User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 10:02:04 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because I don't want people to have pit bulls. Because I want to ban pit bulls. Because I want pit bulls eradicated. Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you stated your reason for starting this thread. Of all the news stories that are out there, why post this one? Arbitrary? Favorite topic? Personal connection to the victim? No? Because I don't want people to have pit bulls. Because I want to ban pit bulls. Because I want pit bulls eradicated. Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. You post stories about children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value? Okay. Hey, whatever floats your boat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 10:19:11 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You post stories about children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value? Okay. Hey, whatever floats your boat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you stated your reason for starting this thread. Of all the news stories that are out there, why post this one? Arbitrary? Favorite topic? Personal connection to the victim? No? Because I don't want people to have pit bulls. Because I want to ban pit bulls. Because I want pit bulls eradicated. Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. You post stories about children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value? Okay. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I engage in discussions, you troll. To each his own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 11:01:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I engage in discussions, you troll. To each his own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you stated your reason for starting this thread. Of all the news stories that are out there, why post this one? Arbitrary? Favorite topic? Personal connection to the victim? No? Because I don't want people to have pit bulls. Because I want to ban pit bulls. Because I want pit bulls eradicated. Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. You post stories about children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value? Okay. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I engage in discussions, you troll. To each his own. You post stories of children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value. To each his own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 11:05:06 AM EDT
[#4]
Trash breed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 11:08:48 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not compare dogs to guns. That's a red herring. I compare people who seek to shine the spotlight on certain issues, and the similarities between the people who do so. People choose stories and post them for a reason. If they refuse to state a reason, you can be assured that they most certainly have an agenda. YOU have been straight forward and honest about why you choose to make a case against certain dog breeds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not that the info is would be false. The best propaganda is always true. There is no doubt that stories of pit bull attacks are pushed to the forefront far more than other stories. When anti gun activists try to create the atmosphere where gun violence is an "epidemic," they do the very same thing. Again, this does not compare the guns to the dogs, it compares the activists. Irrelevant. Dogs are not guns. This is where your confusion is getting the better of you and running away with itself. OP has not made any claim that dogs should be banned. He is not being an activist. He has reported that a child has been killed in a dog attack. The pattern of repeated deaths being caused by the same type of dog reported in the link is not something that the OP has any control over, nor does he hold any of the responsibility for the perception of others. he has merely reported what he reasonably believes to be a factual report about a child being liked by a dog. Wile you and several others have done your level best to muddy the waters around this irrefutable incident and divert all possible attention from the possibility that the dog was of a particular type and are trying to change the narrative to make the OP out to be the bad guy in this. Why are you trying to draw parallels that do not exist in order to undermine what is a perfectly reasonable report of an incident in which a child tragically lost their life? I do not compare dogs to guns. That's a red herring. I compare people who seek to shine the spotlight on certain issues, and the similarities between the people who do so. People choose stories and post them for a reason. If they refuse to state a reason, you can be assured that they most certainly have an agenda. YOU have been straight forward and honest about why you choose to make a case against certain dog breeds. I haven't made a case against certain dog breeds though, mate. I make the case for debate which openly and honestly considers the factors and information at hand. That is all. I'm in no position to draw any definitive conclusion and remain open minded on the subject. What I find odd is that whenever this subject comes up, some people become very defensive and start with the ad-hominem attacks instead of debating and discussing sensibly. It is clearly a subject of interest so why not have the debate? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 11:18:20 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You post stories of children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value. To each his own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you stated your reason for starting this thread. Of all the news stories that are out there, why post this one? Arbitrary? Favorite topic? Personal connection to the victim? No? Because I don't want people to have pit bulls. Because I want to ban pit bulls. Because I want pit bulls eradicated. Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. You post stories about children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value? Okay. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I engage in discussions, you troll. To each his own. You post stories of children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value. To each his own. Discussion and debate is entertaining and stimulating. The subject matter in this case revolves around a tragedy but it is a very interesting topic of discussion because it of the breadth of opinion generated by the subject. While you apparently disagree and don't particularly care that another child has died under these circumstances (as you stated towards the bottom of Page 2 of this thread), the death of a child under these circumstances is something that others feel strongly about and feel it is worthy of debate. Now, while this attempt by you to derail the thread by making it "a debate about debating" is all rather amusing, why not just state your case about the subject rather than keep criticising the subject matter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 11:39:43 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You post stories of children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value. To each his own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because I don't want people to have pit bulls. Because I want to ban pit bulls. Because I want pit bulls eradicated. Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. You post stories about children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value? Okay. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I engage in discussions, you troll. To each his own. You post stories of children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value. To each his own. Try to at least maintain some semblance of honesty. Quote my entire post, rather than picking the parts that fit your agenda. Here, I'll help you... Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. The same reason EVERY OTHER THREAD is posted in GD. Lots of people have stepped in here and expressed negative opinions of pit bulls, and I share their opinion. Opinions and agendas are not the same thing. People start threads about thugs acting up, too. What is their agenda? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 12:33:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Discussion and debate is entertaining and stimulating. The subject matter in this case revolves around a tragedy but it is a very interesting topic of discussion because it of the breadth of opinion generated by the subject. While you apparently disagree and don't particularly care that another child has died under these circumstances (as you stated towards the bottom of Page 2 of this thread), the death of a child under these circumstances is something that others feel strongly about and feel it is worthy of debate. Now, while this attempt by you to derail the thread by making it "a debate about debating" is all rather amusing, why not just state your case about the subject rather than keep criticising the subject matter? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because I don't want people to have pit bulls. Because I want to ban pit bulls. Because I want pit bulls eradicated. Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. You post stories about children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value? Okay. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I engage in discussions, you troll. To each his own. You post stories of children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value. To each his own. Discussion and debate is entertaining and stimulating. The subject matter in this case revolves around a tragedy but it is a very interesting topic of discussion because it of the breadth of opinion generated by the subject. While you apparently disagree and don't particularly care that another child has died under these circumstances (as you stated towards the bottom of Page 2 of this thread), the death of a child under these circumstances is something that others feel strongly about and feel it is worthy of debate. Now, while this attempt by you to derail the thread by making it "a debate about debating" is all rather amusing, why not just state your case about the subject rather than keep criticising the subject matter? Because that is what I choose to discuss. I feel it is a worthy topic. You clearly disagree, and that is a discussion. I'm not telling anyone to not say stuff or to say something else. Why are you? This thread began with a link and a story and no commentary. Why would YOU presume then that there is a predetermined path for the discussion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 12:41:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Try to at least maintain some semblance of honesty. Quote my entire post, rather than picking the parts that fit your agenda. Here, I'll help you... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because I don't want people to have pit bulls. Because I want to ban pit bulls. Because I want pit bulls eradicated. Because I knew it would spark a lively discussion with high entertainment value. You post stories about children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value? Okay. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I engage in discussions, you troll. To each his own. You post stories of children mauled by dogs for the entertainment value. To each his own. Try to at least maintain some semblance of honesty. Quote my entire post, rather than picking the parts that fit your agenda. Here, I'll help you... Oh, boo hoo. 
Your words are your words. They are not at all taken out of context. Own them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 1:04:40 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honestly.......very few her care about what goes on in DU. Only you and a few others seem to have a bit obsession with it. If you don't like the threads here then do us all a favour and roll on back over to DU. Yet again, this is a thread about a horrific dog atack and some here are trying to equate dogs in some way to firearms in an effort to somehow defend the indefensible. They are not the same......they are not even similar. Sorry, I forgot to think of the children for a minute there. We should get back to not talking about banning pit bulls or passing new laws, and just remember that a child was killed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 1:06:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe you could beef your point up with some statistics instead of feels? If Labs, Rottweillers, Keeshonds or Jack Russells are killing and severely injuring as many people as Pits appear to be doing, then you would have the grounds for a good debate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: not the breed of peace again? How about always. It's more like half, as long as you stretch the definition of pit bull. Unless you're talking about arfcom threads. No one here gives a shit when a lab, or rottweiler, or keeshond, or jack russell kills someone. Poor Rottweilers. You used to soil so many undergarments. Maybe you could beef your point up with some statistics instead of feels? If Labs, Rottweillers, Keeshonds or Jack Russells are killing and severely injuring as many people as Pits appear to be doing, then you would have the grounds for a good debate. I'm the one trying to jack up my point with feels? Pit bulls kill a dozen people a year, at most. There's nothing to debate. It's a non-issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 1:06:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, boo hoo.
Your words are your words. They are not at all taken out of context. Own them. Where do you get that? 
I posted a thread about a boy that was tragically mauled to death by a dog. Any discussion is entertaining, and this one is about the trash dog that mauled him. If you want to try to twist it into my getting entertainment out of a boy dying, have fun with that, but you and everyone else knows its bullshit. Why don't you try to have an intelligent conversation about pit bulls, rather than posting drivel? Are you not capable of it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 1:10:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where do you get that? I posted a thread about a boy that was tragically mauled to death by a dog. Any discussion is entertaining, and this one is about the trash dog that mauled him. If you want to try to twist it into my getting entertainment out of a boy dying, have fun with that, but you and everyone else knows its bullshit. Why don't you try to have an intelligent conversation about pit bulls, rather than posting drivel? Are you not capable of it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Oh, boo hoo. Your words are your words. They are not at all taken out of context. Own them. Where do you get that? I posted a thread about a boy that was tragically mauled to death by a dog. Any discussion is entertaining, and this one is about the trash dog that mauled him. If you want to try to twist it into my getting entertainment out of a boy dying, have fun with that, but you and everyone else knows its bullshit. Why don't you try to have an intelligent conversation about pit bulls, rather than posting drivel? Are you not capable of it?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 1:14:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where do you get that?
I posted a thread about a boy that was tragically mauled to death by a dog. Any discussion is entertaining, and this one is about the trash dog that mauled him. If you want to try to twist it into my getting entertainment out of a boy dying, have fun with that, but you and everyone else knows its bullshit. Why don't you try to have an intelligent conversation about pit bulls, rather than posting drivel? Are you not capable of it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh, boo hoo.
Your words are your words. They are not at all taken out of context. Own them. Where do you get that?
I posted a thread about a boy that was tragically mauled to death by a dog. Any discussion is entertaining, and this one is about the trash dog that mauled him. If you want to try to twist it into my getting entertainment out of a boy dying, have fun with that, but you and everyone else knows its bullshit. Why don't you try to have an intelligent conversation about pit bulls, rather than posting drivel? Are you not capable of it? Stop playing the mewling victim. I've twisted nothing. I made no editorial comments regarding your clearly stated propensity for finding "entertainment value" in discussions about kids being mauled by dogs. Whatever floats your boat. I am engaging in an intelligent conversation about your thread. You just don't like it. Oh well... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 1:43:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stop playing the mewling victim. I've twisted nothing. I made no editorial comments regarding your clearly stated propensity for finding "entertainment value" in discussions about kids being mauled by dogs. Whatever floats your boat. I am engaging in an intelligent conversation about your thread. You just don't like it. Oh well... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, boo hoo.
Your words are your words. They are not at all taken out of context. Own them. Where do you get that?
I posted a thread about a boy that was tragically mauled to death by a dog. Any discussion is entertaining, and this one is about the trash dog that mauled him. If you want to try to twist it into my getting entertainment out of a boy dying, have fun with that, but you and everyone else knows its bullshit. Why don't you try to have an intelligent conversation about pit bulls, rather than posting drivel? Are you not capable of it? Stop playing the mewling victim. I've twisted nothing. I made no editorial comments regarding your clearly stated propensity for finding "entertainment value" in discussions about kids being mauled by dogs. Whatever floats your boat. I am engaging in an intelligent conversation about your thread. You just don't like it. Oh well... I'm not playing the victim at all. I'm just at a loss to understand why you would choose to troll this thread, rather than having a discussion about the dogs that you clearly care so much about. It leaves me to conclude that you have absolutely no defense at all to the general consensus in this thread that they are a trash breed. Otherwise you would defend them, rather than attack me. You don't bother me at all. I have an ignore button, the same as everyone else. As I said, the entertainment is in the debate. I just think that it's rather sad that you have nothing more meaningful to contribute in support of something you came in here to defend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 1:51:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Breed of peace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 2:05:00 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not playing the victim at all. I'm just at a loss to understand why you would choose to troll this thread, rather than having a discussion about the dogs that you clearly care so much about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I posted a thread about a boy that was tragically mauled to death by a dog. Any discussion is entertaining, and this one is about the trash dog that mauled him. If you want to try to twist it into my getting entertainment out of a boy dying, have fun with that, but you and everyone else knows its bullshit. Why don't you try to have an intelligent conversation about pit bulls, rather than posting drivel? Are you not capable of it? Stop playing the mewling victim. I've twisted nothing. I made no editorial comments regarding your clearly stated propensity for finding "entertainment value" in discussions about kids being mauled by dogs. Whatever floats your boat. I am engaging in an intelligent conversation about your thread. You just don't like it. Oh well... I'm not playing the victim at all. I'm just at a loss to understand why you would choose to troll this thread, rather than having a discussion about the dogs that you clearly care so much about. Since when are you the decider of how a discussion goes? You post a link and add no commentary, and then you demand that the discussion occurs within unspoken parameters established by YOU -and if not it's "trolling"? Oh, please.
It leaves me to conclude that you have absolutely no defense at all to the general consensus in this thread that they are a trash breed. Otherwise you would defend them, rather than attack me. You don't bother me at all. I have an ignore button, the same as everyone else. As I said, the entertainment is in the debate. I just think that it's rather sad that you have nothing more meaningful to contribute in support of something you came in here to defend.
No one's attacking you, sweetheart. Stop playing the victim -it's getting old. Why I must take the side of defending a "trash breed"? Because YOU say so? . Why can't I discuss the main stream media, their obsession with pit bull attacks, and their allies in the ARFCOM GD? Because YOU say so? The mainstream media and those who regurgitate their stories is just as valid a facet of this topic as any other. It highlights the very same emotion based activism and propaganda being used by the main stream media to attack gun rights. In fact, seeing the issue through such a lens actually makes it more appropriate a discussion for a pro-gun board such as ARFCOM. Everyone has an agenda. Not everyone is honest about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 2:28:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why can't I discuss the main stream media's obsession with pit bull attacks, and their allies in the ARFCOM GD? I think it is just as valid a facet of this topic as any other. It highlights the very same emotion based activism and propaganda being used by the main stream media to attack gun rights. In fact, seeing the issue through such a lens actually makes it more appropriate a discussion for a pro-gun board such as ARFCOM. Everyone has an agenda. Not everyone is honest about it. There are two things wrong with that argument. First, the anti-gun agenda is emotionally driven because, unlike this issue, the facts and statistics don't support it. In fact, your position in the pit bull debate is the same as the anti-gunner, because there are no facts or statistics to support your case, (other than pictures of puppies with babies). You are in the emotional camp. Second, an opinion is not an agenda. Whatever agenda I may have, it is not to ban pit bulls. Nor has anyone else mentioned it at all. As I said, I couldn't care less, and I'm generally apposed to banning anything. I'm perfectly capable of staying away from them if I choose. I posted this thread about a boy getting killed. If it had been any other kind of dog, I would have still posted it. In fact, I've started threads on every story I've ever seen in the news about someone getting killed by dogs other than pit bulls. I'd share the links, but there aren't any. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 2:29:16 PM EDT
[#19]
I see the flat bill crew has arrived.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 2:38:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see the flat bill crew has arrived. werd |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 3:00:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are two things wrong with that argument. First, the anti-gun agenda is emotionally driven because, unlike this issue, the facts and statistics don't support it. In fact, your position in the pit bull debate is the same as the anti-gunner, because there are no facts or statistics to support your case, (other than pictures of puppies with babies). You are in the emotional camp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why can't I discuss the main stream media's obsession with pit bull attacks, and their allies in the ARFCOM GD? I think it is just as valid a facet of this topic as any other. It highlights the very same emotion based activism and propaganda being used by the main stream media to attack gun rights. In fact, seeing the issue through such a lens actually makes it more appropriate a discussion for a pro-gun board such as ARFCOM. Everyone has an agenda. Not everyone is honest about it. There are two things wrong with that argument. First, the anti-gun agenda is emotionally driven because, unlike this issue, the facts and statistics don't support it. In fact, your position in the pit bull debate is the same as the anti-gunner, because there are no facts or statistics to support your case, (other than pictures of puppies with babies). You are in the emotional camp. Second, an opinion is not an agenda. Whatever agenda I may have, it is not to ban pit bulls. Nor has anyone else mentioned it at all. As I said, I couldn't care less, and I'm generally apposed to banning anything. I'm perfectly capable of staying away from them if I choose. I posted this thread about a boy getting killed. If it had been any other kind of dog, I would have still posted it. In fact, I've started threads on every story I've ever seen in the news about someone getting killed by dogs other than pit bulls. I'd share the links, but there aren't any. Here you go, man. This should keep you "entertained" for a while. Here's some non-pit bull dog attack links that you can use to start new threads -being that this is your thing, and all... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115038/5-year-old-savaged-dog-attack.html http://www.themorningsun.com/general-news/20150505/nearby-worker-saves-boy-8-from-four-dog-attack http://www.adn.com/article/20150525/child-unalakleet-suffers-severe-injuries-dog-attack http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/11/boy-4-has-leg-amputated-after-hesperia-dog-attack/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/staffordshire-dog-attack-french-mastiff-5445209 http://ktla.com/2014/11/15/boy-2-suffers-extremely-critical-injuries-in-dog-attack-at-riverside-county-park/ http://www.wisn.com/news/child-killed-in-hustisford-dog-attack-identified/29358492 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Kitsap-Co-dog-attack-leaves-5-year-old-girl-in-critical-condition-288480221.html 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:17:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, I forgot to think of the children for a minute there. We should get back to not talking about banning pit bulls or passing new laws, and just remember that a child was killed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Honestly.......very few her care about what goes on in DU. Only you and a few others seem to have a bit obsession with it. If you don't like the threads here then do us all a favour and roll on back over to DU. Yet again, this is a thread about a horrific dog atack and some here are trying to equate dogs in some way to firearms in an effort to somehow defend the indefensible. They are not the same......they are not even similar. Sorry, I forgot to think of the children for a minute there. We should get back to not talking about banning pit bulls or passing new laws, and just remember that a child was killed. LOL'd
The only people taking about banning pit bulls here are you and a few other irrational sorts who seem to have taken it upon yourselves to to come out of your kennels, get up on your back legs and start yapping defensivelyfor no apparent reason about banning dogs. Now, amusing as your "feels" are, and as fun as it is to watch you attempt to crap all over a discussion thread with your irrational bleatings, I have to ask whether you have anything constructive to add to the discussion other than your professed love of DU and their gun loving ways? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:18:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
THAT is my position? I did not know that. It reeks of a straw-man. Would that make things easier for you?
Here you go, man. This should keep you "entertained" for a while. Here's some non-pit bull dog attack links that you can use to start new threads -being that this is your thing, and all... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115038/5-year-old-savaged-dog-attack.html http://www.themorningsun.com/general-news/20150505/nearby-worker-saves-boy-8-from-four-dog-attack http://www.adn.com/article/20150525/child-unalakleet-suffers-severe-injuries-dog-attack http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/11/boy-4-has-leg-amputated-after-hesperia-dog-attack/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/staffordshire-dog-attack-french-mastiff-5445209 http://ktla.com/2014/11/15/boy-2-suffers-extremely-critical-injuries-in-dog-attack-at-riverside-county-park/ http://www.wisn.com/news/child-killed-in-hustisford-dog-attack-identified/29358492 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Kitsap-Co-dog-attack-leaves-5-year-old-girl-in-critical-condition-288480221.html
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why can't I discuss the main stream media's obsession with pit bull attacks, and their allies in the ARFCOM GD? I think it is just as valid a facet of this topic as any other. It highlights the very same emotion based activism and propaganda being used by the main stream media to attack gun rights. In fact, seeing the issue through such a lens actually makes it more appropriate a discussion for a pro-gun board such as ARFCOM. Everyone has an agenda. Not everyone is honest about it. There are two things wrong with that argument. First, the anti-gun agenda is emotionally driven because, unlike this issue, the facts and statistics don't support it. In fact, your position in the pit bull debate is the same as the anti-gunner, because there are no facts or statistics to support your case, (other than pictures of puppies with babies). You are in the emotional camp. Second, an opinion is not an agenda. Whatever agenda I may have, it is not to ban pit bulls. Nor has anyone else mentioned it at all. As I said, I couldn't care less, and I'm generally apposed to banning anything. I'm perfectly capable of staying away from them if I choose. I posted this thread about a boy getting killed. If it had been any other kind of dog, I would have still posted it. In fact, I've started threads on every story I've ever seen in the news about someone getting killed by dogs other than pit bulls. I'd share the links, but there aren't any. Here you go, man. This should keep you "entertained" for a while. Here's some non-pit bull dog attack links that you can use to start new threads -being that this is your thing, and all... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115038/5-year-old-savaged-dog-attack.html http://www.themorningsun.com/general-news/20150505/nearby-worker-saves-boy-8-from-four-dog-attack http://www.adn.com/article/20150525/child-unalakleet-suffers-severe-injuries-dog-attack http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/11/boy-4-has-leg-amputated-after-hesperia-dog-attack/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/staffordshire-dog-attack-french-mastiff-5445209 http://ktla.com/2014/11/15/boy-2-suffers-extremely-critical-injuries-in-dog-attack-at-riverside-county-park/ http://www.wisn.com/news/child-killed-in-hustisford-dog-attack-identified/29358492 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Kitsap-Co-dog-attack-leaves-5-year-old-girl-in-critical-condition-288480221.html
Sad. I can't imagine what it would be like to be attacked like that, or worse yet - be a parent of a child who was attacked. So now lets talk about dogs. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that other dogs never attack, and I don't believe that pit bulls are necessarily more likely to attack than other breeds. In that, I completely agree that the way they are raised, trained, and controlled is the main factor. What I believe, and have witnessed myself, is that it's the nature of the attack that gives them their reputation. They instinctively go for the throat, and are relentless once in attack mode. That is what sets them apart from most other breeds. About 25 years ago, I had a 6 or 8 year old Great Dane that we had raised from a pup. One day, my son and I were wrestling with the dog as we often did. I got the bright idea to throw a blanket over him and tackle him to the ground. As soon as he couldn't see, and I grabbed him, he absolutely freaked out. The conscious part of his brain switched off, and he went into pure instinct mode. He rolled me across the ground like a toy, while trying to bite the back of my head (or neck?) about three times. Fortunately, he couldn't get a grip before I wrenched away. He got my upper arm, and got one tooth in before everyone screaming at him brought him to his senses. Then he was right back to licking my face. That taught me a couple of things. First, dogs are crazy strong, and if they want to eat you, there isn't much you can do about it. Second, there is stuff hard wired in their brains that no amount of nurturing or training can completely suppress. I commented earlier in this thread about the pit puppies at the dog park consistently going for the throats of the other dogs. Someone else said the same thing. That is hard wired into them. I'm sure there are lots of other dogs that are the same way. They also have that berserker mode like my great dane, only screaming at them doesn't snap them out of it. Add to that their jaw and overall strength, and you have a dangerous dog. That's my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:27:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that other dogs never attack... Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that other dogs never attack... Quoted:
...In fact, I've started threads on every story I've ever seen in the news about someone getting killed by dogs other than pit bulls. I'd share the links, but there aren't any. 
Yes, big strong dogs are more dangerous than little weak dogs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:30:29 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm the one trying to jack up my point with feels?
Pit bulls kill a dozen people a year, at most. There's nothing to debate. It's a non-issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's more like half, as long as you stretch the definition of pit bull. Unless you're talking about arfcom threads. No one here gives a shit when a lab, or rottweiler, or keeshond, or jack russell kills someone. Poor Rottweilers. You used to soil so many undergarments. Maybe you could beef your point up with some statistics instead of feels? If Labs, Rottweillers, Keeshonds or Jack Russells are killing and severely injuring as many people as Pits appear to be doing, then you would have the grounds for a good debate.
I'm the one trying to jack up my point with feels?
Pit bulls kill a dozen people a year, at most. There's nothing to debate. It's a non-issue. Really? So a dozen dozen people allegedly being killed by a supposedly loving, cuddly, "never would have imagined it" family pet doesn't register even a bit of concern for you? The deaths are the tip of the iceberg really. What about the cost of investigating these deaths, the inquests, the criminal sanctions and police time, the public resources and damage it does to the reputation of the breed.....none of that matters either? What about the the thousands of people they do not kill, but injure, and the attacks they make on other people's dogs? What about the costs of medical treatment, hospital bills, effects on insurance premiums, and on the medicare bill? What about vets bills and the cost of litigation? Hell, if you had an ounce of intelligence you would have gone away and considered those very statistics and compared them to the rate of injuries and attacks on other dogs for other breeds, and them come back and joined the discussion with something useful. Instead however, it appears a rational approach to the debate slipped away from you as you descended into the pubescent rantings of a pre-menstrual teen princess and opted for the ad-hominem hissy fit in an effort to undermine a debate where you could have had a very interesting input in setting the record straight. I guess you don't have what it take to conduct yourself in a sensible manner. Rather a shame really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:33:00 PM EDT
[#26]
The place looks like a Sh*t Hole. No the first time something bad happend there.
Same Block Google Street View Oct 2014 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:33:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell, if you had an ounce of intelligence you would have gone away and considered those very statistics and compared them to the rate of injuries and attacks on other dogs for other breeds, and them come back and joined the discussion with something useful. Instead however, it appears a rational approach to the debate slipped away from you as you descended into the pubescent rantings of a pre-menstrual teen princess and opted for the ad-hominem hissy fit in an effort to undermine a debate where you could have had a very interesting input in setting the record straight. I guess you don't have what it take to conduct yourself in a sensible manner. Rather a shame really. Yes, God forbid we lapse into ad-hominem hissy fits....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:33:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that other dogs never attack... Quoted:
...In fact, I've started threads on every story I've ever seen in the news about someone getting killed by dogs other than pit bulls. I'd share the links, but there aren't any. A rather literal assumption of meaning on your part there, mate.
I think he means right now - there don't appear to be any stories of other breeds killing people within the last few days. We all know that whenever these threads appear it is just a matter of time before someone posts the story of the labrador that killed a baby, Same one every time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:33:50 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL'd The only people taking about banning pit bulls here are you and a few other irrational sorts who seem to have taken it upon yourselves to to come out of your kennels, get up on your back legs and start yapping defensivelyfor no apparent reason about banning dogs. Now, amusing as your "feels" are, and as fun as it is to watch you attempt to crap all over a discussion thread with your irrational bleatings, I have to ask whether you have anything constructive to add to the discussion other than your professed love of DU and their gun loving ways? I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. The problem there is you'd actually need some statistics to back up whatever it is you support doing or not doing. Deciding what you want to do and supporting that position might help too. Concern trolling is a pretty lame argument style. It doesn't work for the gun grabbers. I have no idea why you guys attempt to emulate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:35:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Really? So a dozen dozen people allegedly being killed by a supposedly loving, cuddly, "never would have imagined it" family pet doesn't register even a bit of concern for you? The deaths are the tip of the iceberg really. What about the cost of investigating these deaths, the inquests, the criminal sanctions and police time, the public resources and damage it does to the reputation of the breed.....none of that matters either? What about the the thousands of people they do not kill, but injure, and the attacks they make on other people's dogs? What about the costs of medical treatment, hospital bills, effects on insurance premiums, and on the medicare bill? What about vets bills and the cost of litigation? Hell, if you had an ounce of intelligence you would have gone away and considered those very statistics and compared them to the rate of injuries and attacks on other dogs for other breeds, and them come back and joined the discussion with something useful. Instead however, it appears a rational approach to the debate slipped away from you as you descended into the pubescent rantings of a pre-menstrual teen princess and opted for the ad-hominem hissy fit in an effort to undermine a debate where you could have had a very interesting input in setting the record straight. I guess you don't have what it take to conduct yourself in a sensible manner. Rather a shame really. I've seen this argument before... Somewhere.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:36:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, God forbid we lapse into ad-hominem hissy fits....
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hell, if you had an ounce of intelligence you would have gone away and considered those very statistics and compared them to the rate of injuries and attacks on other dogs for other breeds, and them come back and joined the discussion with something useful. Instead however, it appears a rational approach to the debate slipped away from you as you descended into the pubescent rantings of a pre-menstrual teen princess and opted for the ad-hominem hissy fit in an effort to undermine a debate where you could have had a very interesting input in setting the record straight. I guess you don't have what it take to conduct yourself in a sensible manner. Rather a shame really. Yes, God forbid we lapse into ad-hominem hissy fits....
I plead innocent, M'Lud. 
I was merely using the grace of the English language to point out the preposterous nature of the the poster's avoidance of the subject, and attempting to inject a little good natured comedy into the debate for your amusement. I see that my intentions have indeed met with your approval and amusement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:37:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A rather literal assumption of meaning on your part there, mate.
I think he means right now - there don't appear to be any stories of other breeds killing people within the last few days. We all know that whenever these threads appear it is just a matter of time before someone posts the story of the labrador that killed a baby, Same one every time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that other dogs never attack... Quoted:
...In fact, I've started threads on every story I've ever seen in the news about someone getting killed by dogs other than pit bulls. I'd share the links, but there aren't any. A rather literal assumption of meaning on your part there, mate.
I think he means right now - there don't appear to be any stories of other breeds killing people within the last few days. We all know that whenever these threads appear it is just a matter of time before someone posts the story of the labrador that killed a baby, Same one every time. But I posted links to attacks that occurred within the past few days. Don't you care about those poor victims? How can you ignore their suffering? Not to mention, the cost of investigating these deaths, the inquests, the criminal sanctions and police time, the public resources, the costs of medical treatment, hospital bills, effects on insurance premiums, and on the medicare bill? What about vets bills and the cost of litigation? Don't you even care? (Your reply better have a frowny sad face )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:38:58 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. Is there something irrational about a single breed accounting for the overwhelming majority of deaths and serious maulings? I'm having a hard time figuring that out. If they're not a problem, 12 dead kids doesn't register a care (and the scores maimed or fucked up), and it's just the owners, then it SIMPLY HAS TO FOLLOW THAT breeds with much higher ownership rates should be showing a significant number of deaths/injuries/maulings. Yet, that's not the case. Help and irrational brother out here, with some logic. Go on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:43:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. The problem there is you'd actually need some statistics to back up whatever it is you support doing or not doing. Deciding what you want to do and supporting that position might help too. Concern trolling is a pretty lame argument style. It doesn't work for the gun grabbers. I have no idea why you guys attempt to emulate it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
LOL'd
The only people taking about banning pit bulls here are you and a few other irrational sorts who seem to have taken it upon yourselves to to come out of your kennels, get up on your back legs and start yapping defensivelyfor no apparent reason about banning dogs. Now, amusing as your "feels" are, and as fun as it is to watch you attempt to crap all over a discussion thread with your irrational bleatings, I have to ask whether you have anything constructive to add to the discussion other than your professed love of DU and their gun loving ways? I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. The problem there is you'd actually need some statistics to back up whatever it is you support doing or not doing. Deciding what you want to do and supporting that position might help too. Concern trolling is a pretty lame argument style. It doesn't work for the gun grabbers. I have no idea why you guys attempt to emulate it. It's not difficult to appear rational in these conversations to be honest. 
What stats are you referring to? The only statistic pointed out before you lost the plot was that one five year old child had tragically been killed by a dog identified as pit bull type. If you now want statistics then by all means feel free to go and fetch the ones you want and share them for us all see. Nobody else is having a hissy fit about this apart form you. You seem to have read the thread title, read the article and then come into the thread swinging haymakers while high on "feels" and rambling on about banning dogs.....which nobody else has thus far suggested as a course of action. Feel free to bring something to the table by way of rational endeavour and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Honestly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:45:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is there something irrational about a single breed accounting for the overwhelming majority of deaths and serious maulings? I'm having a hard time figuring that out. If they're not a problem, 12 dead kids doesn't register a care (and the scores maimed or fucked up), and it's just the owners, then it SIMPLY HAS TO FOLLOW THAT breeds with much higher ownership rates should be showing a significant number of deaths/injuries/maulings. Yet, that's not the case. Help and irrational brother out here, with some logic. Go on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. Is there something irrational about a single breed accounting for the overwhelming majority of deaths and serious maulings? I'm having a hard time figuring that out. If they're not a problem, 12 dead kids doesn't register a care (and the scores maimed or fucked up), and it's just the owners, then it SIMPLY HAS TO FOLLOW THAT breeds with much higher ownership rates should be showing a significant number of deaths/injuries/maulings. Yet, that's not the case. Help and irrational brother out here, with some logic. Go on. Maybe half isn't an overwhelming majority, for one thing. Twelve deaths isn't a significant number, for another. Not all of them are kids, either. There simply aren't any numbers out there that support getting worked up about pit bulls. If you think there are, why aren't you getting worked up about AR-15 owners? There's roughly the same number of those as there are pit bulls and they kill a lot more people each year than the dogs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:48:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But I posted links to attacks that occurred within the past few days. Don't you care about those poor victims? How can you ignore their suffering? Not to mention, the cost of investigating these deaths, the inquests, the criminal sanctions and police time, the public resources, the costs of medical treatment, hospital bills, effects on insurance premiums, and on the medicare bill? What about vets bills and the cost of litigation? Don't you even care? (Your reply better have a frowny sad face )
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that other dogs never attack... Quoted:
...In fact, I've started threads on every story I've ever seen in the news about someone getting killed by dogs other than pit bulls. I'd share the links, but there aren't any. A rather literal assumption of meaning on your part there, mate.
I think he means right now - there don't appear to be any stories of other breeds killing people within the last few days. We all know that whenever these threads appear it is just a matter of time before someone posts the story of the labrador that killed a baby, Same one every time. But I posted links to attacks that occurred within the past few days. Don't you care about those poor victims? How can you ignore their suffering? Not to mention, the cost of investigating these deaths, the inquests, the criminal sanctions and police time, the public resources, the costs of medical treatment, hospital bills, effects on insurance premiums, and on the medicare bill? What about vets bills and the cost of litigation? Don't you even care? (Your reply better have a frowny sad face )
I didn't see your post mate - must have been one I missed sorry. I do indeed care about all those things regardless of breed. I would be very keen, in the interest of rational and credible risk assessment, to know where those reports stood in the context of other dog attacks and what the stats told us about where the highest risks lay, how big the costs were, and whether it would be cost effective or appropriate to take steps to reduce the number of attacks. Where is it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:48:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not difficult to appear rational in these conversations to be honest. What stats are you referring to? The only statistic pointed out before you lost the plot was that one five year old child had tragically been killed by a dog identified as pit bull type. If you now want statistics then by all means feel free to go and fetch the ones you want and share them for us all see. Nobody else is having a hissy fit about this apart form you. You seem to have read the thread title, read the article and then come into the thread swinging haymakers while high on "feels" and rambling on about banning dogs.....which nobody else has thus far suggested as a course of action. Feel free to bring something to the table by way of rational endeavour and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Honestly. You're really terrible at this. Here's some educational material to help you with your internet debating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:50:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there something irrational about a single breed accounting for the overwhelming majority of deaths and serious maulings? I'm having a hard time figuring that out. If they're not a problem, 12 dead kids doesn't register a care (and the scores maimed or fucked up), and it's just the owners, then it SIMPLY HAS TO FOLLOW THAT breeds with much higher ownership rates should be showing a significant number of deaths/injuries/maulings. Yet, that's not the case. Help and irrational brother out here, with some logic. Go on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. Is there something irrational about a single breed accounting for the overwhelming majority of deaths and serious maulings? I'm having a hard time figuring that out. If they're not a problem, 12 dead kids doesn't register a care (and the scores maimed or fucked up), and it's just the owners, then it SIMPLY HAS TO FOLLOW THAT breeds with much higher ownership rates should be showing a significant number of deaths/injuries/maulings. Yet, that's not the case. Help and irrational brother out here, with some logic. Go on. So, let's recap: 1) We have veterinary and animal behavior experts who have all, without fail, declared the role of breed in dog-human violence to be a non-factor. 2) We have statistical proof that visual identification of dogs is inaccurate more than 80% of the time. 3) We have identified actual factors in dog-human violence incidents, namely they mostly involve children and unaltered male dogs. Other factors include poor socialization. 4) EVERYTHING we know about the media says that they report for sensationalism, not truth, and they are not expected to identify a breed with any level of accuracy (nor are the people who own them). Any dog that bites becomes a pitbull even though that's not actually a breed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:51:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe half isn't an overwhelming majority, for one thing. Twelve deaths isn't a significant number, for another. Not all of them are kids, either. There simply aren't any numbers out there that support getting worked up about pit bulls. If you think there are, why aren't you getting worked up about AR-15 owners? There's roughly the same number of those as there are pit bulls and they kill a lot more people each year than the dogs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. Is there something irrational about a single breed accounting for the overwhelming majority of deaths and serious maulings? I'm having a hard time figuring that out. If they're not a problem, 12 dead kids doesn't register a care (and the scores maimed or fucked up), and it's just the owners, then it SIMPLY HAS TO FOLLOW THAT breeds with much higher ownership rates should be showing a significant number of deaths/injuries/maulings. Yet, that's not the case. Help and irrational brother out here, with some logic. Go on. Maybe half isn't an overwhelming majority, for one thing. Twelve deaths isn't a significant number, for another. Not all of them are kids, either. There simply aren't any numbers out there that support getting worked up about pit bulls. If you think there are, why aren't you getting worked up about AR-15 owners? There's roughly the same number of those as there are pit bulls and they kill a lot more people each year than the dogs. And here we are again - the irrational comparison between guns and dogs again. 
Dogs are not guns. Dogs have a mind of their own and can act of their own free will. A gun can't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:51:53 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't see your post mate - must have been one I missed sorry. I do indeed care about all those things regardless of breed. I would be very keen, in the interest of rational and credible risk assessment, to know where those reports stood in the context of other dog attacks and what the stats told us about where the highest risks lay, how big the costs were, and whether it would be cost effective or appropriate to take steps to reduce the number of attacks. Where is it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But I posted links to attacks that occurred within the past few days. Don't you care about those poor victims? How can you ignore their suffering? Not to mention, the cost of investigating these deaths, the inquests, the criminal sanctions and police time, the public resources, the costs of medical treatment, hospital bills, effects on insurance premiums, and on the medicare bill? What about vets bills and the cost of litigation? Don't you even care? (Your reply better have a frowny sad face )
I didn't see your post mate - must have been one I missed sorry. I do indeed care about all those things regardless of breed. I would be very keen, in the interest of rational and credible risk assessment, to know where those reports stood in the context of other dog attacks and what the stats told us about where the highest risks lay, how big the costs were, and whether it would be cost effective or appropriate to take steps to reduce the number of attacks. Where is it? From your own country, no less. You heartless beast, you waste all this time caring about some stranger in Chicago, when little Leah Preston is suffering in Wolverhamptoncheshireshire...
A little girl torn apart by savage dogs lay on her hospital bed as nurses pumped her full of painkillers and pleaded, "Mummy, please don't let them put me down,". Five-year-old Leah Preston heard the vicious animals who mauled her in Low Hill, Wolverhampton, had been destroyed and was worried she might be put to sleep, her family said. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115038/5-year-old-savaged-dog-attack.html#ixzz3bNGAGjax |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:51:54 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea, them little bastards have the heart and soul of a rotty. But it's sooooo cute! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Witnesses describe the dog as a dachshund, better known as the wiener dog, a dog bred for hunting dangerous small game." Son of a BITCH, I knew it was gonna be a dachshund again. Yea, them little bastards have the heart and soul of a rotty. But it's sooooo cute! I have both am I domed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:54:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're really terrible at this. Here's some educational material to help you with your internet debating. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not difficult to appear rational in these conversations to be honest.
What stats are you referring to? The only statistic pointed out before you lost the plot was that one five year old child had tragically been killed by a dog identified as pit bull type. If you now want statistics then by all means feel free to go and fetch the ones you want and share them for us all see. Nobody else is having a hissy fit about this apart form you. You seem to have read the thread title, read the article and then come into the thread swinging haymakers while high on "feels" and rambling on about banning dogs.....which nobody else has thus far suggested as a course of action. Feel free to bring something to the table by way of rational endeavour and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Honestly. You're really terrible at this. Here's some educational material to help you with your internet debating. Are you comparing guns to dogs again?
You know that silliness won't wash, old chap. Come on now. Can we please have a rational debate about this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:57:41 PM EDT
[#43]
This one's interesting:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2008%20Media%20Bias_1.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:57:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you comparing guns to dogs again?
You know that silliness won't wash, old chap. Come on now. Can we please have a rational debate about this? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not difficult to appear rational in these conversations to be honest.
What stats are you referring to? The only statistic pointed out before you lost the plot was that one five year old child had tragically been killed by a dog identified as pit bull type. If you now want statistics then by all means feel free to go and fetch the ones you want and share them for us all see. Nobody else is having a hissy fit about this apart form you. You seem to have read the thread title, read the article and then come into the thread swinging haymakers while high on "feels" and rambling on about banning dogs.....which nobody else has thus far suggested as a course of action. Feel free to bring something to the table by way of rational endeavour and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Honestly. You're really terrible at this. Here's some educational material to help you with your internet debating. Are you comparing guns to dogs again?
You know that silliness won't wash, old chap. Come on now. Can we please have a rational debate about this? No, we can't, because you're ignoring all of the evidence we present and just continuing on with your concern trolling. http://stubbydog.org/breed-discrimination-packet/breed-discrimination-packet/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:59:04 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, let's recap: 1) We have veterinary and animal behavior experts who have all, without fail, declared the role of breed in dog-human violence to be a non-factor. 2) We have statistical proof that visual identification of dogs is inaccurate more than 80% of the time. 3) We have identified actual factors in dog-human violence incidents, namely they mostly involve children and unaltered male dogs. Other factors include poor socialization. 4) EVERYTHING we know about the media says that they report for sensationalism, not truth, and they are not expected to identify a breed with any level of accuracy (nor are the people who own them). Any dog that bites becomes a pitbull even though that's not actually a breed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. Is there something irrational about a single breed accounting for the overwhelming majority of deaths and serious maulings? I'm having a hard time figuring that out. If they're not a problem, 12 dead kids doesn't register a care (and the scores maimed or fucked up), and it's just the owners, then it SIMPLY HAS TO FOLLOW THAT breeds with much higher ownership rates should be showing a significant number of deaths/injuries/maulings. Yet, that's not the case. Help and irrational brother out here, with some logic. Go on. So, let's recap: 1) We have veterinary and animal behavior experts who have all, without fail, declared the role of breed in dog-human violence to be a non-factor. 2) We have statistical proof that visual identification of dogs is inaccurate more than 80% of the time. 3) We have identified actual factors in dog-human violence incidents, namely they mostly involve children and unaltered male dogs. Other factors include poor socialization. 4) EVERYTHING we know about the media says that they report for sensationalism, not truth, and they are not expected to identify a breed with any level of accuracy (nor are the people who own them). Any dog that bites becomes a pitbull even though that's not actually a breed. All set forth by people trying to undermine the very real perception and statistical information about what breeds are attacking who and under what circumstances, and all refuted by other people who are equally presenting data and statistics which refute the claims you pointed out above. Essentially we are at an impasse brought about by selective interpretation of data on both sides of the argument. Meanwhile another child has been killed by a pit bull type dog....... so where does this discussion go from here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:59:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you comparing guns to dogs again?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not difficult to appear rational in these conversations to be honest.
What stats are you referring to? The only statistic pointed out before you lost the plot was that one five year old child had tragically been killed by a dog identified as pit bull type. If you now want statistics then by all means feel free to go and fetch the ones you want and share them for us all see. Nobody else is having a hissy fit about this apart form you. You seem to have read the thread title, read the article and then come into the thread swinging haymakers while high on "feels" and rambling on about banning dogs.....which nobody else has thus far suggested as a course of action. Feel free to bring something to the table by way of rational endeavour and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Honestly. You're really terrible at this. Here's some educational material to help you with your internet debating. Are you comparing guns to dogs again?
No. He is comparing anti-gun and anti-dog activist techniques. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 5:03:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And here we are again - the irrational comparison between guns and dogs again. Dogs are not guns. Dogs have a mind of their own and can act of their own free will. A gun can't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maybe half isn't an overwhelming majority, for one thing. Twelve deaths isn't a significant number, for another. Not all of them are kids, either. There simply aren't any numbers out there that support getting worked up about pit bulls. If you think there are, why aren't you getting worked up about AR-15 owners? There's roughly the same number of those as there are pit bulls and they kill a lot more people each year than the dogs. And here we are again - the irrational comparison between guns and dogs again. Dogs are not guns. Dogs have a mind of their own and can act of their own free will. A gun can't. And here we are again - the totally rational people, who aren't actually calling for any laws about pit bulls, blatantly attempting to misrepresent a comparison of dogs and gun owners as a comparison of dogs and guns. I really don't blame you. If you feel the numbers for pit bulls support doing something, it kind of makes people wonder what other common sense actions you'd support based on a few deaths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 5:06:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All set forth by people trying to undermine the very real perception and statistical information about what breeds are attacking who and under what circumstances, and all refuted by other people who are equally presenting data and statistics which refute the claims you pointed out above. Essentially we are at an impasse brought about by selective interpretation of data on both sides of the argument. Meanwhile another child has been killed by a pit bull type dog....... so where does this discussion go from here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like how you guys are attempting to portray yourselves as the rational side of this conversation. Is there something irrational about a single breed accounting for the overwhelming majority of deaths and serious maulings? I'm having a hard time figuring that out. If they're not a problem, 12 dead kids doesn't register a care (and the scores maimed or fucked up), and it's just the owners, then it SIMPLY HAS TO FOLLOW THAT breeds with much higher ownership rates should be showing a significant number of deaths/injuries/maulings. Yet, that's not the case. Help and irrational brother out here, with some logic. Go on. So, let's recap: 1) We have veterinary and animal behavior experts who have all, without fail, declared the role of breed in dog-human violence to be a non-factor. 2) We have statistical proof that visual identification of dogs is inaccurate more than 80% of the time. 3) We have identified actual factors in dog-human violence incidents, namely they mostly involve children and unaltered male dogs. Other factors include poor socialization. 4) EVERYTHING we know about the media says that they report for sensationalism, not truth, and they are not expected to identify a breed with any level of accuracy (nor are the people who own them). Any dog that bites becomes a pitbull even though that's not actually a breed. All set forth by people trying to undermine the very real perception and statistical information about what breeds are attacking who and under what circumstances, and all refuted by other people who are equally presenting data and statistics which refute the claims you pointed out above. Essentially we are at an impasse brought about by selective interpretation of data on both sides of the argument. Meanwhile another child has been killed by a pit bull type dog....... so where does this discussion go from here? Perception is irrelevant unless it matches reality. Furthermore, it is of critical import to note that perception generally does not match reality. Who is pointing out statistical information and what sources are cited beyond media reports? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 5:12:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From your own country, no less. You heartless beast, you waste all this time caring about some stranger in Chicago, when little Leah Preston is suffering in Wolverhampton...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But I posted links to attacks that occurred within the past few days. Don't you care about those poor victims? How can you ignore their suffering? Not to mention, the cost of investigating these deaths, the inquests, the criminal sanctions and police time, the public resources, the costs of medical treatment, hospital bills, effects on insurance premiums, and on the medicare bill? What about vets bills and the cost of litigation? Don't you even care? (Your reply better have a frowny sad face )
I didn't see your post mate - must have been one I missed sorry. I do indeed care about all those things regardless of breed. I would be very keen, in the interest of rational and credible risk assessment, to know where those reports stood in the context of other dog attacks and what the stats told us about where the highest risks lay, how big the costs were, and whether it would be cost effective or appropriate to take steps to reduce the number of attacks. Where is it? From your own country, no less. You heartless beast, you waste all this time caring about some stranger in Chicago, when little Leah Preston is suffering in Wolverhampton...
A little girl torn apart by savage dogs lay on her hospital bed as nurses pumped her full of painkillers and pleaded, "Mummy, please don't let them put me down,". Five-year-old Leah Preston heard the vicious animals who mauled her in Low Hill, Wolverhampton, had been destroyed and was worried she might be put to sleep, her family said. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115038/5-year-old-savaged-dog-attack.html#ixzz3bNGAGjax Sorry dude, didn't see it. 2 Bull mastiffs attacked her. I remember it well around 2002 - I remember reading about it while moving into our new home, not far from where friends of ours lived in Wolverhampton. Very sad and quite avoidable. Large aggressive dogs escaped and attacked the little girl next door as she played in the garden, also attacked several other people IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 5:32:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, we can't, because you're ignoring all of the evidence we present and just continuing on with your concern trolling. http://stubbydog.org/breed-discrimination-packet/breed-discrimination-packet/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not difficult to appear rational in these conversations to be honest.
What stats are you referring to? The only statistic pointed out before you lost the plot was that one five year old child had tragically been killed by a dog identified as pit bull type. If you now want statistics then by all means feel free to go and fetch the ones you want and share them for us all see. Nobody else is having a hissy fit about this apart form you. You seem to have read the thread title, read the article and then come into the thread swinging haymakers while high on "feels" and rambling on about banning dogs.....which nobody else has thus far suggested as a course of action. Feel free to bring something to the table by way of rational endeavour and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Honestly. You're really terrible at this. Here's some educational material to help you with your internet debating. Are you comparing guns to dogs again?
You know that silliness won't wash, old chap. Come on now. Can we please have a rational debate about this? No, we can't, because you're ignoring all of the evidence we present and just continuing on with your concern trolling. http://stubbydog.org/breed-discrimination-packet/breed-discrimination-packet/ Easy tiger. The only thing posted was by the OP who posted an article about another child being killed by a dog identified as Pit Bull Type in the article. Before any form of discussion could get underway, the likes of you and FeebleMaster felt the need to come in yapping like crazy and demanding evidence, while throwing around all sorts of accusations, which is pretty much the pattern of how the thread has gone for the last 4 pages. Neither you, nor anyone else has presented any "evidence" until the last few posts. All there has been is a bunch of incessant whining by aggressive sorts like yourself who feel the need to come in and shit all over a thread where the only thing posted was the FACT that yet another kid has been killed by a dog. Now you are trotting out the usual questionable links to the sources of "evidence" which is really nothing more than someone's interpretation which satisfies the agenda of the person paying for it. Likewise there is there s a bunch of contradictory "evidence", which is also someone's interpretation probably obtained under similar circumstances, and which leaves us in a position where the truth is still evading us. You are not even presenting any statistics and your own interpretation of those stats, just regurgitating links and then getting all aggressive without passing on any constructive interpretation which contributes to the debate. You (collectively as the yappers) monumentally failed throughout this thread to present anything but a hysterical response to something that hasn't even been suggested. Don't be so silly. Get of your back legs and play nice. There's a good boy.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
