View Poll Results: Should dog owners keep their unleashed dogs from invading the space of leashed dogs?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • Unleashed dogs should not be allowed to approach leashed dogs

    16 80.00%
  • unleashed dogs should be able to approach leashed dogs

    5 25.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 118 of 118

Thread: How Far Should an Offleash Dog or Dogs Go Before Our Leashed Dogs Should React?

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    I swiped this from the internet somewhere ages ago but the link doesn't work any more so I thought I'd post it. For some reason it seems relevant and possibly more interesting than the direction the thread is taking, even if it is quite wordy.

    The 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty
    October 20th, 2008 by Mike Gene
    When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.

    1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

    2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

    3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

    4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

    5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

    6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

    7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

    8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

    9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

    10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

    While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Exclamation

    10 Signs of Intellectual Dishonesty:

    1. Arrogance or “I am the messenger of truth”. Look for arguments that send the following messages:

    •“What I am telling you ARE the facts and these facts have, and always will, withstand any test.”
    •“ Anybody that disagrees with ‘us’ is either stupid or is trying to undermine ‘our’ dedication and hard work.” •“ They have access to the same evidence, but they either ignore it or deliberately misinterpret it to suit their own agenda or hypothesis.”


    2. Handwaving or “Your views have no merit”. Look for ‘arguments’ that dismiss other views out of hand. Often accompanied by Sign #1 with the opponent usually being dismissed – not specifically their argument.


    3. Unwavering commitment or “I know I am right – why bother arguing?” Anybody who refuses to accept that they may not be 100% correct, or might be looking at the evidence through their own preferred colour of glasses is not being honest to themselves or to their readers/listeners.

    4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .” Anybody who refuses to admit that their argument is weak in an area and, worse still, avoids answering difficult questions in that area is being intellectually dishonest. If they don’t ignore the question, these people are easily recognised from their efforts to change the subject.

    5. Never admitting error or “I am/We are right – regardless of your evidence”. These are the people who will never admit that they are wrong – ever – regardless of clear evidence that demonstrates their error. See Sign #1

    6. Employing double standards or “Your evidence is unacceptable (because it’s your evidence)”. This is a question of how high the bar is set for the acceptance of evidence – the bar is set at a much higher level for the other party, while it is set far lower for his/her own evidence.

    7. Argumentum ad hominem or “You’re a [insert label/stereotype here] . . . and you have a secret agenda” This is a favoured approach used by those who might be arguing from a weak position
    . It is typically employed to avoid answering a difficult question (Sign #4) or used in conjunction with handwaving (Sign #2).

    8. Destroying a straw man or “You might say that, but how do you explain . . . ?”. Usually a case of shifting the subject and attacking the opponent’s position on that, unrelated or remotely related, topic. This is usually employed in an effort to avoid a question (Sign #4) or when the speaker/writer doesn’t have the knowledge to address the issue.

    9. Ignoring the principles of critical thinking. Relying on one source of information – usually without question. Anybody who only considers information from a single book, article, paper, video – or any number of these from sources that are known to support that person’s views or opinions is being intellectually dishonest. Sign #1 usually applies in this case.

    10. Ignoring [partial] defeat or See Sign #1 An intellectually dishonest speaker/writer will NEVER admit that the other side has found a hole in their argument. You will never see them congratulate an opponent on finding a flaw in their argument and they will use all of the other signs if necessary to draw your attention away from the subject.I think I’ll be referring to my 10 Signs in future posts as well . . . there will be plenty of examples of each of them that I’ll be running across as my blog matures. Why not keep them in mind while you’re reading that newspaper, webpage, book or magazine? I hope you aren’t too surprised when you see how often you recognise them!

    When you do recognise them, examine their effect on the argument – while practicing the art of being intellectually honest with yourself!
    June 17th, 2010 / Author: A.robustus
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  3. #113
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Default

    The only reason a dog turns "for no reason" is when it has a brain tumor. There are a squillion actual reasons why a dog turns and attacks another dog or human, almost all of them have warning
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    melbourne australia
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota_Chey View Post
    thanks, no offence intended.
    Dakota_Chey. To clarify, i was not commenting on your dog, but on the dogs i see in the dog park i pass through on my walk to the paddocks where i train my dog. So please dont take what i say to everyone in a forum, as having a 'special reference' to you, and your sad loss.

    When i said that having lost your dog, you may of thought 'never again' i meant never would you want to face the loss of a loved one again. Like most dog owners feel after sucha loss, then you see your bundle of fluff < little pup, and you are smitten, all over again. This was meant to describe recovery from the bereavement of losing a dog, and starting over with your new dog/friend. It was meant in a spirit of support, at your loss, and hope for your furture doggy friend. Not to patronise you, or insult you.

    Bomb proof: to me means, you have trained it as highly as you can, its socialised well, has not shown DA in many situations. NOT that the dog will not defend itself if being attacked by another dog.

    And my dog should bloody well behave?
    Damn right it should.
    My dogs like my black and white image of the dog/human world, they know where they stand. We dont have conflicts, regardless of what i bring to them. They trust me, and are happiest when i am in control of the situation. This especially goes when a new scenario presents itself to us. eg. a snake in bark garden etc.
    Mine is a working dog. He has very high drives. He needs this structure to make sense of his world. He's happy, has his routine etc. and knows his place in the family pack. AT the bottom behind the humans. (though kinda jumps over my teenagers from time to time in my head).

    When i say we hunt, hey, im not even going to defend this one. Im a keen tracker. So is my dog. We both like the type of hunting. Nowt gets killed. But the hunt still happens.

    Dont get me wrong, i love my dog. Loved each dog ive owned. I just enjoy owning a workingdog and working it.
    And judging how dogs react to me, id say that dogs like me too.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bernie View Post
    I think responsibility is perhaps being avoided here. If your dog is not under your control when approached in ANY manner by an offleash dog, then you need to repeat your training.

    Perhaps you meant no offence, but if you see what I have highlighted, you may also see that when (you) and (your) are used, and this has applied to any other throughout these threads-that it is directed at whom you are addressing. Example: You bernie now understand that I am addressing (you and you only in this reply).
    Supportive references may be made to validate this reply-it is not just willy nilly. The english language is very tricky when sms or text is used and yes, is left open for individual interpretation. From, though such errors in the use of you or you with an exclamation point, goes as far to further enforce that it is directed at the person whom we are replying to. I have been accused as the one that is not clear! Hypothetical situation: I am in the street, what I presume is a drunk staggering into me, I say, 'you are drunk, you need to take responsibility and get your self a life'. He is actually suffering diabetes, I have assumed, but I directed something personal at him, by stating you. I will not explain it any longer, it is something we learn about very early in our primary years. As adults we usually know, that language can be ambiguous, which is why we usually if we can, - make that extra little bit of effort to say, we, or us, or dog owners, or individual(s). Those of higher education would have a paper with a fail if they submitted anything that even remotely indicated (you).Note:
    You are powerless to control the behaviour of others, you are better off
    investing energy in taking the control that is available, ie. you and your dog's behaviour.

    With training, you can shape any dog to behave under your control. He may never "like" doggy friends. But he should bloody well behave.
    Imagine if those you words had of been replaced, with a substitute. Iwould not be in the least offended if it had of been we as dog owners can only try to control our dogs whilst on leash and for those that allow their dogs to become menacing with those of us that have our dogs leashed, are avoiding responsibility and that is why their dogs don't bloody well behave themselves.

    further note: This is not meant in any derrogatory sense nor to belittle in any way-but I see it being used throughout the thread and unless I am addressing that OP one on one and there is a clear understanding. What your (one to one speaking) dog and yourself do is none of my business and I have not said anything to refer that anything that is chosen in training your dog is good, bad or indifferent. All the best to you and your GSD. They are phenomenal; and yes often due to the work an owner puts into them, myself included.
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  6. #116
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Dakota_Chey. To clarify, i was not commenting on your dog, but on the dogs i see in the dog park i pass through on my walk to the paddocks where i train my dog. So please dont take what i say to everyone in a forum, as having a 'special reference' to you, and your sad loss.When i said that having lost your dog, you may of thought 'never again' i meant never would you want to face the loss of a loved one again. Like most dog owners feel after sucha loss, then you see your bundle of fluff < little pup, and you are smitten, all over again. This was meant to describe recovery from the bereavement of losing a dog, and starting over with your new dog/friend. It was meant in a spirit of support, at your loss, and hope for your furture doggy friend. Not to patronise you, or insult you.

    As the thread was not about bereavement which is tough to handle as one would well be aware-I did not interpret that the thread was about bereavement as it wasnt and thought you were addressing your post at me and my deceased girl. Subject closed as far as I am concerned between yourself(bernie) and myself (DChey). Thankyou for your well wishes for Dakota.
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    melbourne australia
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    This is perhaps, a perfect example of breakdown in communication.
    I offerred a laurrel leaf to you
    you spat it back in my face
    thankyou for your time

  8. #118

    Default

    Is this thread STILL going?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •