6 ms·

> If you do it to dogs then you'll do it to humans. How did you come to that conclusion? I used to have a couple dogs and now I have children. I walked the d

> If you do it to dogs then you'll do it to humans. How did you come to that conclusion? I used to have a couple dogs and now I have children. I walked the dogs on leashes and made them poop outside. I've never done either of those things with my children, or any human.

willis936 5y ago
The assumption is that different dog breeds are more aggressive than others, independent of their upbringing. Their behavior is in their nature. This hasn't been born out by science yet is still used to justify policy. People care less when it's done to dogs because people are not dogs and it's easy to just say "sure, that sounds right" without digging any further. Show a single study that finds that dog breed influences aggression. Just one. You'll find plenty that correlate the two and maybe even some that stop there and ignore the existence of other factors. It's The Bell Curve for dogs. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/dogbite.pdf https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/dogbite.pdf
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  Correlation vs causation is irrelevant in most dog bite contexts, where the practical concern is harm avoidance.
  - willis936 5y ago
    Then why only look at one correlation? Wouldn't it make more sense to look any many correlations that could potentially correlate better, such as owner demographics? Or would it be better to only discriminate against dogs and not their owners? We all know how much the dogs use USPS. If harm avoidance is the goal then why not take it on by promoting better dog upbringing?
    - happytoexplain 5y ago
      Who is only looking at one correlation? We all take into account the information we have. More information is better. If they had provided more information, it would have improved each reader's overall picture. >Or would it be better to only discriminate against dogs and not their owners? We all know how much the dogs use USPS. I don't know what this means. >why not take it on by promoting better dog upbringing? I do promote that. I don't know where you're getting this from. Back to the idea of harm avoidance: Let's say we discover that the only factors that determine bite risk are how the dog is raised and how you behave around it. And let's say there is a non-causative correlation showing breed X has a high bite risk. Then it would be reasonable when adopting a puppy to not consider breed X a high bite risk, but it would also be reasonable to consider breed X a high bite risk when encountering one you didn't raise yourself, and therefore e.g. not allow your child to interact with it (or whatever precaution makes one feel comfortable). More information is better.
      - willis936 5y ago
        >>Or would it be better to only discriminate against dogs and not their owners? We all know how much the dogs use USPS. >I don't know what this means. I'll explain my meaning with a hypothetical. What if one breed were responsible for a high number of USPS delivery worker attacks? Promoting this information begs a policy response against this breed. What if most of this breed were owned by a certain demographic? From the outside this looks like a policy response against a demographic with window dressing to justify it. The outcome is what matters. I agree with your later point. However, dog owners and parents are responsible for their dogs and children (respectively). More information is better, but selecting some specific information here is clearly targeting something or someone, regardless of intent. That is what I take issue with. Target the issue, not the demographic.
    - function_seven 5y ago
      If it turns out that pit bulls are 10x more likely to bite me than golden retrievers, it doesn't matter whether this is due to genetics or to correlated owner behavior. I'm walking down the street, see a pit bull, and have only that information to go on when assessing whether I should proceed cautiously or turn around and increase distance. Also relevant is that the breed has an effect on the seriousness of injury if an attack does occur. Obviously I'm going to be less fearful of a chihuahua even if they're more aggressive than the terrier. It's the difference between antibiotics and stitches vs. facial reconstruction.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - economusty 5y ago
    See my other comment but basically we need to know what percent of those dog bites were done by dogs owned by people who didn't socialize and train the dogs. That would be an actionable statistical analysis.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  I understand your concern about dogs, but the question is why we would think what a person believes about a breed of dogs impacts how they approach humans. You said it well yourself: > People care less when it's done to dogs because people are not dogs
dismantlethesun 5y ago
I have actually seen children on leashes. Heck, it was semi popular during he 80s and early 90s because of the stranger danger scare.

willis936 5y ago

The assumption is that different dog breeds are more aggressive than others, independent of their upbringing. Their behavior is in their nature. This hasn't been born out by science yet is still used to justify policy. People care less when it's done to dogs because people are not dogs and it's easy to just say "sure, that sounds right" without digging any further. Show a single study that finds that dog breed influences aggression. Just one. You'll find plenty that correlate the two and maybe even some that stop there and ignore the existence of other factors. It's The Bell Curve for dogs. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/dogbite.pdf https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/dogbite.pdf

happytoexplain 5y ago
Correlation vs causation is irrelevant in most dog bite contexts, where the practical concern is harm avoidance.
- willis936 5y ago
  Then why only look at one correlation? Wouldn't it make more sense to look any many correlations that could potentially correlate better, such as owner demographics? Or would it be better to only discriminate against dogs and not their owners? We all know how much the dogs use USPS. If harm avoidance is the goal then why not take it on by promoting better dog upbringing?
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    Who is only looking at one correlation? We all take into account the information we have. More information is better. If they had provided more information, it would have improved each reader's overall picture. >Or would it be better to only discriminate against dogs and not their owners? We all know how much the dogs use USPS. I don't know what this means. >why not take it on by promoting better dog upbringing? I do promote that. I don't know where you're getting this from. Back to the idea of harm avoidance: Let's say we discover that the only factors that determine bite risk are how the dog is raised and how you behave around it. And let's say there is a non-causative correlation showing breed X has a high bite risk. Then it would be reasonable when adopting a puppy to not consider breed X a high bite risk, but it would also be reasonable to consider breed X a high bite risk when encountering one you didn't raise yourself, and therefore e.g. not allow your child to interact with it (or whatever precaution makes one feel comfortable). More information is better.
    - willis936 5y ago
      >>Or would it be better to only discriminate against dogs and not their owners? We all know how much the dogs use USPS. >I don't know what this means. I'll explain my meaning with a hypothetical. What if one breed were responsible for a high number of USPS delivery worker attacks? Promoting this information begs a policy response against this breed. What if most of this breed were owned by a certain demographic? From the outside this looks like a policy response against a demographic with window dressing to justify it. The outcome is what matters. I agree with your later point. However, dog owners and parents are responsible for their dogs and children (respectively). More information is better, but selecting some specific information here is clearly targeting something or someone, regardless of intent. That is what I take issue with. Target the issue, not the demographic.
  - function_seven 5y ago
    If it turns out that pit bulls are 10x more likely to bite me than golden retrievers, it doesn't matter whether this is due to genetics or to correlated owner behavior. I'm walking down the street, see a pit bull, and have only that information to go on when assessing whether I should proceed cautiously or turn around and increase distance. Also relevant is that the breed has an effect on the seriousness of injury if an attack does occur. Obviously I'm going to be less fearful of a chihuahua even if they're more aggressive than the terrier. It's the difference between antibiotics and stitches vs. facial reconstruction.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- economusty 5y ago
  See my other comment but basically we need to know what percent of those dog bites were done by dogs owned by people who didn't socialize and train the dogs. That would be an actionable statistical analysis.
ARandomerDude 5y ago
I understand your concern about dogs, but the question is why we would think what a person believes about a breed of dogs impacts how they approach humans. You said it well yourself: > People care less when it's done to dogs because people are not dogs

dismantlethesun 5y ago

I have actually seen children on leashes. Heck, it was semi popular during he 80s and early 90s because of the stranger danger scare.