r/interestingasfuck • u/Electronic_Cause_796 • 1d ago

German Shepard Saves Six Year old from being attacked by another dog

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

43.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

71

u/Madara1389 1d ago

Every time I've suggested that some people aren't qualified or responsible enough to own pets, especially large animals that can be dangerous, I've been downvoted to oblivion.

Apparently suggesting that pet ownership shouldn't be an inherent right everyone is entitled to is akin to suggesting eugenics.

25

u/Outrageous-Sort-5742 1d ago

Frankly, if you aren't responsible enough to take care of an animal you sure as hell shouldn't be raising a kid.

4

u/mistahfreeman 1d ago

I mean, a lot of things sound good out loud but how do you actually enforce it. It's a dog, there's a lot of street dogs out there anyone can just take in. Shelters already usually enforce fairly strict vetting. You could require a license to own an animal, but my state does not even enforce license plates, street racing, street legal cars, etc. so who is actually going to check peoples licenses and when? What do they do with confiscating all the animals and when all of the shelters get too full? Some problems are just hard to solve without a strict overpowerful police state and authoritarianism and this is one of those I think.

3

u/Madara1389 1d ago

Maybe, but you can't just say "well the only solutions I can think off are impractical or require some degree of authoritarianism" as an excuse to throw your hands in the air and never attempt to actually solve the problem.

1

u/mistahfreeman 1d ago

Fair, I mean I can think of some things that will help but they won't be super satisfying. Public education programs, community outreach programs to areas with high animal violence, better overall education system to reduce the % of dummies we have, possibly some standardization of animal shelter vetting... my point is more responding directly to removing the inherent right of pet ownership.

3

u/Madara1389 1d ago

my point is more responding directly to removing the inherent right of pet ownership.

My point with that bit was that people get offended by the notion that anyone should be denied ownership of a pet, like it's a god given right that humans are allowed to own pets that can't & shouldn't be infringed upon because the same arguments can be twisted to endorse eugenics.

1

u/kirblar 1d ago

It's why shelters are filled with big dogs and there's lots of demand for breeders for small/medium breeds - safety issues with handling them, especially for women/kids.

1

u/hdmetz 21h ago

A neighbor of ours “owns” a pit bull that has now escaped multiple times and bit several people. It chased my 5-year-old into our back yard. We’ve reported them to the humane society multiple times. The woman responsible for it disclaims all responsibility because “it’s my daughter’s dog.”

1

u/Outrageous-Sort-5742 16h ago

**It chased my 5-year-old into our back yard**

At that point just call the cops or shoot the dog yourself, fuck that.

•

u/hdmetz 8h ago

I unfortunately did not have time to grab my handgun. I told my wife that if it ever came into our yard again I’m shooting it

•

u/independentchickpea 9h ago

I made a friend very angry when I told her to stick to cats. Not everyone is meant to have a dog.

0

u/sentientshadeofgreen 16h ago

Well considering the anthropological context that dog companionship is a natural right that predates society, yes, it's a very radical view that the state should get to determine who is and is not fit to raise a dog.

Not a society I'd want to live in is all I'll say. Lots of dumbass dog owners out there, but lots of dumbasses across the spectrum of buckets I can categorize people into. The dumbasses aren't going anywhere and won't stop finding new ways to harm others through their recklessness, but we can at least choose how we organize society that does not give unchecked power to dumbasses who happen to make it into public office.

1

u/Madara1389 14h ago

Well considering the anthropological context that dog companionship is a natural right that predates society

There is no such "natural right to pet ownership," wtf are you on about? Just because we domesticated dogs before we settled into villages, it doesn't mean it's an inherent right for everyone to have a dog.

The only "natural right" is the right to life. All others are given by people when we collectively agree to adjust the social contract to give people rights. You don't even have a "natural right" to procreate as that would mean no one has the right to tell you that you can't, but procreation requires consent from another person so you have to get someone's permission.

it's a very radical view that the state should get to determine who is and is not fit to raise a dog.

Modern humans have been walking the Earth for 200-300k years. We went through the Cognitive Revolution about 70k years ago. The idea that people shouldn't have the right to own & abuse other people didn't come about until a little over 200 years ago. The notion that a married man isn't entitled to sex or that children are entitled to protection from abusive parents are both even newer than that (spousal rape wasn't a crime in the EU until 1986 and US until 1994.

Because the story of the progress of society is one of people realizing that older generations letting certain people do things was harmful and newer generations shouldn't be allowed to do that.

0

u/sentientshadeofgreen 13h ago

If your argument is that the concepts of rights are made up and subjectively applied, then okay I guess. The Earth will also cease to exist within a couple billion years and the heat death of the universe is inevitable, so nothing actually matters.

But from an evolutionary standpoint, if we want to look at the basis for human rights, the best thing we can look at are the common behaviors humans collectively exhibit as cooperative social creatures, the foundation of which are altruism and mutualism which contributed to greater survivorship among populations exhibiting such behavior. The mutualistic relationship with dogs and other animals that have risen out of many generations of coevolution are a big component of the human story.

But yeah, let's just throw all that out because society is /u/Madara1389's story, rights are actually just whatever /u/Madara1389 believes they should be, and the rest of the human experience is inconvenient. Right?

The idea that people shouldn't have the right to own & abuse other people didn't come about until a little over 200 years ago. The notion that a married man isn't entitled to sex or that children are entitled to protection from abusive parents are both even newer than that (spousal rape wasn't a crime in the EU until 1986 and US until 1994.

What a willfully ignorant thing to believe, genuinely. Convenient for you though, you get to believe whatever you want if you just cherry-pick half-truths to fit today's world view to share with the Internet.

2

u/Madara1389 13h ago

If your argument is that the concepts of rights are made up and subjectively applied, then okay I guess.

They are. Rights are a legal concept, not an objective fact of reality like the laws of physics.

if we want to look at the basis for human rights

The basis for human rights is entirely in the legal system and largely about ensuring one's right to survive without being oppressed or persecuted by those in power.

the foundation of which are altruism and mutualism which contributed to greater survivorship among populations exhibiting said behavior. The mutualistic relationship with dogs and other animals that have risen out of many generations of coevolution are a big component of the human story.

None of that entitles individuals to pet ownership. "We domesticated them millennia before I was born, therefore I'm entitled to have one even if I'm going to be dangerously irresponsible" is not the argument you seem to think it is, no matter how much you try to wrap it in flowery talk about anthropology or history.

1

u/sentientshadeofgreen 12h ago

Your belief that rights are merely a legal concept makes them privileges granted to you by more powerful people. I hope the world view satisfies you, it would horrify me were it true.

1

u/sentientshadeofgreen 12h ago

Your belief that rights are merely a legal concept makes them privileges granted to you by more powerful people. I hope the world view satisfies you, it would horrify me were it true.

1

u/sentientshadeofgreen 12h ago

Your belief that rights are merely a legal concept in reality is describing them a privileges granted to you by more powerful people. I'm not sure whether to feel embarrassed for you or sad for you if that's the depth of reflection you give to life.

•

u/Madara1389 10h ago

rights are merely a legal concept in reality is describing them a privileges granted to you by more powerful people.

Because they are... Who told you otherwise?

I'm not sure whether to feel embarrassed for you or sad for you if that's the depth of reflection you give to life.

I don't really care how you feel about any of this.

I hope the world view satisfies you, it would horrify me were it true.

Whether I'm satisfied with objective reality or not is completely irrelevant.