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

[laughing dog]

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

That's okay. It is clear to me you don't know what those words 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.

Yet another straw man. I never claimed that pets and motor vehicles had the same necessity. I am beginning to wonder if you actually read the posts to which you respond.

And I'm talking about morality.

Which is fine but was non-responsive to the actual question asked. Do you actually read the responses to which you reply?

 

[Deepak]

There is no equivocation. It is obvious that a person could live to a very ripe old age if all motor vehicles disappear.

Sure it is - because you're not actually addressing the point. You're playing with language to make it seem like you did, but in actuality you're talking about something completely different. This has been explained to you multiple times, and at this point all I can conclude is that you're being obtuse, willfully or otherwise.

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.

Words have meaning http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man

What we've got here is a failure to communicate.

You can have the last word.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure it is - because you're not actually addressing the point.
You're playing with language to make it seem like you did, but in actuality you're talking about something completely different. This has been explained to you multiple times, and at this point all I can conclude is that you're being obtuse, willfully or otherwise.

Words have meaning http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man

What we've got here is a failure to communicate.

You can have the last word.

Your claims have been shown to be false, irrelevant or straw men. Which has been explained to you numerous times. However, unlike you who make unsubstantiated assertions, I showed where the "miscommunication" was.

 

[Toni]

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.

So would a computer. Much less a home computer. For recreation. BTW, this includes a significant portion of people living TODAY. Your point?

Actually, dogs have been kept as pets long before the 20th century. I don't think history is your strong suit.

 

[Toni]

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.

History is not your long suit at all, is it? It's not mine, either but I do know:

Roads predate automobiles by centuries.

Domesticated dogs predate automobiles by many centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#As_pets

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.

The purpose of roads is to carry traffic--even very sparse traffic. In the modern world, this includes automobiles. But it also includes pedestrians, bicyclists, pedestrians, rollerbladers, etc. Oh, and people walking their dogs. Depending upon the roadway.

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.

But people DID build roads long before there were cars and trucks. And people did cross them. And walk on them. With their dogs.

 

[Rhea]

I agree but disagree on the source.

I did not say pedestrians were not allowed to cross roads and streets. I said roads were designed for cars to drive on, not for pedestrians to cross. Pedestrians crossing is a side-effect of having roads for cars. No-one puts in a road just so pedestrians can cross it.

Roads are designed for safety of drives and pedestrians in the USA. Your claim is simply untrue for the USA. I have no idea what is true where you live. You also wrote " The onus is not on a car driver to crawl along at 5km/hr, eyes glued to either side of the road lest a pedestrian blithely walks into traffic". Again, I have no idea what the law or expectations are where you live, but in most US states, drivers are legally required to stop for pedestrians but not expected to crawl along as cited in your absurd example.

Just for the record, not all roads in the USA are like your roads in the USA. Here is a picture of the top side of my "block." This road is definitely NOT made with any pedestrian in mind. When I jog on it, I jog right in it and try to move over as far as I can if I see a car coming. Many of us have our houses on one side of the road and the barn on the other. And no car is required to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross. Although we do stop our trucks in the middle of it and chat for 10 mins or so...

But I think the universality of the dog owners needing to own up to their own responsibilities is hardly different here than in your neighborhood. That an owner who does not prevent dog-pedestrian interactions is in the wrong.



looking back at the house with the dog (which will follow me this far)

 

[Metaphor]

Yet another straw man. I never claimed that pets and motor vehicles had the same necessity. I am beginning to wonder if you actually read the posts to which you respond.

The same necessity?

What are pets 'necessary' for? Because road transport is necessary for 8 billion people to continue to live, and pets are not.

 

[Metaphor]

So would a computer. Much less a home computer. For recreation. BTW, this includes a significant portion of people living TODAY. Your point?

My point is that pets are not 'necessary', and companion pets have never been 'necessary'.

Wipe out road vehicles and computers tomorrow and billions of people would die. They are necessary right now.

Wipe out pets tomorrow and how many billions would die I wonder?

 

[Metaphor]

Roads predate automobiles by centuries.

Of course they do. Whoever imagined differently?

The purpose of a road is not for pedestrians to cross. It beggars belief that this simple statement seems to be so controversial.

Domesticated dogs predate automobiles by many centuries.

I feel like you are poeing me. You can't think I don't know that domesticated dogs existed before the internal combustion engine.

In residential settings, roadways are designed for a variety of traffic, and pedestrians are expected to be present and to cross roadways.

No road's purpose is for pedestrians to cross it. This is such a ludicrous thing to have to say, and yet I must say it.

No road's purpose is for pedestrians to cross it.

The reason you don't have a road in your living room is because you don't need a road in your living room, even when you cross your living room.

The purpose of roads is to carry traffic--even very sparse traffic. In the modern world, this includes automobiles. But it also includes pedestrians, bicyclists, pedestrians, rollerbladers, etc. Oh, and people walking their dogs. Depending upon the roadway.

Yes. The purpose of any road has never been for pedestrians to cross it. Crossing a road is a side effect of having a road that is used for traffic.

But people DID build roads long before there were cars and trucks. And people did cross them. And walk on them. With their dogs.

So, because roads existed before cars and trucks (I can't imagine why you think you need to point this out), dogs are necessary and the purpose of roads is for pedestrians to cross them?

 

[Metaphor]

Apropos of the thread, it looks like a certain celebrity caninephile doesn't respect the law when it comes to his dogs...

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/lif...-dogs-to-be-seized-by-customs-20150514-gh16td

 

[Toni]

I agree but disagree on the source.
Roads are designed for safety of drives and pedestrians in the USA. Your claim is simply untrue for the USA. I have no idea what is true where you live. You also wrote " The onus is not on a car driver to crawl along at 5km/hr, eyes glued to either side of the road lest a pedestrian blithely walks into traffic". Again, I have no idea what the law or expectations are where you live, but in most US states, drivers are legally required to stop for pedestrians but not expected to crawl along as cited in your absurd example.

Just for the record, not all roads in the USA are like your roads in the USA. Here is a picture of the top side of my "block." This road is definitely NOT made with any pedestrian in mind. When I jog on it, I jog right in it and try to move over as far as I can if I see a car coming. Many of us have our houses on one side of the road and the barn on the other. And no car is required to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross. Although we do stop our trucks in the middle of it and chat for 10 mins or so...

But I think the universality of the dog owners needing to own up to their own responsibilities is hardly different here than in your neighborhood. That an owner who does not prevent dog-pedestrian interactions is in the wrong.

View attachment 2984

looking back at the house with the dog (which will follow me this far)

View attachment 2985

There are roads that look like that where I live, too. LOTS of them as I live in a small city that is surrounded by farm land and wooded areas and state parks. Just not my neighborhood. I drive on similar roads going to work but most of my commute is on slightly larger roads, along which I still see some people walk and jog and bike and sometimes walk their dogs. Sometimes biking with their dogs which I think is really dangerous, mostly for the dog. Also Amish in horses and buggies.

 

[Toni]

So would a computer. Much less a home computer. For recreation. BTW, this includes a significant portion of people living TODAY. Your point?

My point is that pets are not 'necessary', and companion pets have never been 'necessary'.

Wipe out road vehicles and computers tomorrow and billions of people would die. They are necessary right now.

Wipe out pets tomorrow and how many billions would die I wonder?

I wonder, too. I disagree with you about what constitutes necessity. I love my dogs and have lived without dogs and could do it again. Probably will in a few years, at least for a while.

What you are terming 'pets' are probably not all pets but include many dogs whose purpose is dual, or more than dual. My neighobor's dog is a hunting dog, but also a family pet, for instance. The same with the dogs I grew up with. My dog is a herding dog and still has herding instinct although she's never been around livestock. We sometimes wonder if she would work the animals, given the chance. We will probably never know.

I also wonder where you came up with your figures that billions of people would die without roads and computers.\


The fact is that dogs have been kept by humans for thousands of years. Much of their relationship has involved working together for safety and for food and has greatly enhanced the ability of humans to survive. Also dogs.

Today, we are so 'modern' that it is harder to separate out what is 'necessary' and what is just desirable.

People can and do live without dogs. And dogs can and do live without people.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they do. Whoever imagined differently?

The purpose of a road is not for pedestrians to cross. It beggars belief that this simple statement seems to be so controversial.

Domesticated dogs predate automobiles by many centuries.

I feel like you are poeing me. You can't think I don't know that domesticated dogs existed before the internal combustion engine.

In residential settings, roadways are designed for a variety of traffic, and pedestrians are expected to be present and to cross roadways.

No road's purpose is for pedestrians to cross it. This is such a ludicrous thing to have to say, and yet I must say it.

No road's purpose is for pedestrians to cross it.

The reason you don't have a road in your living room is because you don't need a road in your living room, even when you cross your living room.

The purpose of roads is to carry traffic--even very sparse traffic. In the modern world, this includes automobiles. But it also includes pedestrians, bicyclists, pedestrians, rollerbladers, etc. Oh, and people walking their dogs. Depending upon the roadway.

Yes. The purpose of any road has never been for pedestrians to cross it. Crossing a road is a side effect of having a road that is used for traffic.

But people DID build roads long before there were cars and trucks. And people did cross them. And walk on them. With their dogs.

So, because roads existed before cars and trucks (I can't imagine why you think you need to point this out), dogs are necessary and the purpose of roads is for pedestrians to cross them?

What the hell does crossing roads have to do with anything?

 

[laughing dog]

But I think the universality of the dog owners needing to own up to their own responsibilities is hardly different here than in your neighborhood. That an owner who does not prevent dog-pedestrian interactions is in the wrong.

I disagree. Dog owners have a duty to take reasonable care and precaution. But make no mistake about it, there are pedestrians who are ignoramuses or assholes. I have seen pedestrians walk up to a fence and abuse a dog. I have experienced pedestrians cross the street to tell me to lecture me and my dog about how we are making them uncomfortable even when my dog has been on a leash. I have had pedestrians attempt to kick my dog because they were convinced he had attacked them when he had been inside during the time of the alleged attack. My daughter when she was young and a pedestrian walk up to our dog she was walking and start pulling his ear.

I try to be extra careful with our dogs, because I know there are plenty of real assholes, nutcases (and I don't mean people who are simply afraid or don't like dogs), and well-meaning ignoramuses who could do real harm to me, my dogs and themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

Trying to return to the OP, the statistics in the OP are terribly flawed:

With respect to bites, no one breed causes most of them.[3] A 2015 literature review concluded that "breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites".[9] In the United States pit bull-type are the most frequently identified breeds in cases of severe bites with Rottweiler dogs also being common.[3][9] This is partly attributed to their size and the fact that they are more frequently owned by people involved in crime.[9]

When dogs are near humans with whom they are familiar, they normally become less aggressive. However, it should not be assumed that because a dog has been with humans, it will not attack anybody – even a family member. Caution needs to be taken when approaching new dogs for the first time.[10]

A study based on recent data from 2000–2009, published in 2013, compared media accounts with reports available from animal control officials, determined that, of their sample of 256 dog bite related fatalities, breed could only be validly determined in 45 cases, and the attacks in these 45 cases were dispersed among 20 different breeds and 2 known mixes. For a further set of 401 dogs in media accounts of dog bite related fatality, reported breed differed between different media accounts of the same attack 31% of the time, factoring in animal control accounts produced disagreement on breed for 40% of attacks.[11]

A 2000 study by the US by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports of 327 people killed by dogs "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly involved in 76 cases. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities.[2]

( Dog_bite).

 

[Nexus]

I also wonder where you came up with your figures that billions of people would die without roads and computers.

Billions would die of starvation because our food distribution world wide absolutely requires roads. Just imagine New Orleans during Katrina. Except now instead of one stranded city surrounded by a well functioning society able to deliver them supplies every community worldwide has to scrounge for food. The historical and archaeological records show less than one billion people can survive on earth without oil and modern infrastructure. While this thought experiment is far removed from the topic of dogs its truly a no-brainer that billions would die.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I also wonder where you came up with your figures that billions of people would die without roads and computers.

Billions would die of starvation because our food distribution world wide absolutely requires roads. Just imagine New Orleans during Katrina. Except now instead of one stranded city surrounded by a well functioning society able to deliver them supplies every community worldwide has to scrounge for food. The historical and archaeological records show less than one billion people can survive on earth without oil and modern infrastructure. While this thought experiment is far removed from the topic of dogs its truly a no-brainer that billions would die.

What if we genetically engineered a bunch of giant, flying dogs to carry cargo around the world? If we combine them with plant DNA so that they get their energy from photosynthesis, we wouldn't even need to feed them.

 

[Rhea]

What if we genetically engineered a bunch of giant, flying dogs to carry cargo around the world? If we combine them with plant DNA so that they get their energy from photosynthesis, we wouldn't even need to feed them.

Oh, crap, imagine what a dog large enough to fly cargo can knock over with its tail!
And speaking of crap....

 

[laughing dog]

What if we genetically engineered a bunch of giant, flying dogs to carry cargo around the world? If we combine them with plant DNA so that they get their energy from photosynthesis, we wouldn't even need to feed them.

Oh, crap, imagine what a dog large enough to fly cargo can knock over with its tail!
And speaking of crap....

Reminds of a story I read in the newspaper about 30 years ago. A resident along the flight path from an airport was asking the airport to require planes to empty their lavatories either upon landing or away from populated areas because his roof was constantly being hit by frozen human excrement that fell from the sky. The reporter asked him if he looked up to see which airlines was emptying their metaphorical bowels. His reply was "You're crazy if you think I'm going outside and look up."

 

[Rhea]

"You're crazy if you think I'm going outside and look up."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Billions would die of starvation because our food distribution world wide absolutely requires roads. Just imagine New Orleans during Katrina. Except now instead of one stranded city surrounded by a well functioning society able to deliver them supplies every community worldwide has to scrounge for food. The historical and archaeological records show less than one billion people can survive on earth without oil and modern infrastructure. While this thought experiment is far removed from the topic of dogs its truly a no-brainer that billions would die.

What if we genetically engineered a bunch of giant, flying dogs to carry cargo around the world? If we combine them with plant DNA so that they get their energy from photosynthesis, we wouldn't even need to feed them.

Dogs? Wouldn't it be easier to do it with reindeer? After all, there is a subspecies that already does so!