Pitbulls...

[manifold]

Here's a stat for you G.T.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age from 2 to 14 years old

Go ahead and tell me again how 'common sense' allows you to dismiss it.

Go ahead and tell me how this makes any sense to what I've been saying.

All children 2 to 14 years old have dogs? As many children from 2 to 14 years old have dogs, that get into cars?

There's no correlation.

All 2 year olds are LEFT ALONE with their dogs, when they have one?

Not seeing the connection, genius.

You're eviscerating your own point better than anyone else possibly could.

I've been saying there is no correlation between driving risk and pit bull risk all along. Duh!


Keep arguing with yourself dude, it's teh funneh!

 

[WinterBorn]

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 desperate 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.

You can call them a waste all you want. But the fact that, at worst, 99.998% of pits never attack means your logic is ridiculous.

And how dare you sit and presume to judge what a loving pet bring to a family or to a person living alone. How dare you presume to call a service dog or therapy dog "disposable" simply because you refuse to look at the facts.

Luckily the blind prejudice you display is not in charge. The laws against pits are being challenged and taken down.

 

[G.T.]

Here's a stat for you G.T.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age from 2 to 14 years old

Go ahead and tell me again how 'common sense' allows you to dismiss it.

Go ahead and tell me how this makes any sense to what I've been saying.

All children 2 to 14 years old have dogs? As many children from 2 to 14 years old have dogs, that get into cars?

There's no correlation.

All 2 year olds are LEFT ALONE with their dogs, when they have one?

Not seeing the connection, genius.

You're eviscerating your own point better than anyone else possibly could.

I've been saying there is no correlation between driving risk and pit bull risk all along. Duh!


Keep arguing with yourself dude, it's teh funneh!

No, you're just inept apparently.

There IS a correlation between driving as an activity and dying, and owning a dog as an activity, and dying.

There is not correlation between the leading cause of death between ALL 2 to 14 year olds. and the %risk of a 2-14 year old DOG OWNER from being attacked when left alone with a dog.

You keep giggling in the face of being a moron with comprehension troubles. It's soothing.

 

[manifold]

There isn't - that was my point: with NO DATA...

No data on moving vehicle fatalities?

Are you serious?

^ wrong.

No data on leaving a 2 year old alone with a dog, and them being attacked.

Are YOU serious?

There's plenty of data on what happens when they are attacked. You know, the other part of the analysis I mentioned in my first one or two posts in this discussion.

 

[G.T.]

No data on moving vehicle fatalities?

Are you serious?

^ wrong.

No data on leaving a 2 year old alone with a dog, and them being attacked.

Are YOU serious?

There's plenty of data on what happens when they are attacked. You know, the other part of the analysis I mentioned in my first one or two posts in this discussion.

Nice obfuscation.

I said: No data on leaving a 2 year old alone with a dog, and them being attacked.

Your unrelated response was: There's plenty of data on what happens when they are attacked



So apparently you're just a giant troll and not trying to have a conversation, but just to reach for SSOOOmthing, AAAAnything, ypou can swing from for your smilies. Grow up, dumbass.

 

[manifold]

There IS a correlation between driving as an activity and dying

Yup

There IS a correlation between... owning a dog as an activity, and dying.

Yup


Thank you once again for pointing out that the only thing the two have in common is they both carry a risk of death.

The evaluation of risk for each is completely independent of the other.

 

[G.T.]

There IS a correlation between driving as an activity and dying

Yup

There IS a correlation between... owning a dog as an activity, and dying.

Yup


Thank you once again for pointing out that the only thing the two have in common is they both carry a risk of death.

The evaluation of risk for each is completely independent of the other.

The evaluation of risk is a number.

Numbers are comparable.

% chance of death is what we're comparing.




When you bring up highest % chance of death of ALL 2-14 year olds as being motor vehicle death - and then say a bigger percent die from car deaths than dog deaths as your point, it's a non-point because not all 2-14 year olds own and are left alone with dogs which is what we were discussing (my 2 year old alone with a dog vs. my driving with her in the car).

 

[manifold]

There IS a correlation between driving as an activity and dying

Yup

There IS a correlation between... owning a dog as an activity, and dying.

Yup


Thank you once again for pointing out that the only thing the two have in common is they both carry a risk of death.

The evaluation of risk for each is completely independent of the other.

The evaluation of risk is a number.

Numbers are comparable.

% chance of death is what we're comparing.




When you bring up % chance of death of ALL 2-14 year olds as being motor vehicle death - and then say a bigger percent die from car deaths than dog deaths as your point, it's a non-point because not all 2-14 year olds own and are left alone with dogs which is what we were discussing (my 2 year old alone with a dog vs. my driving with her in the car).

Make up your mind would you.

So are we comparing percentages or using common sense?

 

[G.T.]

Yup



Yup


Thank you once again for pointing out that the only thing the two have in common is they both carry a risk of death.

The evaluation of risk for each is completely independent of the other.

The evaluation of risk is a number.

Numbers are comparable.

% chance of death is what we're comparing.




When you bring up % chance of death of ALL 2-14 year olds as being motor vehicle death - and then say a bigger percent die from car deaths than dog deaths as your point, it's a non-point because not all 2-14 year olds own and are left alone with dogs which is what we were discussing (my 2 year old alone with a dog vs. my driving with her in the car).

Make up your mind would you.

So are we comparing percentages or using common sense?

See, you're just a hack.

You can compare % chance of death while performing an activity (driving) versus % chance of death while performing an activity (dog ownership).

This way, you can evaluate which is riskier.

My point was - do we still drive, even though it's riskier? I do.


Then, I said I wouldn't leave my 2 year old alone with a dog. But - I would let her drive with me.

Then you asked, why?

I responded: There's not really data on 2 year olds left with dogs, and risk - so it's a judgment call.


your response was to say that the leading cause of deaths is 2-14 year olds is by car.

that doesn't mean that a car is riskier than leaving a 2 year old alone with a dog. therefore, it was a stupid fucking analogy.

You're dumb.

I win.

smilies x infinity, all that dorkiness.


I also don't understand your giggles.

Are you saying that because I use percentage data that's available to me, that I should NOT use my brain when there's no data available? I'm missing your retarded logic, here.

 

[manifold]

[MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]

So is it data or common sense that brings you to conclude that owning a pit bull with a 2yr old kid is too risky, but once the kids reaches age 10, the risk is no longer sufficient to rule out owning a pit bull?

 

[G.T.]

[MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]

So is it data or common sense that brings you to conclude that owning a pit bull with a 2yr old kid is too risky, but once the kids reaches age 10, the risk is no longer sufficient to rule out owning a pit bull?

When we have statistical facts, we use them.

When we don't, we're forced to make judgment calls.

2 years olds grab dogs' eyeballs and stick their arms down dogs' throats.

Hope that clears your confusion.

 

[manifold]

[MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]

So is it data or common sense that brings you to conclude that owning a pit bull with a 2yr old kid is too risky, but once the kids reaches age 10, the risk is no longer sufficient to rule out owning a pit bull?

When we have statistical facts, we use them.

When we don't, we're forced to make judgment calls.

2 years olds grab dogs' eyeballs and stick their arms down dogs' throats.

Hope that clears your confusion.

And sometimes pit bulls snap and attack unprovoked, such as the story in the OP. Is a ten year old materially less defenseless against a deranged pit bull than a two year old? Or are you only concerned about the relative risk posed by the curiosity of a 2yr old?

 

[G.T.]

Speaking on those statistics:


If 0.008% of pit bulls are attackers, I would assume:

-Of the 0.008% who attack, there's likely many caused by the emotional immaturity of the owner or of the attacked. Meaning - the data is skewed higher because of abusive owners or kids who grab eyeballs. Most likely. I think it's safe to assume that in a caring home with none of the aforementioned behavior, pit bulls are even SAFER than 99.992%, but LESS SAFE for the emotionally immature.

 

[G.T.]

[MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]

So is it data or common sense that brings you to conclude that owning a pit bull with a 2yr old kid is too risky, but once the kids reaches age 10, the risk is no longer sufficient to rule out owning a pit bull?

When we have statistical facts, we use them.

When we don't, we're forced to make judgment calls.

2 years olds grab dogs' eyeballs and stick their arms down dogs' throats.

Hope that clears your confusion.

And sometimes pit bulls snap and attack unprovoked, such as the story in the OP. Is a ten year old materially less defenseless against a deranged pit bull than a two year old? Or are you only concerned about the relative risk posed by the curiosity of a 2yr old?

Relative risk, yepp.

I'd be wondering the % of pit bulls that attack unprovoked before I could answer this question, because in the case of the 2 year old I'm assuming ALL 2 year olds don't know how to handle a dog. I'd call that a "fair assumption."

In the case of a ten year old being attacked unprovoked, I'd wonder how many pit bulls attack unprovoked on average.

 

[manifold]

Speaking on those statistics:


If 0.008% of pit bulls are attackers, I would assume:

-Of the 0.008% who attack, there's likely many caused by the emotional immaturity of the owner or of the attacked. Meaning - the data is skewed higher because of abusive owners or kids who grab eyeballs. Most likely. I think it's safe to assume that in a caring home with none of the aforementioned behavior, pit bulls are even SAFER than 99.992%, but LESS SAFE for the emotionally immature.

I'm not debating the fact that a 2yr old is more likely to be "asking for it" than a 10 year old.

I'm saying I'd be no more accepting of the potential consequences of a pit bull attack for a 10 year old than I am for a 2yr old, regardless of the probability of an attack occurring.

But if you're comfortable owning a pit bull once your kid reaches age 10, have at it Wild Bill, just beware of aces and eights.

 

[G.T.]

Speaking on those statistics:


If 0.008% of pit bulls are attackers, I would assume:

-Of the 0.008% who attack, there's likely many caused by the emotional immaturity of the owner or of the attacked. Meaning - the data is skewed higher because of abusive owners or kids who grab eyeballs. Most likely. I think it's safe to assume that in a caring home with none of the aforementioned behavior, pit bulls are even SAFER than 99.992%, but LESS SAFE for the emotionally immature.

I'm not debating the fact that a 2yr old is more likely to be "asking for it" than a 10 year old.

I'm saying I'd be no more accepting of the potential consequences of a pit bull attack for a 10 year old than I am for a 2yr old, regardless of the probability of an attack occurring.

But if you're comfortable owning a pit bull once your kid reaches age 10, have at it Wild Bill, just beware of aces and eights.

The potential is close to 0.

There are so many more voluntary things people subject themselves and their kids to that are more dangerous, that it's disingenuous to characterize a relatively low risk behavior (pit bull ownership) as "dangerous" because of the sensationalized stories of those fallen to said tiny risk - ESPECIALLY when it's likely that a lot of those attacks have a lot more going on with them then just an unprovoked innocent dog turned wild.

 

[BullKurtz]

A converse question, is: is a situation where you would be completely unharmed 99.992% of the time considered an "unsafe" situation?

And aside from that, we don't even know what percentage of that 0.008% of pit who kill were raised by seething, abusive retards. Your risk might even be far less.

WTF is the matter with you? Your useless replies are making this thread unreadable....you're nowhere near the topic in question nagging about probabilities...if you want risk analysis check out what insurance companies have to say about Pits instead of nagging others to do it for you.....fuck off.

 

[G.T.]

A converse question, is: is a situation where you would be completely unharmed 99.992% of the time considered an "unsafe" situation?

And aside from that, we don't even know what percentage of that 0.008% of pit who kill were raised by seething, abusive retards. Your risk might even be far less.

WTF is the matter with you? Your useless replies are making this thread unreadable....you're nowhere near the topic in question nagging about probabilities...if you want risk analysis check out what insurance companies have to say about Pits instead of nagging others to do it for you.....fuck off.

^ what does this say? I can't read it.

 

[koshergrl]

When we have statistical facts, we use them.

When we don't, we're forced to make judgment calls.

2 years olds grab dogs' eyeballs and stick their arms down dogs' throats.

Hope that clears your confusion.

And sometimes pit bulls snap and attack unprovoked, such as the story in the OP. Is a ten year old materially less defenseless against a deranged pit bull than a two year old? Or are you only concerned about the relative risk posed by the curiosity of a 2yr old?

Relative risk, yepp.

I'd be wondering the % of pit bulls that attack unprovoked before I could answer this question, because in the case of the 2 year old I'm assuming ALL 2 year olds don't know how to handle a dog. I'd call that a "fair assumption."

In the case of a ten year old being attacked unprovoked, I'd wonder how many pit bulls attack unprovoked on average.

Any dog has the potential to "attack, unprovoked". The thing is, just because a human doesn't see the potential there doesn't mean there haven't been warning signs.

A person might consider the family husky who pulls a toddler out of it's crib and drags it down the hall to kill it as "unprovoked" but in fact, the dog is just acting like a dog.

 

[BullKurtz]

Any dog has the potential to "attack, unprovoked". The thing is, just because a human doesn't see the potential there doesn't mean there haven't been warning signs.

A person might consider the family husky who pulls a toddler out of it's crib and drags it down the hall to kill it as "unprovoked" but in fact, the dog is just acting like a dog.

When I was almost a year old my mom was outside hanging laundry on the clothes line when the phone rang and she went inside to answer it. We had a collie named Mack who rarely came inside and was a tough customer who had never laid eyes on me before. Mack could leap up into the apple tree with my sister, once dragged a guy off a passing motorcycle, and is thought to have fought off a bear during a stay with a family friend in northern Michigan.

So I'm sitting on a blanket in the yard and guess what....here comes Mack back from some adventure out in the field behind the house. My mom looks out the window and sees Mack standing over me looking part curious, part menacing. He could have snapped my neck with a single grab and my mom panicked, ran out on the porch and screamed: "MACK NO!"

Mack leaped straight up in the air as the story goes and ran away for almost a week. Lucky for me I had the family scent on me or Mom woulda have been too late to save me. Whether it's from hearing the story told or my brain being able to recall an event at such a young age, I believe I recall the image of the massive beast staring down at me... and giving me a little lick on the nose before my Mom scared the beejeebers out of him.