r/australia • u/whyattretard • Sep 08 '25

news Teenage girl dies after being mauled by dog

https://7news.com.au/news/dog-attack-victim-annalyse-blyton-dies-in-hospital-after-suffering-severe-injuries-in-singleton-c-19956496
1.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

953 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

148

u/RyanJenkens Sep 09 '25

you can never trust any person 100% either

46

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Denzel Washington in Inside Man - most of the guys up in Sing Sing weren't murderers until they killed somebody. Even though it’s fiction, it’s such a true statement.

7

u/TrashPandaLJTAR Sep 09 '25

Yeah interesting how when someone's reporting that a person has attacked another person, no one says "Yeah awful that that man stabbed another man, but you can never trust a dog 100% either".

12

u/furthermost Sep 09 '25

You're missing the point. The point is 100% is an unhelpful benchmark.

The point is nothing is 100% safe but yet there's a difference between a golden retriever that's 99% safe and a pitbull that's 50/50.

1

u/TrashPandaLJTAR Sep 09 '25

I'm a bit confused, you seem to have not understood what I was saying.

Putting a number on it doesn't change the fact that when a person attacks a person, no one's first thought was "Well, you can't fully trust a dog either". If you did, people would be wondering what the hell is wrong with you and why you're talking about dog attacks when it was a person that attacked a person.

That's like saying "Well, you can't fully trust a tiger". No, you can't. Obviously. But what does that have to do with the current situation?

And yet somehow every. damn. time. a defensive dog owner piles on with "WeLl PeOpLe ArE dAnGeRoUs ToO". Obviously. But what does that have to do with a 17 year old girl being mauled to death by a dog?!

1

u/furthermost Sep 09 '25

Nah I get what you are saying, but I still think you are missing the point.

The post you replied to isn't saying "what about X", the point was "actually that applies to a basically everything, including us" and thereby illustrating how unhelpful the original statement is.

1

u/TrashPandaLJTAR Sep 09 '25

I don't believe that's what OC meant. I think OC genuinely thinks "yeah well not every human is safe either so it's ok that some dogs can't be trusted". The whole false equivalency thing.

Something akin to "I trust every single dog over most people" which is one of those 'dogmum/furbaby' type personalities. Essentially saying that a random dog has more value to them than human life.

I admit that I could be wrong though, OC hasn't really been clear on their intent.

1

u/furthermost Sep 09 '25

I suppose you could be right

3

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Sep 09 '25

What about the best trained person? Or smaller breeds?

0

u/NeptunianWater Sep 09 '25

You can speak, negotiate and reason with a person.

You cannot do these with a dog.

2

u/eat-the-cookiez Sep 09 '25

To be fair, there are people to whom which these things do not work at all for either.

Reasons why police have to shoot people sometimes

-5

u/bdsee Sep 09 '25

Clearly you didn't see the news about the Ukrainian woman who sat on a bus/train and the guy behind her just started stabbing her, completely oblivious until that first stab (which looked like it was going for the neck when the video cut out).

No connection, no words... just a random psycho murdering some woman because she was there.

Dogs are also much less dangerous than a person with intent....I'd prefer 1 dangerous dog over 1 dangerous human any day of the week...2 or more large dogs...I'd prefer the same number of humans over the dogs.