Freethought & Rationalism Archive

three4jump · 08-13-2003, 02:16 PM

I did compose a thorough and detailed reply, but apparently IIDF had an outage or something, and it was dumped. I'll try again.

three4jump · 08-13-2003, 04:13 PM

Coming to a decision or an opinion about something based on fear and prejudice tends to aggravate the problem rather than fix anything. If I were to say, �I�ve had bad experiences with blacks. They are aggressive and unmanageable, and if they commit crimes they should be put away for a long time��this is clearly a prejudicial statement. The damage of this prejudice is not just to the slandered party; it creates ill will, confusion, and disinformation about a topic that requires understanding if there is ever to be a solution. Dogs do not have the same rights as people, whether or not I think they deserve some basic protected rights. But the problem with saying �A dog that attacks should be euthanized� is not only that it is prejudicial against innocent dogs; the main problem is that it ignores the underlying problem at the heart of dog attacks, which is negligent owners.

A definition of �attack� would be helpful. By the time children graduate from high school, nearly half of them will have been bitten by a dog at least once. I don�t think anyone here is suggesting that every single dog bite should result in euthanasia, but if you are, please say so. When I think of an attack that may warrant euthanasia, I am thinking of the worst 1% or so of those bites, in which the person had a perfect right to expect freedom from harm in a public space, and a dog came out of nowhere to attack that person resulting in severe injuries requiring hospitalization (not just a couple of stitches.)

As explained in this NY Times article, It Takes Training and Genes to Make a Mean Dog Mean dogs will not attack people unless there is a combination of genes and training. I don�t agree with everything in the article, especially where a behavioral scientist recommends that �any dog that bites should be euthanized or not allowed in public without a leash and muzzle, according to the circumstances of the attack.� First of all, all dogs should be on a leash (or 100% reliable voice command) in public for their own safety just as much as for the safety of others. Second, although this researcher probably came to this conclusion after much thought, and not just from a basic fear of dogs in general, it still doesn�t address the problem of the negligent owner.

Let�s take the worst-case example of Bane, the San Francisco monster/dog. In this case, from what I know of it, I do support the euthanization of Bane because of the high likelihood of another such incident even after extensive retraining, but was the dog to blame for the attack? No. The dog was not responsible for his genes. Although no organism can choose its genes, dogs have had their genes selected by humans, usually for a specific purpose. It would be pointless to blame nature for bad gene combinations in a lemur in Madagascar, but when a handful of humans are breeding dogs for the purpose of aggression toward humans, there is a culpable group to which the law can and should apply. The dog was not responsible for his upbringing, environment, and training, which were not just negligent but criminal in intent. The bizarre and dangerous couple ended up in jail, appropriately. Anyone who imagines what it must have been like for the poor woman to have been bitten to death by these huge and vicious dogs will have a hard time thinking of them as innocent, but they were innocent because they were only doing what they were bred and trained and permitted to do. This is not the same as saying a serial killer is innocent because he was beaten as a child. I maintain that even the most aggressive dog is innocent of responsibility for harm. Humans took on that responsibility when they domesticated the animal thousands of years ago. It would be like suing a cow for farting a hole in the ozone layer: it wouldn�t be fair to the cow and it wouldn�t fix the ozone hole.

The decision to euthanize is often driven by a component of fear. The parents of the child that was bitten are often fearful about threats to their children that are unpredictable or difficult to control. Eliminating the dog seems to eliminate or reduce the chance of a future attack. If the child were attacked with a gun, you wouldn�t think that destroying the gun had taken away the risk. You would demand that the man holding the gun be dealt with. In a way, it was not the dog that bit the child so much as it was another person that bit the child using a dog as the tool. I think it would do more to eliminate or reduce the chance of future attacks by dogs if those who are afraid of dogs would take the time to get to know dogs. Once you know how dogs behave, you can see that they behave in very predictable ways. For me, knowledge of dogs has given me confidence around strange dogs that reduces my chances of being bit. Before I got my dogs, I had a wave of fear shoot through me one night when I was running after dark and I was faced with two 100-pounds-plus dogs standing in the middle of the road. By cautiously skirting around them, I put myself at risk of being chased, and if I had started to run out of fear, they would no doubt have caught me as their chase instinct kicked in. If the same situation happened to me today, I would walk up to those dogs and try to pet them. I would try to see if they had tags that they were comfortable with me looking at, and if they had accidentally gotten out of someone�s yard, I could notify them and fix a potentially dangerous situation. If they were uncomfortable with me approaching them, I would at least let them know that I wasn�t afraid of them and I could kick their asses if I wanted to. They would understand from my body language that I was in charge of the situation.

Not liking dogs and being afraid of them only makes matters worse. It focuses negative attention on the innocent dog and leaves the negligent or criminal owner free to ruin another dog�s life. Euthanizing a dog may be necessary for a variety of reasons, but it should always be a last resort after careful examination of the situation, and it should never be a substitute for holding the owner responsible.

godfry n. glad · 08-14-2003, 08:31 AM

Well, three4jump, I'd point out that jurisprudence in many states in the U.S. support a concept that suggests that an owner can take steps to remediate the behavior of a dog that bites...it's often known as "one free bite" or like name. It recognizes that other circumstances may have led to the bite mishap and that the dog owner may have been unaware of their pet's behavior pattern, but they are on notice that it cannot happen again, for if it does, the animal is euthanized. I have no problem with such a policy, particularly if it can be overruled in particularly heinous cases.

I also strongly agree that the real problem is the owner. The problem is that the weapon, the dog, needs to be removed from the possession of the owner who has created the problem. And, yes, destroyed....just as guns of violent criminals are. The problem is, I know of no legal restriction on these dangerous humans which would prevent them from starting all over with a new dog. Do you?

Again, I do not see why you resorted to your egregious insult. What you stated in your extensive response, along with all your patronizing bullshit about fear and prejudice, is nothing but a fuller statement of my brief comment. You never directly answered my question about how I've been ignorant on this issue. Dogs off-leash in public places are dangerous weapons....you stated as much yourself.

I'm waiting for an apology from you.

godfry

three4jump · 08-14-2003, 09:54 AM

I'm sorry that you are misreading my posts and are choosing not to understand after I have explained as thoroughly as I can.

godfry n. glad · 08-14-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by three4jump
I'm sorry that you are misreading my posts and are choosing not to understand after I have explained as thoroughly as I can.

Excuse me?

Ahem...I think we need to poll on that.

AquaVita, seebs, Morat, Marduck, reprise, Earl...

Do you think I have significantly misread any of three4jumps posts, or is there any evidence that I am either "choosing not to understand" or I am "sounding like a Christian"?

I'm curious.

godfry

EarlFlynn · 08-14-2003, 02:45 PM

Most of my response, three4jump, came about because of your assumption that "dogs and humans are uniquely compatible." To me, that statement implies that anyone who doesn't like dogs, or who has good reason to fear them, has a screw loose. I've never done anything to provoke a dog, and yet I've been the victim of two serious attacks: once at the age of seven, another at the age of 15. So you'll forgive me if I display little desire to "get to know dogs better." And please, spare me the racism analogy; there's a difference between sentient beings and dogs. Call me an "anti-animalist" if you like; it's more accurate and less insulting.

I recognize that the penalties I espoused are probably a little harsh, and I'll admit they were partially motivated by fear. While I don't appreciate dogs, I recognize that a death penalty for a relatively harmless nip is too cruel to justify. Like you, three4jump, I believe that better education for dog owners is critical. But there will always be rogue dogs and rogue dog owners, so I'll continue to keep my distance from both.

Contrary to what my attitude implies, I think all animals should be treated with respect and dignity. Just don't ask me to love them, don't ask me to appreciate it when they jump up and slobber all over me, and don't imply that there's something wrong with me just because I don't buy into the "man's best friend" mythology. As far as I'm concerned, dogs are just the world's most successful parasite.

three4jump · 08-14-2003, 03:16 PM

EarlFlynn, I apologise for lumping you together with g.n.g., the person who posted this:

Quote:

I think that dogs off-leash where it's illegal to be so, should be fair game....and I mean game in the sense of a target for those with guns. Shoot on sight any dog when it is off-leash where it shouldn't be...

Dogs are almost the world's most successful parasites, second only to humans. I don't think you are a racist--I never said anyone was--and I was suggesting you get to know dogs in a more positive way for your own benefit, not because I think everyone should love dogs. Yes, beligerent dog owners are the root of the problem; my only point was that the backlash caused by those bad dog owners is often not directed at the proper target.

lisarea · 08-14-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EarlFlynn
Most of my response, three4jump, came about because of your assumption that "dogs and humans are uniquely compatible."

I interpreted this to mean that the relationship between humans and dogs is unique, and I wouldn't assume it was intended to offend any more than, say, claiming humans are bipedal is meant to offend amputees.

It's a generalized statement, and I consider the human-dog relationship unique, in that dogs evolved largely at the hands of humans.

Quote:

And please, spare me the racism analogy; there's a difference between sentient beings and dogs. Call me an "anti-animalist" if you like; it's more accurate and less insulting.

Certainly you don't mean sentient? Dogs are sentient.

Sapient, maybe?

Marduk · 08-14-2003, 04:19 PM

"Ahem...I think we need to poll on that.

AquaVita, seebs, Morat, Marduck, reprise, Earl...

Do you think I have significantly misread any of three4jumps posts, or is there any evidence that I am either "choosing not to understand" or I am "sounding like a Christian"?"

I'm not sure anymore, there are so many dog threads I've forgotten who said what and I don't want to go back and read them again.

I think everyone has made their case.
many dogs and dog owners are jerks.
dogs are not machines, they have a mind of their own and sometimes do things on impulse we don't like.
which is why leash laws should exist and be enforced and why dipshits should not be allowed to own a dog with teeth
an agressive dog with a history of attacking people or other dogs should be put to sleep or retired to a privately funded no kill, no adopt shelter.

EarlFlynn · 08-14-2003, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lisarea
I interpreted this to mean that the relationship between humans and dogs is unique, and I wouldn't assume it was intended to offend any more than, say, claiming humans are bipedal is meant to offend amputees.

It's a generalized statement, and I consider the human-dog relationship unique, in that dogs evolved largely at the hands of humans.

Certainly you don't mean sentient? Dogs are sentient.

Sapient, maybe?

Sapient, sorry.

I tend to get a little heated when it comes to the subject of dogs, and it doesn't help that my employer allows two of them to run around loose in the office. They're not bad dogs, as far as I can tell, but it still makes me nervous, so it's a more or less constant source of stress. If I sound a little strident, that's why. I've actually gone into therapy to try and address the issue, but the fear and loathing, unfortunately, remains.

It's upsetting. I consider myself a rational being, but (geek alert) as Sarek once said, "My logic fails me where my son is concerned." My logic fails me where dogs are concerned. If truth be known, I envy animal lovers a little for their empathy.

Marduck and godfry: I don't think you sound like Christians. You could even argue - and this isn't a dig, lisa and three4jump, just an observation - that anyone who's passionate about a subject, including dog lovers, tends to use a tone that isn't very moderate. "Get to know dogs/Christ better, and you'll understand." Or, paraphrasing my earlier post, "Dogs who attack should be euthanized immediately."

Whew. Rational discourse on emotional subjects isn't easy when you feel threatened.

EDIT: "dogs/Christ" may be a little unclear; three4jump never said that, I'm just trying to imply that the appeal is similar.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2003, 02:16 PM	#31
three4jump Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Useless Bay Posts: 1,434	I did compose a thorough and detailed reply, but apparently IIDF had an outage or something, and it was dumped. I'll try again.

08-13-2003, 04:13 PM	#32
three4jump Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Useless Bay Posts: 1,434	Coming to a decision or an opinion about something based on fear and prejudice tends to aggravate the problem rather than fix anything. If I were to say, �I�ve had bad experiences with blacks. They are aggressive and unmanageable, and if they commit crimes they should be put away for a long time��this is clearly a prejudicial statement. The damage of this prejudice is not just to the slandered party; it creates ill will, confusion, and disinformation about a topic that requires understanding if there is ever to be a solution. Dogs do not have the same rights as people, whether or not I think they deserve some basic protected rights. But the problem with saying �A dog that attacks should be euthanized� is not only that it is prejudicial against innocent dogs; the main problem is that it ignores the underlying problem at the heart of dog attacks, which is negligent owners. A definition of �attack� would be helpful. By the time children graduate from high school, nearly half of them will have been bitten by a dog at least once. I don�t think anyone here is suggesting that every single dog bite should result in euthanasia, but if you are, please say so. When I think of an attack that may warrant euthanasia, I am thinking of the worst 1% or so of those bites, in which the person had a perfect right to expect freedom from harm in a public space, and a dog came out of nowhere to attack that person resulting in severe injuries requiring hospitalization (not just a couple of stitches.) As explained in this NY Times article, It Takes Training and Genes to Make a Mean Dog Mean dogs will not attack people unless there is a combination of genes and training. I don�t agree with everything in the article, especially where a behavioral scientist recommends that �any dog that bites should be euthanized or not allowed in public without a leash and muzzle, according to the circumstances of the attack.� First of all, all dogs should be on a leash (or 100% reliable voice command) in public for their own safety just as much as for the safety of others. Second, although this researcher probably came to this conclusion after much thought, and not just from a basic fear of dogs in general, it still doesn�t address the problem of the negligent owner. Let�s take the worst-case example of Bane, the San Francisco monster/dog. In this case, from what I know of it, I do support the euthanization of Bane because of the high likelihood of another such incident even after extensive retraining, but was the dog to blame for the attack? No. The dog was not responsible for his genes. Although no organism can choose its genes, dogs have had their genes selected by humans, usually for a specific purpose. It would be pointless to blame nature for bad gene combinations in a lemur in Madagascar, but when a handful of humans are breeding dogs for the purpose of aggression toward humans, there is a culpable group to which the law can and should apply. The dog was not responsible for his upbringing, environment, and training, which were not just negligent but criminal in intent. The bizarre and dangerous couple ended up in jail, appropriately. Anyone who imagines what it must have been like for the poor woman to have been bitten to death by these huge and vicious dogs will have a hard time thinking of them as innocent, but they were innocent because they were only doing what they were bred and trained and permitted to do. This is not the same as saying a serial killer is innocent because he was beaten as a child. I maintain that even the most aggressive dog is innocent of responsibility for harm. Humans took on that responsibility when they domesticated the animal thousands of years ago. It would be like suing a cow for farting a hole in the ozone layer: it wouldn�t be fair to the cow and it wouldn�t fix the ozone hole. The decision to euthanize is often driven by a component of fear. The parents of the child that was bitten are often fearful about threats to their children that are unpredictable or difficult to control. Eliminating the dog seems to eliminate or reduce the chance of a future attack. If the child were attacked with a gun, you wouldn�t think that destroying the gun had taken away the risk. You would demand that the man holding the gun be dealt with. In a way, it was not the dog that bit the child so much as it was another person that bit the child using a dog as the tool. I think it would do more to eliminate or reduce the chance of future attacks by dogs if those who are afraid of dogs would take the time to get to know dogs. Once you know how dogs behave, you can see that they behave in very predictable ways. For me, knowledge of dogs has given me confidence around strange dogs that reduces my chances of being bit. Before I got my dogs, I had a wave of fear shoot through me one night when I was running after dark and I was faced with two 100-pounds-plus dogs standing in the middle of the road. By cautiously skirting around them, I put myself at risk of being chased, and if I had started to run out of fear, they would no doubt have caught me as their chase instinct kicked in. If the same situation happened to me today, I would walk up to those dogs and try to pet them. I would try to see if they had tags that they were comfortable with me looking at, and if they had accidentally gotten out of someone�s yard, I could notify them and fix a potentially dangerous situation. If they were uncomfortable with me approaching them, I would at least let them know that I wasn�t afraid of them and I could kick their asses if I wanted to. They would understand from my body language that I was in charge of the situation. Not liking dogs and being afraid of them only makes matters worse. It focuses negative attention on the innocent dog and leaves the negligent or criminal owner free to ruin another dog�s life. Euthanizing a dog may be necessary for a variety of reasons, but it should always be a last resort after careful examination of the situation, and it should never be a substitute for holding the owner responsible.

08-14-2003, 08:31 AM	#33
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Well, three4jump, I'd point out that jurisprudence in many states in the U.S. support a concept that suggests that an owner can take steps to remediate the behavior of a dog that bites...it's often known as "one free bite" or like name. It recognizes that other circumstances may have led to the bite mishap and that the dog owner may have been unaware of their pet's behavior pattern, but they are on notice that it cannot happen again, for if it does, the animal is euthanized. I have no problem with such a policy, particularly if it can be overruled in particularly heinous cases. I also strongly agree that the real problem is the owner. The problem is that the weapon, the dog, needs to be removed from the possession of the owner who has created the problem. And, yes, destroyed....just as guns of violent criminals are. The problem is, I know of no legal restriction on these dangerous humans which would prevent them from starting all over with a new dog. Do you? Again, I do not see why you resorted to your egregious insult. What you stated in your extensive response, along with all your patronizing bullshit about fear and prejudice, is nothing but a fuller statement of my brief comment. You never directly answered my question about how I've been ignorant on this issue. Dogs off-leash in public places are dangerous weapons....you stated as much yourself. I'm waiting for an apology from you. godfry

08-14-2003, 09:54 AM	#34
three4jump Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Useless Bay Posts: 1,434	I'm sorry that you are misreading my posts and are choosing not to understand after I have explained as thoroughly as I can.

08-14-2003, 02:45 PM	#36
EarlFlynn Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Posts: 1,806	Most of my response, three4jump, came about because of your assumption that "dogs and humans are uniquely compatible." To me, that statement implies that anyone who doesn't like dogs, or who has good reason to fear them, has a screw loose. I've never done anything to provoke a dog, and yet I've been the victim of two serious attacks: once at the age of seven, another at the age of 15. So you'll forgive me if I display little desire to "get to know dogs better." And please, spare me the racism analogy; there's a difference between sentient beings and dogs. Call me an "anti-animalist" if you like; it's more accurate and less insulting. I recognize that the penalties I espoused are probably a little harsh, and I'll admit they were partially motivated by fear. While I don't appreciate dogs, I recognize that a death penalty for a relatively harmless nip is too cruel to justify. Like you, three4jump, I believe that better education for dog owners is critical. But there will always be rogue dogs and rogue dog owners, so I'll continue to keep my distance from both. Contrary to what my attitude implies, I think all animals should be treated with respect and dignity. Just don't ask me to love them, don't ask me to appreciate it when they jump up and slobber all over me, and don't imply that there's something wrong with me just because I don't buy into the "man's best friend" mythology. As far as I'm concerned, dogs are just the world's most successful parasite.

08-14-2003, 04:19 PM	#39
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"Ahem...I think we need to poll on that. AquaVita, seebs, Morat, Marduck, reprise, Earl... Do you think I have significantly misread any of three4jumps posts, or is there any evidence that I am either "choosing not to understand" or I am "sounding like a Christian"?" I'm not sure anymore, there are so many dog threads I've forgotten who said what and I don't want to go back and read them again. I think everyone has made their case. many dogs and dog owners are jerks. dogs are not machines, they have a mind of their own and sometimes do things on impulse we don't like. which is why leash laws should exist and be enforced and why dipshits should not be allowed to own a dog with teeth an agressive dog with a history of attacking people or other dogs should be put to sleep or retired to a privately funded no kill, no adopt shelter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.