2. There is a distinction between a cruel man and an everyday decent chap whom perfoms what we regard as a cruel act.

Now - that only is true if the individual doesn`t understand the pain he causes or doesn`t care. It`s fairly obvious that AP doesn`t care and profits from what he does. In my book, causing pain for profit makes you a cruel man (or wioman).

3. If we find something morally repugnant, it is much easier for us to ratonalise it by saying their 'must be something wrong with the man'.
Actually, no. I honestly believe that people who can torture without any qualms must have something very wrong with them.

As for banning and censorship for expressing unpopular views, yet having followed all the inter personal manners and politeness as required by dogsey rules, i disagree.

Perhaps AP would like to clear this up himself? AP, have you, do you, will you sell e-collars?

Who has said he should be banned? Did I miss that?

I find the e collar the best method to sort it out, and I mean sort it in a reasonable timescale and properly sorted.
Adam

How strange Adam, that video along with the weired tramp who posted it was banned from You Tube, I wonder if they are aware he has re joined and posted again . Are you his spokes person now , he has been banned across the internet , your association with him does nothing for your credibility.

I notice yet again you have been selective in replying to posts asking you questions ,that's your privilege of course but it speaks volumes to me !

Just caught up with this thread again. Well done Wys, Brierley & Minihaha for pointing out the truth of the references cited by Adam. And I agree ~ it seems highly unlikely that Adam came up with that response on his own!!

But even if he did, how flawed & outdated were those references!!! And how could anyone believe the views of someone being paid as a consultant for an e-collar manufacturer

Adam ~ there's a wealth of far more up to date, properly conducted scientific studies on the use of aversive methods to deal with dog behaviour & training issues ~ and they all conclude that the use of e-collars & other aversive methods are cruel, painful & compromise the animal's welfare. Some of the most respected dog behaviour organisations in the world have issued statements condemning the use of e-collars, & these include veterinary behaviourists, not just people employed by e-collar manufacturers! I am at a complete loss as to why you seem so intent on promoting their use ~ despite this evidence & despite the fact that you get so roundly condemned & put down on this forum.

Up to now I have given you the benefit of doubt in that your posts are polite & you haven't reacted to the vitriol. I thought that maybe logic, science & pointing out to you the harm you are doing to dogs, may have caused you to stop & reconsider what you are doing; that maybe, if you had an ounce of compassion for the dogs you claim to help, you would have looked into all the evidence we've given you on the pain & harm that e-collars & other aversives cause. I would have huge respect for you if had been able to do that & made a complete volte face & decided to study & use positive reinforcement as your primary tool.

But you haven't ~ you've continued to quote flawed references, you've demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of learning theory, you've only answered selected questions, and to crown it all, you've now shown that you don't understand dog behaviour at all by those video clips of your poor dogs.

Like Krusewalker, I've tried to speak against your methods, rather than you personally. But I've now given up ~ you are dangerous & cruel to dogs & you are clearly unwilling to even consider that you may be wrong ~ how arrogant is that!!!

I think it was Emma that has asked on several occasions, that if e-collars don't hurt, & the use of punishment based techniques are ok, why don't we zap kids with e-collars? Because it DOES hurt & because it's illegal. The following article refers to a father who's now in custody for "criminal mistreatment" of his children because he used an e-collar on them

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...t_ok_for_dogs/

There's alot of chat about scientific evidence to suggest e collars are bad.
However my experience has been the opposite.


http://co104w.col104.mail.live.com/d...?wa=wsignin1.0

By Stephen lyndsay a respected behaviourist in the states, who is also I believe coming to the uk this weekend for a seminar, I believe he was invited by proffessor Mills who is conducted a study into e collars for defra. I believe Mills invited him because he has found nothing wrong with e collars so far.

This page

http://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2010/...-cite-no-evil/

Also discusses the scientific studies in depth and discusses a very interesting study in the early 1980s.

I've copied it over in case anyone (like me) has trouble following links on this forum

Given the widespread references /cites to studies that support the idea that e-collars are not only cruel and abusive, but that they can also elicit aggressive behavior — imagine my surprise when I came across an article providing strong evidence that e-collars were astonishingly effective in rehabilitating aggression in dogs.

Daniel F. Tortora’s study, titled “Safety Training: The Elimination of Avoidance-Motivated Aggression in Dogs,” was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General in 1983.

Adam would argue the pain isnt so or minimal. Which would, under the discussion of the question of ethics, would equate him with a slaughterhouseman, for example. Psychologically and philosophically, it is not a rational standpoint to state every person that does an act that some may find cruel is therefore a cruel person. You cannot paint people that black and white and discount the whole person and the rest of his life and behaviour.
Otherwise, on that basis, you would have to argue that all slaughtermen and farmers and soldiers are cruel

I disagree with your argument , that would imply a slaughter man and such could be deemed in the same light as someone who uses an e.collar.

I disagree with your argument , that would imply a slaughter man and such could be deemed in the same light as someone who uses an e.collar.

The slaughter man/soldier /farmer, may inflict what some may see as cruelty to another living thing.....once with the end result of death.

the e.collar user will use pain, over and over and over again to get a result that could be achieved another way.

You cant eat meat unless you kill the cow, the soldier has to kill his enemy or be killed.

The e,collar user will use a tool that inflicts pain, for his own end, mainly because they are incapable of using other methods.

You can only die once , a dog can be zapped a thousand times, inflicting the same trauma over and over again.

agreed. There is no other way to get meat than to kill the animal.

there is, dont eat meat...you see, their is a context for the ethical argument, so you cannot separate the ethics from the context anymore than you can seperate the rest of the man from the act when you describe him.

There are other ways to train than to inflict pain.

i agree, that isnt what im discussing

KW- Would you defend torture using the same argument?