Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I compared a % chance of something happening - and the subsequent reaction
To a % chance of something happening - and the subsequent reaction
It is piss poor logic to not look into whether not a breed is vicious before getting rid of it. If only 0.008% of the breed kill in a seven year period, it would be a pretty retarded thing to do. Especially since it's a living thing, the deaths are avoidable in many cases, and soo00o0oo0oo0o many other, NON LIVING things are WAY more dangerous. Like, driving.
^Look... The Wigger could have done the Math earlier on... But he wants to Appear like's Educated... Thoughtful... Objective... Like he wants to Appear like he's Urban when he's got his Rapper Costume on...
Sucker Punching Faggot.
peace...
Toddler shit ^
I tried to explain already and failed. Apparently the mountain of ignorance was too steep even for me.
That's a concession mani, thanks boss.
The ignorance is yours. You're apparently in favor of jumping to conclusions like the rest of the idiots without any factual data to make a reasonable conclusion.
That is, indeed, ignorance.
Hey Slappy... What Conlcusion did I jump to?...
peace...
^Look... The Wigger could have done the Math earlier on... But he wants to Appear like's Educated... Thoughtful... Objective... Like he wants to Appear like he's Urban when he's got his Rapper Costume on...
Sucker Punching Faggot.
peace...
Toddler shit ^
Sucker Punching, Pre-Op, ******-wanna-be Faggot ^
peace...
If you're not going to explain, this post is worthless trolling.
I tried to explain already and failed. Apparently the mountain of ignorance was too steep even for me.
That's a concession mani, thanks boss.
The ignorance is yours. You're apparently in favor of jumping to conclusions like the rest of the idiots without any factual data to make a reasonable conclusion.
That is, indeed, ignorance.
I tried to explain already and failed. Apparently the mountain of ignorance was too steep even for me.
That's a concession mani, thanks boss.
The ignorance is yours. You're apparently in favor of jumping to conclusions like the rest of the idiots without any factual data to make a reasonable conclusion.
That is, indeed, ignorance.
I bow to your mad internet debate skillz and iron clad logic.
That's a concession mani, thanks boss.
The ignorance is yours. You're apparently in favor of jumping to conclusions like the rest of the idiots without any factual data to make a reasonable conclusion.
That is, indeed, ignorance.
I bow to your mad internet debate skillz and iron clad logic.
yea, deude
I'm not supporting the breed. I'm not being against the breed. I believe the data at this point is unclear.
It's pathetic to be reactionary instead of visionary. Numbers matter. If there are 17, 000 murders in the US a year, should we say that "it's pathetic to support human beings in the United States?"
No, because the vast majority of human beings aren't murderers.
And similarly, so far, it looks like the vast majority of pit bulls aren't either.
Reality doesn't matter to you?
This is the perfect picture of poor logic. There is no correlation between human beings and dogs. We are not talking about getting rid of human beings. We are talking, I am talking, about getting rid of an unncessary element that is causing harm to human beings in civilized society. To try to make a logical connection betwen pitbulls and humans is ludicrous and as logic, completely failure. Are you going to start comparing the pest control problem of rats, cockroaches, etc. to human beings too? Essentially, pitbulls are a pest control problem. They cause harm to civilized people and need to be eliminated as much as possible, just like rats, just like cockroaches. They have no value to society, none whatsoever.
I compared a % chance of something happening - and the subsequent reaction
To a % chance of something happening - and the subsequent reaction
It is piss poor logic to not look into whether not a breed is vicious before getting rid of it. If only 0.008% of the breed kill in a seven year period, it would be a pretty retarded thing to do. Especially since it's a living thing, the deaths are avoidable in many cases, and soo00o0oo0oo0o many other, NON LIVING things are WAY more dangerous. Like, driving.
This is the perfect picture of poor logic. There is no correlation between human beings and dogs. We are not talking about getting rid of human beings. We are talking, I am talking, about getting rid of an unncessary element that is causing harm to human beings in civilized society. To try to make a logical connection betwen pitbulls and humans is ludicrous and as logic, completely failure. Are you going to start comparing the pest control problem of rats, cockroaches, etc. to human beings too? Essentially, pitbulls are a pest control problem. They cause harm to civilized people and need to be eliminated as much as possible, just like rats, just like cockroaches. They have no value to society, none whatsoever.
I compared a % chance of something happening - and the subsequent reaction
To a % chance of something happening - and the subsequent reaction
It is piss poor logic to not look into whether not a breed is vicious before getting rid of it. If only 0.008% of the breed kill in a seven year period, it would be a pretty retarded thing to do. Especially since it's a living thing, the deaths are avoidable in many cases, and soo00o0oo0oo0o many other, NON LIVING things are WAY more dangerous. Like, driving.
You are willing to gamble with human life, and ready to accept there will be casualities. I am not. We are talking about 151 completely unnecessary deaths, generally of the most vulnerable in our society, children and the elderly. There is no need for people to own pitbulls. There are probably nearly a hundred other breeds to choose a pet dog from. If pitbulls never existed, no one would miss them. If they disappeared, they would be soon forgotten. They are a toxic element in civilized society. The statistics I gave are of deaths only; they do not include all the maiming these dogs do. They also do not include all the other pet dogs and cats that pitbulls kill, which is substantial.
You want to gamble based on percentages and accept a kill and maim rate: I don't.
Everyone is gambling with human life - if you DRIVE, you included. Driving isn't the only example, either. Should planes NOT fly? It's gambling with human life.
Risks are worth it sometimes.
Everyone is gambling with human life - if you DRIVE, you included. Driving isn't the only example, either. Should planes NOT fly? It's gambling with human life.
Risks are worth it sometimes.
Then why does having a two year old prevent you from owning a pit bull? Do you not drive with your child in the car?
I mean, if everything is just a gamble afterall, why distinguish between various levels of risk?
I compared a % chance of something happening - and the subsequent reaction
To a % chance of something happening - and the subsequent reaction
It is piss poor logic to not look into whether not a breed is vicious before getting rid of it. If only 0.008% of the breed kill in a seven year period, it would be a pretty retarded thing to do. Especially since it's a living thing, the deaths are avoidable in many cases, and soo00o0oo0oo0o many other, NON LIVING things are WAY more dangerous. Like, driving.
You are willing to gamble with human life, and ready to accept there will be casualities. I am not. We are talking about 151 completely unnecessary deaths, generally of the most vulnerable in our society, children and the elderly. There is no need for people to own pitbulls. There are probably nearly a hundred other breeds to choose a pet dog from. If pitbulls never existed, no one would miss them. If they disappeared, they would be soon forgotten. They are a toxic element in civilized society. The statistics I gave are of deaths only; they do not include all the maiming these dogs do. They also do not include all the other pet dogs and cats that pitbulls kill, which is substantial.
You want to gamble based on percentages and accept a kill and maim rate: I don't.
Everyone is gambling with human life - if you DRIVE, you included. Driving isn't the only example, either. Should planes NOT fly? It's gambling with human life.
Risks are worth it sometimes.
And that aggressiveness carries over to other animals, as well. They were bred to kill or be killed.
Not necessarily Gallant Warrier. Dog to dog aggression is very specific.
Now, I'll add that it is in the best interest of Pitbull lovers and breeders to breed away from dog aggression - dog fighting is illegal.
Most of the pits I know are in my friend's all-breed rescue and live in a large multi-dog and cat pack. The dogs range from a Rottie mix to Chihuahua and they get along just fine.
I'm familiar enough with dog breeds to recognize that some breeds have "jobs". Right now, I own a Great Pyrenees. She lives with the goats, she lives for the goats. That's her job. I admit, I am not the "dog person" my be friend is, but I have had working dogs for years. I am not convinced that a pitbull is the best choice for a family with small children and other animals. If you have a place that needs a protector, sure...that's a good fit for a Pit.
You are willing to gamble with human life, and ready to accept there will be casualities. I am not. We are talking about 151 completely unnecessary deaths, generally of the most vulnerable in our society, children and the elderly. There is no need for people to own pitbulls. There are probably nearly a hundred other breeds to choose a pet dog from. If pitbulls never existed, no one would miss them. If they disappeared, they would be soon forgotten. They are a toxic element in civilized society. The statistics I gave are of deaths only; they do not include all the maiming these dogs do. They also do not include all the other pet dogs and cats that pitbulls kill, which is substantial.
You want to gamble based on percentages and accept a kill and maim rate: I don't.
Everyone is gambling with human life - if you DRIVE, you included. Driving isn't the only example, either. Should planes NOT fly? It's gambling with human life.
Risks are worth it sometimes.
Again, your logic is failing. We need cars, we need airplanes. We do not need pitbulls. They add nothing to society. They are nothing but a problem, a pest, a deadly pest. It makes more sense to compare them to sharks or alligators, but sharks and alligators are part of the web of life. Pitbulls are not comparable to cars or airplanes. They are not comparable to sharks or alligators because they have nothing to do with sustaining the web of life. There are completely unnecessary and disposable.
Everyone is gambling with human life - if you DRIVE, you included. Driving isn't the only example, either. Should planes NOT fly? It's gambling with human life.
Risks are worth it sometimes.
Then why does having a two year old prevent you from owning a pit bull? Do you not drive with your child in the car?
I mean, if everything is just a gamble afterall, why distinguish between various levels of risk?
Because the age of the young child substantially increases the risk of a dog bite because they don't have a modicum of a clue how to treat a dog. I don't even think a dog has to be vicious in order to defend itself from what it perceives to be an attack.
Driving with a kid in the car doesn't impair my driving. She's strapped in and noise doesn't effect me. I've been driving to loud music all of my life.
Why distinguish between various levels of risk? Really?
You chances of getting hit by a car while playing on your lawn versus playing on a busy street don't warrant a distinction? Really?
Then why does having a two year old prevent you from owning a pit bull? Do you not drive with your child in the car?
I mean, if everything is just a gamble afterall, why distinguish between various levels of risk?
Because the age of the young child substantially increases the risk of a dog bite because they don't have a modicum of a clue how to treat a dog. I don't even think a dog has to be vicious in order to defend itself from what it perceives to be an attack.
Driving with a kid in the car doesn't impair my driving. She's strapped in and noise doesn't effect me. I've been driving to loud music all of my life.
Why distinguish between various levels of risk? Really?
You chances of getting hit by a car while playing on your lawn versus playing on a busy street don't warrant a distinction? Really?
Of course distinctions are warranted, the question was facetious. That's the whole point.
Arguing that because driving poses inherent risks somehow supports ANY position one wants to take on the subject of pit bulls, is no argument at all. It's a red herring fallacy.
No dogs at all, for me. I have a 2 year old. I don't recommend any dogs for young children. I think I said that like my 3 or so post in this thread.
Why do you take even riskier chances by putting her in a car?...
peace...
Everyone is gambling with human life - if you DRIVE, you included. Driving isn't the only example, either. Should planes NOT fly? It's gambling with human life.
Risks are worth it sometimes.
Again, your logic is failing. We need cars, we need airplanes. We do not need pitbulls. They add nothing to society. They are nothing but a problem, a pest, a deadly pest. It makes more sense to compare them to sharks or alligators, but sharks and alligators are part of the web of life. Pitbulls are not comparable to cars or airplanes. They are not comparable to sharks or alligators because they have nothing to do with sustaining the web of life. There are completely unnecessary and disposable.
My logic isn't failing at all. We don't NEED cars, or airplanes. They are merely a convenience. They make life easier. Humans lived before cars and airplanes, remember?>
And you're wrong - pit bulls add something to society if their owner loves them. You don't get to personally decide who gets what out of what. Even if you really really want to, really really bad.
Again, your logic is failing. We need cars, we need airplanes. We do not need pitbulls. They add nothing to society. They are nothing but a problem, a pest, a deadly pest. It makes more sense to compare them to sharks or alligators, but sharks and alligators are part of the web of life. Pitbulls are not comparable to cars or airplanes. They are not comparable to sharks or alligators because they have nothing to do with sustaining the web of life. There are completely unnecessary and disposable.
My logic isn't failing at all. We don't NEED cars, or airplanes. They are merely a convenience. They make life easier. Humans lived before cars and airplanes, remember?>
And you're wrong - pit bulls add something to society if their owner loves them. You don't get to personally decide who gets what out of what. Even if you really really want to, really really bad.
OMG you really think this? Are you that dense? There is no comparison between pitbulls and automobiles or airplanes. We don't 'need' doctors or hospitals either. We could go back to herbs, leeches and medicine men dancing around a fire. Why are you so desparate to defend this pathetic animal? No one needs a pitbull. They do not have one iota of benefit to human beings. None. They are completely useless and disposable. End of. I'm done. You all can go on putting forth your idotic debate points. I am no longer interested in wasting my time here.
