posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:48 PM
So, my mother has a very small, very old, yappy dog (Maltese) that is the obvious victim of decades of aggressive aesthetic (in)breeding and my sister
has a gorgeous blue heeler/lab mix thats maybe a year old...
The two interact, the smaller one goes to bite the bigger one because it's f##ing dumb, and the bigger one pins it to the ground and is looking at
its owners for behavioral cues (almost looking prideful of his own actions as if it caught a rat.) The bigger one gets a swift kick to the ribs and
the smaller instigator gets coddled, which is obviously going to prevent this next time... Don't get me wrong, neither was harmed and that was the
ideal outcome, but it still felt unjust.
I explained the entire situation de facto and my mother agrees to keep her rodent... excuse me.... dog... locked up when the other dog is present.
Frankly, any strangers or commotion and this thing was verging on a stroke so not a bad call.
The thing that made me wonder though, do people instinctively apply this 'underdog is blameless' mentality to other situations. Is there some human
tendency to assume the least able is the the least culpable, and could one exploit this psychological phenomena? If the 'underdog' knew it could
attack and have the authoritative entity swoop down like a guardian angle, would it not be tempted to use this as an offensive tactic? In this case, I
wouldn't put it past the little B#####d.
While I typically enjoy rooting for the underdog, if said 'underdog' acts in such a way as to warrants retaliation, I'll root for retaliation.