, you do your work for reward -- why shouldn't your
pets?


Orchid

Orchid. Barry was talking about cats and using treats to some end ... you
rambled off on rehabilitating abused DOGs. Disconnect.