What is inflamatory? Assault is well defined! Leash laws are are well defined. You used word "attacker" yourself!
The only inflamatory is police does not take away the owner as well!
The only inflamatory is police does not take away the owner as well!
- The dog attacking is different from the owner causing the dog to attack. The latter is a higher bar to clear, and one people are going to want more evidence for. It's also incongruous when paired with the word "assault" with some other parts of your post. In particular, "let their dogs run off-leash" doesn't evoke the same mental image as "unleash their dog and tell them to attack." Your comment has the former and has language indicating the latter. People pick up on that sort of thing. For that matter, when trying to defend you to that one commenter I had to make a guess as to which interpretation of what you wrote is the most likely way to resolve that verbal inconsistency, and I might not have gotten it right. Maybe you really do get intentionally attacked by people unleashing their dogs on you. If so, why write about free-range dogs roaming around as it pertains to the attack problem?
- Active assault is also different from self-defense and from dogs accidentally picking up non-verbal cues.
And I focused on the "dogs attacking" part of your comment in that defense, but in the context of the article, your initial point was that dogs are sensitive to nonverbal clues, your evidence was that you've been attacked, yet the experiment had what I think is stronger evidence in that they explicitly controlled for that effect. Attacks happen for many reasons, potentially including nonverbal clues. Do they happen exclusively because of a sufficiently extreme sensitivity to nonverbal clues that the experiment's control wouldn't apply? Probably not? I imagine a lot of the people who gave you flack for the way you wrote about those attacks took that into account. The structure was "<A> evidenced by <B>" when that evidentiary link is tenuous and <B> is a bold statement about something that's clearly distressed you. That comes across more as an uncontrolled rant and makes people less likely to believe <B> in its entirety, whether true or not, and whether that intellectual habit of the readers is justified or not.
Independent of any linguistic nitpicking, I'm sorry you keep getting attacked. Stay safe out there.
The self defense and off leash is claimed by dog owners as an "apology". It is not something I invented. Again, I am the victim here, I do not have obligation to study excuses of some street bullies! I just want to get out of there!
> Your comment has the former and has language indicating the latter....you wrote is the most likely way to resolve that verbal inconsistency..
I think i am very consistend i hate both.
> If so, why write about free-range dogs roaming around as it pertains to the attack problem?
Because it is relevant to an attack? Dog on leash can be avoided and will not ambush person from behind!
> Attacks happen for many reasons, potentially including nonverbal clues. Do they happen exclusively because of a sufficiently extreme sensitivity to nonverbal clues that the experiment's control wouldn't apply? Probably not
Some dog wizardy, perhaps telepathy. Dog can sense owner is scared of ducks, so it hunts it. Perhaps they can pass whst they hesr to owner.
I simply do not buy anything about dogs, if owner is in the same room.
What your story does show is negligence causing injury. That's still bad. Nobody's condoning that.
That all said, I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak. Best of luck.
Based on their other comments, they apparently do actually mean it like that: dog owners are intentionally using their dogs to attack runners, then claiming "self-defense" out of fear of runners.
I have never heard of this before, either.