Forum: The Classroom
Topic: dog owners who hate dogs
started by: LiNeY

Posted by LiNeY on Aug. 16 2001,21:09
Today, I walked my dog as usual in the designed dog area. That's a large enclosed place where you are allowed to let your dog run free, and the dogs can play with each other and get to learn the social rules of dog life etc. It's really quite a community - most people and dogs know each other really well.

Now this afternoon, there was as usual a group of people sitting in the shade and talking while the dogs were peacefully and happily running around. Suddenly, a hysterical scream can be heard from a little away. Turns out there's a woman walking with her husband (presumably), and hysterically screaming because there's a dog near. Now, of COURSE there are dogs in the dog area, I mean, that's what it's for... Upon her screaming, of course, the dogs run near, she screams louder... repeat ad infinitum. The dog owners run to see what the big fuss is about. Screaming. Anger. Dogs totally confused. Dog owners getting mad at woman. Woman shouting at the top of her voice. Finally she says that she's gonna call the police and walks away. Peace returns as soon as the intruder (because she was an intruder, never been there before, she just turned up and behaved badly/inappropriately) is gone.

Now, when my mom and I left about half an hour later, there's two policemen walking into the dog area. Apparently the woman did call the police... And now the really nightmarish part comes: in this city, since a year ago, some kinds of dogs are declared "dangerous". It's the sorts of dogs that are sometimes used in (forbidden, criminal, illegal) dog fights so of course all these dogs are bad... They are supposed to be on a leash ALL THEIR LIFE!!! One of the dogs that were there today was an American Staffordshire, and it was about the most gentle dog I've ever seen. But NO it is a fighting dog...

So, the policemen ask "Is there a fighting dog here?" My mom and I just look at each other and say that there's only dogs here that we know etc... Of course, they went on to check... I guess that the poor little Staffordshire dog got into trouble. My impulse was to run back and tell its owner to get away but I couldn't set to running back right in front of the police.

That's SO typical. People have no idea about dogs. They go into the designed dog area. They scream and cause a big mess. Then they call the police. I hate them...


Posted by [liquid] meta on Aug. 16 2001,21:23
The only types of dogs I hate are the little things (chihuahua, shitzuh, etc)

As for the woman entering the dog area, I dunno about Germany but here (atleast in my area) if there's proper postings like WARNING DOGS IN VICINITY the police will just laugh at who ever is complaining.

And how stupid was that lady? HELLO? was it her first time in the area or something?


Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Aug. 16 2001,21:23
people who think screaming wil make a dog go away are stupid! (you need to punch them in the nose but dont say i told you that) these are the people who turn up in shops 5 mins AFTER closing time and demand to be served, who complain about nearly running over children when they were supposed to stop at the red light. who think indian people only work in corner shops and they get away with these things by surprise surprise making the situation seem more dangerous or exagerated than it really was. in my opinion i think its these people who are dangerous and need to be put down.

i dont like dogs much bu thats just an opinion. after having to walk my freinds one i still dont like them that much BUT that doesnt mean i overeact when an area gets designated for them to be used so they can be kept away from me and then go walking into that area and act like its the dogs fault. fucking muppets

------------------

quote:
Violence isn't the problem... it's the solution.

< Where's your self re-cocking-spect >


Posted by LiNeY on Aug. 16 2001,21:43
quote:
Originally posted by [liquid] meta:
I dunno about Germany but here (atleast in my area) if there's proper postings like WARNING DOGS IN VICINITY the police will just laugh at who ever is complaining.


It is like that, just that the "fighting dog" thing complicates the situation. There is at the time a dog hysteria over here, so whenever someone says "there's a fighting dog there without a leash" the police will come running, even if it is a designated dog area.

I must confess that that "fighting dog" sort dogs I know are the sweetest, most gentle and peaceful dogs I know. My dog is a German Shorthair (pointer - no fighting dog), so I personally am out of trouble, but I pity those poor dogs that are supposed to never run free.


Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Aug. 16 2001,21:50
we had a big dog scare here auite a few years ago. mostly about abused rockweilers attacking people. its a stupid thing that the press always turns into a campaign (read method for selling papers). its a real pain in the ass cos so many people get sucked in by it all.

------------------

quote:
Violence isn't the problem... it's the solution.

< Where's your self re-cocking-spect >


Posted by CatKnight on Aug. 16 2001,23:39
we still have a big scandal going on over here about pitbulls. however, they ARE dangerous dogs so I'm all for restricting them.

oh I saw one of those weiner dogs the other day. so odd looking...like 4 feet long but only 4 inches off the ground. hehe


Posted by LiNeY on Aug. 16 2001,23:47
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
we still have a big scandal going on over here about pitbulls. however, they ARE dangerous dogs so I'm all for restricting them.


Sorry but that is crap! You can't generalize. Saying "pitbulls are dangerous" is about as
stupid a generalization as saying "people from Maryland have small feet" or whatever. There are SOME dangerous pitbulls, but most pitbulls are not dangerous. Same goes for other kinds of dogs: some can be dangerous, but most won't be. It is not a question of the sort of dog. It is a question of how you educate the dog, i.e. what kind of owner a dog has. THE DANGEROUS IS THE HUMAN!!!

If you want to solve the problem about dangerous dogs, take the humans on leashes. Or at least make a test obligatory before people are allowed to own a dog.


Posted by YouGunnaStopMe? on Aug. 17 2001,04:42
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
fucking muppets

My friend has just introduced me to that word. Yes, i do know what a muppet is, but have never heard it before used in a derogatory sentence. I must say, i have become attached to it already. Especially in an accent.

Funny Shit!


Posted by Rhydant on Aug. 17 2001,06:03
my dog is < ev1l >
its kind of weird though. he SMILES at people. it shows his teeth then he sneezes. weirdest thing ever.
but hes wel behaved. when i yell "BUCKY STOP IT NOW DAMNIT!" he stops and lies down. i got him trained

------------------
I may be paranoid, but not an Android.

This message has been edited by Rhydant on August 18, 2001 at 01:05 AM


Posted by CatKnight on Aug. 17 2001,14:15
quote:
Originally posted by LiNeY:

Sorry but that is crap! You can't generalize. Saying "pitbulls are dangerous" is about as
stupid a generalization as saying "people from Maryland have small feet" or whatever. There are SOME dangerous pitbulls, but most pitbulls are not dangerous. Same goes for other kinds of dogs: some can be dangerous, but most won't be. It is not a question of the sort of dog. It is a question of how you educate the dog, i.e. what kind of owner a dog has. THE DANGEROUS IS THE HUMAN!!!

If you want to solve the problem about dangerous dogs, take the humans on leashes. Or at least make a test obligatory before people are allowed to own a dog.


the generalization that pitbulls are dangerous is just as valid as the generalization that humans metabolize food.


Posted by CatKnight on Aug. 17 2001,19:33
in the same way that a lion, bear, or shark would be harmless unless taught otherwise?
Posted by psychopharmacologist on Aug. 17 2001,21:13
Usualy a generalization about a domesticated animal being dagerous is invalid, EXCEPT for pitbulls, who are specificaly bred to be dangerous. And they have involuntarily locking jaws which make them a hazard regardless of the animal's disposition.
Of course, it's not the pitbulls' fault, its the fault of the humans that bred them, but now that they are here they ARE dangerous.

PS. Damn! I hate sounding like a preachy bastard.


Posted by incubus on Aug. 18 2001,05:37
LiNeY has it right on the head. Dogs take their behaviour from their masters (ie us). If a dog is violent then maybe the dumbass owner needs a good seeing to with a rusty stop sign, not the dog.

Dogs are harmless unless taught otherwise.


Posted by CatKnight on Aug. 18 2001,13:00
thank you
Posted by Hellraiser on Aug. 18 2001,13:22
quote:
Originally posted by psychopharmacologist:
Usualy a generalization about a domesticated animal being dagerous is invalid, EXCEPT for pitbulls, who are specificaly bred to be dangerous. And they have involuntarily locking jaws which make them a hazard regardless of the animal's disposition.
Of course, it's not the pitbulls' fault, its the fault of the humans that bred them, but now that they are here they ARE dangerous.

Thats all well and good, but it is still a generalization, i.e., there are exceptions to the "all pitbulls are dangerous" rule. There are pitbulls that I have personally known that are the sweetest and least dangerous dogs you could wish for. One down the street from me I would trust with a new born baby its that gentle. Has never bitten anyone, but if you know the owner that wouldn't suprise you, she's as sweet as they come.

On the other hand, I've seen some of the so-called non-dangerous dogs who are vicious. My next door neighbor's son had to have stitches for a bite from a mean laborador retriever.

You can say what you want, but in my experience the true test of a dog's nature is how it has been treated. If it's treated right, its not dangerous. If it's trained to fight or been mistreated, it can be dangerous. Of course, if it is a strange dog, always assume the worst till you've seen how it behaves, and you'll probably avoid being bitten.

Oh yeah, a doubledecker highway is dangerous, just ask the people who died when one collapsed in Los Angeles during an earthquake (The Nimitz freeway or whatever it was called, quake of '89). So that means that all stacked highways are potentially deadly? I guess under the right circumstances, but baring an earthquake or other outside influence, they're as safe as the house you're living in.

------------------
Old farts never die, they just get blown away.


Posted by Hellraiser on Aug. 18 2001,13:28
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
the generalization that pitbulls are dangerous is just as valid as the generalization that humans metabolize food.

How about this: the generalization that pitbulls are dangerous is just about as valid as the generalization that humans are dangerous. We've killed and maimed a lot more of our own species than pitbulls have, and I bet if you took a ratio of humans who have injured other humans and pitbulls who've injured humans, you'd find humans had the upper hand.

------------------
Old farts never die, they just get blown away.


Posted by TheTaxMan on Aug. 18 2001,16:45
quote:
Originally posted by Hellraiser:
Oh yeah, a doubledecker highway is dangerous, just ask the people who died when one collapsed in Los Angeles during an earthquake (The Nimitz freeway or whatever it was called, quake of '89). So that means that all stacked highways are potentially deadly? I guess under the right circumstances, but baring an earthquake or other outside influence, they're as safe as the house you're living in.

What if a car runs into your house! I don't see how this example is the same at all. I firmly believe that all pets are only as dangerous as the owner if they have been raised with that person. There's no reason to believe otherwise. Unlike people, I think animals are far more products of their environment.

quote:
How about this: the generalization that pitbulls are dangerous is just about as valid as the generalization that humans are dangerous. We've killed and maimed a lot more of our own species than pitbulls have, and I bet if you took a ratio of humans who have injured other humans and pitbulls who've injured humans, you'd find humans had the upper hand.

Who ever said differently?

But, what if we just look at say, people that live japan. Maybe the numbers would be more similar. It's hard to say, I'm going to compare this one kind of dog, to the entire world population. Yes, that is a bad example (mine), but people are bitches by nature and have opposable thumbs.

------------------

quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.


Posted by psychopharmacologist on Aug. 19 2001,02:45
Then its all settled
we'll feed all the world's hampsters to pitbulls and the world will be a safer place.

Then, of course, we'll have to deal with the epidemic of fatal falls in the shower.


Posted by SLATE on Aug. 19 2001,03:38
quote:
Originally posted by psychopharmacologist:

Then, of course, we'll have to deal with the epidemic of fatal falls in the shower.

Shit, is that on the rise again?


Posted by CatKnight on Aug. 19 2001,05:17
*sigh* you are getting off on a tangent. I don't feel like discussing the implications of generalizations at this point. I don't really care. The fact is that the ratio of dangerous pitbulls to non dangerous ones is far greater then and other pet (or human for that matter), and therefore should be regulated. That's all I'm saying.
Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Aug. 19 2001,05:42
oh i dont know i've seen a hampster do a lot more violent things to small children than a pitbull has. you give those little critters a pair of mini nun chukas and you'll see what i mean! The RSPCC have still got little hammy down on their Public Enemy No.1 List

------------------

quote:
Violence isn't the problem... it's the solution.

< Where's your self re-cocking-spect >


Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.4 © 2006 Ikonboard