[lit-ideas] Indian dogs

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 07:41:36 -0700

You're a kick in the old patootie, Andreas.  While I was intending to show
how absurd your statement was.  Robert was assiduously defending you arguing
that you weren't really saying the absurd thing you seemed to be saying.
Okay, now that we know you really did mean to say what you said, let's see
what we can find on the Indian breeds.   Here is the first breed I found:


m  the Rajapalayam.  


The article says that the Rajapalayam make good guard dogs.  Now I'll grant
that the word "dominance" isn't used in the article, but I have never heard
of a guard dog breed that didn't have its dominant members.  


http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001111.html  This article from an
Indian blog says that the Rajapalayam were used to hunt boar.  It also says
that Indians want European dogs while many Europeans want South Indian dogs,
especially the Rjapalayam.




The Rampur Hound.


http://www.dogsindia.com/rampur_hound.htm  The Rampur Hound is derived from
the Afghan Tazi, very ferocious, and the Greyhound.  Did they breed all the
Tazi ferocity out of the Rampur hound?  I doubt it.


The Kanni


http://www.dogsindia.com/kanni.htm  The Kanni are not allowed to roam the
streets.  Why not when it is so peaceful out there?  They are used for
hunting.  Hunting?



The Mudhol Hound


http://www.dogsindia.com/mudhol_hound.htm  Watch out for this one.  The
males have a tendency to attack at times.


Okay, I found those in an hour of searching.  The Indian dog breeds sound
like the dog breeds I am familiar with - not a separate species given to
peace and tranquility - just dogs.  








-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 6:57 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Can't have a gun? Get a dog


"Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


> Ah, so that's what you meant.  Well, what I said wasn't a strawman.  It

> to show the absurdity of Andreas statement. I intended a reduction ad

> absurdum.  Viz. If you don't need to show a dominant dog that you are

> dominant, that leaves him dominant.


The absurdity of my statement? Which one wins, Lawrence? Logical arguments
or facts?


Fact overthrows your argument, no matter how you argue. In India, you don't
have to show 

dogs that you're dominant, and the dogs don't dominate by default.


And, by the way, I also saw black swans in India.







To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  • » [lit-ideas] Indian dogs