BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

How to fight a dog [PICS]

  
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
Shrug
23:09 / 21.01.06
(My above question has already been pretty much answered above in the thread by Denfeld, sorry!) Still I can't imagine an untrained vicious dog listening to "Sit", "Stop" commands.
And actually two out of three times that I've been bitten it's been when trying to befriend unusually nasty dogs (which I had to attempt on all occassions because I had to operate in the same space as them constantly). Most of them tended to be alot nicer to me after they bit me strangely but if there's a none bitey option to use in the future that would help.
As a child I was randomly and viciously attacked by a neighbourhood dog which left scarring on my shoulder for years and even after the event, whenever it saw me, it never stopped trying to eat me.
 
 
Shrug
23:12 / 21.01.06
(so the get bit dog won't try to eat you again method isn't exactly foolproof)
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:13 / 21.01.06
is sheena bobby murray?

Noooo, Sheena is a punk rocker.
 
 
ibis the being
00:40 / 22.01.06
a police dog is a police asset, like any other officer or piece of equipment. any police asset can be used unlawfully or unfairly, and dogs are no different.
i'd say take each case on its merits and act accordingly.

This is patently fucking absurd. The dog has no sense of morality or ethics and is not able to assess the "justice" of his task, or whether you are guilty of an offense. Argue with the cops later, but fighting the dog is ludicrous. Not to mention that you're going to be in seriously deep shit if you attempt to fight a K9 officer or worse, succeed in breaking its legs and crushing its jaw. For fuck's sake.
 
 
ibis the being
00:45 / 22.01.06
Actually, you know what, forget it. Go ahead and try to fight a dog - a 100lb German Shepherd K9 officer, that's a good one to fight. Bear in mind a dog can move its head four times faster than the human hand. Good luck.
 
 
Char Aina
02:03 / 22.01.06
i'd say take each case on its merits and act accordingly.
-
in most cases you are fucked.
your best option is not to fight.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
06:07 / 22.01.06
-I doubt my ability to both run from or fight against one of these dogs.

-I would only engage a wild dog in fisticuffs if it threatened me and I had no chance to flee, and no weapon [with which] to either frighten it away or just bash it.

-Do you seriously feel that you're ever going to need to implement any of these tactics?

Yes.

I've spoken to more than one police officer who had a story to tell about their K-9 unit attacking (and in some instances hospitalizing) the wrong person. Usually it was a homeless person or a teen runaway in the wrong place at the wrong time when the dog was released, but that does not make me feel better.

How about lie down on the ground and let them cuff you.

Before or after I feel teeth on my neck?

And that's not even taking into account attacks by feral/abandoned/abused dogs.

Listen. We all love dogs. To suggest than any of us are advocating abuse against dogs is "patently fucking absurd".
 
 
sleazenation
08:52 / 22.01.06
I think you are more likely to be mugged or run over by a car, perhaps you should first concentrate on man/car fighting skills...

Of course, again Xeno's first paradox could also come in handy here...
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
13:54 / 22.01.06
 
 
Triplets
15:45 / 22.01.06
Listen. We all love dogs.

Dude, obviously the only reason we go mad for naming dogs on Barbelith is so we can FIGHT THEM
 
 
Triplets
15:46 / 22.01.06
Caption contest: (Super)man bites dog

Winner!
 
 
eddie thirteen
18:02 / 22.01.06
Krypto is a very bad dog indeed if he's trying to do what I think he's trying to do in that first panel.

(Hint: It's not fighting)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
20:02 / 22.01.06
Wow.

You know, I kind of still really fucking hate this thread. I mean, I can certainly concieve of a circumstance where a person might need to defend hirself against an attacking dog. But you know what this thing is starting to remind me of?

This thing is starting to remind me of those really uncomfortable conversations I've had where a guy standing way too near the chair where I'm sitting has presented me with lovingly detailed scenarios in which he would be forced--forced!--to strike a woman, like if you were in a car and she suddenly grabbed the steering-wheel, you'd have to punch her in the face, right? Or maybe the chest, did you know you can actually kill a woman if you punch her in the chest, that's why female boxers wear those body sheild things, and everyone thinks guys are the only ones who'll go down from a kick to the groin but hah, he can tell me that a good kick to the groin would take down a woman, not that he'd ever want to but if a woman, you know, made him do it, he could.

Sort of like that, really.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:09 / 22.01.06
Indeed. I actually toyed with the idea of starting a parallel thread along those lines, but decided I didn't want to find out how many people would take it seriously, really.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
21:15 / 22.01.06
Reading this thread's an interesting experience for me, in that
1) I think I understand the sort of discussion this was intended to be - ie not entirely serious, perhaps along the lines of the "eating children" thread, with a dash of "who do you reckon would win in a fight between".
2)I really, really, do not like dogs. I had a bad experience as a child, and for me they will forever be hateful barky smelly things that perforate you at a moment's notice with GREAT BIG TEETH*.
3) Reading the descriptions of how people would fight a dog here made me feel really quite ill.
You see, I'm pretty sure that no-one posting here would harm an animal in that way, and I get the sort of grim satisfaction that comes from talking idly (and usually drunkenly) about what you'd be prepared to do if your life was threatened**. However, I think it's the combination of the written, fairly visceral descriptions of violence and the fact that the violence is being done (hypothetically and textually) to an animal by a human that's the problem (more on the semiotics of it in the footnotes). Furthermore, it's also the nature of the medium that pure text leaves a lot of inflection out, so I can't tell if the posters are salivating as they type, perhaps imagining howls of doggy agony as they writhe in pleasure in a darkened room, or wiping away tears of sorrow while dispensing sage advice on what to do if one's life were threatened by canine means. Perhaps there should be a wider discussion in a Head Shop/Policy thread about violent content on Barbelith: I'm thinking primarily of this and the "Guns - PHALLIC MAJESTY" thread, which also made people (myself included) feel a little uncomfortable? In this specific case, it seems to be the fact that the thread's a mixture of Conversation-whimsy, genuine advice, and descriptions of fairly horrific violence - it's sometimes hard to tell which is which, and why.
Hmm. More thought on this one, I think. And also, I really, really need to examine various offhand, supposedly amusing comments i've made in the past about how "I'm going to drop-kick that bloody dog/child/television over the horizon if it doesn't shut up" (imagine this in a Warren Ellis "Bastardly Bastard" voice for the effect it was meant to have. Yes. That's why it needs examining)

*I make no claim to this being anything but a personality flaw on my part, and understand (intellectually) how other people can appreciate dogs. I just have an aversion to (I was going to type "the things", but as a tonal tic rather than as a Stoatie-antagonising objectification of dogs in general) them.

**I had to think really, really hard about how this is different from MC's "lovingly detailed scenarios in which he would be forced--forced!--to strike a woman". I think it's because of the symbolic content of the acts relating to greater paradigms, in that "man strikes woman" and "man beats animal" are well-established Disturbing Masculinist Power-Realisations, and (for the most part, and certainly in cultural representation) involve the empowered*** party abusing someone physically weaker(see above parenthesis for clarity). This to illustrate that the "grim satisfaction" I was describing comes from conversations where the power dynamic is reversed, something like "If I was assaulted**** by a riot policeman, I'd be prepared to (hit hir with a tree branch/do other violent but non-lethal thing)". This kind of figuring does seem to appear above, specifically in the examples of wild and trained police dogs, but there's still something a bit sickening about the image of a man***** striking an animal, especially breaking its jaw/snapping its legs/etc.

***in the specific situation.

****Trying to find something with the connotations of "attacked in an over-the-top manner" and failing

*****Typing this has made me realise quite how much I associate iamges of violence with images of masculinity. While probably statistically accurate (in that men _seem to_ commit more violent acts (especially, given MC's example, against women)) it's probably a little sexist to assume that all the posters discussing methods of violence against canines are male. Apologies for any heterosexist assumptions I've not weeded out.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
23:04 / 22.01.06
What a bunch of ninnies you are being. It's totally reasonable to talk about defending yourself against a violent dog. It certainly isn't a good reason to start locking threads or insulting people. If discussions of violence and animals bother you so much, why did you open a thread clearly marked "How to fight a dog"? Etc.

I was attacked by a police dog outside my home when I was a teenager. If I hadn't had martial arts training I'd have been in serious trouble. The police weren't paying much attention to who their dogs were attacking.

As when a man attacks you, there are ways to discourage a dog that aren't likely to cause serious injury. Dogs throw their bodies upward with their legs in front of them. I was able to bring my knee up against his chest and push him back. Note that you shouldn't kick the dog. You sort of catch him on your knee or the side of your leg and push him back. If you kick the dog, you're very likely throw yourself off balance. If you keep your balance, you should be able to do this indefinitely--I fended the police dog off for several minutes. You may also have opportunities to twist his ears, etc, but I dunno, that seems risky.

I'm not sure what I'd have done if the dog had gone for my ankles.

A lot of animals have a nerve behind the jaw which, if the jaw slides over it, causes the animal to black out. This is what happens when boxers are KO'd. It doesn't do any lasting damage. I've been told, based on this, that, if you get your forearm way back into the hinge of a dog's jaw and push, you can knock the dog unconscious. I don't know whether that's true. The guy who told me had never done it, and was not an expert on canine physiology.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
23:12 / 22.01.06
"It's totally reasonable to talk about defending yourself against a violent dog."

I entirely agree, but what I was trying to get at was what the discussion of [defending yourself against a violent dog] looks like and provokes in the sense of emotional reactions in a non-inflected textual medium: especially when the mix of serious and non-serious comments is as it is here. I'd be perfectly happy* to defend myself if attacked by an animal, it's the existence and framing of this thread that I find perplexing.
I don't know - it's just that this (and the Power and Majesty of Tools For Killing thread) make me feel really uncomfortable, and I'm trying to work out why.

*read: willing. Being involved in violence makes me sick.
 
 
Bastard Tweed
23:35 / 22.01.06
I dunno; myself, I just rather figured that the original poster had, like myself, read Joe R. Lansdale's "My Steel Valentine" one too many times (i.e. twice).

After I read that particularly grisly short story it made me, in spite of being a perrenial dog loving person, stop and think, "Jeezie Creezie, what the fuck would I do?" But then I suppose that's more of a testament to Lansdale's ability to clang on a person's creepy-inhuman bone than anything else.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
23:55 / 22.01.06
Withiel, I don't think there's anything wrong with being disturbed by the discussion, but I'm irritated overall by censor-monkey objections from people who consider themselves rational and open-minded. You know, for instance, it is a common thing in English to refer to non-specific animals as "it". No inherent respect or disrespect in the term. A guy read a thing and wanted to talk about it, what's the problem?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:03 / 23.01.06
It's worth noting at this point that, with the honourable exception of Qalyn, anything over the size of a pomeranian will take down a Barbeloid at least two falls out of three, so you might prefer instead to learn how to make your peace with the divine very quickly indeed.

Personally, I'd leave fighting the dog to my real live tiger.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
00:11 / 23.01.06
You are my real live tiger
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:14 / 23.01.06
Well, there's an etymology I didn't know. So, actually, the best way to fight a dog is on its own level. With sarcasm.

"Ooooh, scary! You're terrifying, you are. You've got really good teeth."
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
00:25 / 23.01.06
You know, for instance, it is a common thing in English to refer to non-specific animals as "it". No inherent respect or disrespect in the term. A guy read a thing and wanted to talk about it, what's the problem?

Oh, I have no objection to the use of the pronoun "it" when talking about hypothetical or unspecified animals, canine or otherwise - I was attempting to avoid provoking Stoatie, who is as far as I can tell someone who really *likes* dogs - I was posting about my dislike of them, and thought it might be a good idea to avoid problematic terminology (or at least highlight and therefore render it less so) which was irrelevant to my point and would have possibly derailed the discussion and irritated someone who I have no reason to want to antagonise.

I think the "problem" is something I'm still trying to articulate. It's not so much a problem with the thread starter - I see the reasoning there. I think it's more an emergent thing: the phrasing and nature of the original post has resulted in a series of descriptions of how to seriously fuck up animals. If this was a conversation, it'd flow more naturally, but in a temporally-disjointed textual medium, the cumulative effect is a bit...ick, really. Not that that's anyone's fault directly, but it's made enough people uncomfortable that it should, perhaps, be addressed.

Qalyn, I'd quite like you to elaborate on what you mean by "...censor-monkey objections by people who consider themselves rational and open-minded.", with special attention to what you mean by "censor-monkey". I might be being slow here (and if I am, please put the following down to a lack of sleep and an overdose of Barthes, structuralism and deadlines), but it looks like the rare and elusive "censor monkey" might be a close friend of Police Constable Hell - at no point did I suggest "censoring" anyone, merely that perhaps it would be a good idea to examine why an ostensibly sensible discussion makes quite a number of people disturbed in such a manner. I'd like to suggest that there's a difference between examining one's own discourse (as I've tried to do previously - see the extensive footnotes) to avoid needlessly antagonising people, and "censorship".
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
00:36 / 23.01.06
Withiel, everything isn't about you*! I wasn't calling you a censor-monkey. I was calling Lurid and maenad and ibis** censor-monkeys.

*joke
**off the top of my head. There may have been others.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
00:42 / 23.01.06
Right. In which case, chalk it up to lack of sleep, which I will shortly remedy. More on this tomorrow.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
01:38 / 23.01.06
You know, I kind of still really fucking hate this thread. I mean, I can certainly concieve of a circumstance where a person might need to defend hirself against an attacking dog. But you know what this thing is starting to remind me of?...

Ah. So really, we are harboring deep, twisted yearnings of violence towards an entire group of concious things weaker than ourselves, and make up scenarios that are obviously unikely to occur so that we can finally speak openly about enacting our gruesome desires.

Damn. You cracked this case wide open, ace.
 
 
Char Aina
02:10 / 23.01.06
dont forget the 'sitting too close' intimidation thing that has no parralel in this thread.
 
 
eddie thirteen
02:29 / 23.01.06
I'm sorry, but there have been a few notable overreactions to this thread. Nothing here warrants the locking/deletion of the thread, and drawing a parallel between violence against attacking dogs (i.e., violence against an animal that is already attacking you ) and violence against women is pretty damn absurd, even by PETA standards. Not only that, but the thread is obviously kind of a piss-take inspired by someone's dubious, James Frey-stylee claim to have effortlessly beaten a dog in single combat (see the first post). It's clear that just the mention of violence is enough to skeeve some people out, but one person's tic is not evidence of another person's pathology.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
06:52 / 23.01.06
I'm not talking about intimidation. Or drawing a moral parallel in an OMG violence against animals = WIFEBEATINGS!! way.

I described someone coming out with a detailed fantasy scenario, consisting of violence + 'I was MADE to do it!' justification. I said this thread was starting to remind me of that kind of thing. Not that every single post here was an unadulterated fantsy of pointless violence.

You know what else I'm sick of? Having to lard every single post I make anywhere on any fucking subject with 57 layers of qualifiers because if I don't it's read and responded to as an absolute statement. Maybe I should go back to incorporating a bunch of smiley faces into everything I write.

  
 
Char Aina
07:08 / 23.01.06
dude!
woah.
quit it with the smilies or the puppy gets it.

i was responding to

This thing is starting to remind me of those really uncomfortable conversations I've had where a guy standing way too near the chair where I'm sitting has presented me with lovingly detailed scenarios in which he would be forced--forced!--to strike a woman

which seems a pretty unfair comparison to my posts herein.

i get that you were relating a spcecific anecdote with specific features, but i reckon you might wanna give a bit more thought to how your relation of the closeness(ie intimidating nature) of the encounter comes across.
i wasnt forcing anyone to listen, and i dont get why this thread reminds you of someone who was.

i for one dont feel that i was espousing gleefully the many excuses one might find for attacking a dog, and so i dont get why i reminded you of someone who was gleefully espousing excuses one might use to attack a woman.

its not about qualifiers, unless you mean stuff like being specific about who you are pointing at as reminiscent of the coworker who was gleefully excusing violence towards women.

one thought occurs, dude...
what do you see as the payoff for letting us all know that we remind you of the gleefully, etc.?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:10 / 23.01.06
We hate children, we kill dogs... is there nowhere left for Barbelith to sink?

Realistically, this thread has the same function as Chris Ryan novels - punch porn for asthmatics. Whether you approve or disapprove of that probably comes down to personal taste.

Personally, I never liked having to shoot the animals in Tomb Raider. It always seemed a bit harsh and unnecessary - especially since half of them seemed to be endangered.
 
 
Lurid Archive
07:14 / 23.01.06
If discussions of violence and animals bother you so much, why did you open a thread clearly marked "How to fight a dog"? Etc.

That could stand as a defence of pretty much any potentially offensive thread and I think we've established that Barbelith doesn't work like that.

drawing a parallel between violence against attacking dogs (i.e., violence against an animal that is already attacking you ) and violence against women is pretty damn absurd

What MC actually said was:

[I've been presented with] lovingly detailed scenarios in which he would be forced--forced!--to strike a woman, like if you were in a car and she suddenly grabbed the steering-wheel

So the parallel is between an attacking dog, and a crazed woman and how we would respond to detailed descriptions of (justified!!! justified!!!) violence against them.

Having said that, presenting a "parallel" in the form of a reductio ad absurdum is all too often an appeal to common sense which bypasses ethical reasoning.
 
 
Char Aina
07:16 / 23.01.06
is there nowhere left for Barbelith to sink?

well, i think we're somwhere in the seventh circle right now, arent we?
fraud and treachery to go, innit.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
07:36 / 23.01.06
I think we've established that Barbelith doesn't work like that.

I think we've also established that I can call bullshit on that if I want. That is, what is the difference between what is offensive and what you don't like?

You know what else I'm sick of? Having to lard every single post I make anywhere on any fucking subject with 57 layers of qualifiers because if I don't it's read and responded to as an absolute statement.

Amen, brother
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
07:36 / 23.01.06
It's cool. Dr. Strange just showed up. He'll know what to do.

  
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply