Another family friendly pit bull story

[Shogun]

I've already done enough of your research for you. And you've shown no interest in educating yourself.

I can't teach a cat how to fly, so I'm not going to bother to try.

oh.. so you dont want me to point out why the stats you keep talking about don't say what you insist that they do? gotcha. I accept your cry of uncle.

 

[Anguille]

What about breed specific laws for felines, people? I don't seeing anyone crying that we can't have tigers for house pets. Why? Because tigers can rip someone to shreds in a heartbeat, just like pit bulls can.

I really don't understand the difference.

Tigers are a species, not a breed.

Pit bulls are not a species.

Now you are equating pit bulls to wild animals.

Way to go if it's your aim to exterminate pit bulls.

 

[manifold]

But if you have a dog that's known to be an aggressive and dangerous dog, and your kid gets killed, you should be held accountable. It isn't just a fluke.

fair enough. HOLD THE OWNER ACCOUNTABLE. But don't pretend that the owner, and their method of training their dogs, are secondary merely to the fucking breed.

I completely agree. So what were we arguing about again?

 

[Anguille]

Soggy's motto: When all else fails argue semantics!

Or scientific classifications.

Do you know the difference between "species" and "breed"?

Wild versus domesticated animal?

 

[AllieBaba]

I completely agree. So what were we arguing about again?

I wasn't arguing with you.

 

[manifold]

Do you know the difference between "species" and "breed"?

Wild versus domesticated animal?

I sure do.

 

[Anguille]

ya. pointing out the hilarious comparison that you hide behind between a fucking domesticated dog and a goddamn ALLIGATOR OR TIGER sure is semantics!





hey, if a golden retriver mauls a kid should we have known better because a SHARK would have probably done the same thing?


"NO BITING, scruffy! NO! BAD SHARK! BAD"

 

[Shogun]

I completely agree. So what were we arguing about again?

the second half of my quote is what we are disputing.

 

[manifold]

the second half of my quote is what we are disputing.

I never disputed that. I disputed, and will continue to dispute, the notion that breed means nothing. That is all.

 

[Anguille]

As a side note...

Here is something that sort of bothered me when I watched the show on the Michael Vick dogs that were "saved." Basically this: These dogs were given special, preferential treatment simply because they were attached to a sensational newstory. Meanwhile, thousands of dogs get put down in shelters everyday. Dogs that could be placed in homes without any of the same "re-training" and training of the owners, etc etc etc. The amount of time and money spent saving these 66 celebrity dogs, could have been used to save probably 4 times as many other dogs. But hey, at least now the Pit defenders out there have this great story to cling to when logic, reason and the eyeball test keep smacking them in the face like a friggin 2x4.

Shelters depend mostly on volunteers to foster abused dogs. Where do you get the idea that 4 times as many dogs lost out because of money spent?

 

[AllieBaba]

Of course it does. Ask the people who breed horses to cut cows. You can't take any horse and teach it to be a cutting horse. They have to want to go after those cows, and the ones that want to go after them are BRED to go after them.

You can't teach any dog to be a successful fighting dog. They have to be bred to do it, and Pit Bulls and Rotties have the breeding for it...even if they aren't being used for it.

 

[manifold]

Shelters depend mostly on volunteers to foster abused dogs. Where do you get the idea that 4 times as many dogs lost out because of money spent?

Just a guess. Obviously it cannot be supported with "evidence." But considering everything they went through for 66 dogs, I'd say my guess was conservative if anything.

 

[Anguille]

No offense, but when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that breeding influences behavior, and specifically the risk of undesirable behavior, then your reasonableness is necessarily called into question.

Twisting my words means you've reached desperation level.

You fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of pit bulls are bred as family pets, that no one has ever documented a case where pit bulls were bred to rip the faces of children, that dog breeding is a extremely new phenomenon in the history of the species and that we are talking about a variation within the canine species, not an entirely different species.

 

[Anguille]

It's about the TRAITS that are ENHANCED through SELECTIVE BREEDING.

Rotties and Pits are bred to be aggressive and deadly.

Accept it and move on. So long as you're aware of it and deal with them accordingly I, for one, am not interested in passing any laws regarding what sort of dog you own.

Lets have some fact about that Baba? Was your son's dog bred to kill kids?

 

[manifold]

You fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of pit bulls are bred as family pets, that no one has ever documented a case where pit bulls were bred to rip the faces of children, that dog breeding is a extremely new phenomenon in the history of the species and that we are talking about a variation within the canine species, not an entirely different species.

Right, the ripping off of kid's faces is merely a byproduct of the breeding for aggressive, fight to the death behavior. Way to twist my words though.

 

[AllieBaba]

His dog was bred to fight to the death. I'd be a fool to pretend he wasn't.

 

[Anguille]

fair enough. HOLD THE OWNER ACCOUNTABLE. But don't pretend that the owner, and their method of training their dogs, are secondary merely to the fucking breed.

This is the crux of the problem. People want to say it's all in the genes, all out of their hands. It lets them off the hook as far as responsible dog ownership goes.

 

[Anguille]

I never disputed that. I disputed, and will continue to dispute, the notion that breed means nothing. That is all.

What does it mean then?

 

[manifold]

This is the crux of the problem. People want to say it's all in the genes, all out of their hands. It lets them off the hook as far as responsible dog ownership goes.

Now you're inferring like a rabid ravi. I agree with that statement every bit as much as you do. However you and Soggy have been arguing for page after page that breed doesn't matter. That is what I've been refuting.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't believe that. I think to ignore the genes is more dangerous, however, than admitting the genes to kill are there and therefore the animals are dangerous.

If you believe the genes make the dogs vicious and still choose to have them around kids, you're still to blame if something happens. If you believes the genes make the dogs POTENTIALLY vicious and don't take proper precautions and someone gets hurt, you're STILL reponsible.

It's your fucking dog. You'd better make sure it doesn't hurt someone.