4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.