# Six injured in dog attack



## Geri (Feb 9, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7879021.stm

This is a bit weird, why would *two* dogs just start randomly attacking strangers in the street like that?


----------



## big eejit (Feb 9, 2009)

Cos their owner's a tit?


----------



## Geri (Feb 9, 2009)

Well, that was the only thing I could think of - that they are so badly treated they regard all people as a threat.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 13, 2009)

Perhaps dogs can be quite dangerous animals.


----------



## Geri (Feb 14, 2009)

Idaho said:


> Perhaps dogs can be quite dangerous animals.



Perhaps, but they are not_ inherently_ dangerous.


----------



## rioted (Feb 14, 2009)

Geri said:


> Perhaps, but they are not_ inherently_ dangerous.


of course they're _inherently_ dangerous. What do you think those teeth and claws are for?


----------



## Geri (Feb 14, 2009)

rioted said:


> of course they're _inherently_ dangerous. What do you think those teeth and claws are for?



For eating food. Humans are not normally the food of German Shepherds, unless I am very much mistaken.


----------



## big eejit (Feb 14, 2009)

Geri said:


> For eating food. Humans are not normally the food of German Shepherds, unless I am very much mistaken.



I bet they wouldn't say 'nein' if Pedigree Chum did a human flavour tho.


----------



## purplex (Feb 14, 2009)

Grrrr Grrrr


----------



## snadge (Feb 14, 2009)

Geri said:


> Perhaps, but they are not_ inherently_ dangerous.



yes they are, they are descended from wolves.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

Geri said:


> Perhaps, but they are not_ inherently_ dangerous.


Yes....
They hunt in packs by nature. This is what happens if they're allowed to run loose.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

they have been co-habiting with mankind for millennia, so once again they are our responsibility to train and monitor.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 14, 2009)

Giles Coren is calling for the destruction of all dogs in the Times today. I agree with young Coren on most things and I like his restaurant reviews but in the unlikely event of the cynophobic wretch being spotted in Cockfosters I will set my puppy on him.


----------



## Geri (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Yes....
> They hunt in packs by nature. This is what happens if they're allowed to run loose.



So two dogs on the loose will automatically attack people? Don't be so ridiculous.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

Geri said:


> So two dogs on the loose will automatically attack people? Don't be so ridiculous.



Some clearly will. It is bad news when they start running packs, generally speaking.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Some clearly will. It is bad news when they start running packs, generally speaking.



two is not a pack, btw, two becomes a pack in a household of other individuals.

Most well raised dogs don't go feral easily-they'll try to find a human and abase themselves before said human for food.

Cats however will go feral if you forget to feed them once.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 14, 2009)

If you have a cat and a dog and you die, the cat will start eating you first.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> two is not a pack, btw, two becomes a pack in a household of other individuals.
> 
> Most well raised dogs don't go feral easily-they'll try to find a human and abase themselves before said human for food.
> 
> Cats however will go feral if you forget to feed them once.



No, I know two doesn't constitute a 'pack' totally.. tbh I'm surprised there aren't more dog attacks (esp round here when they will run in packs).

Most dogs may not go 'feral' easily but the ones that are loosed and running around are the ones that won't have been trained properly in the first place and so are more likely to attack. And the people that own them have wanted to get a dog as a guard dog (or sometimes a penis extension)

Dogs are basically like children. If they're not trained right and left unsupervised it's not surprising they will behave antisocially and attack. And after all, why do people attack other people for no reason??

BTW cats do not go 'feral' if you forget to feed them once, they usually go around looking for someone else that will!


----------



## Geri (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Dogs are basically like children. If they're not trained right and lest unsupervised it's not surprising they will behave antisocially and attack.



So now it's down to how they are treated, not because they are inherently dangerous. Make your mind up!


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

Geri said:


> So now it's down to how they are treated, not because they are inherently dangerous. Make your mind up!



It's both, obviously.  Some breeds of  dog are more dangerous than others. Some can do more damage than others.

Obviously if they're unsupervised anything can happen.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> It's both, obviously.  *Some breeds of  dog are more dangerous than others*. Some can do more damage than others.
> 
> Obviously if they're unsupervised anything can happen.



if we are talking size/weight then you are entirely correct. A Rotty is capable of inflicting more damage that a Jack Russel.
If you are talking in terms of temperament, or god forbid, propensity to violence you are wrong. Some breeds are not naturally more violent than others, it's entirely nurture.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> if we are talking size/weight then you are entirely correct. A Rotty is capable of inflicting more damage that a Jack Russel.
> If you are talking in terms of temperament, or god forbid, propensity to violence you are wrong. Some breeds are not naturally more violent than others, it's entirely nurture.





Both. Some dogs are bred for specific characteristics as well (ie rounding up sheep). Nuture plays a big part as well.


----------



## Pip (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> two is not a pack, btw, two becomes a pack in a household of other individuals.
> 
> Most well raised dogs don't go feral easily-they'll try to find a human and abase themselves before said human for food.
> 
> Cats however will go feral if you forget to feed them once.



Sorry to derail, but they think this is how the dog/human relationship started - dogs hanging round cavemen, rather than cavemen deciding they fancy a puppy.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 14, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> If you have a cat and a dog and you die, the cat will start eating you first.



Really? I think you just made that up. A cat would go next door for food. The dog would be the one hanging about.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Some breeds are not naturally more violent than others, it's entirely nurture.


 
That's hard to believe. Terriers have been bred to win fights. Hounds have been bred to chase prey. Gundogs have been bred for sniffing and fetching. That's why I'd trust the first two less.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

Pip said:


> Sorry to derail, but they think this is how the dog/human relationship started - dogs hanging round cavemen, rather than cavemen deciding they fancy a puppy.



It was the fire that brought them into human society, and they stayed for the scraps. We accepted it because it is an essentially symbiotic relationship. They guard, they aid hunts and keep vermin away. Canine-Human interdependency is an ancient thing, and today we use our faithful companions for myriad roles that include guiding the blind or deaf, or rescuing dickheads who wandered unprepared onto a mountain. Or more simply, defense of the home, or a smart  Border Collie to help herd the livestock. The dog is our most ancient animal companion, so much so we've bred him for specific purposes (sometimes to ill effect, we've done disservice to them as they do occasional disservice to us).

Loyalty and effective mutual dependancy. Fuck cats tbf, they are sociopath bastards that wouldn't understand loyalty if it slapped them in the face.


----------



## Pip (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It was the fire that brought them into human society, and they stayed for the scraps. We accepted it because it is an essentially symbiotic relationship. They guard, they aid hunts and keep vermin away. Canine-Human interdependency is an ancient thing, and today we use our faithful companions for myriad roles that include guiding the blind or deaf, or rescuing dickheads who wandered unprepared onto a mountain. Or more simply, defense of the home, or a smart  Border Collie to help herd the livestock. The dog is our most ancient animal companion, so much so we've bred him for specific purposes (sometimes to ill effect, we've done disservice to them as they do occasional disservice to us).
> 
> Loyalty and effective mutual dependancy. Fuck cats tbf, they are sociopath bastards that wouldn't understand loyalty if it slapped them in the face.



I should so get a dog


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist is right. This is why Chows are so thick. Bred for food, see.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's hard to believe. Terriers have been bred to win fights. Hounds have been bred to chase prey. Gundogs have been bred for sniffing and fetching. That's why I'd trust the first two less.



Terriers are stubborn bastards and need a strong hand, that is true. But once you've established that you are God and Master they fall into line. I'd not leave small kids with any dogs, but really if they aren't acknowledging your dominance while you are present you have not raised the pooch correctly


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It was the fire that brought them into human society, and they stayed for the scraps. We accepted it because it is an essentially symbiotic relationship. They guard, they aid hunts and keep vermin away. Canine-Human interdependency is an ancient thing, and today we use our faithful companions for myriad roles that include guiding the blind or deaf, or rescuing dickheads who wandered unprepared onto a mountain. Or more simply, defense of the home, or a smart  Border Collie to help herd the livestock. The dog is our most ancient animal companion, so much so we've bred him for specific purposes (sometimes to ill effect, we've done disservice to them as they do occasional disservice to us).
> 
> Loyalty and effective mutual dependancy. Fuck cats tbf, they are sociopath bastards that wouldn't understand loyalty if it slapped them in the face.




It always surprises me that people think that cats should be loyal. They aren't pack animals like dogs. Their interaction with humans is only for the most selfish of reasons, ie their own survival. I'm constantly surprised anyone should be surprised it should be any other way.

Cats probably only started living with humans to keep mice and rats out.


----------



## rioted (Feb 14, 2009)

Geri said:


> So now it's down to how they are treated, not because they are inherently dangerous. Make your mind up!


They are inherently dangerous, but can be trained/domesticated/socialised not to be. But if they are not trained or treated badly they will revert to their inherent nature.


----------



## rioted (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Cats probably only started living with humans to keep mice and rats out.


I wish the 5 living next door would keep the rats away. But they're too pampered/lazy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> It always surprises me that people think that cats should be loyal. They aren't pack animals like dogs. Their interaction with humans is only for the most selfish of reasons, ie their own survival. I'm constantly surprised anyone should be surprised it should be any other way.
> 
> Cats probably only started living with humans to keep mice and rats out.



They've co-habited with man since ancient egyptian times, I suppose it is the lone hunter thing that keeps those furry ponces so aloof from humanity. A dog feels his mutual dependancy keenly whereas a cat is a cunt beloved by trots, sociopaths and wrong 'uns


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

Pip said:


> I should so get a dog



I can categorically state that a dog will love you like you are God, while also using his big scary jaw to defend you against bad people


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> They've co-habited with man since ancient egyptian times, I suppose it is the lone hunter thing that keeps those furry ponces so aloof from humanity. A dog feels his mutual dependancy keenly whereas a cat is a cunt beloved by trots, sociopaths and wrong 'uns



You're a wrong un. 

Actually, some cats do feel the need to pay for their board and keep by bringing 'presents' of half mangled birds/ mice to their masters. Wish they wouldn't tho.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> they are sociopath bastards that wouldn't understand loyalty if it slapped them in the face.



Great companions for us sociopathic bastards though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> You're a wrong un.
> 
> Actually, some cats do feel the need to pay for their board and keep by bringing 'presents' of half mangled birds/ mice to their masters. Wish they wouldn't tho.



A dog is a terror bastard and his jaws are the last thing you will see. A cat will toy with you, drawing out your death throes for it's own personal amusement. Wrongness


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> A dog is a terror bastard and his jaws are the last thing you will see. A cat will toy with you, drawing out your death throes for it's own personal amusement. Wrongness



But I'm not likely to be attacked, much less killed, by a cat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> But I'm not likely to be attacked, much less killed, by a cat.



If as a grown person you cannot exert dominance over a dog, then I fear for you. Even the baddest of bad dogs will bend if you exhibit some force.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> If as a grown person you cannot exert dominance over a dog, then I fear for you. Even the baddest of bad dogs will bend if you exhibit some force.



Pffffffffffft! What when it's running at you trying to take lumps out of you? What a way to blame the victims "you should have known how to control it"?? Err it should have been under control by it's owners already, more like.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Pffffffffffft! What when it's running at you trying to take lumps out of you? What a way to blame the victims "you should have known how to control it"?? Err it should have been under control by it's owners already, more like.



of course bad ownership will raise a bad dog but I can take most breeds tbh. I know your negative experiences have coloured your view of the noble beast but some of us can control them and protect our vulnerable family members from them.


----------



## madzone (Feb 14, 2009)

Doggie

Condoms

Someone knows what I mean


----------



## Epona (Feb 15, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> If you have a cat and a dog and you die, the cat will start eating you first.


Yet most people complain that their cats are fussy buggers, while the dog will eat anything, including the sofa.  Never quite worked that one out.


----------



## Lancman (Feb 15, 2009)

For the whole cat/dog thing read Rudyard Kipling's Just so Story "The Cat who Walks by Himself". http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/cat.htm


----------



## Zaskar (Feb 15, 2009)

All dogs are either sentimental sycophants that lick your face or yobs that bite - like most dog owners.


----------

