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

[Metaphor]

Finally, a statement that corresponds to reality. Unfortunately, you think it somehow substantiates your claim about a hypothetical world in which all automobile transport mysteriously disappears thereby causing billions to die.

It wouldn't happen on day one. On day one, about a billion people wouldn't go to work. Hundreds of thousands would die from not being able to get to hospital.

After day one, it would start to get serious.

Yes. It may not be fair, but you either avoid the potential danger or you don’t in that situation. Do you have a reality-based alternative?

I agree it isn't fair, and the solution ought to be for men to stop being violent and rapists, just like the solution ought to be that dogs are never untethered.

Fascinating that you believe you know can read the minds of all caninephiles.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Deepak]

No.

[
What critical role do pets serve which makes them comparable to vehicles? It was your analogy after all - so you can't then dismiss any responses to it as rhetoric as if you're pulling a Jedi mind trick.

Who said pets are comparable to vehicles? I can dismiss any and all straw men.

Ipse dixit.

An example of meta-irony squared.

If you're not claiming they're comparable then this is the loosest definition of 'necessary' I've ever encountered.

I have no idea what you think you have encountered. I think it is obvious that there are varying degrees of necessity. For example, between motor vehicles and safe water, which is a greater necessity to people?

(And for the record your alluding to an alternate technology was a case of handwaving as you were dodging the actual measure of necessity being posed by the hypothetical).

No, I was delineating between the two general types of "disappearance". In one case, your claim was valid, but in the other case it was not.

Varying degrees exist yes, but a companion animal does not register. Necessary or necessity implies indispensability, and even your allusion to an alternate technology concedes that.

A person could live to a very ripe age even if all companion animals instantly disappeared from the world. And no alternative would be required for this to hold true. No change to the structure of modern society would result from such an event.

That's about as much a necessity as rhinoplasty or caviar.

 

[laughing dog]

No.

[
What critical role do pets serve which makes them comparable to vehicles? It was your analogy after all - so you can't then dismiss any responses to it as rhetoric as if you're pulling a Jedi mind trick.

Who said pets are comparable to vehicles? I can dismiss any and all straw men.

Ipse dixit.

An example of meta-irony squared.

If you're not claiming they're comparable then this is the loosest definition of 'necessary' I've ever encountered.

I have no idea what you think you have encountered. I think it is obvious that there are varying degrees of necessity. For example, between motor vehicles and safe water, which is a greater necessity to people?

(And for the record your alluding to an alternate technology was a case of handwaving as you were dodging the actual measure of necessity being posed by the hypothetical).

No, I was delineating between the two general types of "disappearance". In one case, your claim was valid, but in the other case it was not.

Varying degrees exist yes, but a companion animal does not register. Necessary or necessity implies indispensability, and even your allusion to an alternate technology concedes that.

A person could live to a very ripe age even if all companion animals instantly disappeared from the world. And no alternative would be required for this to hold true. No change to the structure of modern society would result from such an event.

That's about as much a necessity as rhinoplasty or caviar.

A person could live to a very ripe old age if all the motor vehicles disappeared. So, I fail to see your point. Moreover, all of this is actually irrelevant to the original point that people should be able to recognize common potential risks, whether they are dogs or automobiles.

 

[laughing dog]

It wouldn't happen on day one. On day one, about a billion people wouldn't go to work. Hundreds of thousands would die from not being able to get to hospital....

More handwaving rhetoric over an irrelevancy to the issue.

I agree it isn't fair, and the solution ought to be for men to stop being violent and rapists, just like the solution ought to be that dogs are never untethered.

I asked for a reality-based solution. Perhaps that is unclear. That means an utopian or unachievable solution does not qualify.

Actions speak louder than words.

I cannot decide if that is an example unintended irony or unmitigated arrogance.

 

[Deepak]

A person could live to a very ripe old age if all the motor vehicles disappeared. So, I fail to see your point. Moreover, all of this is actually irrelevant to the original point that people should be able to recognize common potential risks, whether they are dogs or automobiles.

And once again you equivocate. The analogy doesn't work and it's plain to anyone with a *ahem* dog in the hunt.

A more fitting analogy is to firearms, where a risk is introduced to society, but ultimately both dogs or firearms could be erased from society tomorrow without any real deleterious impact to society. The difference is that no one advocating for recreational ownership of firearms would presume to put the onus for mitigating risk on anyone but the owner.

 

[Toni]

A person could live to a very ripe old age if all the motor vehicles disappeared. So, I fail to see your point. Moreover, all of this is actually irrelevant to the original point that people should be able to recognize common potential risks, whether they are dogs or automobiles.

And once again you equivocate. The analogy doesn't work and it's plain to anyone with a *ahem* dog in the hunt.

A more fitting analogy is to firearms, where a risk is introduced to society, but ultimately both dogs or firearms could be erased from society tomorrow without any real deleterious impact to society. The difference is that no one advocating for recreational ownership of firearms would presume to put the onus for mitigating risk on anyone but the owner.

Yet many great societies and cultures were built without motor vehicles. Fire arms predate automobiles by hundreds of years. Human/canine cooperative, working and pet relationships predate firearms by thousands of years

You simply have no trouble eliminating what you personally fear.

 

[Toni]

No.

[
What critical role do pets serve which makes them comparable to vehicles? It was your analogy after all - so you can't then dismiss any responses to it as rhetoric as if you're pulling a Jedi mind trick.

Who said pets are comparable to vehicles? I can dismiss any and all straw men.

Ipse dixit.

An example of meta-irony squared.

If you're not claiming they're comparable then this is the loosest definition of 'necessary' I've ever encountered.

I have no idea what you think you have encountered. I think it is obvious that there are varying degrees of necessity. For example, between motor vehicles and safe water, which is a greater necessity to people?

(And for the record your alluding to an alternate technology was a case of handwaving as you were dodging the actual measure of necessity being posed by the hypothetical).

No, I was delineating between the two general types of "disappearance". In one case, your claim was valid, but in the other case it was not.

Varying degrees exist yes, but a companion animal does not register. Necessary or necessity implies indispensability, and even your allusion to an alternate technology concedes that.

A person could live to a very ripe age even if all companion animals instantly disappeared from the world. And no alternative would be required for this to hold true. No change to the structure of modern society would result from such an event.

That's about as much a necessity as rhinoplasty or caviar.

Actually, pet ownership--especially dog ownership--- is linked with longer lives and better health.

 

[Toni]

It wouldn't happen on day one. On day one, about a billion people wouldn't go to work. Hundreds of thousands would die from not being able to get to hospital.

After day one, it would start to get serious.

Yes. It may not be fair, but you either avoid the potential danger or you don’t in that situation. Do you have a reality-based alternative?

I agree it isn't fair, and the solution ought to be for men to stop being violent and rapists, just like the solution ought to be that dogs are never untethered.

Do you actually believe that a) all rapists are men? b)all men are rapists? c)only men are violent? d)all men are violent?

Fascinating that you believe you know can read the minds of all caninephiles.

Actions speak louder than words.

They do indeed.

 

[Nexus]

Human/canine cooperative, working and pet relationships predate firearms by thousands of years.

Its possible dogs are what allowed humans to migrate to the Americas. Part of the theory rest upon the hypothesis that hyenas kept humans from crossing the Bering Land bridge. Once human's domesticated dogs they (humans and dogs) were better able to venture into hyena controlled lands and dominate them.

link

 

[Metaphor]

More handwaving rhetoric over an irrelevancy to the issue.

I'm convinced you don't know what the word 'handwave' and 'rhetoric' mean.

But if you claim you are incapable of seeing the difference in necessity between vehicles and pets, a claim I tried to reify for you by asking you to imagine a future where all road vehicles disappeared without an alternative, or all pets disappeared without an alternative, then you are either being dishonest or you're so astronomically blinded by caninephilia you cannot see reason.

I asked for a reality-based solution. Perhaps that is unclear. That means an utopian or unachievable solution does not qualify.

And I'm talking about morality. I agree there are dog owners in the world who behave with reckless disregard for the comfort and safety of others.

 

[Toni]

It depends where you live. Most of the states where I have lived except one, drivers were required to stop for pedestrians even if they were not in designated areas.

Does that mean roads are designed for pedestrians to cross?

Most roadways are indeed designed to be crossed by a variety of traffic, including pedestrian. Not all roadways are designed for pedestrian crossing--interstates are generally not--but most roadways are.

In residential settings, roadways are designed for a variety of traffic, and pedestrians are expected to be present and to cross roadways. In many small towns and in many neighborhoods, there are not necessarily sidewalks: people walk along the edges of the street. They also bicycle there, travel by foot, skateboard, rollerblade, push strollers and so on. OH: they also walk dogs.

We specifically chose our house because there were sidewalks. Our children crossed multiple streets to get to school and back, to visit friends, go to the park, library, movie theater, post office, market and so on. As did we. Still do. On foot. My husband walks to work. He crosses several streets to get to work and to come home. One of the biggest benefits of our neighborhood is its 'walkability' which has become a buzz word when people rate neighborhoods for desirability. The more 'walkable' a neighborhood is, the more desirable.

But there are highly rated residential neighborhoods with no sidewalks at all: kids learn to ride their bikes in the street, kids go from house to house trick or treating via street, visit their neighborhood friends, walk to the bus stop, etc. on the street.

Because we live in a college town, there are lots of university students who often play ball, frisbee, etc. on the side streets. In the street. People --not just students--run in the street instead of on sidewalks. In fact, the high school track team and I believe multiple university sports teams as well as groups of (cough cough) older gentlemen from the Y run in the streets.

It is impossible to go very far at all--less than a quarter of a mile-- without crossing a street.

 

[Metaphor]

Human/canine cooperative, working and pet relationships predate firearms by thousands of years.

Its possible dogs are what allowed humans to migrate to the Americas. Part of the theory rest upon the hypothesis that hyenas kept humans from crossing the Bering Land bridge. Once human's domesticated dogs they (humans and dogs) were better able to venture into hyena controlled lands and dominate them.

link

Working animals are not pets.

This is hard for many people to accept, but the idea of keeping a dog, or any other animal, at a net economic cost and for companionship only, is a result of the enormous wealth and leisure time of the 20th century.

The idea of keeping an animal for companionship that cost you money would boggle the minds of the vast majority of the 30 billion people who have ever been alive.

 

[Deepak]

And once again you equivocate. The analogy doesn't work and it's plain to anyone with a *ahem* dog in the hunt.

A more fitting analogy is to firearms, where a risk is introduced to society, but ultimately both dogs or firearms could be erased from society tomorrow without any real deleterious impact to society. The difference is that no one advocating for recreational ownership of firearms would presume to put the onus for mitigating risk on anyone but the owner.

Yet many great societies and cultures were built without motor vehicles. Fire arms predate automobiles by hundreds of years. Human/canine cooperative, working and pet relationships predate firearms by thousands of years

You simply have no trouble eliminating what you personally fear.

And beer was once a necessity because water quality was terrible. That doesn't represent the state of modern society. That societies existed before automobiles doesn't mean that automobiles are not now a critical component.

I personally fear getting hit by an errant vehicle as much as the next rational person, but I'm able to recognize their importance. I also fear irresponsible firearms owners, but I have no compunction about taking them to task if I notice dangerous behaviour, and I'd never think to blame the victim of a shooting for not taking proper precautions against such an event. Both are what I'd describe as the norm for the demographic.

I don't have any sort of irrational fear of dogs, but I'm able to recognize the risks that they pose. And just like above I make no compunction about calling out irresponsible and dangerous behaviour. In this regard, I find dog owners to be spotty at best.

I've seen dog attack survivors go into panic attacks at the sight of a canine only to have the dog's owner respond 'oh he just wants to say hi'.

 

[Metaphor]

Does that mean roads are designed for pedestrians to cross?

The purpose of a road is for cars and other vehicles to drive on. Roads have design features that take into account many things, but they have one purpose.

In residential settings, roadways are designed for a variety of traffic, and pedestrians are expected to be present and to cross roadways. In many small towns and in many neighborhoods, there are not necessarily sidewalks: people walk along the edges of the street. They also bicycle there, cross streets frequently on foot, skateboard, rollerblade, on foot, pushing strollers and so on.

If there were no cars, there'd be no roads to cross. The purpose of a road is not to give something for pedestrians to cross.

We specifically chose our house because there were sidewalks. Our children crossed multiple streets to get to school and back, to visit friends, go to the park, library, movie theater, post office, market and so on. As did we. Still do. On foot. My husband walks to work. He crosses several streets to get to work and to come home. One of the biggest benefits of our neighborhood is its 'walkability' which has become a buzz word when people rate neighborhoods for desirability. The more 'walkable' a neighborhood is, the more desirable.

The purpose of a road is not for pedestrians to cross it. It's an inevitable side effect of having a road. If there were no cars or trucks, no one would build a road just so pedestrians would have something to cross.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you actually believe that a) all rapists are men? b)all men are rapists? c)only men are violent? d)all men are violent?

No to all.

I believe that it is the moral responsibility of all people not to rape and not to be violent, just as it is the moral responsibility of pet owners to prevent their pets from harming others, including invading the space of others.

- - - Updated - - -

No.

[
What critical role do pets serve which makes them comparable to vehicles? It was your analogy after all - so you can't then dismiss any responses to it as rhetoric as if you're pulling a Jedi mind trick.

Who said pets are comparable to vehicles? I can dismiss any and all straw men.

Ipse dixit.

An example of meta-irony squared.

If you're not claiming they're comparable then this is the loosest definition of 'necessary' I've ever encountered.

I have no idea what you think you have encountered. I think it is obvious that there are varying degrees of necessity. For example, between motor vehicles and safe water, which is a greater necessity to people?

(And for the record your alluding to an alternate technology was a case of handwaving as you were dodging the actual measure of necessity being posed by the hypothetical).

No, I was delineating between the two general types of "disappearance". In one case, your claim was valid, but in the other case it was not.

Varying degrees exist yes, but a companion animal does not register. Necessary or necessity implies indispensability, and even your allusion to an alternate technology concedes that.

A person could live to a very ripe age even if all companion animals instantly disappeared from the world. And no alternative would be required for this to hold true. No change to the structure of modern society would result from such an event.

That's about as much a necessity as rhinoplasty or caviar.

Actually, pet ownership--especially dog ownership--- is linked with longer lives and better health.

So is marriage, but marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient for survival.

 

[Toni]

And if a woman sees a man on the sidewalk and is worried about her possible safety, then she should avoid the man. It really is that simple.

The reality is, that is how many women live their lives, especially if they are out at night alone.

Are you advocating for men to be leashed, then?

 

[Metaphor]

A person could live to a very ripe old age if all the motor vehicles disappeared.

A person could. A world of 8 billion people right now could not.

If I were to choose a world where tomorrow, either all pets disappear, or all road transport disappears, I can tell you which one I'd choose, and which option would cause more grief, death, and wholesale destruction.

And if you can't tell which one is which, I pity you.

- - - Updated - - -

And if a woman sees a man on the sidewalk and is worried about her possible safety, then she should avoid the man. It really is that simple.

The reality is, that is how many women live their lives, especially if they are out at night alone.

Are you advocating for men to be leashed, then?

I am advocating that the responsibility for violence and rape lies with the perpetrator of the violence and the rape.

And the responsibility for dogs and their actions lies with the dog owners.

 

[Toni]

You realise, of course, that that is always the claim of owners whose dogs bite others, right? I've never heard an owner claim 'my dog's pretty vicious, so a bite was bound to happen sooner or later'.

I do know dog owners who have told people to stay away from their dog because the dog wasn't reliable or was injured or not feeling well.

Or simply not a 'pet' kind of dog. My grandparents, who lived on a farm, had a farm dog that was just that: a farm dog, which helped provide security, was company for my grandfather as he did his daily chores, helped somewhat with some herding. We kids were taught that it was a working dog, and not a pet and that we were not to attempt to pet the dog (which was hard. It was a beautiful collie and Lassie was in reruns on TV so kids all knew and loved Lassie and 'lassie' dogs). However, it was also easy to see that the dog was definitely NOT interested in being our friend. He never attacked us, nor growled at us or showed any aggression towards us. Also stayed completely away from us.

Service animals are not pets and are not to be approached or petted by the public when working. Guard dogs are not pets and are not to be approached or petted while on duty.

Where I live, roads are designed for the safety of drivers and possible pedestrians.

That is a design feature of roads. It is not the purpose of roads. The purpose of any road has never been for pedestrians to cross.

That's silly. Of course roads predate motor vehicles by many, many centuries. Even in Australia, roads predate motor vehicles.

 

[Toni]

<snip>
I am advocating that the responsibility for violence and rape lies with the perpetrator of the violence and the rape.

And the responsibility for dogs and their actions lies with the dog owners.

I agree up to a point but only to a point.

People can and do deliberately provoke dogs. Sometimes, the dog strikes back. Usually the dog ends up paying a much higher price than the human as the dog is often destroyed, even if it was defending itself. Sometimes, if it was defending its owner against an attack.

 

[laughing dog]

A person could live to a very ripe old age if all the motor vehicles disappeared. So, I fail to see your point. Moreover, all of this is actually irrelevant to the original point that people should be able to recognize common potential risks, whether they are dogs or automobiles.

And once again you equivocate.

There is no equivocation. It is obvious that a person could live to a very ripe old age if all motor vehicles disappear. Not all people could, but certainly a person could. Your reasoning is faulty. Moreover, it is irrelevant to the actual issue.

The analogy doesn't work and it's plain to anyone with a *ahem* dog in the hunt.

I agree your analogy doesn't work. And your hunt is irrelevant.

A more fitting analogy is to firearms, where a risk is introduced to society, but ultimately both dogs or firearms could be erased from society tomorrow without any real deleterious impact to society. The difference is that no one advocating for recreational ownership of firearms would presume to put the onus for mitigating risk on anyone but the owner.

Yet another straw man. For some bizarre reason, you are unable to grasp the simple idea that if someone is afraid of ___ happening, then for reasons of personal safety, that person should be learn to recognize when ____ is likely to occur. In the case of cars, there is no guarantee that every driver will conform to the rules and laws of the road. That is why people take care when crossing streets or when they drive - they learn to recognize potential dangerous situations. The same should be true for dogs or cats or people walking around with machetes. If that is "putting an onus on someone" then you have a problem with the real world and logic.