I'm for forced sterilization of dog breeds that were developed for fighting (bull fighting, bear baiting, etc). It just seems an unnecessary risk, and if we've supposedly evolved past animals fighting for our entertainment, then perhaps we should make dogs do the same.
Think of this in terms of potential damages caused if something goes wrong. If a pitbull snaps and latches on to a kid's throat/arm/leg, that dog won't stop biting. Its sharp teeth will slice through the skin and muscle and lock firmly on its target. Compare this to, say, a retriever. If a retriever were to snap and attack a child, it would have the disadvantage of a relatively narrow mouth and dull teeth. Retrievers were bred to carry quarry back to their masters without bloodying it up. Pitbulls were bred to latch themselves onto a target and bloody it up as much as they could. This is like the difference between a can of pepper spray and a Micro Uzi, except these devices have minds of their own. What would you rather have go off unintentionally?
4751676
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Darth Taxi
January 3rd, 2009 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffardo
Dogs are living creatures, not programmed robots, so I'm afraid you are wrong.
I am afraid you are wrong...everyone is programmed by their genetics and their interactions with environment. Even humans. We all are sofisticated machines.
4751707
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Roaming East
January 3rd, 2009 07:34 AM
meh, any dog can be dangerous and its a statistical FACT that some breeds are more prone to violence then others but the issue is that any given pet owner is probably NOT a professional handler and if faced with the prospect of a 90 lb dog bred for running fast or a 125lb dog bred for agression and violence attacking me...well. If you as an owner are not capable of physically preventing your ghetto-pony from hurting someonelse you probably shouldnt have it.
thats the difference between a gun and a pit. i know for certain that a gun in my possession will do only what i wish it to do.
4751765
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Huffardo
January 3rd, 2009 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Taxi
I am afraid you are wrong...everyone is programmed by their genetics and their interactions with environment. Even humans. We all are sofisticated machines.
I can see that you don't believe in free will, but there is quite a difference between a computer program and environmental influence. Dogs are genetically 'programmed' to kill, but you can't fail proofly reprogram them with a layer of training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaming East
meh, any dog can be dangerous and its a statistical FACT that some breeds are more prone to violence then others but the issue is that any given pet owner is probably NOT a professional handler and if faced with the prospect of a 90 lb dog bred for running fast or a 125lb dog bred for agression and violence attacking me...well. If you as an owner are not capable of physically preventing your ghetto-pony from hurting someonelse you probably shouldnt have it.
thats the difference between a gun and a pit. i know for certain that a gun in my possession will do only what i wish it to do.
Agreed.
4751776
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Darth Taxi
January 3rd, 2009 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffardo
I can see that you don't believe in free will, but there is quite a difference between a computer program and environmental influence. Dogs are genetically 'programmed' to kill, but you can't fail proofly reprogram them with a layer of training.
I truly don't believe in free will. I believe that free will is just aspect of the program. And yes agreed computer program is not same as environmental influence...but I think it might be if it was more complex and flexible.
Dogs are programmed to kill...but mine never attacked a human I didn't tell them to, however other animals are another case.
4751783
Re: Dangerous dogs.
NiteStryker
January 3rd, 2009 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaming East
meh, any dog can be dangerous and its a statistical FACT that some breeds are more prone to violence then others but the issue is that any given pet owner is probably NOT a professional handler and if faced with the prospect of a 90 lb dog bred for running fast or a 125lb dog bred for agression and violence attacking me...well. If you as an owner are not capable of physically preventing your ghetto-pony from hurting someonelse you probably shouldnt have it.
thats the difference between a gun and a pit. i know for certain that a gun in my possession will do only what i wish it to do.
Exactly my point.
4752287
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Captain Fist
January 3rd, 2009 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Never Surrender
The Bulldog is the best dog!
The Bulldog, only comes second to a Pet Lion.
The Lion, leopard, and wolf killing Tibetan Mastiff does not agree.
No, I don't think dog breeds should be banned. The dog is only as dangerous as his owner allows him to be. Certain people shouldn't have certain dogs, but the Tibetan Mastiff can be a calm, friendly companion if it's raised right. It might never be as friendly as the picturesque dog, the Golden Retriever, but hey, I don't see a problem with that.
4752534
Re: Dangerous dogs.
random_soldier1337
January 3rd, 2009 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
A gun can be the object in the act of those former things you dismiss, the crafting of gun parts could not occur without guns, nor the cleaning of guns. As to the latter that is something of subjective importance, much like the things you mention of dogs.
The civilians have no real chance of fighting back directly anyway. The government has lots people with guns who know how not to be seen and how to use them; and you do not. Any war between government forces and civilians will be decided on economic grounds, not military ones.
See answer to Nirv bellow.
Whether the thing was made to kill or not, what it is meant for, is irrelevant; I can design a thing intending it for perfectly peaceable uses and have it used as a weapon, and vice versa. Indeed this is the route of many martial arts. To suggest that law be formed upon the intent of the maker of the original article, who in many cases will have been dead for hundreds if not thousands of years is insane. The question is one of capability and use, not of the intention of the maker.
Much like guns and knives. Don't get me wrong you want dogs I'm fine with that, license the things up, introduce a certain legal responsibility and give me guns and knives back and we're set. My point is the contradiction between allowing dogs, potential lethal weapons, and not allowing guns - also potential lethal weapons.
Do a dog's teeth have a mind? Or the human's fist? They inherit these things, as do all tools, from the higher agency of their user.
But see by your logic the thing that is either going to have to happen is that either we remove everything that is a potential cause of damage from the Earth including our own limbs or we allow everyone the right to have anything that can be a weapon including nukes. I believe the separating lines should allow dogs but ban knives and guns because once they are put into effect the people generally die. Dogs could horribly maim but it is much rarer to see them go all the way as to kill something, especially a human, unless trained and bred for such. I mean if you want to go with the licensing thing fine but outright banning and eliminating is a bit harsh and extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffardo
I can see that you don't believe in free will, but there is quite a difference between a computer program and environmental influence. Dogs are genetically 'programmed' to kill, but you can't fail proofly reprogram them with a layer of training.
Is there anything that is truly "fail-proof"? As I mentioned earlier, if you're so worried about having a thing that has even the slightest potential of failing, then you might as well just dispose of it which includes guns and knives and other weaponry. Sure these things are controlled by our will but is the human mind "fail-proof".
"Prez whatever you do, don't push that big red button that launches nukes all over the world!... except here." "Yay! NUKES!*presses button* Oh no! What have I done!? (Darth Vader voice) NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"
4752962
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Huffardo
January 4th, 2009 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_soldier1337
Is there anything that is truly "fail-proof"? As I mentioned earlier, if you're so worried about having a thing that has even the slightest potential of failing, then you might as well just dispose of it which includes guns and knives and other weaponry. Sure these things are controlled by our will but is the human mind "fail-proof".
"Prez whatever you do, don't push that big red button that launches nukes all over the world!... except here." "Yay! NUKES!*presses button* Oh no! What have I done!? (Darth Vader voice) NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"
A knife is pretty damn fail proof if you ask me, a dead blade is never going to stab someone who enters what it believes is its territory without the person holding it making the decision.
Humans are far from fail proof, as are dogs, but that's exactly why I don't want everyone to be able to walk around with dogs that are more dangerous than most. If you give irresponsible or flat out dangerous people a weapon in the form of a fighting dog, why not give them a loaded gun whilst at it? Guns and cars all need a license, I don't really see why owning a very dangerous animal should be any different.
4752981
Re: Dangerous dogs.
random_soldier1337
January 4th, 2009 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffardo
A knife is pretty damn fail proof if you ask me, a dead blade is never going to stab someone who enters what it believes is its territory without the person holding it making the decision.
Humans are far from fail proof, as are dogs, but that's exactly why I don't want everyone to be able to walk around with dogs that are more dangerous than most. If you give irresponsible or flat out dangerous people a weapon in the form of a fighting dog, why not give them a loaded gun whilst at it? Guns and cars all need a license, I don't really see why owning a very dangerous animal should be any different.
So you do see that it is dependant on the person whether a weapon can be dangerous or not? I mean licensing on dog breeds would be okay but some of the suggestions like killing of the entire breed and stuff like that don't really seem to make sense.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Linear Mode
