Toddler killed by two dogs

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 28 Sep 2006, 17:54

Yeah Tom thats horrible, I'd say in these circumstances its right the dog is put down (but yes, the owners must be disciplined too) to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen. As if they don't have enough tragedy to cope with...

It was just a baby.. you think a baby deserves to die or you don't care?

There are millions of dogs on the planet, well I don't care about them either.
(See what I mean? Thats me turning your comment around).

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Sep 2006, 18:23

Hey, don't make it sound worse than it is.

Shen wrote:a 5 month old child, does not deserve to be killed

I never said the contrary.

Grim wrote:in these circumstances its right the dog is put down... to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.

Bloodlust is a human concept.

Would a dog develop an appetite for baby flesh ? I'm not so sure...
Although it's an interesting question.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 28 Sep 2006, 18:31

tom2681 wrote: 2. I have known many Rottweilers. While they're naturally agressive, no normal Rottweiler would attack a baby.

Slightly shortsighted comment, as any dog could (and would) attack a child (or anyone) given motivation - after all, dogs are creatures with their own personalities. As much as we like to think we know dogs very well, it is impossible to garauentee that they will never resort to violence (deliberate or not). I'm sure a lot of rottweliers are adorable but I wouldn't let any dog near a toddler. IT could just take the smallest thing to wind them up but then it'd be too late.

In the arguement of killing these dogs, I'm really on the fence here. I don't like the killing of creatures unnecessarily and I understand Tom's viewpoint that the dogs were trained to be vicious and are being punished for what they've been trained to do.

But then again, what's the life of two dogs in comparison with a human child?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 28 Sep 2006, 23:31

If you take Tom's argument to its logical conclusion then you can't punish any creature (ie. humans) for doing what it does because it's only acting on instinct. Therefore if a human commits murder it's just doing what it's programmed to do, right? If I shoot someone, hey, don't punish me, I'm just acting on instinct. Blame my owner.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Sep 2006, 23:44

Nope, you're seeing it from the wrong angle.

Just like dogs, humans are blank slates when they are born.
Unlike dogs, however, humans develop a conscience as they learn.

If a human commits a crime, he should be punished (because he knows right from wrong).
If a dog commits a crime, he shouldn't be punished (because he can only do what people have taught him to do).

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 29 Sep 2006, 01:32

When they put dogs down for ripping a baby apart, they're not doing it to punish the creature though, they're doing it to make sure the animal doesn't attack again.

Unlike humans, dogs can be bred to attack on instinct, they also become more prone to attack again after they have done it once.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Sep 2006, 08:31

I agree Shingster. The family have suffered enough and it was really a precautionary measure for them and others.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 29 Sep 2006, 14:19

Thanks for clearing that up Shingster. So the dogs were not being punished as such, but were put down in the interest of safety.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Sep 2006, 14:21

Seems fair enough to me.