7 ms·

> 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 p

> 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

> 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.