Totally agree, the reason for the dog's behaviour is immaterial once it has bitten. But I do strongly feel that the dog is a product of its upbringing; both nature and nurture play huge roles in its development.
The people who own the dog have absolutely done "something" to cause the dog to be this way. In this case, the "something" in question is neglecting to train the dog and failing to set out guidelines for acceptable behaviour. A dog is a social animal, it needs to belong to a pack, and it needs the pack to have an established and unquestionable leader. If there is none, the dog is forced by its nature to at least attempt to take on that role.
I laughed at the Star Trek analogy, because that's always been my pet peeve with that whole series. Every dang new intelligent species they met in the vastness of space had a different kind of nose...and that was the sum total of how it differed from every other alien race. Just assign human values and motivations to everything, and it will all work out. Sorry....but no.
Dogs are dogs. People are people. If we wish to share our lives with them, we are responsible for shaping their behaviour...i.e. for the "nurture" part of the equation...in such a way that they can co-exist in human society with us. We can't make them do anything they don't want to do...but we can try to make them want to do what we want them to do...and the only way we have any hope of success is to use our supposedly superior intelligence to work within the framework of a dog's mind.
"Bad dogs" are only "bad" when viewed through the lens of the arbitrary ideas of "good" and "bad" that we grow up learning as people. But...they're really just dogs, neither good nor bad. If they are raised by people who fit the arbitrary definition we have of what is "bad"...well, of course the dogs will also be "bad".
Remember: our society requires its members to demonstrate minimum levels of skill/intelligence/knowledge to drive a car, or fly a plane, or own a gun, or operate a medical practice, or wire a house, etc...but any idiot can have a dog...or a kid...
The people who own the dog have absolutely done "something" to cause the dog to be this way. In this case, the "something" in question is neglecting to train the dog and failing to set out guidelines for acceptable behaviour. A dog is a social animal, it needs to belong to a pack, and it needs the pack to have an established and unquestionable leader. If there is none, the dog is forced by its nature to at least attempt to take on that role.
I laughed at the Star Trek analogy, because that's always been my pet peeve with that whole series. Every dang new intelligent species they met in the vastness of space had a different kind of nose...and that was the sum total of how it differed from every other alien race. Just assign human values and motivations to everything, and it will all work out. Sorry....but no.
Dogs are dogs. People are people. If we wish to share our lives with them, we are responsible for shaping their behaviour...i.e. for the "nurture" part of the equation...in such a way that they can co-exist in human society with us. We can't make them do anything they don't want to do...but we can try to make them want to do what we want them to do...and the only way we have any hope of success is to use our supposedly superior intelligence to work within the framework of a dog's mind.
"Bad dogs" are only "bad" when viewed through the lens of the arbitrary ideas of "good" and "bad" that we grow up learning as people. But...they're really just dogs, neither good nor bad. If they are raised by people who fit the arbitrary definition we have of what is "bad"...well, of course the dogs will also be "bad".
Remember: our society requires its members to demonstrate minimum levels of skill/intelligence/knowledge to drive a car, or fly a plane, or own a gun, or operate a medical practice, or wire a house, etc...but any idiot can have a dog...or a kid...