Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#81

Post by vundercind »

jholman wrote: post #80
vundercind wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Injuries are way more common than death. [edit] Forbes: an estimated 800,000 people each year must seek medical attention after a bite. Hospital bills can be very expensive, and an ER visit could necessitate a dog bite lawsuit in order to recover monetary compensation for damages. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-b... My sister in law was one of them, when she was five or so. Unprovoked run-…

Yikes, that's a grim story. Yeah, the injury stats are way higher than death. I just couldn't find a fast way to disambiguate serious injuries from not-so-serious-but-we-still-care injuries from the sort of bite that really just merits a fake apology and everyone gets on with their lives. At the other extreme, I've had first-hand knowledge of a case where someone taunted a dog repeatedly over many months (stupid kid,…

Sure, I agree that 800,000-hospital-visits number isn’t really a great picture of what’s going on. The deaths number was just so very far under what I was sure was the serious-harm figure that I thought it worth bringing in the non-death attacks, and a (probably reasonable-ish) estimate of cases that prompted treatment was first thing I saw that looked close to what I was looking for.

The 17.5k stat’s interesting—I think you’re right that it may at least be in the ballpark for an estimate of unrestrained dog attacks. Some would generate a claim, some wouldn’t, some claims wouldn’t be for unrestrained dogs… yeah, probably a good starting point. I like that one, good eye.

I’d guess most attacks of that 800k aren’t from strangers’ dogs at all, but friends and family’s dogs. Simple matter of opportunity and time exposed.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#82

Post by mhb »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #68
mhb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize this question is likely not to be appreciated by many, but do you not know whether your dog is male or female?

I must be stupid. Try as I might, I can’t figure out what prompted this question. What am I missing?

The use of the gender-neutral plural pronoun to refer to the dog instead of he/she/him/her.

...my dog is getting agitated because they're on leash...

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#83

Post by williamstein »

williamstein wrote: post #57
jxcl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, wilderness area is a specific legal term[1], which have very restrictive rules about what visitors are allowed to do. Very specifically, dogs are _not_ allowed off-leash in wilderness areas, because they can disturb the local wildlife, and the stated goal of wilderness areas is to protect the local wildlife to the highest extent possible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness#United_States

The laws are more nuanced than you suggest. Here is a government website [1] that mentions dogs and says “Dogs must be under control at all times. Dogs can harass, stress, injure or kill wildlife; annoy fellow hikers and introduce disease. Some wilderness areas require dogs be leashed at all times.” I have recently been in Mount Baker’s wilderness where dogs off leash away from trailheads are fine and also in Mount S…

In some situations a leash can be dangerous. Eg, a woman died today because her dog was on a leash.

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/woman-drowns-kings-ri...

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#84

Post by darby_nine »

bartread wrote: post #73
darby_nine wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that livestock is the primary concern—I'd imagine interactions with other dogs (which can be highly stressful, though this varies a lot from dog to dog) would be the primary issue these days.

What is this world that some of you seem to live in where interactions with other dogs are, apparently, incredibly problematic? Dogs encounter eachother all the time when you're out on a walk and it's... fine (again, I'm talking UK here). What's the worst thing that happens that you're all paranoid about your dog meeting, gasp, the horror... another dog? This makes no sense to me.

Yes. Dogs meeting other dogs can be extremely stressful. What is your confusion? Let me help you.

I assure you, even in the uk, dogs are still dogs.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#85

Post by omayomay »

INTPenis wrote: post #5

I like the author's positive outlook on life. Because when I see a dog act like that, especially in a family where a child has taken focus, I mostly see a prisoner longing for freedom. Me and my dog have been exclusive for almost a decade now. We have traveled across europe, always by my side. Off leash even, I have always wanted to give my dog the most freedom possible. To heck with human rules. I've mostly worked r…

Do you, by any chance, deep down, feel like a prisoner longing for freedom? reflecting your internal state in the dog?

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#86

Post by cafard »

gretch wrote: post #19
rootusrootus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Off leash even, I have always wanted to give my dog the most freedom possible. To heck with human rules. I regularly meet people like that when I'm camping. I find it pretty frustrating. So many rules like that have basis in reality, they are not just meant to annoy.

As a dog owner, I agree with you. I KNOW that my dog would never hurt anyone. But I also know that no one else in the world has spent hundreds of hours with my dog, and to them he is a strange and large animal. Inevitably some of these ppl probably have some kind of childhood trauma related to dogs. So I always have him leashed where the rules are to have a leash.

I get along with most of the many dogs in my neighborhood quite well. But my experience has said that there are owners whose confidence in a dog considerably outruns any basis for it.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#87

Post by cafard »

bartread wrote: post #73
darby_nine wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that livestock is the primary concern—I'd imagine interactions with other dogs (which can be highly stressful, though this varies a lot from dog to dog) would be the primary issue these days.

What is this world that some of you seem to live in where interactions with other dogs are, apparently, incredibly problematic? Dogs encounter eachother all the time when you're out on a walk and it's... fine (again, I'm talking UK here). What's the worst thing that happens that you're all paranoid about your dog meeting, gasp, the horror... another dog? This makes no sense to me.

Depends on the dogs. There have been a few dogs in my neighborhood that have attacked other dogs, with the dog that came off worse requiring veterinary attention. In one case the dogs were on leash, but each probably outweighed the walker.

To be fair, I am talking about three or four incidents over twenty years.

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#88

Post by amanaplanacanal »

mhb wrote: post #82
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be stupid. Try as I might, I can’t figure out what prompted this question. What am I missing?

The use of the gender-neutral plural pronoun to refer to the dog instead of he/she/him/her. ...my dog is getting agitated because they're on leash...

Ahhh. I’m so used to that construction I didn’t even see it. If you have had the same experience with multiple dogs of both genders, how would you put it?

Re: I wag, therefore I am: the philosophy of dogs

#89

Post by mhb »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #88
mhb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use of the gender-neutral plural pronoun to refer to the dog instead of he/she/him/her. ...my dog is getting agitated because they're on leash...

Ahhh. I’m so used to that construction I didn’t even see it. If you have had the same experience with multiple dogs of both genders, how would you put it?

I would use "he/him" because the convention of using he/him for singular, indeterminate gender is no more difficult to understand than that "they/them" is being used as singular, indeterminate.

Ideally, I would like the people for whom this is important to use a new unambiguous word. Though this ship seems to have sailed despite there apparently being a number of possible candidates.

That aside, the author of the post to which we are referring must know the sex of his dog so why be ambiguous?

Post reply on HN