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

[Toni]

Again: you are making assumptions that the owner would have had a reasonable expectation that the employee would be there during whatever off hours he was there. I have 24/7 key card access to my work place and have had keyed access to other places I worked. I typically work some during off hours but it is always with the knowledge of my boss and in fact is documented on the schedule when I will be in. My boss assumes I will be there during my scheduled shift and that it is my responsibility to inform them if I intend to be in during some other time period. It could mean my job if I didn't.

I am making the assumption that if the owner had any notion that the employee might be there during such off hours, he would have made certain that a) the employee knew there would be a dog present and b)the employee knew how to behave properly around dogs. That would only be prudent. The owner had obviously taken a great deal of time and trouble to select and train a dog who could be trusted and who was safe.

It sounds to me like the guy showed up early, not in the middle of the night or something. Given that he just came in and started working, it doesn't sound like there was much of a problem with this kind of behaviour or, at the least, that it had been specifically forbidden. It sounds to me like this owner did not take these precautions. He had a well-trained dog, so he saw no problem with the dog interacting with the employees or there was a gap in the training and information that he gave his employees. That was an error on his part. If he'd made certain of those two things, there wouldn't have been this issue.

It may be that he has 50 employees and 49 of them got along great with the dog. That doesn't limit his liability when the one employee who does not finds himself interacting with the dog at the office. It's the owner that's the problem here, not the employee.

It hinges on whether there was any reasonable expectation that the employee would come in to work during the time of the incident.

If the dog was not present during regular business hours, the employer would have had no reason to anticipate an employee coming in during off hours. It really makes zero sense for him not to have warned the emmployee otherwise.

However,if the employee had been injured, I am certain that the employer would have had some legal responsibility, depending on whether the employee had permission to be on the premises.

Hypothetical:

I am a wealthy person and conduct most of my business from my home. I have a maid and also a gardener who work for me. Each has keys to my home and outbuildings and has access to my property during established hours. I also have a dog who is trained as a guard dog. The employees come and go with no problem and even interact with the dog during normal business hours, with no problem. One of them comes in during some off time: middle of the night, Sunday afternoon (maid's day off). Dog corners them and holds them until I come to investigate the dog's barking. Or grabs a sleeve or a wrist (not breaking any skin) and brings them to me where I am working at my desk.

Who is wrong here?

My contention is that the employee who came when not expected is at fault, without letting me know immediately and preferably in andvance was wrong. The dog was very intelligently alerting me to unauthorized access to my home.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It hinges on whether there was any reasonable expectation that the employee would come in to work during whatever time he normally did.

If the dog was not present during regular business hours, the employer would have had no reason to anticipate an employee coming in during off hours. It really makes zero sense for him not to have warned the emmployee otherwise.

However,if the employee had been injured, I am certain that the employer would have had some legal responsibility, depending on whether the employee had permission to be on the premises.

No. If an OSHA inspector came over to investigate the incident, it would hinge on what the company's written policy manual said about how this type of situation is handled and the documentation that the employee received the training from this manual.

There have been cases where electricians electrocuted themselves by putting their hands into an electrical box and the company was liable because they didn't have a policy manual saying not to do that. While that was an absurdly extreme case, it demonstrates that the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that they have prepared for as many possible occurances as possible and ensure that employees are properly trained for them. The employee had access to the place when the guard dogs were out and it is up to the employer to show that they had mitigated the potential dangers of this unsafe work condition. It's not on the employee to do so.

 

[Metaphor]

Tom, it doesn't make a difference to the caninephiles whether the employee was warned about the dog or not.

You see, he was an idiot for reacting the way he did, he should have known how to react, it's common sense don't you know and anyway everyone should know everything about dog psychology, he was the violent and aggressive one by 'swatting' the animal (and a dog's nose in your business is of course neither violent nor aggressive).

And I do love the character attacks from the caninephiles. "You can tell what kind of person doesn't like dogs". Yeah, I'll tell you what kind of person doesn't like them. The kind of person who doesn't like them. I'll also bet that more cruelty has happened to dogs from people who claim to like them and own them, than from anyone who just doesn't care for them. In fact PETA has a position that humans shouldn't own animals, but I'd say 90% of PETA supporters do own animals.

 

[Rhea]

You are not actually reading what I write. I know this is upsetting to you but you really need to get a grip.

Because thinking that a guard dog acting on a human is "harmless" and the man should have known it is bunk? "get a grip"? You may want to ask yourself if this is the way to make people accept dogs and their owners better. It's an interesting turn of events into the mindset of a dog owner and their feelings for others in the human society.

You are projecting your own bad experiences onto what I am writing. I can't fix that. You don't want to fix that.

Actually, what I was doing was projecting myself into teh situation and wondering why on earth several of you think it is a no-brainer that non-dog people should be well versed in doggie psychology, and not only that it is "common sense," but that we are at-fault for failing (shamefully, apparently) to have doggie sense.

Do you know how to behave around chickens? Do you know what to do around geese? Are you aware that different species of bears, as an example, have diametrically opposed "best defense" strategies? Do you know them?

You can't fix the fact that I have bad experiences? As a dog owner, yes you can. That, though, is up to you. You could defend the dogs and blame the people for every thing the dogs do. OR you could consider that perhaps if dogs cannot be trusted to behave, then it is on their owner and no other human to make sure that they cannot cause harm.

Consider the Boa constrictor owner. Is it not common sense how to avoid being attacked by a boa? Is it obviously the human's fault if someone else's boa constricts her?

note: I have no idea what to do if a boa approaches me and looks menacing to me. Do you? What should we do if we go to work early one day and see one slithering only a foot away? Please answer this without Google.

I am making the assumption that if the owner had any notion that the employee might be there during such off hours, he would have made certain that a) the employee knew there would be a dog present and b)the employee knew how to behave properly around dogs. That would only be prudent. The owner had obviously taken a great deal of time and trouble to select and train a dog who could be trusted and who was safe.

The fact is that people do not necessarily know how to behave around dogs and often behave quite dangerously around them. The dog is usually the one who pays for this ignorance.

The fact is that there are bad dogs: ones who are unstable and dangerous. More often, there are dogs who are just badly trained or rather, not trained at all. Or dogs who are placed in situations and environments which are unsuitable for the dog.

And somehow the employee sees a dog he has never before seen and discerns all of the permutations of this flawlessly correctly prior to the dog's teeth closing about his torso. Magical.

 

[laughing dog]

Tom, it doesn't make a difference to the caninephiles whether the employee was warned about the dog or not.

You see, he was an idiot for reacting the way he did, he should have known how to react, it's common sense don't you know and anyway everyone should know everything about dog psychology, he was the violent and aggressive one by 'swatting' the animal (and a dog's nose in your business is of course neither violent nor aggressive).

If you really think that it takes superior knowledge to understand that attacking someone or some animal (i.e. swatting) increases the likelihood of a negative reaction, then rational discussion is simply not possible. That has nothing to do whatsoever whether a person loves or hates a dog or a person - it has to do with fundamental intelligence.

 

[Toni]

Because thinking that a guard dog acting on a human is "harmless" and the man should have known it is bunk? "get a grip"? You may want to ask yourself if this is the way to make people accept dogs and their owners better. It's an interesting turn of events into the mindset of a dog owner and their feelings for others in the human society.

You are projecting your own bad experiences onto what I am writing. I can't fix that. You don't want to fix that.

Actually, what I was doing was projecting myself into teh situation and wondering why on earth several of you think it is a no-brainer that non-dog people should be well versed in doggie psychology, and not only that it is "common sense," but that we are at-fault for failing (shamefully, apparently) to have doggie sense.

None of us know whether the employee in Ford's original post was a 'dog person' or not a 'dog person.' We do know that the employee was a) unexpected and also b) not injured. See post 24.

The dog was trained as a guard dog, not an attack dog. The dog did her job. The 'intruder' was not harmed.

Do you know how to behave around chickens?

Yep. My grandparents (both sides) and my favorite aunt and uncle all kept chickens. I love chickens. Roosters? Not so much, depending on the rooster. BTW, I was expected to know how to behave appropriately around the chickens and roosters when I was a young kid.

Do you know what to do around geese?

Domestic or wild? Answer to both is: yep.

Are you aware that different species of bears, as an example, have diametrically opposed "best defense" strategies? Do you know them?

I know how to behave around bears indigenous to the area where I live.

You can't fix the fact that I have bad experiences? As a dog owner, yes you can.

No I cannot change the past. If I had that particular power, I would not probably start with fixing your bad experiences with dogs.

That, though, is up to you

.

No, it's not.

You could defend the dogs and blame the people for every thing the dogs do. OR you could consider that perhaps if dogs cannot be trusted to behave, then it is on their owner and no other human to make sure that they cannot cause harm.

No. The very best behaved dog can be abused by a human and can reach a breaking point where the dog lashes out.

A well trained dog can misinterpret the intentions of a clueless human and injure the human unintentionally.

Or can misinterpret harmless horseplay as harmful threat to owner or someone the dog is charged with protecting and it is possible that the human is injured. See my earlier example of the kid who was wrestling around with my kid and my dog grabbed his butt and held him there. No harm, no foul, no broken skin or even broken denim. My dog loved the kid before, after and during what he thought was an attack but he wasn't permitting an attack. However, the incident did alert me to something I had not considered: my boys might wrestle with someone other than each other and my dog might see that as an attack. Note: when my boys wrestled with each other, my dog would bark loudly and if I didn't arrive quickly enough, would fetch me. I know that we were lucky that the kid who was wrestling with my kid knew and liked dogs in general and my dog in particular. A different kind of kid could have reacted badly and my dog could have gripped harder, breaking denim or even skin. That would have been my fault, yes, for not anticipating that a dog could misread a situation. Humans misread situations all of the time, rarely with consequences that are fatal to themselves. Dogs don't get that slack.

As a dog owner, I take very seriously my responsibility to adequately provide for my dog, including training. And including protecting my dog from idiots who do not know how to behave, period. Because if some idiot decides to become very aggressive with me or a member of my family, my dog might growl or even, if provoked enough, bite. It's never happened. But it could and in that case, it is likely my dog would be put down. Because of some HUMAN attacking me or a member of my family.

I grew up around all kinds of farm animals and dogs. I was expected, from an early age, to know how to behave safely around animals of all sorts I was likely to encounter, including snakes (but not boas since I grew up in N. America.)

I don't expect everyone or anyone to like my dog or not to be frightened of my dog. I realize some people have had horrible experiences with dogs or other animals. I also realize that some people are frankly idiots whose parents did not raise them to have any manners or common sense. But I do expect other people not to do stupid things like: decide they'd like to pet my dog so they try to call my dog across a busy street. Or want to play kissy face with my dog when they've never seen her before a second or two ago. Or decide to throw things at my dog because they are having a great time being drunk. Or dozens of stupid, stupid, stupid things that could hurt my dog or provoke a dog who was not under the control of someone with a tight hold on her leash and cause my dog to have to be put down because they are idiots and provoked an attack.

Please note: My dog is large enough to carry a fully inflated regulation soccer ball around in her mouth. Which means she could easily grasp my head in her mouth. Any dog other than a very small dog is strong enough to pull out of his/her owner's grasp, even with the leash wrapped around the wrist. Even if it means dragging the owner.

I take all of that VERY seriously. I am aware that my dog is large enough to easily kill me or any other human she encounters. I am smart enough to a) pick a dog who is not aggressive and b) make sure my dog always knows I am in charge.

When I wrote that you should learn how to be around dogs, I was thinking of YOUR safety. Not all dog owners are responsible, as you well know. Neither dogs nor strangers can tell by looking at you that you have asthma triggered by dogs. Some dogs are very good escape artists (my neighbor had one such dog). Some people do not recognize that their dog could harm anybody.

There are dogs. You will encounter them. It is in your best interests to learn how to avoid attacks and deflect attacks should you have another unfortunate experience of encountering a dog with an irresponsible dog owner. Heaven forbid it be a truly vicious dog. I really do not you to be hurt.

I realize that you think this is not fair but I also know that it is my job to know how to behave if I am confronted by bears or moose or deer or turkeys or otters or eagles or any of the wild animals native to the area where I live. I also think it is my job to know how to avoid a dog attack. I am not fool enough to believe that it is impossible for me to be attacked: I have been attacked by dogs before and am fortunate to have avoided any actual bites. That was specifically because I did know how to behave--not because the dog owner was at all responsible.

Consider the Boa constrictor owner. Is it not common sense how to avoid being attacked by a boa? Is it obviously the human's fault if someone else's boa constricts her?

note: I have no idea what to do if a boa approaches me and looks menacing to me. Do you? What should we do if we go to work early one day and see one slithering only a foot away? Please answer this without Google.

I have no idea how to behave if confronted by an unexpected boa constrictor. I think all unexpected boas are menacing. My strategy has been to avoid people who keep boa constrictors as pets. Also jungles where boas are indigenous.

However, that is really not a very good comparison to knowing how to react around dogs. Worse even than the chicken and geese ones (neither are truly pets, even domesticated geese and have a different or no relationship with humans) or bears (which are wild animals vs dogs which have been domesticated for millennia.) A reptile behaves much differently than does a mammal, much less a domesticated companion animal.

Also, living in N. America, boas are thankfully, rare and would not survive winters.

And somehow the employee sees a dog he has never before seen and discerns all of the permutations of this flawlessly correctly prior to the dog's teeth closing about his torso. Magical.

No magic at all. Common sense, sure. But not magic.

 

[gmbteach]

Metaphor,

It's good to know you don't 'hate' dogs.



Fair enough on this point. I did have a dog that attacked my other dog for no reason whatsoever. Not once, but twice. She was destroyed, because in my eyes she had gone bad.

So do I destroy my current German Shepherd dog because she doesn't like other female dogs? She like the two male dogs she lives with. In fact, I would go so far as to say she loves them. However, put her near any other female dog and she goes nuts with the barking etc. Should I destroy her? She hasn't been violent towards them, though she has been aggressive and we have restrained her when this occurs.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

As long as you don't have other female dogs, no, why would she need to be destroyed?

My brother has two female dogs, so we don't take Bella there. It's all about managing her hatred of other females, TBH.

 

[gmbteach]

The truth is that a good dog breeder will select for physical and mental HEALTH over all else with temperament, and breed conformation coming in second and third, ideally temperament coming in a very, very close second to physical health.

My brother does this. He has a lovely Chocolate Labrador that he has selectively bred with another dog of similar temperament. He bred her 4 times and then said that was enough. He kept one of her daughters and has just had her checked out for any possible physical and health issues, which she has passed with flying colours. He will now spend some time selecting a suitable 'husband' for her to breed with.

He sells the puppies, with breeding papers, for around $1200 each. He also provides them with a full medical from the vet.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I didn't feel that was so thinly veiled in the opening post.

The belief that there are no genetic psychological variations among human races is established dogma, and this dogma (right or wrong) is applied to dogs (wrong). The pit bull defenders believe there are no genetic psychological variations among breeds of dogs. If one breed is statistically a hundred-fold more dangerous than another, IT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE because of the abusive owners (maybe Chow owners are a bunch of assholes?),

And we all know his whipping post. So I may be strongly inclined to agree with your inclination.

It isn't even remotely reasonable parallel though. Dog breeds are a lot more in-bred than human "races". You'd expect all sorts of traits in dogs to have levels of between-group variation that are greater than between-group variation in humans, including behaviors. Comparing dog breeds to human races is kind of a non-starter from a genetic standpoint.

You are speaking in terms of intermediate spectra:

"...more in-bred than human 'races'..."

"...between-group variation that are greater..."

But you are also speaking in terms of extremes:

"It isn't even remotely reasonable..."

"...kind of a non-starter..."

You are trying to have both at the same time, which I think is unfitting. The spectral perspective matches my perspective of the comparison between breeds of dogs and races of humans. The evolutionary pattern that applies to breeds of dogs is a similar evolutionary pattern that applies to human races, and the difference is a matter of degree, apparently 2.5-fold (speaking of genes alone and not phenotypes). The "non-starter" is really a starter for the proposed background evolutionary principle. It all relates to the same ideological delusion, in my opinion, and the pseudoevolutionary delusion as it applies to dog breeds is just as much my whipping post as the pseudoevolutionary delusion as it applies to human races.

 

[Toni]

The truth is that a good dog breeder will select for physical and mental HEALTH over all else with temperament, and breed conformation coming in second and third, ideally temperament coming in a very, very close second to physical health.

My brother does this. He has a lovely Chocolate Labrador that he has selectively bred with another dog of similar temperament. He bred her 4 times and then said that was enough. He kept one of her daughters and has just had her checked out for any possible physical and health issues, which she has passed with flying colours. He will now spend some time selecting a suitable 'husband' for her to breed with.

He sells the puppies, with breeding papers, for around $1200 each. He also provides them with a full medical from the vet.

Your brother sounds very much as though he knows what he is doing. Does he show his dogs at all?

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't feel that was so thinly veiled in the opening post.



And we all know his whipping post. So I may be strongly inclined to agree with your inclination.

It isn't even remotely reasonable parallel though. Dog breeds are a lot more in-bred than human "races". You'd expect all sorts of traits in dogs to have levels of between-group variation that are greater than between-group variation in humans, including behaviors. Comparing dog breeds to human races is kind of a non-starter from a genetic standpoint.

You are speaking in terms of intermediate spectra:

"...more in-bred than human 'races'..."

"...between-group variation that are greater..."

But you are also speaking in terms of extremes:

"It isn't even remotely reasonable..."

"...kind of a non-starter..."

You are trying to have both at the same time, which I think is unfitting. The spectral perspective matches my perspective of the comparison between breeds of dogs and races of humans. The evolutionary pattern that applies to breeds of dogs is a similar evolutionary pattern that applies to human races, and the difference is a matter of degree, apparently 2.5-fold (speaking of genes alone and not phenotypes). The "non-starter" is really a starter for the proposed background evolutionary principle. It all relates to the same ideological delusion, in my opinion, and the pseudoevolutionary delusion as it applies to dog breeds is just as much my whipping post as the pseudoevolutionary delusion as it applies to human races.

Well, that's because you really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The thread is supposed to be about the genetics of dogs making them vicious.

Now we hear its about how bad the owners of some dogs are.

I am inclined to believe the purpose of the genetics argument is to show how the genetics of say, black people, make us dumb and criminals.

But a favored dodge around saying that is to say we, black people, make horrible parents.

So there is a parallel, but not in the breeding but arguing.

What I find really interesting is that this so called scientific arguement keeps popping up in a politics forum.

There is a relationship between the variation between dog breeds and the variation between human races, but there is no intended expression of any relationship between dog ownership and parenting. I favor the hypothesis that racial differences in crime rates are due to genetic differences, and conservatives who claims that racial differences in crime are due to differences in parenting would be on the opposite side of the argument from me, as much as liberals who fully shift the blame to the dominant race. It is a three-way conflict. The genetic argument as applied to human races should equalize the distribution of blame, in my opinion, as nobody chooses their own genetics.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's because you really don't know what you are talking about.

What do you disagree with?

 

[Ford]

The truth is that a good dog breeder will select for physical and mental HEALTH over all else with temperament, and breed conformation coming in second and third, ideally temperament coming in a very, very close second to physical health.

My brother does this. He has a lovely Chocolate Labrador that he has selectively bred with another dog of similar temperament. He bred her 4 times and then said that was enough. He kept one of her daughters and has just had her checked out for any possible physical and health issues, which she has passed with flying colours. He will now spend some time selecting a suitable 'husband' for her to breed with.

He sells the puppies, with breeding papers, for around $1200 each. He also provides them with a full medical from the vet.

I had a Chocolate Lab a long time ago. Terrific dog. Got her for free, though...

 

[Toni]

There is a relationship between the variation between dog breeds and the variation between human races, but there is no intended expression of any relationship between dog ownership and parenting. I favor the hypothesis that racial differences in crime rates are due to genetic differences, and conservatives who claims that racial differences in crime are due to differences in parenting would be on the opposite side of the argument from me, as much as liberals who fully shift the blame to the dominant race. It is a three-way conflict. The genetic argument as applied to human races should equalize the distribution of blame, in my opinion, as nobody chooses their own genetics.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's because you really don't know what you are talking about.

What do you disagree with?

A more apt question would be what don't I disagree with.

Your premise that racial differences in crime rates belies a great deal of ignorance of the history of various immigrant populations of the U.S., for starters.

 

[Toni]

My brother does this. He has a lovely Chocolate Labrador that he has selectively bred with another dog of similar temperament. He bred her 4 times and then said that was enough. He kept one of her daughters and has just had her checked out for any possible physical and health issues, which she has passed with flying colours. He will now spend some time selecting a suitable 'husband' for her to breed with.

He sells the puppies, with breeding papers, for around $1200 each. He also provides them with a full medical from the vet.

I had a Chocolate Lab a long time ago. Terrific dog. Got her for free, though...

Most labs are really sweet dogs. I hope it is ever so. Their sweet nature reminds me of how sweet and how ubiquitous beagles were when I was a kid. Unfortunately, a lot of beagles are not the sweet, stable dogs of yore. Bad breeding.

 

[ApostateAbe]

There is a relationship between the variation between dog breeds and the variation between human races, but there is no intended expression of any relationship between dog ownership and parenting. I favor the hypothesis that racial differences in crime rates are due to genetic differences, and conservatives who claims that racial differences in crime are due to differences in parenting would be on the opposite side of the argument from me, as much as liberals who fully shift the blame to the dominant race. It is a three-way conflict. The genetic argument as applied to human races should equalize the distribution of blame, in my opinion, as nobody chooses their own genetics.

- - - Updated - - -


What do you disagree with?

A more apt question would be what don't I disagree with.

Your premise that racial differences in crime rates belies a great deal of ignorance of the history of various immigrant populations of the U.S., for starters.

Go ahead and state specifically those things I have said that you think you disagree with, unless your disagreement is more in theory than in the statements of fact. I won't argue with them.

 

[Ford]

I had a Chocolate Lab a long time ago. Terrific dog. Got her for free, though...

Most labs are really sweet dogs. I hope it is ever so. Their sweet nature reminds me of how sweet and how ubiquitous beagles were when I was a kid. Unfortunately, a lot of beagles are not the sweet, stable dogs of yore. Bad breeding.

We always had black labs when I was growing up. My dad was an avid duck hunter, and they were perfect for that gig. Turns out the "retriever" part of the name is well-earned. They're easy to train, loyal to a fault, and really well mannered.

I did get bitten once by one. She'd hurt herself somehow and I tried to help and she snapped at me. I guess now there will be a parade of people telling me that my dad trained vicious attack dogs, that I should have pressed charges, and that my parents were irresponsible pet owners for not having communicated all the rules for being around the dogs in a memo. Bloody caninephiles!

 

[Metaphor]

Tom, it doesn't make a difference to the caninephiles whether the employee was warned about the dog or not.

You see, he was an idiot for reacting the way he did, he should have known how to react, it's common sense don't you know and anyway everyone should know everything about dog psychology, he was the violent and aggressive one by 'swatting' the animal (and a dog's nose in your business is of course neither violent nor aggressive).

If you really think that it takes superior knowledge to understand that attacking someone or some animal (i.e. swatting) increases the likelihood of a negative reaction, then rational discussion is simply not possible. That has nothing to do whatsoever whether a person loves or hates a dog or a person - it has to do with fundamental intelligence.

I'll say rational discussion isn't possible. You, laughing dog, describe 'swatting' a dog as an attack, but a slap (from one human to another) you do not believe to be automatically 'violence'.

The employee swatted the dog because it was in his business and he wanted the dog to go away. It's certainly the case that the dog wasn't going to go away if the employee did nothing.

But since you believe that having a dog clamp onto your person is not a negative outcome, the swatting did not in fact lead to a negative outcome.

 

[Rhea]

When I wrote that you should learn how to be around dogs, I was thinking of YOUR safety. Not all dog owners are responsible, as you well know. Neither dogs nor strangers can tell by looking at you that you have asthma triggered by dogs. Some dogs are very good escape artists (my neighbor had one such dog). Some people do not recognize that their dog could harm anybody.

There are dogs. You will encounter them. It is in your best interests to learn how to avoid attacks and deflect attacks should you have another unfortunate experience of encountering a dog with an irresponsible dog owner. Heaven forbid it be a truly vicious dog. I really do not you to be hurt.

And the discussion has been about the responsibility of the owner whose dog "nudged [the new employee] a couple of times" and all of the responses saying this is such a normal and terrific thing for this owner to do to a new employee. And the employee who apparently "made the mistake of trying to swat her away" and for his efforts at getting the dog away from himself got "clamped onto his side" and this being normal, upright and proper for this employee to endure.

Oh, good doggie. What a clever doggie dragging him outside to the owner. What a dumb employee for not knowing exactly how to lovingly get the doggie away. She's so sweet, didn't break the skin. This is so righteous. What meanies are saying this was anything other than 100% the fault of the foolish new employee not knowing exactly how to deal with this particular doggie. What an idiot, right? No common sense. You can see who doesn't like doggies! Anyone who would object to getting nudged by a dog that you can't get to back off. Anyone who would consider it NOT harmless to have a sweet, terrific obedient doggie "clamped to one's side"

That's the objection.

Yes, I know there are nasty dogs. We have no leash law in our town and I jog. Oh, yes, I know about them. And every one has an owner who thinks I'm an idiot for not stopping my jog and wanting to pet and stroke and love on their precious sweetie. Because that's how you deal with dogs, right? They don't want you to run by ignoring them, they just want a little loving! If I just get to know them, they'll be so nice! If I just rub their little darling heads and say lovie lovie lovie!

And if the employee doesn't want to be touched by the dog, he gets it clamped on his side and everyone thinks this is normal and harmless and it IS NOT. It is freaky and dangerous.

And somehow the employee sees a dog he has never before seen and discerns all of the permutations of this flawlessly correctly prior to the dog's teeth closing about his torso. Magical.

No magic at all. Common sense, sure. But not magic.

Where do you get this idea that it is common? You've told us all dogs are different. So tell us, what EXACTLY should that employee have done to GUARANTEE a lovely outcome with the sweet charming well behaved doggie who was nudging at him?

Please let us know so we won't be idiots any more.

I guess now there will be a parade of people telling me that my dad trained vicious attack dogs, that I should have pressed charges, and that my parents were irresponsible pet owners for not having communicated all the rules for being around the dogs in a memo. Bloody caninephiles!

This is a strawman and you know it. I don't know if you wanted to perpetuate the stereotype of the careless owner unconcerned about the safety of others, but using a strawman to paint non-dog people as idiots and rolling your eyes at what you consider are their ridiculous concerns would certainly be one way to accomplish it.

 

[Archimedes]

But since you believe that having a dog clamp onto your person is not a negative outcome, the swatting did not in fact lead to a negative outcome.

What I find ridiculous is the claim that a person is "a fool" if they feel fear when a large strange dog has their teeth clamped on their side.

I wonder how many of the people who think people shouldn't be afraid when a large strange dog has their teeth clamped on you because they haven't drawn blood, have ever been in a situation where a large strange dog has their teeth clamped on to their side.

I don't care what the person did to lend themselves in that situation. I don't care if the dog was appropriately trained and that's an appropriate way of dealing with what the dog thinks is an intruder. I find it rather insulting to claim that people are foolish to be afraid if they find themselves in such a situation.

 

[laughing dog]

If you really think that it takes superior knowledge to understand that attacking someone or some animal (i.e. swatting) increases the likelihood of a negative reaction, then rational discussion is simply not possible. That has nothing to do whatsoever whether a person loves or hates a dog or a person - it has to do with fundamental intelligence.

I'll say rational discussion isn't possible. You, laughing dog, describe 'swatting' a dog as an attack, but a slap (from one human to another) you do not believe to be automatically 'violence'.

I am simply using the apparent accepted vernacular in an attempt to further discussion. Apparently, it hit a nerve with you. I wonder why.

The employee swatted the dog because it was in his business and he wanted the dog to go away.

Instead of a dog, if had been a person, would you still think swatting the person was a reasonable reaction?

It's certainly the case that the dog wasn't going to go away if the employee did nothing.

Again, if it had been a person who was not going away, do you think swatting that person would be a reasonable course of action?

But since you believe that having a dog clamp onto your person is not a negative outcome, the swatting did not in fact lead to a negative outcome.

I said that it was not necessarily a negative outcome. Please try to refrain from misrepresenting my position. Especially with such a hypocritical straw man, since you are claiming the outcome of the swatting was necessarily negative.