most dangerous dog breeds, least dangerous dog breeds, and why

[laughing dog]

Well may you put 'escort' in inverted comma...

The dogs guided the man to the owner, it fit your definition. Face it, you misrepresented the story as it was told.

It's no more making things up than any figurative speech that is not literally true. If someone told you it was raining cats and dogs you wouldn't accuse them of making things up.

If it wasn't raining, I would. This working in the opposite direction that you wish.

 

[Nexus]

Dogs don't have a legal right to escort/drag people or what ever you prefer to call it. If a person has a legal right to be someplace and a dog grabs or bites them then its an attack. If you don't think grabbing someone and dragging them somewhere is an attack I suggest going to a playground and doing that to someone's child and see how your definition of not an attack works out. No animal, human or otherwise has a right to put their hand, paws, or mouths on unwilling victims. Its not the victims responsibility to behave in a manner that the dog understands. Its the owners responsibility to train his dog not to touch people that don't want to be touched or keep the dog restrained.

 

[Metaphor]

The dogs guided the man to the owner, it fit your definition. Face it, you misrepresented the story as it was told.

"Guided"? Good god, really? If a dog's jaw was clamped on your person and the dog wouldn't let go, you believe the term 'guided' is appropriate?

And no: it did not fit my definition, since being forced somewhere against your will isn't being 'guided' there. Nor of course was the dog doing it to 'protect' or 'honor' the employee.

If it wasn't raining, I would. This working in the opposite direction that you wish.

Soon the dog will have laid out some red carpet and politely asked the man to accompany him for some bonbons and mint juleps.

 

[Metaphor]

Dogs don't have a legal right to escort/drag people or what ever you prefer to call it. If a person has a legal right to be someplace and a dog grabs or bites them then its an attack. If you don't think grabbing someone and dragging them somewhere is an attack I suggest going to a playground and doing that to someone's child and see how your definition of not an attack works out. No animal, human or otherwise has a right to put their hand, paws, or mouths on unwilling victims. Its not the victims responsibility to behave in a manner that the dog understands. Its the owners responsibility to train his dog not to touch people that don't want to be touched or keep the dog restrained.

It's all the victim's stupid employee's fault. Why couldn't he just submit himself to the dog owner's will?

 

[Ford]

No animal, human or otherwise has a right to put their hand, paws, or mouths on unwilling victims. Its not the victims responsibility to behave in a manner that the dog understands. Its the owners responsibility to train his dog not to touch people that don't want to be touched or keep the dog restrained.

So if someone breaks into my house and the dog bites them in the process, you feel that - along with whatever stuff they can haul off - I should be liable for whatever injuries they incurred as a result, because I failed to train my dog to not bite intruders?

 

[Metaphor]

No animal, human or otherwise has a right to put their hand, paws, or mouths on unwilling victims. Its not the victims responsibility to behave in a manner that the dog understands. Its the owners responsibility to train his dog not to touch people that don't want to be touched or keep the dog restrained.

So if someone breaks into my house and the dog bites them in the process, you feel that - along with whatever stuff they can haul off - I should be liable for whatever injuries they incurred as a result, because I failed to train my dog to not bite intruders?

Exactly how far do you think property rights extend? Would you be entitled to shoot them in the face? Would you be entitled to clock them, tie them up, and torture them until they're dead?

What if a child wandered on to your property and your dog mauled the child to death? Would you feel no responsibility?

 

[Nexus]

No animal, human or otherwise has a right to put their hand, paws, or mouths on unwilling victims. Its not the victims responsibility to behave in a manner that the dog understands. Its the owners responsibility to train his dog not to touch people that don't want to be touched or keep the dog restrained.

So if someone breaks into my house and the dog bites them in the process, you feel that - along with whatever stuff they can haul off - I should be liable for whatever injuries they incurred as a result, because I failed to train my dog to not bite intruders?

The employee didn't break it. He had a key and a legal right to be there. Every post of mine has clearly stated when the victim has a right to be someplace the dog isn't justified in using force. For some reason you didn't include that part in my quote. It was a few sentences up.

If a person has a legal right to be someplace and a dog grabs or bites them then its an attack.

 

[Ford]

So if someone breaks into my house and the dog bites them in the process, you feel that - along with whatever stuff they can haul off - I should be liable for whatever injuries they incurred as a result, because I failed to train my dog to not bite intruders?

The employee didn't break it. He had a key and a legal right to be there. Every post of mine has clearly stated when the victim has a right to be someplace the dog isn't justified in using force.

He had a key and a legal right to be there, but it has apparently escaped your notice that dogs do not recognize a "legal right." They are able to remember who is allowed on their owner's turf. The employee had not yet been "put on the list," and so far as the dog was concerned should not have been there.


At that point, the "victim" did not have a right to be there in the dog's eyes. The dog had no way of knowing that the employee had a right to be there. She'd never seen him before. And as I've said repeatedly, she did not open her mouth until he swatted her.

 

[laughing dog]

"Guided"? Good god, really? If a dog's jaw was clamped on your person and the dog wouldn't let go, you believe the term 'guided' is appropriate?

And no: it did not fit my definition, since being forced somewhere against your will isn't being 'guided' there.

I have had a dog's mouth clamped onto me and it didn't hurt at all. The dog lead me away. Guiding can be forceful. What is driving these hysterical conclusions and hyperbolic rhetoric in your responses?

Soon the dog will have laid out some red carpet and politely asked the man to accompany him for some bonbons and mint juleps.

With each response, your position looks weaker and more hysterical.

 

[Metaphor]

I have had a dog's mouth clamped onto me and it didn't hurt at all. The dog lead me away. Guiding can be forceful.

Very good. In future, I expect to read about criminal suspects being guided to the police station, and abducted children being guided into vans.

What is driving these hysterical conclusions and hyperbolic rhetoric in your responses?

Hyperbole is my style, but what 'hysterical conclusions' have I reached, pray tell? Is it when I said having a dog clamped on your person and 'guiding' you away might be regarded as a frightening experience? Is that the kind of hysteria you're referring to?

With each response, your position looks weaker and more hysterical.

What position? What positions have I taken that are 'hysterical'?

Because I parodied your increasing minimisation of a frightening experience, I'm being hysterical?

 

[laughing dog]

Very good. In future, I expect to read about criminal suspects being guided to the police station, and abducted children being guided into vans.

I bet you have read about suspects being escorted into police stations or defendants being escorted into court. But feel free to continue with your ridicule. It complements the hysteria in your responses.

Hyperbole is my style, but what 'hysterical conclusions' have I reached, pray tell? Is it when I said having a dog clamped on your person and 'guiding' you away might be regarded as a frightening experience? Is that the kind of hysteria you're referring to?

What position? What positions have I taken that are 'hysterical'?

"Rampant evil" , "vicious dogs", "you may think having a dog clamp down on your person and drag you to god knows where" are but a few examples.

Because I parodied your increasing minimisation of a frightening experience, I'm being hysterical?

You have no idea whether that experience was frightening or not. Yet you continue to make such baseless assertions. Apparently you do not appreciate that your "hyperbole" undermines your arguments instead of enhancing them.

 

[Ford]

Because I parodied your increasing minimisation of a frightening experience, I'm being hysterical?

You have no idea whether that experience was frightening or not.

I do, but apparently that doesn't matter either. I've said repeatedly that no harm was done and that everyone had a laugh about it later, but what the hell do I know? I mean, apart from the dog, the owner, the business, and the details of the incident.

 

[Toni]

Dogs don't have a legal right to escort/drag people or what ever you prefer to call it. If a person has a legal right to be someplace and a dog grabs or bites them then its an attack. If you don't think grabbing someone and dragging them somewhere is an attack I suggest going to a playground and doing that to someone's child and see how your definition of not an attack works out. No animal, human or otherwise has a right to put their hand, paws, or mouths on unwilling victims. Its not the victims responsibility to behave in a manner that the dog understands. Its the owners responsibility to train his dog not to touch people that don't want to be touched or keep the dog restrained.

It's all the victim's stupid employee's fault. Why couldn't he just submit himself to the dog owner's will?

It was the employees fault. He behaved inappropriately. His swatting at the dog was an unwarranted act of aggression. The dog behaved with restraint. I imagine the guy settled down, too as there is no reported escalation of force. There is no report of the man struggling to get away or even minor injuries. The truth is that if the dog had been aggressive, the man would have been injured. The dog demonstrated calm restraint. And much more common sense than did the man.

 

[Metaphor]

"Rampant evil" , "vicious dogs", "you may think having a dog clamp down on your person and drag you to god knows where" are but a few examples.

laughing dog, I expect better from you. Not only did you take quotes out of context, you pretended they were about the 'escorted employee' story (by quoting them together) when they were about something else -- one of my own experiences. Worse, although the words 'vicious dogs' are neither hysterical nor hyperbole (unless you believe there are no vicious dogs, which makes my words merely ontologically meaningless), my characterising 'catalogue delivery' as a 'rampant evil' is obvious satire and does not reveal any 'hysterical' belief except the entirely non-hysterical belief that I believe catalogue delivery is not rampantly evil.

You have no idea whether that experience was frightening or not. Yet you continue to make such baseless assertions. Apparently you do not appreciate that your "hyperbole" undermines your arguments instead of enhancing them.

Of course I have an idea. I've never had a home intruder but I'm pretty sure most people would be frightened if they did.

You never answered me: would you have been okay for your mum to be clamped by a dog and 'escorted' away, or would you prefer to spare her that (potentially!) frightening experience?

But even though I exaggerated nothing about the employee 'escort' story (although I can acknowledge that I had a reading of the text that caninephiles did not anticipate), let's talk about my story. I got a response to it -- implying it's okay (or at least, there'd be an upside) to more pamphlet deliverers being too scared to deliver pamphlets. Not only was this a minimisation of my experience, it also had an implied 'you deserve what you get' -- because you know those 9 year old boys from families poor enough to take up pamphlet delivery -- they fucking deserve what they get.

 

[Metaphor]

It was the employees fault. He behaved inappropriately.

No: the onus is not on any employee to know the correct way to 'behave'. I don't expect to go to work on my first day, not be warned that there are dogs and then be blamed for reacting to the dog in some forbidden 'stupid' way.

Remember the cop that shot a fleeing 50 year old in the back? If the man had 'behaved appropriately' he wouldn't have been shot. But if the fucking cop had simply not shot him, he wouldn't have been shot.

 

[Metaphor]

You have no idea whether that experience was frightening or not.

I do, but apparently that doesn't matter either. I've said repeatedly that no harm was done and that everyone had a laugh about it later, but what the hell do I know? I mean, apart from the dog, the owner, the business, and the details of the incident.

Having laughed about an experience afterwards does not mean the experience did not frighten you. I've turned a car accident I had into some gallows humour afterwards but that doesn't mean I wasn't frightened at the time.

Oy vey.

Even if that employee was not frightened, that doesn't mean another employee could not have been reasonably frightened.

Would you wish your mother to go through the same incident, or would you spare her that if you could?

 

[Ford]

Oy vey.

Even if that employee was not frightened, that doesn't mean another employee could not have been reasonably frightened.

So now you're making up scenarios to defend your position. No, the employee was not frightened (and in fact felt foolish afterwards) but in the hypothetical situation in your head, it was very, very different!

Oy vey indeed.

I exaggerated nothing about the employee 'escort' story

Really? An interesting claim, since the first post you made exaggerated it.

A man, who had every right to be on the property, underwent a frightening ordeal because the owner failed in his duty of care.

The part in bold is an exaggeration. Again, this is not some hypothetical situation. It was not a "frightening ordeal" for the man.


The next time you chimed in, you felt it necessary to shout:

You think a dog CLAMPED ON YOUR LEG WITH ITS TEETH isn't an attack?

Not only that, but you got the details wrong. It wasn't a leg. And it wasn't an attack. It was an appropriate response to what the dog felt was inappropriate behavior.


If I were into exaggeration and hyperbole, I'd have characterized what the employee did (swatting the dog across the nose) as a "vicious and unprovoked attack on a helpless animal!!!" But I didn't. I explained exactly what happened, the context, and the aftermath (such as it was) and you've taken the facts and turned it into something it never was. Hyperbole and hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with reality.


As to your oft-repeated question about my mom? It is unlikely she'd have been bothered by the dog. Probably because (again) the dog lived in our house for a time.


But I do think she'd have a problem with someone repeatedly trying to misrepresent the behaviors of a very well trained dog.

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog, I expect better from you. Not only did you take quotes out of context, you pretended they were about the 'escorted employee' story (by quoting them together) when they were about something else -- one of my own experiences. Worse, although the words 'vicious dogs' are neither hysterical nor hyperbole (unless you believe there are no vicious dogs, which makes my words merely ontologically meaningless), my characterising 'catalogue delivery' as a 'rampant evil' is obvious satire and does not reveal any 'hysterical' belief except the entirely non-hysterical belief that I believe catalogue delivery is not rampantly evil.

Your hyperbolic language speaks for itself. I did not pretend the quotes were about the escorted employee.

Of course I have an idea. I've never had a home intruder but I'm pretty sure most people would be frightened if they did.

According to the story, the employee was not. I would not have been scared.

You never answered me: would you have been okay for your mum to be clamped by a dog and 'escorted' away, or would you prefer to spare her that (potentially!) frightening experience?

Since my mother cannot walk unaided or even get out of bed, I would think it a welcome miracle. But if she could walk unaided, if it happened like Ford told it, I would have been okay with it.

But even though I exaggerated nothing about the employee 'escort' story (although I can acknowledge that I had a reading of the text that caninephiles did not anticipate), let's talk about my story. I got a response to it -- implying it's okay (or at least, there'd be an upside) to more pamphlet deliverers being too scared to deliver pamphlets. Not only was this a minimisation of my experience, it also had an implied 'you deserve what you get' -- because you know those 9 year old boys from families poor enough to take up pamphlet delivery -- they fucking deserve what they get.

I did not do that. We used to have neighbor who let his dog loose in his yard (which was not enclosed). The dog was mistreated by our neighbor and would try to intimidate or attack my son when he delivered the newspaper. The dog even came into our backyard and nipped one of my children. There are bad owners with misbehaving or even dangerous dogs: no doubt about it. No one should be terrorized by the aggressive actions of any pet.

I kn

 

[Metaphor]

So now you're making up scenarios to defend your position. No, the employee was not frightened (and in fact felt foolish afterwards) but in the hypothetical situation in your head, it was very, very different!

I'm not making anything up. Do you know the employee was not frightened (you told me you know the employer).

If he were not frightened, can you imagine anyone being frightened? Would you call them hysterical if they were frightened?

The part in bold is an exaggeration. Again, this is not some hypothetical situation. It was not a "frightening ordeal" for the man.

Do you know the employee was not frightened?

If he were not frightened, can you imagine anyone being frightened? Would you call them hysterical if they were frightened?

Not only that, but you got the details wrong. It wasn't a leg. And it wasn't an attack.

The leg part is immaterial (it's how I imagined a dog must 'escort' someone away, but yes -- someone latching on to your person is an attack. If you feel 'attack' is the wrong word, I don't know what to say to you. Hell, attacks don't even have to have a physical element to be an attack.

It was an appropriate response to what the dog felt was inappropriate behavior.

Why are you defending the dog as if I thought the dog had been inappropriate? It was the owner who was inappropriate. The dog was just a dog.

As to your oft-repeated question about my mom? It is unlikely she'd have been bothered by the dog. Probably because (again) the dog lived in our house for a time.

It was oft-repeated because it was nil-answered, and it's still nil. Is it an experience you'd like your mother to have gone through, or would you spare her the experience if you could?

 

[Metaphor]

Your hyperbolic language speaks for itself. I did not pretend the quotes were about the escorted employee.

They were taken from different posts, shorn of context, and then put together as if the next two quotes were part of the context of the first one. If one of your students did that in an essay, I suspect you'd have some negative feedback for them.

According to the story, the employee was not. I would not have been scared.

Can you imagine anyone being scared? Or is beyond the realm of possibility?

Since my mother cannot walk unaided or even get out of bed, I would think it a welcome miracle. But if she could walk unaided, if it happened like Ford told it, I would have been okay with it.

My mother uses a frame and I tell you what, I would not have been okay with a dog clamping on her person and then getting blamed for having the response she did. I would not be okay with it at all.

I did not do that.

I did not mean to imply you did. It was Jolly Penguin.