Should dogs be executed if they bite?

[tikcol]

No the tool can be quiet useful if given to another owner but the owner has clearly failed and has a lot less value.

It would just smash another owner's fingers and be passed around spreading mayhem

[Lady Dragonheart]

Many scientists and studies are, and can, be bias.

That said, if a dog bites without being provoked, I would say that it needs and should be required to take either professional obedience training or be euthanized by choice of its owner. If training is not met to a specific standard after a consciously determined amount of time without progress, then the state would claim the dog and then proceed to have it euthanized.

I firmly believe that dogs should have a variety of rights set to protect them and their owners from generally obtuse people looking to harm an owner by antagonizing a dog to bite them in order to have it euthanized to inflict the detrimental loss to the own. This would both put responsibility on dog owners as well as a standard to set people on both sides of the argument on. For example, most people get dogs with warn and engage intruders into one's home and/or residence. This is an understandable reason for a dog to be provoked to bite.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Loving the absolution of this.

"If a dog bites, put it down"

So, if someone decides to kick a dog, and it bites in self defense, the dog should be put down?

According to retards, sure.

[Kathandira]

Once again, the fact remains that the dog hurt another human.

I can understand if it is protecting its owner, any other circumstance including defending itself should warrant execution.

Nope. The poll is a simple yes or no. No rationalizing and coming to a middle ground.

Per the OP, your options are yes or no.. No maybe's, no depends, no circumstances.

[tikcol]

Loving the absolution of this.

"If a dog bites, put it down"

So, if someone decides to kick a dog, and it bites in self defense, the dog should be put down?

I value a human life more than a dog's, as well as the well being of both. So yes, any dog that hurts a human should be allowed to be executed

[Queen of Hamsters]

It would just smash another owner's fingers and be passed around spreading mayhem

Spoken as someone that's hilariously eager to prove just how ignorant he is on this subject.
And animals are "put down". Humans are executed for crimes.

[belleflop]

Of course the dog should adapt to it, I'm sorry but that dog deserved to be euthanized and your escapism of "there is no such thing as bad genes" won't change that fact.

You confuse FACT with your OPINION.

[tikcol]

Nope. The poll is a simple yes or no. No rationalizing and coming to a middle ground.

Per the OP, your options are yes or no.. No maybe's, no depends, no circumstances.

There is no middle ground, I could have added the "defending its owner" choice though. All the other cases warrant grounds for legal execution

- - - Updated - - -

Spoken as someone that's hilariously eager to prove just how ignorant he is on this subject.

You clearly have a very good dog, that doesn't mean that there aren't any dogs around the world objectively destroying families

[Queen of Hamsters]

There is no middle ground, I could have added the "defending its owner" choice though. All the other cases warrant grounds for legal execution

Not according to the law. Nice try though.

If the law was as narrow-minded as you, we'd be living in a very dangerous society. Harm another human even through accident? Execution. You've destroyed a family.



If a dog "destroys a family", it's due to human error in 99% of the cases. As a dog owner, YOU as the human = the one with the responsibility. It's not like people can sue a dog for causing harm. They sue/press charges against the owner.

[belleflop]

Try reading the whole article and the other one linked.

"The control of different behaviours is a complex process that is influenced by both genetics and environmental factors. A new study throws light on interesting connections between canine aggression and genes that are involved in neurotransmission in the brain."

Are you just ignoring the ENVIRONMENT words in your articles to make a point? You again just linked a excerpt that once again backs up the actual science, which is there is no universal "bad" gene in dogs. The argument in itself is subjective. What is bad. There are no objective moral truths. I've already agreed there are agressive traits in both humans and dogs, that doesn't make either inherently BAD.

[tikcol]

Not according to the law. Nice try though.

We're also discussing why those laws are wrong

[AeneasBK]

Yes, I love my pets but only the mentally deficient value animal life over human life. If a dog bites; that's it's chance gone. 'Sorry you were born into a world wih hierarchy of which you were not the top'.

It's the same the world over.

[Woadnson]

So the solution is incarcerating the owner and giving the dog off to another owner so he can go destroy more people's lives?

I wasn't speaking to the specifics of your scenario but the generalities of ownership.

[Queen of Hamsters]

We're also discussing why those laws are wrong

No "we're" not. You're trying to create drama where there is none.

[Kathandira]

There is no middle ground, I could have added the "defending its owner" choice though. All the other cases warrant grounds for legal execution

- - - Updated - - -



You clearly have a very good dog, that doesn't mean that there aren't any dogs around the world objectively destroying families

An option of "Maybe (Explain)" would work as an "Other" choice.

But your obvious feelings about it lead to you a poll of only two sides. The side that agrees with you, and the side you feel is wrong.

This was a setup right from the start.

[Donald Hellscream]

Depends on the extend of the injuries, if a dog mauls a person or another pet then yes but if it is just superficial injuries as a result of playing with the dog I think putting it down is exaggerating quite alot.

[tikcol]

Not according to the law. Nice try though.

If the law was as narrow-minded as you, we'd be living in a very dangerous society. Harm another human even through accident? Execution. You've destroyed a family.



If a dog "destroys a family", it's due to human error in 99% of the cases. As a dog owner, YOU as the human = the one with the responsibility. It's not like people can sue a dog for causing harm. They sue/press charges against the owner.

I'm also getting the feeling that you have dogs and humans on the same level, it's very disturbing from my point of view.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I'm also getting the feeling that you have dogs and humans on the same level, it's very disturbing from my point of view.

And I couldn't care less.

[tikcol]

Depends on the extend of the injuries, if a dog mauls a person or another pet then yes but if it is just superficial injuries as a result of playing with the dog I think putting it down is exaggerating quite alot.

I never said that a nip on the hand warranting an execution isn't exaggerating. I just believe that even though it's just a nip, the law should allow it.

[ParanoiD84]

I value a human life more than a dog's, as well as the well being of both. So yes, any dog that hurts a human should be allowed to be executed

And I think that humans hurting animals should be put down. We are the superior species after all and should take care and protect lesser species no? Take dog fighting it's all people's fault for breeding them into it, it's people's fault that some have agressive genes it's people's fault that some breeds have a hard time breathing etc etc and in most cases it's people's fault when dogs bite for not raising them properly so you see its our fault the dogs can't help that people are idiots no?

We have destroyed so many breeds that you can't even recognise them from some hundred years back.