It’s just that a statement such as “dogs>people” is something I have yet to fully comprehend the reasoning behind.
Exactly and there is Still no explanation after 500 words typed.
Maybe another dog lover can explain what dogs > humans actually means.
I think that’s why people make statements such as “Dogs>People”. A human being can easily tell you to your face that you’re wack.
Dogs don’t have such ability, so people can blindly assume that dogs like them.
So, there seems to be confusion.
Nobody ever said dogs were unable to use non-verbal communication to show appreciation to/for humans. Of course they can, you have to be blind yourself NOT to be able to "see" that.
The point I was making with the, "they can't talk" comment was in reference to us CLAIMING they have unconditional love for us. If someone IS able to VOICE their displeasure to us and tell us what they don't like about us or what we are doing, we will be less likely to blindly assume the depth of their feelings to us.
So it is easy to say, "Dogs have unconditional love for us" but we are making a big assumption with that claim. We have no clue.
I just don't understand why humans are so arrogant to think the human/beast relationship is any LESS transactional than a human/human relationship.
Overall, I just think this, "Dogs love us unconditionally" narrative created by humans is pure bull.