NonaryGamesJul 29, 2023 6:49 PM
 |
| I don't think we know enough about what makes certain breeds of dogs a bit more hyper in certain situations. What I mean is I'd like to have good information as to why it's mostly always children being bitten indoors and on the face. Maybe these dogs shouldn't be indoor pets. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| No. Dogs are not "Born dangerous." It is the sole fault of the owner, who often trains certain breeds to be "Guard Dogs." Training dogs to be guard dogs is what should be banned. |
 |
| From what I can gather it's mostly the issue of people owning dog breeds whose necessary raising methods are unfamiliar to them, rather than the breed being inherently wild or dangerous or whatever they label them as.For example, should an owner be surprised that a dog like, say, a Caucasian Shepherd hurt their 2-year old child by, let's say, stomping on them while the kid was playing with the dog in the house?While even a Caucasian Shepherd can be a huge friend of kids and a whole family, you still shouldn't raise it as you would a small typical "house dog", you need different methods with varying degrees of strictness for certain breeds of dogs to be obedient and more or less tame. |
 |
| Dumbasses who think the breed of dog is the problem should be banned. |
| "No, son, you may not have your body pillow at the dinner table!" |
| Lots of black people commit crimes. We should ban black people. |
 |
| No one "owns" a dog. A dog is not a "thing" to be "owned". I hate people who put a leash on a dog as if humans are actually superior to dogs, that's ridiculous. You can live with a dog or a cat. But you can never own them. Using a leash on a dog is what should be banned. |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
| Dogs are not dangerous - their "owners" are. |
| It should be done by breed only to not cause any unnecessary bans. |
 |
| Yes, but there are the usually "dog lovers" who always make up excuses about how these dogs are actually made mean by their owners, etc., and these dogs always end up hurting innocent people and children. Screw these people, dangerous dogs should be banned absolutely. |
PeppermintHearts said: it must be hard to be a tard.Yes, but there are the usually "dog lovers" who always make up excuses about how these dogs are actually made mean by their owners, etc., and these dogs always end up hurting innocent people and children. Screw these people, dangerous dogs should be banned absolutely. Dogs shouldn't be banned by breed. Abusive owners should be banned. And I am speaking as a dog attack survivor of multiple occasions. |
Seiya said: That isn't entirely true. As with humans, and most animals, their is some level of genetics involved in behavior, and while I agree that determining a dog as being dangerous by breed is silly, there are dogs that are "born dangerous". No. Dogs are not "Born dangerous." It is the sole fault of the owner, who often trains certain breeds to be "Guard Dogs." If you have ever met someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, you will know what I mean when I say that their are humans "born dangerous". What shouldn't be happening, is people breeding certain dogs who have an aggressive disposition (which is common either as "guard dogs" or fighting dogs) |
 |
Pirating_Ninja said: Seiya said: That isn't entirely true. As with humans, and most animals, their is some level of genetics involved in behavior, and while I agree that determining a dog as being dangerous by breed is silly, there are dogs that are "born dangerous". No. Dogs are not "Born dangerous." It is the sole fault of the owner, who often trains certain breeds to be "Guard Dogs." If you have ever met someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, you will know what I mean when I say that their are humans "born dangerous". What shouldn't be happening, is people breeding certain dogs who have an aggressive disposition (which is common either as "guard dogs" or fighting dogs) A dog will act the way it is raised. There is no "Born Dangerous." Nobody is "Born" antisocial either. It all depends on how you were raised as a very small child. |
|
| Is it okay if I raise a pet tiger and feed it human meat? I think it's a really good idea, are my thoughts. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
Seiya said: Research doesn't support that at all, while they have found possible links with early traumatic events, the one thing they can be certain of is that it is to an extent genetic. Pirating_Ninja said: That isn't entirely true. As with humans, and most animals, their is some level of genetics involved in behavior, and while I agree that determining a dog as being dangerous by breed is silly, there are dogs that are "born dangerous". If you have ever met someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, you will know what I mean when I say that their are humans "born dangerous". What shouldn't be happening, is people breeding certain dogs who have an aggressive disposition (which is common either as "guard dogs" or fighting dogs) A dog will act the way it is raised. There is no "Born Dangerous." Nobody is "Born" antisocial either. It all depends on how you were raised as a very small child. Not many modern behavioral scientists still support any theory suggesting that behavior is the sole result of environment. (most experts have actually moved on to determining what % is genetic, and what % is environmental) Otherwise it would be safe to raise animals like lions, tigers or bears. (saw post above me and had to include this) |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Seiya said: Research doesn't support that at all, while they have found possible links with early traumatic events, the one thing they can be certain of is that it is to an extent genetic. A dog will act the way it is raised. There is no "Born Dangerous." Nobody is "Born" antisocial either. It all depends on how you were raised as a very small child. Not many modern behavioral scientists still support any theory suggesting that behavior is the sole result of environment. (most experts have actually moved on to determining what % is genetic, and what % is environmental) Otherwise it would be safe to raise animals like lions, tigers or bears. (saw post above me and had to include this) There's a difference. Lions, tigers and bears are genetically "Wild," whereas dogs and cats have been genetically domestic for centuries. |
|
| There are nno dangerous dogs just dangerous owners who train them to be vicious or abuse them. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Seiya said: . . . You do realize that you yourself just noted that behavior is, to an extent, genetic, correct?Pirating_Ninja said: Research doesn't support that at all, while they have found possible links with early traumatic events, the one thing they can be certain of is that it is to an extent genetic. Not many modern behavioral scientists still support any theory suggesting that behavior is the sole result of environment. (most experts have actually moved on to determining what % is genetic, and what % is environmental) Otherwise it would be safe to raise animals like lions, tigers or bears. (saw post above me and had to include this) There's a difference. Lions, tigers and bears are genetically "Wild," whereas dogs and cats have been genetically domestic for centuries. Just as how animals were domesticated, if you select for a certain disposition within a dog, subsequent generations will be more and more likely to inherit that disposition. The process of domestication involved, in large part, selecting dogs with a more passive disposition. However if you select for a more aggressive disposition, such as dog fighters do, then you will get dogs that are naturally more aggressive. Again though, this is reliant on environment, genetics, and simple abnormalities. Just as humans can develop mental disorders, so too can dogs (which will again link back to genetics and environment and will, in most cases, influence behavior) I could be wrong on this, but I have never seen any type of article to suggest otherwise, and in fact have seen numerous (as well as things such as the history of domestication) that suggest this is the case. I'm not claiming that lots of dogs are born dangerous, or that certain breeds will definitely be (or even likely) born dangerous, but I don't believe their is a "blank slate" when it comes to the disposition of dogs. |
Pirating_NinjaNov 7, 2016 4:15 PM
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Seiya said: . . . You do realize that you yourself just noted that behavior is, to an extent, genetic, correct?There's a difference. Lions, tigers and bears are genetically "Wild," whereas dogs and cats have been genetically domestic for centuries. Just as how animals were domesticated, if you select for a certain disposition within a dog, subsequent generations will be more and more likely to inherit that disposition. The process of domestication involved, in large part, selecting dogs with a more passive disposition. However if you select for a more aggressive disposition, such as dog fighters do, then you will get dogs that are naturally more aggressive. Again though, this is reliant on environment, genetics, and simple abnormalities. Just as humans can develop mental disorders, so too can dogs (which will again link back to genetics and environment and will, in most cases, influence behavior) I could be wrong on this, but I have never seen any type of article to suggest otherwise, and in fact have seen numerous (as well as things such as the history of domestication) that suggest this is the case. I'm not claiming that lots of dogs are born dangerous, or that certain breeds will definitely be (or even likely) born dangerous, but I don't believe their is a "blank slate" when it comes to the disposition of dogs. Perhaps the geographic location may play a part here. The vast majority of Pit Bulls I've seen in my area of the world are quite friendly, and wouldn't hurt a fly. The ones that are dangerous are a small minority here. |
|
| To me, the only dangerous dogs are the ones that actually attack you. Has nothing to do with what breed it is. And I freaking love dogs so idek if I could ban the dangerous ones |
  |
| People always make a big stink about this. Ban the dogs and grandfather in the current generation (with breeding banned). Pitbulls are violent. They've been bred to be like that for centuries and have the power to tear off limbs. |
Seiya said: Pirating_Ninja said: That isn't entirely true. As with humans, and most animals, their is some level of genetics involved in behavior, and while I agree that determining a dog as being dangerous by breed is silly, there are dogs that are "born dangerous". If you have ever met someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, you will know what I mean when I say that their are humans "born dangerous". What shouldn't be happening, is people breeding certain dogs who have an aggressive disposition (which is common either as "guard dogs" or fighting dogs) A dog will act the way it is raised. There is no "Born Dangerous." Nobody is "Born" antisocial either. It all depends on how you were raised as a very small child. ^This this this, and more this. Why is the discussion still going on? Seiya made everything clear with that statement and there's no way to refute it. I'm actually scared that there are people who still think like Pirating_Ninja. wtf? No one can be born with "Antisocial Personality Disorder". You can only become antisocial during your life for many reasons. Seiya said: There's a difference. Lions, tigers and bears are genetically "Wild," whereas dogs and cats have been genetically domestic for centuries. Nah not really. Lions are just big cats. The reason cats don't eat humans is because they can't. Lions are not born wild, they become like that because of the environment. I guess sharks are born violent, but that's because they have to eat each other before even being born. |
ColtBuntlineNov 7, 2016 6:50 PM
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
| I'm really freaked out by big dogs in general personally. When I was small, I had a large dog knock me off a swing set, climb on top of me, and starting snarling and barking viciously at me. Luckily, the owners of the dog and my mother were nearby, so they got it off of me before it could actually do anything to really harm me, but it seems that experience has managed to really stick with me. Now I flinch and get really anxious if there are any large dogs around. As for banning dogs that may be dangerous, I think that may be going a bit too far. I think they should have laws requiring the dogs to be on a leash at all times (when outside) instead. People need to be more responsible with their animals. |
 |
| Any breed of dog has the potential to be dangerous. You just hear more about certain breeds being more likely to attack than other breeds. Chihuahuas can be just as vicious as pit bulls. In the shelter I voluteer at, we have a lot chihuahuas and pits. I've been bitten and snapped at more by the chihuahuas than I have the pit bulls. If people want to ban 'dangerous' dogs, might as well ban every breed. And also, why not ban cats too? They are creepy demons that are plotting your demise as they stare silently at you. Their staring at you is not done in affection. It's them thinking how they can kill you off without leaving a trail. In all seriousness. If people took the time to train and socialize a dog properly any breed can be a great dog. I think the people who own these dogs are more dangerous than the dog themselves. People go out and get one of these awesome tough looking dogs and not know what they're doing and as a result of an inexperienced owner, or owner that doesn't take the time to train the dog, the dog runs free untrained and wild. |
ArillionNov 7, 2016 6:48 PM
| wolves are also a kinda dog. and make the besht pets |
| In most cases the reason why those dogs are dangerous is because they are bought by chavs as a "status symbol", and then the chavs neglect to feed them or take them outside, which builds up internal aggression. So yes, I agree that there should be more regulation on pet owners, instead of pet breeds. |
SnugglyWhuggly said: pkKodama said: No one "owns" a dog. A dog is not a "thing" to be "owned". I hate people who put a leash on a dog as if humans are actually superior to dogs, that's ridiculous. You can live with a dog or a cat. But you can never own them. Using a leash on a dog is what should be banned. I see plenty of people that keep dogs off their leads when taking them for walks, which is fine if the owner is confident the dog isn't going to do anything stupid, such as running out in front of a car. Still, I think having a dog on a lead can be for its own safety at times, especially with boisterous dogs, or dogs that are prone to attacking other dogs they see. I remember one incident years ago where I was walking up to the shops, and these two medium sized dogs suddenly went at each other, one of them got the other by the throat, and ended up killing him/her. There was still blood stains on the pavement a few days later, probably one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen in my life so far, and of course the owners were distraught out of their minds. I didn't stick around to see what happened after that, but I assume the owner with the dog that killed the other one likely got into some trouble with the law. If the dogs had been on leashes to keep them from getting at each other, it may never have happened. Yes I understand your point. Keeping dogs on leashes is definitely the safe way to walk with a dog. But I believe that the whole thing about "walking with a dog" is nonsense. Humans and dogs can't understand each other. When someone takes a dog to a walk, this someone doesn't ask the dog if the dog really wants it waiting for yes or no. Humans just do whatever they think is the best for the dog and themselves because they believe dogs are stupid beings who act instinctively. Which in my opinion is a very ignorant way of thinking since no one can really know what the dog is actually thinking. If the "owner" isn't confident that the dog isn't going to do anything stupid he shouldn't walk with the dog at all. There's no way to trust an animal that you can't understand. To be honest, I don't like dogs, for many reasons. I have cats and we just live together. I give them food and pat them because I want them to be as healthy and cute as possible. But I would never invade their space by putting them on a leash or locking them at all. They are the ones who should decide how they want to live. |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
Seiya said: Pirating_Ninja said: . . . You do realize that you yourself just noted that behavior is, to an extent, genetic, correct? Just as how animals were domesticated, if you select for a certain disposition within a dog, subsequent generations will be more and more likely to inherit that disposition. The process of domestication involved, in large part, selecting dogs with a more passive disposition. However if you select for a more aggressive disposition, such as dog fighters do, then you will get dogs that are naturally more aggressive. Again though, this is reliant on environment, genetics, and simple abnormalities. Just as humans can develop mental disorders, so too can dogs (which will again link back to genetics and environment and will, in most cases, influence behavior) I could be wrong on this, but I have never seen any type of article to suggest otherwise, and in fact have seen numerous (as well as things such as the history of domestication) that suggest this is the case. I'm not claiming that lots of dogs are born dangerous, or that certain breeds will definitely be (or even likely) born dangerous, but I don't believe their is a "blank slate" when it comes to the disposition of dogs. Perhaps the geographic location may play a part here. The vast majority of Pit Bulls I've seen in my area of the world are quite friendly, and wouldn't hurt a fly. The ones that are dangerous are a small minority here. A part of if is actually genetic. Some breeds are bred to have a more aggressive behavior, be more skeptic to strangers and have a greater insticts to hunt/kill, and these types of dogs can potentionally be more dangerous. This doesn't mean that they're always dangerous or aggressive, and many of these breeds are very loyal to their owners. These types of dogs need a stable leader with previous experience with dogs and who knows what they are doing. If a beginner gets such a dog, that's when they easily become dangerous, but that would also make it the owners own fault for choosing the breed based on looks, and not looking into what that breed needs. Many believes that it's alright if you're just caring and loving, but with certain breeds that's usually not enough. If you can't become the leader or get the signals the dog gives (body language), the dog won't respect you and can turn dangerous. But of course, all dogs can potentially be dangerous although some breeds (like pitbulls) are more likely to turn out this way because of the genes. Over to the original post: Although some breeds have a higher risk of becoming dangerous, forbidding the breed wouldn't really solve the main problem and would be wrong. Instead of having stricter rules for breeds, getting stricter rules for being a dog owner would be the right thing to do. Some people shouldn't even be allowed to own a pet. Other breeds can also potentially be dangerous, and when they are it's normally the owners fault. I've met many alaskan malamutes, border collies, hunting dogs etc. that people claimed to be dangerous and aggressive, but the problem in almost all of those cases were that the owners didn't raise, train and exercise the dogs correctly and enough. Many also lived in places where the dogs didn't get to use their instincts. They all got the dogs because they looked cute and ignored all of the responsibility that follows with such a breed, so we shouldn't punish the dogs when it's clearly the humans fault. |
RottegiftNov 8, 2016 2:32 PM
| No, but I think there should be mandatory education and licensing for dog owners. Yes, some dogs are bred to be more aggressive than others but ultimately it comes down to how the owner raises the dog. Ban the owner, not the dog. pkKodama said: Isn't you having pets at all a form of enslavement by your own definition, you "have cats", that would insinuate that you are keeping them in your house. You should just leave the doors open and let them come and go as they please instead of imprisoning them. Do you let them shit and piss wherever they want or did you train them to go in a litter box? Why do you feed them, why not let them hunt for their own food? Do you only feed them at certain times a day? because you're denying them the right to feed whenever they want. Face it, you own these animals, don't try to act all high and mighty and pretend that you merely live in the same area as these animals. If you truly think that these pets are your equals and you have no say over what they do, then please, release them into the wild and see what happens.SnugglyWhuggly said: I see plenty of people that keep dogs off their leads when taking them for walks, which is fine if the owner is confident the dog isn't going to do anything stupid, such as running out in front of a car. Still, I think having a dog on a lead can be for its own safety at times, especially with boisterous dogs, or dogs that are prone to attacking other dogs they see. I remember one incident years ago where I was walking up to the shops, and these two medium sized dogs suddenly went at each other, one of them got the other by the throat, and ended up killing him/her. There was still blood stains on the pavement a few days later, probably one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen in my life so far, and of course the owners were distraught out of their minds. I didn't stick around to see what happened after that, but I assume the owner with the dog that killed the other one likely got into some trouble with the law. If the dogs had been on leashes to keep them from getting at each other, it may never have happened. Yes I understand your point. Keeping dogs on leashes is definitely the safe way to walk with a dog. But I believe that the whole thing about "walking with a dog" is nonsense. Humans and dogs can't understand each other. When someone takes a dog to a walk, this someone doesn't ask the dog if the dog really wants it waiting for yes or no. Humans just do whatever they think is the best for the dog and themselves because they believe dogs are stupid beings who act instinctively. Which in my opinion is a very ignorant way of thinking since no one can really know what the dog is actually thinking. If the "owner" isn't confident that the dog isn't going to do anything stupid he shouldn't walk with the dog at all. There's no way to trust an animal that you can't understand. To be honest, I don't like dogs, for many reasons. I have cats and we just live together. I give them food and pat them because I want them to be as healthy and cute as possible. But I would never invade their space by putting them on a leash or locking them at all. They are the ones who should decide how they want to live. |
ThrashMattoNov 9, 2016 11:48 AM
 I love Christine "If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness." - Henry David Thoreau |
ThrashMatto said: you "have cats", that would insinuate that you are keeping them in your house. You should just leave the doors open and let them come and go as they please instead of imprisoning them. x.X pkKodama said: But I would never invade their space by putting them on a leash or locking them at all. You should read my comment before actually replying to it... You shouldn't see any insinuation and guess anything at all. If I said I don't lock them at all that means I don't lock them at all. ThrashMatto said: If you truly think that these pets are your equals and you have no say over what they do, then please, release them into the wild and see what happens. When did I ever say that we are equals? Cats are superior to humans, it's only my duty to work for them. (´・ω・｀) |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
pkKodama said: SnugglyWhuggly said: I see plenty of people that keep dogs off their leads when taking them for walks, which is fine if the owner is confident the dog isn't going to do anything stupid, such as running out in front of a car. Still, I think having a dog on a lead can be for its own safety at times, especially with boisterous dogs, or dogs that are prone to attacking other dogs they see. I remember one incident years ago where I was walking up to the shops, and these two medium sized dogs suddenly went at each other, one of them got the other by the throat, and ended up killing him/her. There was still blood stains on the pavement a few days later, probably one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen in my life so far, and of course the owners were distraught out of their minds. I didn't stick around to see what happened after that, but I assume the owner with the dog that killed the other one likely got into some trouble with the law. If the dogs had been on leashes to keep them from getting at each other, it may never have happened. Yes I understand your point. Keeping dogs on leashes is definitely the safe way to walk with a dog. But I believe that the whole thing about "walking with a dog" is nonsense. Humans and dogs can't understand each other. When someone takes a dog to a walk, this someone doesn't ask the dog if the dog really wants it waiting for yes or no. Humans just do whatever they think is the best for the dog and themselves because they believe dogs are stupid beings who act instinctively. Which in my opinion is a very ignorant way of thinking since no one can really know what the dog is actually thinking. If the "owner" isn't confident that the dog isn't going to do anything stupid he shouldn't walk with the dog at all. There's no way to trust an animal that you can't understand. To be honest, I don't like dogs, for many reasons. I have cats and we just live together. I give them food and pat them because I want them to be as healthy and cute as possible. But I would never invade their space by putting them on a leash or locking them at all. They are the ones who should decide how they want to live. I haven't read your whole discussion, but I felt like I had to comment on this one. Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood something. Humans and dogs can for sure understand each other. You can communicate with not only dogs, but horses, monkeys and generally most animals, even cats. They are extremely good at body language, and it's important to understand the body language especially well around certain breeds, as they can get more dangerous than others if you don't make them respect you and are a good leader. And unlike cats, dogs need to be taken out for walks, or at least be exercised. These two species are quite different from each other, so how we take care of them have to be different. I own some dogs, and they clearly tell me when they don't want to be taken out for a walk, although that rarely happens. And if they don't want to, I won't force them. Some breeds will even get really aggressive if you don't take them out for long walks/exercise them alot. There are many reasons for why one keep the dogs on leash, but it doesn't mean that I think my dogs are stupid or that I don't feel confident as the leader. Animals don't think the same way we do and their instincts are more dominant, but this does not make them stupid or emotionless. If you're walking your dog and the dog spots a man that seems threatening, your dog might attack that man. Not because the dog wanted to hurt someone or is out of control, but his body language told the dog that he was angry and going to attack without the man even realizing. The instincts would make the dog attack because this is how the dog would survive out in the wild (although it probably wouldn't as they're not bred to do so). It's the same for horses, when I'm riding one of my horses and they try to run away because a plastic bag got caught in the wind, that is also because of instincts. They can't stop like a human would and try to figure out what that was, because those second could have killed the horse out in the wild. That is why they flee by instinct. Not having hunting dogs (especially certain types of hunting dogs) on leash is often almost impossible, because they are gone from the second you let them free to go hunting. This can also cause them to get hit by a car. Some breeds are also more skeptic and aggressive towards strangers, and this is all instincts. I will always have my dogs on leash around people, not because I don't have control on my dogs, but it's just a fact that dogs can sometimes be unpredictable because of instincts. And lastly, although an owner doesn't have fully control, they still need to take their dogs out for walks. You can't just stay inside and not exercise them like you can with cats, again because they are two different species with different needs. |
RottegiftNov 9, 2016 5:24 PM
Rottegift said: I haven't read your whole discussion, but I felt like I had to comment on this one. Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood something. But it would take less than a minute to read all my discussion...and you wrote a whole text replying to me. o.o Rottegift said: Humans and dogs can for sure understand each other. No they can't, we don't speak in the same way, we don't communicate in the same way, we can only, as humans, guess basically what they mean in a convenient way. Rottegift said: You, as a human, always want to believe that you are the right one, to protect yourself to think you're superior to other animals. To blindly believe that humans are the "rational animals" while the other animals act instinctively. You refuse to believe that other animals can actually be even smarter and wise than humans so you just call instinct whatever surpasses your comprehensioninstinct instinct instinct instinct instinct SnugglyWhuggly said: Most mammals display emotions very similarly to humans. I've seen plenty of dogs that will jump up and down with glee and wag their tails if the person asks "want to go for a walk?"; if that isn't a "yes", I don't know what is. The problem is that you're simplifying it. The many gestures and barks of dogs can mean infinite things. That goes above human comprehension. You're just guessing from his actions what feels convenient for you. So you think that means "yes" when maybe he's trying to tell you many other things. Maybe he doesn't really want to go to a walk but wants to be considerate to you. You forget about many possibilities because you really think dogs are stupid beings different from humans, who are the "rational" ones. Have you read the book "Wagahai wa Neko de Aru" by Natsume Souseki? It talks about the matter in very adult and open-minded way of thinking. And it tries to explain rationally the many actions of a cat giving reasons for them, instead of calling everything "instinct". I say, humans can't even understand each other even when they are speaking the same language, if you know what I mean. Thinking that humans can understand other animals, and simplifying their meanings only because you don't speak their language and therefore you can't understand them is arrogance. And putting a leash on a dog is tyrannism. SnugglyWhuggly said: I don't think the understanding between animals and humans is as limited as you claim, at least not when it comes to mammals, and there's plenty of people that do care about animals' welfare, especially that of their pets. Rottegift said: I will always have my dogs on leash around people, not because I don't have control on my dogs, but it's just a fact that dogs can sometimes be unpredictable because of instincts. If you have to put leash on a dog is clearly because you can't trust them. You can't trust them because you can't properly communicate with each other, so yes, the understanding between other animals and humans is definitely limited. And if you think they do things(predictable or unpredictable) because of instinct while humans are the ones who do things rationally is obviously because you think dogs are stupid. Rottegift said: These types of dogs need a stable leader What gives you the right to consider yourself the leader? Rottegift said: I will always have my dogs on leash around people What gives you the right to consider yourself superior to dogs and humiliate them by putting them on a leash? Would you like it if the same happened with you? Rottegift said: It's the same for horses, when I'm riding one of my horses Do you really think it's ok to ride on a horse? Did you even ask him if it's ok? Did he tell you that it's ok? I suppose you didn't, since it's impossible. Don't you think you're humiliating him by doing it? What if another animal wanted to ride on you? |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
| Add those small yappy dog breeds to the list and I'll sign :) |
| Avatar: Anzu Kadotani from Girls und Panzer. XMas awesomeness version by Charenji :) Sig by MissIntrovert.  |
SnugglyWhuggly said: Humans not understanding each other is just miscommunication Indeed. Humans not understanding each other is just miscommunication... and people die if they are killed. (T_T) My point is that if there's miscommunication between humans, not only because of misunderstandings of what people say but also because people don't speak all they think, obviously the same happens between dogs and humans, since they can't even talk with each other at all. SnugglyWhuggly said: if I believed animals were just mindless, non-sentient beings that are only convenient for human use That's not what I said. I didn't mean to say that you use dogs only as tools for your own benefit. I meant to say that you give meanings to their actions in a way that looks convenient for you as a human. You call existent the things that you can clearly see and therefore are real accordingly to your common sense as a human, and you call non-existent the reasons that you can't see and therefore should be considered "instinct". SnugglyWhuggly said: "Tyrannism" is not a word... Putting a leash on a dog is to act like a tyrant; to be tyrannical. Thank you for the correction, I knew it was wrong since it tells me when I write something wrong but I thought it could still be accepted as a slang. You get what I mean anyways. SnugglyWhuggly said: I never said dogs are stupid... Why are you putting words in my mouth now? pkKodama said: You forget about many possibilities because you really think dogs are stupid beings different from humans, who are the "rational" ones. As you can see, I'm clearly using "stupid" in a vulgar way to mean "non-rational". And if you believe that humans have the right to put a leash on a dog and train them to be guard dogs, workers, performers, trackers, etc. that's clearly because deep down you think that humans are superior to dogs, no matter how much you try to sugarcoat it, since they don't have the ability to "rationalize" in the same way as humans do, so it's ok to dominate them. I'll ask it again: would you like to have another animal humiliating you by using a leash on you "to go for a walk"? Honestly I wouldn't like it at all, I would feel humiliated being a human or a dog. It's true that there are dogs who do not, apparently, show any sign of not wanting to walk with a leash. But I also know about slaves who work a whole life without any rebellion at all. You understand what I'm trying to say? Dogs who are ok with walking on a leash are the ones that are actually resigned to their pitiful state as slaves. To be honest that's the main reason why I don't like dogs... |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
Usagi said: As for banning dogs that may be dangerous, I think that may be going a bit too far. I think they should have laws requiring the dogs to be on a leash at all times (when outside) instead. People need to be more responsible with their animals. Pitbulls on leashes are uncontrollable. Better to ban these animals that can tear off limbs with ease. |
| I'm one of those who believe that psychopath dog owners are the ones to be 'banned.' A dog's actions depends on how it is raised/trained. I had a pitbull who was the sweetest creature on earth. No one can persuade me that he is a monster. We raised him well and he was just a sweet dog (needless to say, never attacked anybody). |
   |
| its absolutely ridiculous to judge a dog based on its breed when i was born my parents were scared to introduce me to our german shepherds bc of their breed but they were calm and gentle because they were raised like that in fact a baby was killed by two jealous dachshunds around that time too ffs |
SnugglyWhuggly said: I never said to the contrary. Then it's fine. But I only said that because you said SnugglyWhuggly said: if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... It's probably a duck. If a dog is displaying actions that he wants something, he probably wants something. You're implying that it's ok to consider something for what it seems to be the case in human eyes and invade their space by putting a leash on them without asking their authorization for it, only because that's "probably" what they mean. SnugglyWhuggly said: I don't consider things I "can't see" or don't fully understand in an animal to just be merely "instinct". In fact, It's rottengift who kept saying that and not you. Actually I felt I was wrong in saying that when I wrote the other post, but since my "you" could mean a general "you" for "you, as a human" I ended up excusing myself since it seemed to fit well in the sentence. But yes, you never accused animals of acting instinctively indeed. SnugglyWhuggly said: "Rights" are a concept that humans created. Dogs being trained to be workers, trackers, etc. by humans is something that simply happens. You can argue about who has "rights" all you want, but that isn't the point, nor did I ever say or imply that humans have a "right" to train dogs, but believe whatever helps you feel all high and mighty, sunshine. Yes you did imply it. I'm saying you're implying that humans have a "right" to train dogs because you're clearly stating that it's ok to do it. And nope, dogs being trained to be workers, trackers, etc. by humans is not something that simply happens. Humans consciously use dogs for their own sake without asking whether they want to do it or not. SnugglyWhuggly said: You can't say you wouldn't like it being a human OR dog, you're not a dog, you don't have the brain or psychology of a dog, therefore you have no idea how you might feel about that situation being a dog. Yes I can say it. Because I believe they are intelligent beings and no intelligent beings would like to be tied in a leash. SnugglyWhuggly said: I'm pretty sure dogs have no concept of slavery, you're anthropomorphising animals too much. It doesn't matter. That clearly wasn't the point, I used human slavery as a comparison to explain what I feel about dogs being tied in a leash. SnugglyWhuggly said: Dogs can and do suffer from mental illnesses however, a lot of them pretty much the same as what also affects other mammals, including humans. Dogs can suffer from depression, but I've yet to hear a case of depression in a dog that's been put on a leash in order to take him/her for walks. If anything, a dog is going to suffer mentally if it's kept indoors, or outside in the same garden for too long. See? You're simplifying it. It's not only about what seems to be "depression" for human eyes. You can't tell exactly how they feel and what they think about it, because you can't talk with them. And again, if you think they are okay with being tied to a leash and having their neck being pulled by a leash to keep up the pace of the humans that are walking with them(yes, do you understand how wrong it is to have your neck pulled for the convenience of someone else?), implies that you think they are really stupid(non-rational), because only an animal really stupid((non-rational) would like to be tied and pulled by something instead of being free. And I am claiming that dogs are really stupid(stupid) because most of them end up resigning to that pitiful state. Although I would still defend them since they only do it because they probably think something like: "I don't like to be tied in a leash and being treated like an inferior being to humans but if I resign to it he will give me food and if I rebel trying to attack them I'll be considered a violent or even a mad dog and I'll be sacrificed for it", so yeah humans are definitely the evil ones. If you claim that it's ok to put a leash on a dog you are clearly claiming that humans have a "right" to treat dogs like inferior beings. SnugglyWhuggly said: If you don't like dogs, then why are you trying to "empathise" with them so much? Even though I don't like dogs I know what is right and what is wrong. I am the one forced to see humans acting like despicable beings by dragging dogs along by their necks with a leash, even though I know that most of these humans have no bad faith and are genuinely thinking about the welfare of their dogs, and yet they do it because they(most of them) think dogs, unlike humans, are "non-rational" beings who act instinctively, so it's ok to use a leash on them since you(general you) are the "rational" human being and you(general you) know what's best for the animal welfare. Did you know that there are people who castrate their dogs and cats? Do you agree with this? Isn't that invading the animal "personal" space? That's clearly acting as if humans were superior beings, when they are not. It doesn't matter if "humans are the dominant species on the planet, as far as how much we've globalized the world, created our own environments", domesticating other species of animals is wrong and evil. Even though I don't like dogs that doesn't mean I should agree with something that's wrong. I find it very wrong for you to say "that's just how the world is", when clearly, although it's true that that's just how the world it, it's also true that the world is very wrong. We are talking about a world in which cows are being killed everyday to feed evil humans and there are people who think killing fishes is a job or even a hobby sometimes. It doesn't matter that it's just how the system in the world is, I'm an intelligent being with the ability to discern between right and wrong, and abusing other animals is wrong. SnugglyWhuggly said: The fact of the matter is, humans are the dominant species on the planet, as far as how much we've globalised the world, created our own environments, and domesticated other species of animals; no other animals have ever done this. And how can you be so sure that it's a good thing? Since you are using those arguments to defend your idea that humans are the dominating species, how can you tell if it's really development? In my opinion, you are right in many aspects of what you said, but we are humans, using human logic for what seems to be right for us. But other animals have different values than us. Maybe what seems to be development for us, is actually a foolish thing for other animals, and they are probably the wiser ones for thinking like that. I definitely consider cats and especially cheetahs superior to humans. Humans are just ants when compared to cheetahs in my opinion lol. |
ColtBuntlineNov 11, 2016 4:10 PM
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
lol Nice writing, I just realized you are awesome. And I don't even mean to agree to disagree, since I believe we are agreeing in many aspects and yet we are misunderstanding each other. But let's analyze it... SnugglyWhuggly said: Yeah, you're probably right, we should ask a dog for his "consent" before feeding him if he's pawing at a dish, 'cause you know, it could mean any infinite number of things. We should just let the dog starve, just in case it means something else. We should also just keep our dogs at homes and never take them for walks, because they haven't asked for consent... You're basically saying we should be abusing our dogs just because what they're probably trying to communicate, could mean something else, or because we haven't asked if it's "okay" with them... This is just beyond ridiculous at this point. No, I'm just talking about using a leash on dogs, not about the other points... SnugglyWhuggly said: I'm stating that's what happens... If I stated that Hitler killed millions of Jews, would I also be saying it was "okay" to do it? Then it's perfectly ok, since you are not saying it's "okay" then we actually agree in this point. SnugglyWhuggly said: You can't tell exactly how other humans think or feel either, unless they tell you, but if a person is showing clear signs of depression, usually this will mean, surprise surprise, that they're depressed. It's not much different for animals. Basically, what you're saying is, since we can't fully communicate with animals, we should just leave them alone, which is rather hypocritical since you own animals of your own. Again, I'm just talking about locking dogs and not about living with animals. Like I said in one of my first messages I don't "own" cats. They are free go and come whenever they want. I'm only against people who treat dogs like toys. Since it's clearly not your case, then it's ok. SnugglyWhuggly said: Pulling a dog on a leash is mistreatment of the dog, unless it needs to be pulled on to get it out of harm's way. Dragging a dog along behind you however, is probably going to raise some questions with the animal welfare act. Most dogs will keep up the pace of their owner perfectly fine, and many more will even pull on the owner's side of the leash because they want to move faster. If you really think all dog owners mistreat their dogs, you're being overly biased. I'm not saying all dog owners mistreat their dogs and I clearly stated in my last message saying that most of them are genuinely thinking about the welfare of the dogs. I'm just saying that if there is a leash it's because there is a limit of communication and there's clearly a relation of one treating the other like his property. SnugglyWhuggly said: Again, you don't know what animals want, you can't communicate with them any better than anyone else can (and you certainly can't communicate with them as well than someone who has trained to communicate with dogs through body language and gestures). You can't claim that "only stupid animals would like to be on a leash", or believe they think something that you have no idea what they think, you're projecting your own opinions and applying them to the world around you, instead of looking at it more objectively. You're accusing me of what you're doing yourself. That's not true. I'm giving intelligent reasons for their actions to defend my theory that they are intelligent beings. And no rational animal would like to be at mercy of another. So yes, I really think only stupid animals would like to be on a leash. If I believe they are not really "non-rational", it's only natural that I should think of a way to explain why they are doing "non-rational" things that only a "non-rational" being would like to do despite the fact that they are not really "non-rational". SnugglyWhuggly said: the only person constantly calling animals stupid, is you. That's correct, but that had never been the point. I was only accusing you of implying that dogs are stupid since you are defending the use of leashes. SnugglyWhuggly said: Pretty sure there's plenty of people that are fully aware that dogs, and other animals, don't just simply act instinctively. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe that animals can learn behaviours, knowledge and skills just like humans can. I hope so. I'm really glad to know that's your point of view about it. SnugglyWhuggly said: Um, yes, because I wasn't born yesterday. Did you also know that some animals can develop tumours or other ailments such as Mammary cancer in cats in their reproductive systems? If you're not planning on having an animal breed, it can actually be very beneficial to the animal's welfare to have it neutered, in more ways than one. If you think this is "invading" the animal's" personal space", then by all means, allow your pet to potentially die when she starts showing early symptoms of pyometra. You can't ask her for consent, so clearly it's best to leave her alone and let her suffer. I was only thinking about people who do it so they don't have to worry about cats having kitten, which means more labor. But you are right, I take back what I said. SnugglyWhuggly said: If you think it's "wrong and evil", return to the wilds and live out your live in a cave, because you're only being a hypocrite by believing your lifestyle is evil, but carrying it out anyway. I said that "domesticating other species of animals is wrong and evil." You misunderstood me in this one. I never said that globalizing the world and creating our own environments is wrong and evil. SnugglyWhuggly said: Okay, I can't take you seriously any more if you're going to use childish terms like "evil humans" Sorry but I can't agree with you about this. People who think it's ok to treat other animals like cows, chicken and fishes as food for humans are evil. I'll never change my opinion about this and if you think I'm wrong or "childish" for thinking like this, then you are wrong. SnugglyWhuggly said: you just want to believe you're right and everyone else is wrong, so there's not much point in discussing anything with someone who doesn't have an open mind. That's not true at all. I've been agreeing with you in many points. Even in my last message I confessed that I wrongly accused you of something you never said. SnugglyWhuggly said: Again, you don't know what other animals think, or what their values are. And that's exactly my point. We don't know about their values, that's why I said maybe what seems to be development for us is a foolish thing for them. But there's no way for us to know it. SnugglyWhuggly said: It's development of the human race, nothing more. Not necessarily, maybe it only seems to be development when we are actually destroying ourselves. That's why I said that maybe other animals are already wise enough to know that what we are doing is a foolish thing and that's the reason why they do not "develop" themselves. So I'm saying you are wrong if(I'm not accusing you, I'm saying if) you think humans are the magnificent beings who have achieved much better things than other animals when maybe they are already wise enough to know that all we have done is not really wise at all(I'm not claiming that it's not wise at all, I'm just considering the possibility of it not being so). SnugglyWhuggly said: It's even harder for me to take you seriously now after that last sentence... What's so wrong about my last sentence? I really like cheetahs because I think they are beautiful and I think they are better than me because they run faster than me. It's true I said that in a joking manner and I don't really think humans are ants when compared to them. But I was just saying that other animals can be considered better than humans depending on how we look at them and what are the aspects being compared. I believe you already know it of course, but I was just saying. |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
| ye certian breeds predisposed to dangeros, especially w/ owner lack of give train |
| I have no idea why a person would want to own a potentially dangerous dog, other then as a guard dog. |
  ♦ Anime List ♦ Manga List ♦ Friend Request ♦ Message Me ♦ DeviantArt ♦ |
More topics from this board
» What is something u would like to experience in the near future?Night_shade12 - Feb 19 |
12 |
by Rally-
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Do you have "sit down and listen" moments?Commit_Crime - Yesterday |
11 |
by Commit_Crime
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» What's your most controversial (Non political) hot take? ( 1 2 )TheBlockernator - Feb 18 |
85 |
by SmugSatoko
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» So the Pope might die, what do you all think about that?fleurbleue - Yesterday |
19 |
by Commit_Crime
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» International Saimoe League 2024Shinku05 - 10 hours ago |
6 |
by Serafos
»»
21 minutes ago |