Neoteny wrote:
We may not have effectively demonstrated that the analogy is too simplistic, but you have not demonstrated that it is complex enough. Quid pro quo, friend.
Let's see...
Harry Truman. Essentially ended a world war via the senseless total destruction of two cities and hundreds of thousands of people. Dog or wolf?
Paul Jennings Hill. Killed an abortionist to "save" unborn children. Dog or wolf?
Jefferson Davis. Led his nation in resistance to an invasive force. Dog or wolf?
I'll concede that their can be some overlapping between dog and sheep and dog and wolf, most people do fit relatively nicely into one of these categories. These aren't actually animals but rather personality types regarding conflict.
A big part in deciding whether to consider a person a dog or a wolf is their motivation. Let's look at the examples you've provided.
Harry Truman: I would call him a dog. His intention in dropping the atom bomb was to save American lives. I do believe that had he thought he had the option to do this without killing any Japanese he would have rather done that thing, but no such option existed.
In all reality he may have saved Japanese lives in dropping the bombs too, as the Japanese military was notorious for fighting to the death to the last man, and executing their own civilians rather than allowing them to fall into enemy control.
To top it off, he probably did not fully understand what the bomb was before it was used.
Paul Jennings Hill: Dog. His perspective was that he was doing this to save innocent children from murder. We can debate the merits of his sanity elsewhere if you like but the underlying principal in his actions was one of perceived justice.
Jefferson Davis: President of the Confederacy, this one is the most interesting as there is some overlapping between dog and wolf. He may have thought he was protecting his people which is a characteristic of a dog, but the reason that his states were seceding was unjust. I'm going to call him a wolf.
The Civil War was fought by the Confederacy over the issue of states rights. The most prominent right of states which they were fighting to defend was slavery, which was exploitative. Treating human beings, or things which exhibit intelligence like human beings as Africans were not considered the same species at the time, is undoubtedly wrong.
Davis was organizing a revolution in large part so that this exploitation could continue and therefore can be considered a wolf.
Robert E. Lee on the other hand, who opposed slavery but fought on the grounds that his states rights were being trampled upon, I would call a dog.
) but then to find a conservative one to marry..You know, someone with values...