you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

They’re not evil, but they’re dangerous as hell and not to be trusted. They have all of the qualities humans value in dogs, but their owners are liable to use them to maul innocent people when they need plausible deniability- especially during protests, where a large crowd can be blamed for the dog’s “overexcitement.”

Like, I’m sure an ex K-9 dog would be a wonderful pet, but I would watch the fuck out for them while they’re still employed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    Then you've carved out your own personal definition of "bastard" and shouldn't be surprised when people don't understand what you're talking about.

    "Bastard" ≠ "dangerous as hell and not to be trusted"

    This is - frankly - an issue endemic to the ACAB crowd. I've had people carrying that torch claim that "all" doesn't mean "all," and now you're essentially saying "bastard" doesn't mean "bastard."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    I wasn’t the person who originally commented, nor would I exactly consider them bastards (either no dogs are bastards or they all are, depending on how literally you define it, if you ask me), but I was trying to weigh in on the negative aspects of police dogs.

    Though for what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s functionally a difference between “bastard” and “possibly harmful and untrustworthy.” If someone warns me someone else is a bastard, I’ll take from it that they’re untrustworthy and possibly harmful.

    But I was just looking for a lighthearted chat, and it seems like you’re trying to be serious, so maybe my commentary here is unwelcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments