comment: >
  
  You’re right, not all dogs go to heaven. Some have brain issues just like humans do.
context: /u/AnyDistribution9517 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  but often its just that dogs are wild animals.
  
  No, they're not. They're domesticated animals.
  
  Other dogs simply cant be trained.
  
  Do you have any evidence for that idea?
  
  Some examples of what Im talking about. Its clear in all these instances, the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:
  
  At least two of those are the same incident.
  Also, 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.
  No 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.
  If 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.
  I'm not sure what would change your view here. No one said dogs are saints. >
  
  Yeah 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. >
  
  I hear the Labradors and Newfoundlands roam free in their respective lands, but it may be a Canadian fairy tale. >
  
  Locals 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. >
  
  What about Saint Bernards? >
  
  Ha! That aught to shut him up! >
  
  
  the dog was extremely well trained and looked after:
  Dog eating baby #3
  
  "Pit Bull Terrier startled by cough"
  If your dog gets startled enough by a cough to freak out and eat a baby, it was not "extremely well trained." >
  
  In 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. >
  
  That's not extensive training...what do you have against dogs anyway ? Don't shake salt get off Rovers nuts lol 😆 >
  
  I mean, it was extensively trained though read the article. It was completely docile. 
  On the contrary, I like dogs. I just acknowlege their inherent unpredictability. >
  
  Risky Click of the day:
  "Dog Eating Baby"
  So obviously you can't prescribe any trait to ALL dogs.   This is an impossible standard.     
  Perhaps we downshift a bit to Most Dogs? >
  
  !delta 
  Fair 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. >
  
  
  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.
  
  Honest question: Chihuahuas and other similar tiny dogs breeds.  They might attack, but how much "potential" do they have to kill? >
  
  So, here's the thing: how many examples do you have of things going bad vs how many dogs are out there?
  What's the rate, say, compared to humans that commit murder?
  Additionally, 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? >
  
  !delta
  This 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. >
  
  you 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.
  I 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. >
  
  The sentiment "no bad dogs, only bad owners" is not saying that dogs are saints, it's just saying that dogs are dogs.
  It 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.
  It 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.
  It 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. >
  
  "Sometimes it is inadequate training but often its just that dogs are wild animals"
  Those 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. >
  
  Saint 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. 
  Seriously 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.  
  You'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. >
  
  !delta
  Yeah thats more precise and accurate to what I mea than my title. >
  
  This 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).
  DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  It'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. >
  
  
  There is this tendency on reddit to blame bad behavior of dogs on their owners, which is ridiculous. 
  
  Pets 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.
  Whatever 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. >
  
  Well 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.
  I 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. >
  
  This. 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. >
  
  Dogs 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. >
  
  Well, you can't demand 100% from any community, thing, person, etc.
  It is not possible and a complete non-starter.
  Realistically, we need you to put a number on what is an acceptable level of 'good dogs'.
  98%?
  95%?