4 ms·

Hm interesting. You seem to have an aversion against dogs and many presumptions. Unreliable ... if it would be the case the police or rescue organizations woul

Hm interesting. You seem to have an aversion against dogs and many presumptions. Unreliable ... if it would be the case the police or rescue organizations wouldn't use them because life depends on their reliability. attack humans ... if you didn't know almost nothing about dogs and have made bad experiences with them in the past then yes you probably would think that. It's not the case. Attacks are in many cases explainable and very often the human causes the attack by unknowingly behaving like prey or posing a thread to the dog. fears ... right ... like you have you you mean? :) I had a lot of fears in the past because as a child I was bitten by a dog. Now I have my own and almost no fear. allergies and unhygienic ... well a dog for medical purposes don't have to be in a operating room to do their job. Many people kiss other people or shake hands ... how unhygienic is that? ;-)

throw82473751 5y ago
Don't think he was talking personally, but rather list arguments that few people will bring up... I love all animals, but still, the "unhygenic" argument is a thing (humans can sanitize and wash hands e.g.), that is why in a lot of food shopping places or restaurants it is forbidden to bring dogs inside (even if just more theoretical than practical). And lastly, the allergies is also somethinng you cannot persons just talk out of, every "office dog" was always impossible because at least one guy having allergies...
dna_polymerase 5y ago
Sure dogs are used in professional environments but you can only use them for short periods of time. For example drug sniffing dogs can be used only for half an hour before they need to rest. They aren't machines and need attention.
Nullabillity 5y ago
> You seem to have an aversion against dogs and many presumptions. And you seem to have Dog Owner Reality Displacement Syndrome. > Unreliable ... if it would be the case the police or rescue organizations wouldn't use them because life depends on their reliability. Police doesn't give two shits about reliability, these are the same people who use polygraphs regularly. They are both useless instruments which can be interpreted however the officer desires, while letting them launder that opinion through an "unbiased" third party. > attack humans ... if you didn't know almost nothing about dogs and have made bad experiences with them in the past then yes you probably would think that. It's not the case. Attacks are in many cases explainable and very often the human causes the attack by unknowingly behaving like prey or posing a thread to the dog. This is just another version of "If she didn't want to be assaulted then she shouldn't have dressed like a slut!". > fears ... right ... like you have you you mean? :) I had a lot of fears in the past because as a child I was bitten by a dog. Now I have my own and almost no fear. And so the abused becomes the abuser, perpetuating the cycle… > Many people kiss other people or shake hands ... how unhygienic is that? ;-) People wash their hands, and don't typically tend to run and kiss any random stranger they meet (unlike dogs!). There's a huge difference between kissing the same person 10 times, vs kissing 10 people once.
- krageon 5y ago
  > these are the same people who use polygraphs regularly. No, they are not. Certainly there are places where they use a polygraph as something other than a party trick, but those places are fewer in number than the places where dogs are used to do police work. You akin every dog owner to an abuser. This is needlessly hostile and I'd go so far as almost willfully unfriendly. There's really no call for that.
  - Nullabillity 5y ago
    > No, they are not. Certainly there are places where they use a polygraph as something other than a party trick, but those places are fewer in number than the places where dogs are used to do police work. Both are bad. If one's (finally!) getting reduced then that's a good thing, but that doesn't suddenly make the other one valid. > You akin every dog owner to an abuser. This is needlessly hostile and I'd go so far as almost willfully unfriendly. There's really no call for that. No, I'm saying that this "dogs are great and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't like them" attitude is abusive. Not all dog owners are abusive, but I would go as far as to claim that there is an inherent selection bias where people with this attitude are more likely to own dogs. And far more likely to tell everyone they encounter that they own dogs.
    - krageon 5y ago
      > Both are bad. One (the polygraph) is bad because it's been proven to not work at all, the other is a class of domesticated animals bred to be useful to people and to understand their body language. They are not the same thing, and comparing them as if they are is not useful. > I'm saying that this "dogs are great and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't like them" attitude is abusive. It's not abusive to say that a class of helpful beings are great and that blanket disliking them is doing them a great disservice. It sucks that you see it as abusive, but you don't establish what specifically you feel is abusive. You just say "this is abuse" and you keep repeating it. This makes it seem as if you don't like them and folks saying that this is a weird attitude to have at a domesticated animal purpose-bred to be useful in some way should be punished (at least verbally). I think this attitude is toxic, if we must speak in such terms.
rgavuliak 5y ago
> Attacks are in many cases explainable Yeah, all the times a baby gets mauled to death by a dog, it's definitely the baby's fault. The fact that they are explainable doesn't mean they're acceptable.
- franga2000 5y ago
  I'd love to hear about just 1 case of a well-trained service dog mauling a baby to death uprovoked. The fact that an accident is technically possible if everybody in the pipeline fails at their job isn't much of an argument against anything. Just like you wouldn't leave a baby unattended with a blood testing machine, you wouldn't let it interact with the dog. In fact, if a baby poked its finger where it didn't belong, I bet a dog would show a lot more restraint than a 18k RPM lab centrifuge.
  - rgavuliak 5y ago
    The share of dog owners is on the increase. Originally people who got dogs meant to handle them. These days people are trying to fill some kind of hole and the number of dogs per person has increased dramatically. It also means that in total you have more and more dog owners that can't handle their dogs. From a risk management perspective it's much easier to prevent a baby even getting near to a centrifuge than it is to control actions of other people and their dogs. If a dog runs up to your baby, you have seconds to react at times.

throw82473751 5y ago

Don't think he was talking personally, but rather list arguments that few people will bring up... I love all animals, but still, the "unhygenic" argument is a thing (humans can sanitize and wash hands e.g.), that is why in a lot of food shopping places or restaurants it is forbidden to bring dogs inside (even if just more theoretical than practical). And lastly, the allergies is also somethinng you cannot persons just talk out of, every "office dog" was always impossible because at least one guy having allergies...

dna_polymerase 5y ago

Sure dogs are used in professional environments but you can only use them for short periods of time. For example drug sniffing dogs can be used only for half an hour before they need to rest. They aren't machines and need attention.

Nullabillity 5y ago

> You seem to have an aversion against dogs and many presumptions. And you seem to have Dog Owner Reality Displacement Syndrome. > Unreliable ... if it would be the case the police or rescue organizations wouldn't use them because life depends on their reliability. Police doesn't give two shits about reliability, these are the same people who use polygraphs regularly. They are both useless instruments which can be interpreted however the officer desires, while letting them launder that opinion through an "unbiased" third party. > attack humans ... if you didn't know almost nothing about dogs and have made bad experiences with them in the past then yes you probably would think that. It's not the case. Attacks are in many cases explainable and very often the human causes the attack by unknowingly behaving like prey or posing a thread to the dog. This is just another version of "If she didn't want to be assaulted then she shouldn't have dressed like a slut!". > fears ... right ... like you have you you mean? :) I had a lot of fears in the past because as a child I was bitten by a dog. Now I have my own and almost no fear. And so the abused becomes the abuser, perpetuating the cycle… > Many people kiss other people or shake hands ... how unhygienic is that? ;-) People wash their hands, and don't typically tend to run and kiss any random stranger they meet (unlike dogs!). There's a huge difference between kissing the same person 10 times, vs kissing 10 people once.

krageon 5y ago
> these are the same people who use polygraphs regularly. No, they are not. Certainly there are places where they use a polygraph as something other than a party trick, but those places are fewer in number than the places where dogs are used to do police work. You akin every dog owner to an abuser. This is needlessly hostile and I'd go so far as almost willfully unfriendly. There's really no call for that.
- Nullabillity 5y ago
  > No, they are not. Certainly there are places where they use a polygraph as something other than a party trick, but those places are fewer in number than the places where dogs are used to do police work. Both are bad. If one's (finally!) getting reduced then that's a good thing, but that doesn't suddenly make the other one valid. > You akin every dog owner to an abuser. This is needlessly hostile and I'd go so far as almost willfully unfriendly. There's really no call for that. No, I'm saying that this "dogs are great and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't like them" attitude is abusive. Not all dog owners are abusive, but I would go as far as to claim that there is an inherent selection bias where people with this attitude are more likely to own dogs. And far more likely to tell everyone they encounter that they own dogs.
  - krageon 5y ago
    > Both are bad. One (the polygraph) is bad because it's been proven to not work at all, the other is a class of domesticated animals bred to be useful to people and to understand their body language. They are not the same thing, and comparing them as if they are is not useful. > I'm saying that this "dogs are great and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't like them" attitude is abusive. It's not abusive to say that a class of helpful beings are great and that blanket disliking them is doing them a great disservice. It sucks that you see it as abusive, but you don't establish what specifically you feel is abusive. You just say "this is abuse" and you keep repeating it. This makes it seem as if you don't like them and folks saying that this is a weird attitude to have at a domesticated animal purpose-bred to be useful in some way should be punished (at least verbally). I think this attitude is toxic, if we must speak in such terms.

rgavuliak 5y ago

> Attacks are in many cases explainable Yeah, all the times a baby gets mauled to death by a dog, it's definitely the baby's fault. The fact that they are explainable doesn't mean they're acceptable.

franga2000 5y ago
I'd love to hear about just 1 case of a well-trained service dog mauling a baby to death uprovoked. The fact that an accident is technically possible if everybody in the pipeline fails at their job isn't much of an argument against anything. Just like you wouldn't leave a baby unattended with a blood testing machine, you wouldn't let it interact with the dog. In fact, if a baby poked its finger where it didn't belong, I bet a dog would show a lot more restraint than a 18k RPM lab centrifuge.
- rgavuliak 5y ago
  The share of dog owners is on the increase. Originally people who got dogs meant to handle them. These days people are trying to fill some kind of hole and the number of dogs per person has increased dramatically. It also means that in total you have more and more dog owners that can't handle their dogs. From a risk management perspective it's much easier to prevent a baby even getting near to a centrifuge than it is to control actions of other people and their dogs. If a dog runs up to your baby, you have seconds to react at times.