Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!)." ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree" ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree", ">\n\nGetting that perfect ratio of pie filling and edge crust🤤" ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree", ">\n\nGetting that perfect ratio of pie filling and edge crust🤤", ">\n\nYes!! This!" ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree", ">\n\nGetting that perfect ratio of pie filling and edge crust🤤", ">\n\nYes!! This!", ">\n\nGlad to see the people with goblin tastebuds revealing themselves in the comments. Will make use of this information" ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree", ">\n\nGetting that perfect ratio of pie filling and edge crust🤤", ">\n\nYes!! This!", ">\n\nGlad to see the people with goblin tastebuds revealing themselves in the comments. Will make use of this information", ">\n\n*sophisticated tastebuds you mean." ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree", ">\n\nGetting that perfect ratio of pie filling and edge crust🤤", ">\n\nYes!! This!", ">\n\nGlad to see the people with goblin tastebuds revealing themselves in the comments. Will make use of this information", ">\n\n*sophisticated tastebuds you mean.", ">\n\nReturn to your cave goblin" ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree", ">\n\nGetting that perfect ratio of pie filling and edge crust🤤", ">\n\nYes!! This!", ">\n\nGlad to see the people with goblin tastebuds revealing themselves in the comments. Will make use of this information", ">\n\n*sophisticated tastebuds you mean.", ">\n\nReturn to your cave goblin", ">" ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree", ">\n\nGetting that perfect ratio of pie filling and edge crust🤤", ">\n\nYes!! This!", ">\n\nGlad to see the people with goblin tastebuds revealing themselves in the comments. Will make use of this information", ">\n\n*sophisticated tastebuds you mean.", ">\n\nReturn to your cave goblin", ">", ">\n\nCrust" ]

[ "idk if that's unpopular, I thought this was established facts?", ">\n\nSome people have childish taste buds lol.", ">\n\nI agree! I prefer more crust and graham cracker. My favorite part of cheesecake, apple pie, etc.", ">\n\nI love crust! Somewhat similarly (or maybe the complete opposite) I hate the frosting or icing on desserts and feel they are much better without.", ">\n\nYeeeeeees 😋🥧🤤", ">\n\nYou would love this – I recently made a cheesecake with the shortbread crust. With the extra crust, we just made shortbread cookies. So we were literally eating the crust itself (in the form of cookies!).", ">\n\nCompletely 1000000% agree", ">\n\nGetting that perfect ratio of pie filling and edge crust🤤", ">\n\nYes!! This!", ">\n\nGlad to see the people with goblin tastebuds revealing themselves in the comments. Will make use of this information", ">\n\n*sophisticated tastebuds you mean.", ">\n\nReturn to your cave goblin", ">", ">\n\nCrust", ">\n\nThis isnt unpopular" ]

[]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters..." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?", ">\n\nNot once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?", ">\n\nNot once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror.", ">\n\nOh really, now you understand when broke as f." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?", ">\n\nNot once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror.", ">\n\nOh really, now you understand when broke as f.", ">\n\nAnd here we go with the “India can do no wrong and is perfect, meanwhile Pakistan is the devil” Reddit Indians frothing at the mouth over a chance to shit on Pakistan and pretend their country is the end all be all of peace and progress" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?", ">\n\nNot once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror.", ">\n\nOh really, now you understand when broke as f.", ">\n\nAnd here we go with the “India can do no wrong and is perfect, meanwhile Pakistan is the devil” Reddit Indians frothing at the mouth over a chance to shit on Pakistan and pretend their country is the end all be all of peace and progress", ">\n\nIndia can do plenty of wrong, it's just that when it comes to India-Pakistan relations, it's always been Pakistan that has shit the bed." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?", ">\n\nNot once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror.", ">\n\nOh really, now you understand when broke as f.", ">\n\nAnd here we go with the “India can do no wrong and is perfect, meanwhile Pakistan is the devil” Reddit Indians frothing at the mouth over a chance to shit on Pakistan and pretend their country is the end all be all of peace and progress", ">\n\nIndia can do plenty of wrong, it's just that when it comes to India-Pakistan relations, it's always been Pakistan that has shit the bed.", ">\n\nWar with India is a two way street. I'm sure India has done it's fair share to undermine Pakistan past and present in order to maintain its dominance in the region." ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?", ">\n\nNot once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror.", ">\n\nOh really, now you understand when broke as f.", ">\n\nAnd here we go with the “India can do no wrong and is perfect, meanwhile Pakistan is the devil” Reddit Indians frothing at the mouth over a chance to shit on Pakistan and pretend their country is the end all be all of peace and progress", ">\n\nIndia can do plenty of wrong, it's just that when it comes to India-Pakistan relations, it's always been Pakistan that has shit the bed.", ">\n\nWar with India is a two way street. I'm sure India has done it's fair share to undermine Pakistan past and present in order to maintain its dominance in the region.", ">\n\nwhy talk about stuff if you know jack shit?\nindia pak wars were always started by pakistan. all the terrorist attacks were all one sided, by pakistan.\nthe worst thing india has ever done is send spies to pakistan. thats like as common as air in the world" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?", ">\n\nNot once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror.", ">\n\nOh really, now you understand when broke as f.", ">\n\nAnd here we go with the “India can do no wrong and is perfect, meanwhile Pakistan is the devil” Reddit Indians frothing at the mouth over a chance to shit on Pakistan and pretend their country is the end all be all of peace and progress", ">\n\nIndia can do plenty of wrong, it's just that when it comes to India-Pakistan relations, it's always been Pakistan that has shit the bed.", ">\n\nWar with India is a two way street. I'm sure India has done it's fair share to undermine Pakistan past and present in order to maintain its dominance in the region.", ">\n\nwhy talk about stuff if you know jack shit?\nindia pak wars were always started by pakistan. all the terrorist attacks were all one sided, by pakistan.\nthe worst thing india has ever done is send spies to pakistan. thats like as common as air in the world", ">\n\nYou're forgetting about the time the Indians \"accidentally\" send bombs to Pakistan" ]

[ "Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters...", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : \"In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party\" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past.", ">\n\nA military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history.", ">\n\nNot really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. \nA great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?\nBut in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.\nYou can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course.", ">\n\nTurns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea.", ">\n\nSome geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. \nI'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that.", ">\n\nthey were holding the blade the wrong way", ">\n\nEvery time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says", ">\n\nThis.\nI'm Indian. \nTo us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.\nIt never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.\nAlso, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.\nEffectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of \"we tried but India didn't respond\" or some such bad argument in the future.", ">\n\nI think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited.", ">\n\nIt’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins.", ">\n\nHe still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC", ">\n\n\nIndia has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan \n\nKashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. \nThe importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated.", ">\n\nThat’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971.", ">\n\nThat’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.\nIt’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine.", ">\n\nThat's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan.", ">\n\nThe general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island.", ">\n\nI mean Bhutto literally said \"we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India\". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole.", ">\n\nWord.\nThis is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime.", ">\n\nWow, someone in Pakistan has common sense. War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life. War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.\nI personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops.", ">\n\nHave seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace.", ">\n\nFrom the article:\n\nWarning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.\n\nDude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities.", ">\n\nPakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods", ">\n\nSo avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too.", ">\n\nThe last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?\nThe Kargil \"war\" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported?", ">\n\nPretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil", ">\n\nPakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal.", ">\n\nNo, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s.", ">\n\nDidn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA?", ">\n\nNot once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror.", ">\n\nOh really, now you understand when broke as f.", ">\n\nAnd here we go with the “India can do no wrong and is perfect, meanwhile Pakistan is the devil” Reddit Indians frothing at the mouth over a chance to shit on Pakistan and pretend their country is the end all be all of peace and progress", ">\n\nIndia can do plenty of wrong, it's just that when it comes to India-Pakistan relations, it's always been Pakistan that has shit the bed.", ">\n\nWar with India is a two way street. I'm sure India has done it's fair share to undermine Pakistan past and present in order to maintain its dominance in the region.", ">\n\nwhy talk about stuff if you know jack shit?\nindia pak wars were always started by pakistan. all the terrorist attacks were all one sided, by pakistan.\nthe worst thing india has ever done is send spies to pakistan. thats like as common as air in the world", ">\n\nYou're forgetting about the time the Indians \"accidentally\" send bombs to Pakistan", ">\n\nAh, Yes, the great misfired bomb that damaged a wall in a town and caused 0 casualties. Truly the actions of a Nefarious villainous country./s" ]

[]

[ "Both look really nice, R2 nearly looks like cork" ]

[ "Both look really nice, R2 nearly looks like cork", ">\n\nThe logo itself is also a little different if you look close enough. R1 takes the cake though." ]

[ "Both look really nice, R2 nearly looks like cork", ">\n\nThe logo itself is also a little different if you look close enough. R1 takes the cake though.", ">\n\nThe R1 looks deeper?" ]

[]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out.", ">\n\nYour title says \"dogs are not saints,\" but the view you describe in the body of your post is that it is ridiculous to blame the bad behavior of dogs on their owners. These are two distinct views.\nI don't have a good working definition for what would make a dog a \"saint,\" but for my part when I describe dogs as fundamentally innocent, what I mean is that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning as humans understand it. They can certainly do harm, but they cannot be held accountable to any ethical framework humans might understand.\nIf your point is that all dogs have the potential to do harm under the right circumstances...I agree. Even the best-trained dog may defend itself if threatened, or follow its prey instinct.\nBut here's the thing: part of proper care and training of animals is to make sure they are in situations where they will not face those issues. If your dog is aggressive with other dogs, it should not go to an off-leash dog park. If your dog gets jealous and aggressive when you give attention to your partner or children, they should be kept apart from those people and possibly even re-homed.\nThe stories you've linked to are absolutely tragic. But most of them don't include any details about the circumstances of the attack. The only article with any context is from the BBC, which included the following details:\n\nThe infant was placed on a child protection plan by the government, meaning that social workers were assigned to monitor the home environment due to concerns about the infant's safety.\nThe social worker noted that the dogs were \"unpredictable and could get jealous,\" and instructed the parents not to leave the dogs with the infant unattended.\nThe dogs were in fact left unattended with the infant when one parent stepped out for a cigarette and the other fell asleep.\n\nI want to be very clear: this incident was a tragic accident. These parents did not intend or deserve for this to happen, and of course the infant did not deserve to die. But this is also not an example of a well-trained, well-kept for dog suddenly snapping--it's an example of a dog that was known to be a risk factor being left unsupervised with an infant.\nFatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare; only 30-40 occur in the US in most years, despite roughly 48 million households with one or more dogs as a pet and a total dog population of nearly 80 million. Contrast those numbers with fatalities directly caused by human members of households. Roughly 34 million US households include children, and in 2019, 1,840 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Roughly 4,000 women die each year from domestic violence in the US.\nCan dogs be dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances. But they're far less likely to harm you than the human members of your family." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out.", ">\n\nYour title says \"dogs are not saints,\" but the view you describe in the body of your post is that it is ridiculous to blame the bad behavior of dogs on their owners. These are two distinct views.\nI don't have a good working definition for what would make a dog a \"saint,\" but for my part when I describe dogs as fundamentally innocent, what I mean is that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning as humans understand it. They can certainly do harm, but they cannot be held accountable to any ethical framework humans might understand.\nIf your point is that all dogs have the potential to do harm under the right circumstances...I agree. Even the best-trained dog may defend itself if threatened, or follow its prey instinct.\nBut here's the thing: part of proper care and training of animals is to make sure they are in situations where they will not face those issues. If your dog is aggressive with other dogs, it should not go to an off-leash dog park. If your dog gets jealous and aggressive when you give attention to your partner or children, they should be kept apart from those people and possibly even re-homed.\nThe stories you've linked to are absolutely tragic. But most of them don't include any details about the circumstances of the attack. The only article with any context is from the BBC, which included the following details:\n\nThe infant was placed on a child protection plan by the government, meaning that social workers were assigned to monitor the home environment due to concerns about the infant's safety.\nThe social worker noted that the dogs were \"unpredictable and could get jealous,\" and instructed the parents not to leave the dogs with the infant unattended.\nThe dogs were in fact left unattended with the infant when one parent stepped out for a cigarette and the other fell asleep.\n\nI want to be very clear: this incident was a tragic accident. These parents did not intend or deserve for this to happen, and of course the infant did not deserve to die. But this is also not an example of a well-trained, well-kept for dog suddenly snapping--it's an example of a dog that was known to be a risk factor being left unsupervised with an infant.\nFatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare; only 30-40 occur in the US in most years, despite roughly 48 million households with one or more dogs as a pet and a total dog population of nearly 80 million. Contrast those numbers with fatalities directly caused by human members of households. Roughly 34 million US households include children, and in 2019, 1,840 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Roughly 4,000 women die each year from domestic violence in the US.\nCan dogs be dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances. But they're far less likely to harm you than the human members of your family.", ">\n\nSorry, u/skelly_boi690 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out.", ">\n\nYour title says \"dogs are not saints,\" but the view you describe in the body of your post is that it is ridiculous to blame the bad behavior of dogs on their owners. These are two distinct views.\nI don't have a good working definition for what would make a dog a \"saint,\" but for my part when I describe dogs as fundamentally innocent, what I mean is that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning as humans understand it. They can certainly do harm, but they cannot be held accountable to any ethical framework humans might understand.\nIf your point is that all dogs have the potential to do harm under the right circumstances...I agree. Even the best-trained dog may defend itself if threatened, or follow its prey instinct.\nBut here's the thing: part of proper care and training of animals is to make sure they are in situations where they will not face those issues. If your dog is aggressive with other dogs, it should not go to an off-leash dog park. If your dog gets jealous and aggressive when you give attention to your partner or children, they should be kept apart from those people and possibly even re-homed.\nThe stories you've linked to are absolutely tragic. But most of them don't include any details about the circumstances of the attack. The only article with any context is from the BBC, which included the following details:\n\nThe infant was placed on a child protection plan by the government, meaning that social workers were assigned to monitor the home environment due to concerns about the infant's safety.\nThe social worker noted that the dogs were \"unpredictable and could get jealous,\" and instructed the parents not to leave the dogs with the infant unattended.\nThe dogs were in fact left unattended with the infant when one parent stepped out for a cigarette and the other fell asleep.\n\nI want to be very clear: this incident was a tragic accident. These parents did not intend or deserve for this to happen, and of course the infant did not deserve to die. But this is also not an example of a well-trained, well-kept for dog suddenly snapping--it's an example of a dog that was known to be a risk factor being left unsupervised with an infant.\nFatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare; only 30-40 occur in the US in most years, despite roughly 48 million households with one or more dogs as a pet and a total dog population of nearly 80 million. Contrast those numbers with fatalities directly caused by human members of households. Roughly 34 million US households include children, and in 2019, 1,840 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Roughly 4,000 women die each year from domestic violence in the US.\nCan dogs be dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances. But they're far less likely to harm you than the human members of your family.", ">\n\nSorry, u/skelly_boi690 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nif a crocodile eats a human do we say thats a bad crocodile? no because we understand that crocodiles will be crocs and do croc things . what we do instead is modify the behavior of humans who understand and teach them not to go messing with crocs .same concepts for dogs . dogs dont know right from wrong like we do so its up to us to make sure we dont get eaten by a croc so there for they cant be saints because they dont know what their doing is roght or wrong" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out.", ">\n\nYour title says \"dogs are not saints,\" but the view you describe in the body of your post is that it is ridiculous to blame the bad behavior of dogs on their owners. These are two distinct views.\nI don't have a good working definition for what would make a dog a \"saint,\" but for my part when I describe dogs as fundamentally innocent, what I mean is that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning as humans understand it. They can certainly do harm, but they cannot be held accountable to any ethical framework humans might understand.\nIf your point is that all dogs have the potential to do harm under the right circumstances...I agree. Even the best-trained dog may defend itself if threatened, or follow its prey instinct.\nBut here's the thing: part of proper care and training of animals is to make sure they are in situations where they will not face those issues. If your dog is aggressive with other dogs, it should not go to an off-leash dog park. If your dog gets jealous and aggressive when you give attention to your partner or children, they should be kept apart from those people and possibly even re-homed.\nThe stories you've linked to are absolutely tragic. But most of them don't include any details about the circumstances of the attack. The only article with any context is from the BBC, which included the following details:\n\nThe infant was placed on a child protection plan by the government, meaning that social workers were assigned to monitor the home environment due to concerns about the infant's safety.\nThe social worker noted that the dogs were \"unpredictable and could get jealous,\" and instructed the parents not to leave the dogs with the infant unattended.\nThe dogs were in fact left unattended with the infant when one parent stepped out for a cigarette and the other fell asleep.\n\nI want to be very clear: this incident was a tragic accident. These parents did not intend or deserve for this to happen, and of course the infant did not deserve to die. But this is also not an example of a well-trained, well-kept for dog suddenly snapping--it's an example of a dog that was known to be a risk factor being left unsupervised with an infant.\nFatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare; only 30-40 occur in the US in most years, despite roughly 48 million households with one or more dogs as a pet and a total dog population of nearly 80 million. Contrast those numbers with fatalities directly caused by human members of households. Roughly 34 million US households include children, and in 2019, 1,840 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Roughly 4,000 women die each year from domestic violence in the US.\nCan dogs be dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances. But they're far less likely to harm you than the human members of your family.", ">\n\nSorry, u/skelly_boi690 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nif a crocodile eats a human do we say thats a bad crocodile? no because we understand that crocodiles will be crocs and do croc things . what we do instead is modify the behavior of humans who understand and teach them not to go messing with crocs .same concepts for dogs . dogs dont know right from wrong like we do so its up to us to make sure we dont get eaten by a croc so there for they cant be saints because they dont know what their doing is roght or wrong", ">\n\nTell that to Saint Bernard." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out.", ">\n\nYour title says \"dogs are not saints,\" but the view you describe in the body of your post is that it is ridiculous to blame the bad behavior of dogs on their owners. These are two distinct views.\nI don't have a good working definition for what would make a dog a \"saint,\" but for my part when I describe dogs as fundamentally innocent, what I mean is that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning as humans understand it. They can certainly do harm, but they cannot be held accountable to any ethical framework humans might understand.\nIf your point is that all dogs have the potential to do harm under the right circumstances...I agree. Even the best-trained dog may defend itself if threatened, or follow its prey instinct.\nBut here's the thing: part of proper care and training of animals is to make sure they are in situations where they will not face those issues. If your dog is aggressive with other dogs, it should not go to an off-leash dog park. If your dog gets jealous and aggressive when you give attention to your partner or children, they should be kept apart from those people and possibly even re-homed.\nThe stories you've linked to are absolutely tragic. But most of them don't include any details about the circumstances of the attack. The only article with any context is from the BBC, which included the following details:\n\nThe infant was placed on a child protection plan by the government, meaning that social workers were assigned to monitor the home environment due to concerns about the infant's safety.\nThe social worker noted that the dogs were \"unpredictable and could get jealous,\" and instructed the parents not to leave the dogs with the infant unattended.\nThe dogs were in fact left unattended with the infant when one parent stepped out for a cigarette and the other fell asleep.\n\nI want to be very clear: this incident was a tragic accident. These parents did not intend or deserve for this to happen, and of course the infant did not deserve to die. But this is also not an example of a well-trained, well-kept for dog suddenly snapping--it's an example of a dog that was known to be a risk factor being left unsupervised with an infant.\nFatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare; only 30-40 occur in the US in most years, despite roughly 48 million households with one or more dogs as a pet and a total dog population of nearly 80 million. Contrast those numbers with fatalities directly caused by human members of households. Roughly 34 million US households include children, and in 2019, 1,840 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Roughly 4,000 women die each year from domestic violence in the US.\nCan dogs be dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances. But they're far less likely to harm you than the human members of your family.", ">\n\nSorry, u/skelly_boi690 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nif a crocodile eats a human do we say thats a bad crocodile? no because we understand that crocodiles will be crocs and do croc things . what we do instead is modify the behavior of humans who understand and teach them not to go messing with crocs .same concepts for dogs . dogs dont know right from wrong like we do so its up to us to make sure we dont get eaten by a croc so there for they cant be saints because they dont know what their doing is roght or wrong", ">\n\nTell that to Saint Bernard.", ">\n\ndogs are not meant to be a pet like a hamster or a bird, they meant to deter danger and hunt." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out.", ">\n\nYour title says \"dogs are not saints,\" but the view you describe in the body of your post is that it is ridiculous to blame the bad behavior of dogs on their owners. These are two distinct views.\nI don't have a good working definition for what would make a dog a \"saint,\" but for my part when I describe dogs as fundamentally innocent, what I mean is that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning as humans understand it. They can certainly do harm, but they cannot be held accountable to any ethical framework humans might understand.\nIf your point is that all dogs have the potential to do harm under the right circumstances...I agree. Even the best-trained dog may defend itself if threatened, or follow its prey instinct.\nBut here's the thing: part of proper care and training of animals is to make sure they are in situations where they will not face those issues. If your dog is aggressive with other dogs, it should not go to an off-leash dog park. If your dog gets jealous and aggressive when you give attention to your partner or children, they should be kept apart from those people and possibly even re-homed.\nThe stories you've linked to are absolutely tragic. But most of them don't include any details about the circumstances of the attack. The only article with any context is from the BBC, which included the following details:\n\nThe infant was placed on a child protection plan by the government, meaning that social workers were assigned to monitor the home environment due to concerns about the infant's safety.\nThe social worker noted that the dogs were \"unpredictable and could get jealous,\" and instructed the parents not to leave the dogs with the infant unattended.\nThe dogs were in fact left unattended with the infant when one parent stepped out for a cigarette and the other fell asleep.\n\nI want to be very clear: this incident was a tragic accident. These parents did not intend or deserve for this to happen, and of course the infant did not deserve to die. But this is also not an example of a well-trained, well-kept for dog suddenly snapping--it's an example of a dog that was known to be a risk factor being left unsupervised with an infant.\nFatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare; only 30-40 occur in the US in most years, despite roughly 48 million households with one or more dogs as a pet and a total dog population of nearly 80 million. Contrast those numbers with fatalities directly caused by human members of households. Roughly 34 million US households include children, and in 2019, 1,840 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Roughly 4,000 women die each year from domestic violence in the US.\nCan dogs be dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances. But they're far less likely to harm you than the human members of your family.", ">\n\nSorry, u/skelly_boi690 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nif a crocodile eats a human do we say thats a bad crocodile? no because we understand that crocodiles will be crocs and do croc things . what we do instead is modify the behavior of humans who understand and teach them not to go messing with crocs .same concepts for dogs . dogs dont know right from wrong like we do so its up to us to make sure we dont get eaten by a croc so there for they cant be saints because they dont know what their doing is roght or wrong", ">\n\nTell that to Saint Bernard.", ">\n\ndogs are not meant to be a pet like a hamster or a bird, they meant to deter danger and hunt.", ">\n\nThe reason why the dog owner is to blame for the behaviour of their dog is not because people think dogs are saints. \nIt is because dogs cannot be held to account for their actions. Dogs are not culpable for their actions in the way humans are. So if a dog did attack another, be it pet or person, the responsibility IS the dog's owner.\nThe fault of the owner bears is neglect... How are they not aware of their dog's bad behaviours, whilst claiming they are not being neglectful of their responsibility as a dog owner.\nSpeaking as a dog owner." ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out.", ">\n\nYour title says \"dogs are not saints,\" but the view you describe in the body of your post is that it is ridiculous to blame the bad behavior of dogs on their owners. These are two distinct views.\nI don't have a good working definition for what would make a dog a \"saint,\" but for my part when I describe dogs as fundamentally innocent, what I mean is that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning as humans understand it. They can certainly do harm, but they cannot be held accountable to any ethical framework humans might understand.\nIf your point is that all dogs have the potential to do harm under the right circumstances...I agree. Even the best-trained dog may defend itself if threatened, or follow its prey instinct.\nBut here's the thing: part of proper care and training of animals is to make sure they are in situations where they will not face those issues. If your dog is aggressive with other dogs, it should not go to an off-leash dog park. If your dog gets jealous and aggressive when you give attention to your partner or children, they should be kept apart from those people and possibly even re-homed.\nThe stories you've linked to are absolutely tragic. But most of them don't include any details about the circumstances of the attack. The only article with any context is from the BBC, which included the following details:\n\nThe infant was placed on a child protection plan by the government, meaning that social workers were assigned to monitor the home environment due to concerns about the infant's safety.\nThe social worker noted that the dogs were \"unpredictable and could get jealous,\" and instructed the parents not to leave the dogs with the infant unattended.\nThe dogs were in fact left unattended with the infant when one parent stepped out for a cigarette and the other fell asleep.\n\nI want to be very clear: this incident was a tragic accident. These parents did not intend or deserve for this to happen, and of course the infant did not deserve to die. But this is also not an example of a well-trained, well-kept for dog suddenly snapping--it's an example of a dog that was known to be a risk factor being left unsupervised with an infant.\nFatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare; only 30-40 occur in the US in most years, despite roughly 48 million households with one or more dogs as a pet and a total dog population of nearly 80 million. Contrast those numbers with fatalities directly caused by human members of households. Roughly 34 million US households include children, and in 2019, 1,840 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Roughly 4,000 women die each year from domestic violence in the US.\nCan dogs be dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances. But they're far less likely to harm you than the human members of your family.", ">\n\nSorry, u/skelly_boi690 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nif a crocodile eats a human do we say thats a bad crocodile? no because we understand that crocodiles will be crocs and do croc things . what we do instead is modify the behavior of humans who understand and teach them not to go messing with crocs .same concepts for dogs . dogs dont know right from wrong like we do so its up to us to make sure we dont get eaten by a croc so there for they cant be saints because they dont know what their doing is roght or wrong", ">\n\nTell that to Saint Bernard.", ">\n\ndogs are not meant to be a pet like a hamster or a bird, they meant to deter danger and hunt.", ">\n\nThe reason why the dog owner is to blame for the behaviour of their dog is not because people think dogs are saints. \nIt is because dogs cannot be held to account for their actions. Dogs are not culpable for their actions in the way humans are. So if a dog did attack another, be it pet or person, the responsibility IS the dog's owner.\nThe fault of the owner bears is neglect... How are they not aware of their dog's bad behaviours, whilst claiming they are not being neglectful of their responsibility as a dog owner.\nSpeaking as a dog owner.", ">\n\ndepends on the dog breed, and who trained it, its hard to quantify well trained since most call it that if it can sit on command.\nwith the peaceful dog breeds you have no problems with them once they are well trained.\nalso dog in general is a way to broad topic, either pick a specific breed, or narrow the view in another way as describing 470 million as having or lacking one characteristic is to wide a view" ]

[ "/u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nbut often its just that dogs are wild animals.\n\nNo, they're not. They're domesticated animals.\n\nOther dogs simply cant be trained.\n\nDo you have any evidence for that idea?\n\nSome examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\n\nAt least two of those are the same incident.\nAlso, how is it clear the dog was \"extremely well trained?\" None of the stories I looked at say a single thing about training. They just say family dog, which means a dog owned by the family. It denotes nothing about training, care, etc.\nNo one said dogs are saints. Dogs, however, are not responsible for being dogs. If you step on a dog's tail, it may whip around and bite you. Doesn't mean it's an untrained wild animal. It means you stepped on his tail and he had a perfectly natural response.\nIf a toddler grabs at a cat from the front, toddler is likely to get scratched. That's ok. That's how they learn you don't grab at a cat from the front. It's not the cat's fault. It's the parents' fault for not protecting the cat and teaching/watching the kid. Cat is just establishing a boundary for its own protection.\nI'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints.", ">\n\nYeah dogs have been domesticated for over 30,000 years, not wild animals. This guy I worked with when I was younger once asked me where dogs were wild (I forget how he worded it), but basically he thought Rottweilers were just roaming in the wild somewhere.", ">\n\nI hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale.", ">\n\nLocals say that Barrancas del Cobre is lousy with packs of feral Chihuahuas. The only people to ever tame them were renegade Apache warriors who fled to the region after Geronimo surrendered. Mexican authorities tried to enter the area to capture these rebels several times, but were repeatedly repulsed by the tiny terrors that guarded the way.", ">\n\nWhat about Saint Bernards?", ">\n\nHa! That aught to shut him up!", ">\n\n\nthe dog was extremely well trained and looked after:\nDog eating baby #3\n\n\"Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough\"\nIf your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not \"extremely well trained.\"", ">\n\nIn the sense that it received extensive training. It was a family dog that was in a loving home. The family did everything in their power to pacify the dog, there is nothing more they could have done.", ">\n\nThat's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆", ">\n\nI mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. \nOn the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability.", ">\n\nRisky Click of the day:\n\"Dog Eating Baby\"\nSo obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs. This is an impossible standard. \nPerhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs?", ">\n\n!delta \nFair enough. But you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.", ">\n\n\nBut you should certainly treat every dog as though they have the potential to kill. Because they do and its nearly impossible to tell what could set them off.\n\nHonest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds. They might attack, but how much \"potential\" do they have to kill?", ">\n\nSo, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?\nWhat's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?\nAdditionally, how do you know \" in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after\"? I didn't watch any of the you tube videos but in the BBC one, it appeared that there was a plan in place with a social worker already involving the Dog and baby which wasn't followed. The NY post article doesn't mention the dog training beyond \"nothing wrong was done.\" I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion?", ">\n\n!delta\nThis is a good point. They probably are not any more dangerous than a human. But still I think a lot of people think that if a dog is well trained and has a sweet disposition, it cant be dangerous when it absolutely can.", ">\n\nyou are acting like dog is a thing and not a companion to human the only reason it seem \"unpredictable\" to most people is because they dont speak human language they can only communicate through body language and facial expression.\nI argue human are more unpredictable because every human alway has a motive of their own so even if they act nice you can never be sure if because they like your company or because they want to used you or something. Most family dog only think about the present they can literally skip their meal without knowing if the owner doesnt remind them,dog also like repetition alot so you can abosolutely train them to do what activity at what time.", ">\n\nThe sentiment \"no bad dogs, only bad owners\" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.\nIt is an owner's responsibility to understand that dogs are (domesticated) wild animals and to act accordingly. Owners need to be aware of a dog's prey drive and keep it on a leash or otherwise under control. If a dog can't be trained then the owner must put additional safeguards in place or even isolate the dog.\nIt is important to focus the responsibility on owners so that they don't simply trust that their dog is a \"good dog\" or blame the \"bad dog\" when something goes wrong. You are the one bringing this animal into human society, and you must make sure that all goes well.\nIt is sadly the case that an owner can do everything right and a dog simply goes nuts for some reason, but those cases are extremely rare. In this case, maybe the owner is not at fault, but it is still not appropriate to blame the dog.", ">\n\n\"Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals\"\nThose are the same thing. A well-trained dog won't act like a wild animal, because it isn't. That's what domestication is all about. A well-trained dog will not lose it's mind to instinct because that's what training is all about. Certain breeds can't be trained very well, and that's why they are often seen as dangerous to keep as pets.", ">\n\nSaint Dogolas was canonized in the Roman Catholic church in 1823 A.D. when he resisted an abandoned filet mignon as his owner refilled the oil in his evening lantern. Some dogs are saints. Not all saints are dogs. \nSeriously though there's no real way to separate nature vs nurture. Dogs have been domesticated and a vanishingly small percentage are maybe untrainable, but we have expressly domesticated and bred dogs to have highly malleable behavior. \nYou're also posting a lot of statistical anomalies as proof of your view that statistical anomalies exist. As such your view is sort of unassailable so there's not much discussion to be had. You might have more luck refining your view.", ">\n\n!delta\nYeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title.", ">\n\nThis delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/IndependenceAway8724 changed your view (comment rule 4).\nDeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nIt's very strange to assert that all dogs are \"unpredictable.\" Dogs have unique personalities and certain triggers that vary from dog to dog, so if you mean that dogs don't all act exactly the same way in every and all circumstances, I guess you could be right? Most dog owners and people who are familiar with dog behavior can predict how their dogs will behave under most circumstances.", ">\n\n\nThere is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. \n\nPets are like children. Nobody cares where their misbehaving comes from, they are not accountable for it, you are. If your kid knocks over my plate on a restaurant while running, I am asking you to fix it, not your kid.\nWhatever your dog does is on you. If you can't control your dog so that it behaves according to the rules of civilized society, it will be taken away from you, because you are to blame.", ">\n\nWell first off dogs are wild animals, they’ve been domesticated. At one point there’s wolf in their bloodline but it’s dozen of generations back.\nI also notice that all of the links provided involve a high energy dog breed, which #2 and #4 are the same incident but different articles. Huskies, pitbulls, Staffordshires, Shepherds, and other high energy/working breeds need to be exercised a lot on a daily basis or given a job, otherwise the dog goes crazy because they have all this energy but nothing to do.", ">\n\nThis. My Aussie either needs to spend several hours outside running around or constant validation of her existence. I do not consider her dangerous, other than she likes to jump on people and hug them. Which is why she is either outside or in my bedroom when folks come over. She is more loud than anything.", ">\n\nDogs are pretty much analogous to people. Upbringing is a huge predictor of bad behavior, but you will still get outliers that do evil things despite being raised properly. Nobody believes that all people are saints, just like nobody believes that all dogs are saints. But we can and should believe that raising children and dogs correctly will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will do bad things.", ">\n\nWell, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.\nIt is not possible and a complete non-starter.\nRealistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.\n98%?\n95%?", ">\n\nYou’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.", ">\n\nYour title is true, but your storyline is questionable. We are all animals and capable of violence this much is true. The points about training are not entirely true, though a well trained animal is less likely to behave poorly. However, this doesn't mean that circumstances age and external factors can not play their parts. \nThe part where we agree perhaps is that people need to better understand breeds and instict better in dogs. While they are domesticated, they are also bred for traits that, if not understood and worked for those things, they will act out. Herding dogs must be allowed to herd things. Pit bulls must be allowed to use their strength. I found pulling heavy objects works wonders. All dogs need to be exposed to people and other dogs. \nIn short, where I disagree strongly is that it is the owners responsibility and failure 99% of the time a dog acts out.", ">\n\nYour title says \"dogs are not saints,\" but the view you describe in the body of your post is that it is ridiculous to blame the bad behavior of dogs on their owners. These are two distinct views.\nI don't have a good working definition for what would make a dog a \"saint,\" but for my part when I describe dogs as fundamentally innocent, what I mean is that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning as humans understand it. They can certainly do harm, but they cannot be held accountable to any ethical framework humans might understand.\nIf your point is that all dogs have the potential to do harm under the right circumstances...I agree. Even the best-trained dog may defend itself if threatened, or follow its prey instinct.\nBut here's the thing: part of proper care and training of animals is to make sure they are in situations where they will not face those issues. If your dog is aggressive with other dogs, it should not go to an off-leash dog park. If your dog gets jealous and aggressive when you give attention to your partner or children, they should be kept apart from those people and possibly even re-homed.\nThe stories you've linked to are absolutely tragic. But most of them don't include any details about the circumstances of the attack. The only article with any context is from the BBC, which included the following details:\n\nThe infant was placed on a child protection plan by the government, meaning that social workers were assigned to monitor the home environment due to concerns about the infant's safety.\nThe social worker noted that the dogs were \"unpredictable and could get jealous,\" and instructed the parents not to leave the dogs with the infant unattended.\nThe dogs were in fact left unattended with the infant when one parent stepped out for a cigarette and the other fell asleep.\n\nI want to be very clear: this incident was a tragic accident. These parents did not intend or deserve for this to happen, and of course the infant did not deserve to die. But this is also not an example of a well-trained, well-kept for dog suddenly snapping--it's an example of a dog that was known to be a risk factor being left unsupervised with an infant.\nFatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare; only 30-40 occur in the US in most years, despite roughly 48 million households with one or more dogs as a pet and a total dog population of nearly 80 million. Contrast those numbers with fatalities directly caused by human members of households. Roughly 34 million US households include children, and in 2019, 1,840 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. Roughly 4,000 women die each year from domestic violence in the US.\nCan dogs be dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances. But they're far less likely to harm you than the human members of your family.", ">\n\nSorry, u/skelly_boi690 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nif a crocodile eats a human do we say thats a bad crocodile? no because we understand that crocodiles will be crocs and do croc things . what we do instead is modify the behavior of humans who understand and teach them not to go messing with crocs .same concepts for dogs . dogs dont know right from wrong like we do so its up to us to make sure we dont get eaten by a croc so there for they cant be saints because they dont know what their doing is roght or wrong", ">\n\nTell that to Saint Bernard.", ">\n\ndogs are not meant to be a pet like a hamster or a bird, they meant to deter danger and hunt.", ">\n\nThe reason why the dog owner is to blame for the behaviour of their dog is not because people think dogs are saints. \nIt is because dogs cannot be held to account for their actions. Dogs are not culpable for their actions in the way humans are. So if a dog did attack another, be it pet or person, the responsibility IS the dog's owner.\nThe fault of the owner bears is neglect... How are they not aware of their dog's bad behaviours, whilst claiming they are not being neglectful of their responsibility as a dog owner.\nSpeaking as a dog owner.", ">\n\ndepends on the dog breed, and who trained it, its hard to quantify well trained since most call it that if it can sit on command.\nwith the peaceful dog breeds you have no problems with them once they are well trained.\nalso dog in general is a way to broad topic, either pick a specific breed, or narrow the view in another way as describing 470 million as having or lacking one characteristic is to wide a view", ">\n\n\n, its hard to quantify well trained since most call it that if it can sit on command.\n\nThis is so true. \nI know ppl who say their dogs are really well trained because they offer a paw to shake and sit down for a cookie when they come in from a walk. I'm not saying that's not good behaviour or training but I've also known a German Shepherd who knew and instantly obeyed literally dozens of commands; you could put a treat in his mouth and he'd wait for permission to eat it, and you could say the word and he'd open his mouth for you to take the treat back out. That's not any normal level of training but damn was he well-trained." ]

[]

[ "Not because evangelicals have had a \"come to Jesus\" moment...they just believe they can gain more money and power with someone else." ]

[ "Not because evangelicals have had a \"come to Jesus\" moment...they just believe they can gain more money and power with someone else.", ">\n\nBut definitely not Jesus Christ - he was a brown socialist refugee who was killed by the state. Maybe white Jesus.\nThank you for the award." ]

[ "Not because evangelicals have had a \"come to Jesus\" moment...they just believe they can gain more money and power with someone else.", ">\n\nBut definitely not Jesus Christ - he was a brown socialist refugee who was killed by the state. Maybe white Jesus.\nThank you for the award.", ">\n\nJesus was jewish.\nWhich means the the right consider him white but would actually consider him a brown, socialist agitator if he came back.\nWhile the left consider him as having been brown but if he came back today to inherit the kingdom of David he'd be a white, apartheid coloniser." ]

[ "Not because evangelicals have had a \"come to Jesus\" moment...they just believe they can gain more money and power with someone else.", ">\n\nBut definitely not Jesus Christ - he was a brown socialist refugee who was killed by the state. Maybe white Jesus.\nThank you for the award.", ">\n\nJesus was jewish.\nWhich means the the right consider him white but would actually consider him a brown, socialist agitator if he came back.\nWhile the left consider him as having been brown but if he came back today to inherit the kingdom of David he'd be a white, apartheid coloniser.", ">\n\nHaving a poor opinion of Israel's domestic policy does not translate into a poor opinion of Jews. Were Jesus of Nasereth to make an appearance today, he'd start by washing the feet of every Palestinian he could find." ]

[ "Not because evangelicals have had a \"come to Jesus\" moment...they just believe they can gain more money and power with someone else.", ">\n\nBut definitely not Jesus Christ - he was a brown socialist refugee who was killed by the state. Maybe white Jesus.\nThank you for the award.", ">\n\nJesus was jewish.\nWhich means the the right consider him white but would actually consider him a brown, socialist agitator if he came back.\nWhile the left consider him as having been brown but if he came back today to inherit the kingdom of David he'd be a white, apartheid coloniser.", ">\n\nHaving a poor opinion of Israel's domestic policy does not translate into a poor opinion of Jews. Were Jesus of Nasereth to make an appearance today, he'd start by washing the feet of every Palestinian he could find.", ">\n\n\nTrump slams the religious right for being “disloyal”\n\nTheir whole thing is ostensibly following Jesus’ teachings and they can’t even stick to that so, yeah? Shoulda seen this coming." ]

[ "Not because evangelicals have had a \"come to Jesus\" moment...they just believe they can gain more money and power with someone else.", ">\n\nBut definitely not Jesus Christ - he was a brown socialist refugee who was killed by the state. Maybe white Jesus.\nThank you for the award.", ">\n\nJesus was jewish.\nWhich means the the right consider him white but would actually consider him a brown, socialist agitator if he came back.\nWhile the left consider him as having been brown but if he came back today to inherit the kingdom of David he'd be a white, apartheid coloniser.", ">\n\nHaving a poor opinion of Israel's domestic policy does not translate into a poor opinion of Jews. Were Jesus of Nasereth to make an appearance today, he'd start by washing the feet of every Palestinian he could find.", ">\n\n\nTrump slams the religious right for being “disloyal”\n\nTheir whole thing is ostensibly following Jesus’ teachings and they can’t even stick to that so, yeah? Shoulda seen this coming.", ">\n\nThe church feels satans burn from this fuckface." ]

[ "Not because evangelicals have had a \"come to Jesus\" moment...they just believe they can gain more money and power with someone else.", ">\n\nBut definitely not Jesus Christ - he was a brown socialist refugee who was killed by the state. Maybe white Jesus.\nThank you for the award.", ">\n\nJesus was jewish.\nWhich means the the right consider him white but would actually consider him a brown, socialist agitator if he came back.\nWhile the left consider him as having been brown but if he came back today to inherit the kingdom of David he'd be a white, apartheid coloniser.", ">\n\nHaving a poor opinion of Israel's domestic policy does not translate into a poor opinion of Jews. Were Jesus of Nasereth to make an appearance today, he'd start by washing the feet of every Palestinian he could find.", ">\n\n\nTrump slams the religious right for being “disloyal”\n\nTheir whole thing is ostensibly following Jesus’ teachings and they can’t even stick to that so, yeah? Shoulda seen this coming.", ">\n\nThe church feels satans burn from this fuckface.", ">\n\nI can't even tell you how much I would love for my religious parents to break up with Trump and his ideas." ]

[ "Not because evangelicals have had a \"come to Jesus\" moment...they just believe they can gain more money and power with someone else.", ">\n\nBut definitely not Jesus Christ - he was a brown socialist refugee who was killed by the state. Maybe white Jesus.\nThank you for the award.", ">\n\nJesus was jewish.\nWhich means the the right consider him white but would actually consider him a brown, socialist agitator if he came back.\nWhile the left consider him as having been brown but if he came back today to inherit the kingdom of David he'd be a white, apartheid coloniser.", ">\n\nHaving a poor opinion of Israel's domestic policy does not translate into a poor opinion of Jews. Were Jesus of Nasereth to make an appearance today, he'd start by washing the feet of every Palestinian he could find.", ">\n\n\nTrump slams the religious right for being “disloyal”\n\nTheir whole thing is ostensibly following Jesus’ teachings and they can’t even stick to that so, yeah? Shoulda seen this coming.", ">\n\nThe church feels satans burn from this fuckface.", ">\n\nI can't even tell you how much I would love for my religious parents to break up with Trump and his ideas.", ">\n\nThey may part from trump, but I fear the core beliefs are too ingrained." ]