Crosswords2 mins ago
When Will People Learn To Keep Dogs Under Control Near Babies + Children?
Answers
Its simple. You supervise dogs when they are near children and children when they are near dogs. If you can't be there to supervise, then you keep dogs and children apart. Poor baby. Poor dog. Stupid adults.
13:49 Sat 20th Jun 2015
andy I don't often think that you have posted stupidly but today you have. You might as well say that you cannot say that any man isn't a rapist, only that they haven't raped anybody yet.
I absolutely agree that dogs should be supervised closely around children and children should be supervised closely around dogs. I also supervise strange adults very closely around my dogs as in my experience, many people who believe that they are "good with dogs" are anything but.
Pack hierarchy in dogs has long since be disproved, read Raymond Coppinger on the subject. The origins of pack hierarchy theory come from observations of groups of stranger wolves brought together and to close confinement for the purposes of experimentation. Even then I understand that the results were further skewed by the admiration of the author for Adolf Hitler and his beliefs about wolf behaviour.
I absolutely agree that dogs should be supervised closely around children and children should be supervised closely around dogs. I also supervise strange adults very closely around my dogs as in my experience, many people who believe that they are "good with dogs" are anything but.
Pack hierarchy in dogs has long since be disproved, read Raymond Coppinger on the subject. The origins of pack hierarchy theory come from observations of groups of stranger wolves brought together and to close confinement for the purposes of experimentation. Even then I understand that the results were further skewed by the admiration of the author for Adolf Hitler and his beliefs about wolf behaviour.
woofgang - //andy I don't often think that you have posted stupidly but today you have. You might as well say that you cannot say that any man isn't a rapist, only that they haven't raped anybody yet. //
Aside from your offensive approach - by all means disagree with me, but there is no need to be offensive in doing so -
your analogy is utterly redundant.
How on earth can you compare the behaviour of the male of our species - the top of the animal kingdom with a series of thought processes so numerous and complex that we may never understand them, with a dog which has a limited level of intelligence, and (and this is the vital distinction) a series of communication mechanisms which we do not really understand.
Dogs can be reasonably expected to bite, because that is what dogs do.
That hardly stands up as an argument that men rape for the same reason, what an offensive and ill-thought analogy, which I as a man take strong exception to.
So, a dog may exhibit its intention to attack, it may even advertise the reason for doing so, but because we are unable to understand, it is as though those signals do not exist. Thus, the first indication that a dog is going to attack is the few seconds when it growls, bares its teeth, and bunches its muscles ready to launch.
Whether or not the 'pack hierarchy' argument holds water or not - the indisputable fact is that dogs can and do attack without warning, any dog, any time, and to believe otherwise is naiive. They may signal their intent, but that is lost to anything except another dog.
Aside from your offensive approach - by all means disagree with me, but there is no need to be offensive in doing so -
your analogy is utterly redundant.
How on earth can you compare the behaviour of the male of our species - the top of the animal kingdom with a series of thought processes so numerous and complex that we may never understand them, with a dog which has a limited level of intelligence, and (and this is the vital distinction) a series of communication mechanisms which we do not really understand.
Dogs can be reasonably expected to bite, because that is what dogs do.
That hardly stands up as an argument that men rape for the same reason, what an offensive and ill-thought analogy, which I as a man take strong exception to.
So, a dog may exhibit its intention to attack, it may even advertise the reason for doing so, but because we are unable to understand, it is as though those signals do not exist. Thus, the first indication that a dog is going to attack is the few seconds when it growls, bares its teeth, and bunches its muscles ready to launch.
Whether or not the 'pack hierarchy' argument holds water or not - the indisputable fact is that dogs can and do attack without warning, any dog, any time, and to believe otherwise is naiive. They may signal their intent, but that is lost to anything except another dog.
chaptazbru2 - //... and I agree he has posted 'stupidly' here. Now I have given him more fuel for his fire ! //
No, but you have decided to be as rude as woofgang - disagree by all means but my point is not 'stupid' - it is reasoned and argued, please feel free to ignore it, in fact, I think on the basis of your position, I would prefer it if you did.
No, but you have decided to be as rude as woofgang - disagree by all means but my point is not 'stupid' - it is reasoned and argued, please feel free to ignore it, in fact, I think on the basis of your position, I would prefer it if you did.
"How on earth can you compare the behaviour of the male of our species - the top of the animal kingdom with a series of thought processes so numerous and complex that we may never understand them, with a dog which has a limited level of intelligence, and (and this is the vital distinction) a series of communication mechanisms which we do not really understand."
Well I didn't but you just did.
and first you say that dogs DO give warnings and then you say that they don't.....
I do agree with you that people who don't understand (or won't trouble to understand) how to interract with dogs should be kept well clear of them and that includes ownership. I will go further and say that the duty to keep their dogs safe from such people lies with the dogs owner.
Well I didn't but you just did.
and first you say that dogs DO give warnings and then you say that they don't.....
I do agree with you that people who don't understand (or won't trouble to understand) how to interract with dogs should be kept well clear of them and that includes ownership. I will go further and say that the duty to keep their dogs safe from such people lies with the dogs owner.
woofgang - //How on earth can you compare the behaviour of the male of our species - the top of the animal kingdom with a series of thought processes so numerous and complex that we may never understand them, with a dog which has a limited level of intelligence, and (and this is the vital distinction) a series of communication mechanisms which we do not really understand."
Well I didn't but you just did. //
I think you did compare - if you start a sentence with 'You might as well say that ...' - that tends to flag up a comparison, wouldn't you agree?
//and first you say that dogs DO give warnings and then you say that they don't..... //
What I said was - dogs may well give advance warnings, but they are lost to us as humans because we cannot read and understand them. Therefore, the only warnings we have learned to recognise are when a dog growls, bares its teeth and tenses its muscles, and it's a bit late then to realise what is about to happen.
//I do agree with you that people who don't understand (or won't trouble to understand) how to interract with dogs should be kept well clear of them and that includes ownership. I will go further and say that the duty to keep their dogs safe from such people lies with the dogs owner. //
So maybe not all my post was 'stupid' when you have taken the trouble to re-read it - maybe you should be a little more specific in your rudeness - or then again perhaps not.
Well I didn't but you just did. //
I think you did compare - if you start a sentence with 'You might as well say that ...' - that tends to flag up a comparison, wouldn't you agree?
//and first you say that dogs DO give warnings and then you say that they don't..... //
What I said was - dogs may well give advance warnings, but they are lost to us as humans because we cannot read and understand them. Therefore, the only warnings we have learned to recognise are when a dog growls, bares its teeth and tenses its muscles, and it's a bit late then to realise what is about to happen.
//I do agree with you that people who don't understand (or won't trouble to understand) how to interract with dogs should be kept well clear of them and that includes ownership. I will go further and say that the duty to keep their dogs safe from such people lies with the dogs owner. //
So maybe not all my post was 'stupid' when you have taken the trouble to re-read it - maybe you should be a little more specific in your rudeness - or then again perhaps not.
Woofgang -its not 'strange ' people that need controlling around dogs -its the owners who allow their dogs to either bound up to you while you are out, or strain the leash and start fussy around you. If you dare show any signs you are uncomfortable its 'oh don't worry he won't do anything'! Yeh right -keep your smelly slaverey dog away from me and mine please! You teach your children not to approach strange dogs and then the owners gush forth 'oh its all right you can pat him' Of course when something happens its never the dogs fault.
Retrochic - I am in entire agreement.
I love dogs, have had dogs as pets, and would have one now, but for the present Mrs Hughes' abiding and passionate hatred of them.
It is dog owners who are at fault when dogs mis-behave, anything from bounding up to strangers in public places, to inflicting fatal bites on children - somewhere is a dog owner who has either not trained, or controlled their dog properly.
I recall taking my youngest daughter at three to a local park, and hoisting her above my head while she was screaming in terror as a Labrador jumped up at me to try and get to her.
"He won't hurt you love, he likes children ...' shouted the owner from twenty yards away making no effort to call her dog off.
"No, but I'll kick him in the face if you don't get him away from me!" was probably not the response she expected - but it was the one she got!
I was accused of being a 'dog hater' which I am not, I am just more of a child lover, especially when the terrified sobbing child is mine.
I love dogs, have had dogs as pets, and would have one now, but for the present Mrs Hughes' abiding and passionate hatred of them.
It is dog owners who are at fault when dogs mis-behave, anything from bounding up to strangers in public places, to inflicting fatal bites on children - somewhere is a dog owner who has either not trained, or controlled their dog properly.
I recall taking my youngest daughter at three to a local park, and hoisting her above my head while she was screaming in terror as a Labrador jumped up at me to try and get to her.
"He won't hurt you love, he likes children ...' shouted the owner from twenty yards away making no effort to call her dog off.
"No, but I'll kick him in the face if you don't get him away from me!" was probably not the response she expected - but it was the one she got!
I was accused of being a 'dog hater' which I am not, I am just more of a child lover, especially when the terrified sobbing child is mine.
I met a girl, who I was friendly with online, for a walk around a local county show. She turned up with her 'lovely' staffie who was totally out of control, growling at other dogs (apparently the other dogs owners should have known he was a staffie and kept away) . I had my youngest with me 9 year old at the time. The dog jumped up put his paws on sons shoulders knocked him to the ground and started licking him -what joy! She thought that was funny! I basically told her to get the effing dog off my son and then P off. She genuinely could not see what the problem was. Not all dog owners are like that but most I know think you should automatically love their dogs. I have dogs,working dogs and actively discourage anyone from approaching the dogs however enthusiastic they are.
You obviously reinforced your daughter's irrational fear of dogs, tonyav (I mean by assuming that the dog's intent was evil and hoisting her up) I daresay she's now as frightened of them as you are.
Yes, the owner should have had greater control, but a labrador is far, far more likely to want to play than anything else. The most that would have happened is that she would have accidentally been knocked over.
Yes, the owner should have had greater control, but a labrador is far, far more likely to want to play than anything else. The most that would have happened is that she would have accidentally been knocked over.
So it seems you and I represent one side of the argument, and woofgang and chaptazbru, the other.
I would not expect to hear from chaptazbru again - pleading a lack of attention span, but we shall see if woofgang has anything to add - or indeed AOG, and my response to his somewhat flawed notion that there is a 'dangerous breed' section of dogs, wheras in fact, all dogs are potentially dangerous, it is merely the inbuilt size and ferocity of some breeds that makes that more of an issue than others.
I would not expect to hear from chaptazbru again - pleading a lack of attention span, but we shall see if woofgang has anything to add - or indeed AOG, and my response to his somewhat flawed notion that there is a 'dangerous breed' section of dogs, wheras in fact, all dogs are potentially dangerous, it is merely the inbuilt size and ferocity of some breeds that makes that more of an issue than others.
Latest Posts
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News5 mins ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.