Yet another Pitt Bull attack (1 Viewer)

[beavers]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

What's difficult to process is the "the breed is dangerous" part. Generalizations like that are part of the problem. There are approximately 9 million "pit bulls" in the US and yet only a handful of attacks per year. When you have nearly 9 million "good" dogs and only a few "bad" ones I don't see how you can label them all as dangerous.

A handful of fatalities or a handful of attacks?

 

[The Commish]

I'm through with this thread. Page me if you guys need me to clean up again. Let's not let this go 26 pages before you call me again this time. It's like weeding a backyard after four seasons of ignoring it.

It's pointless really, the mods should just close this thread. The lengths people will go to to defend these monsters includes blaming the media and saying that 10 kids a year is statistically insignificant. Unreal.

What I find unreal is the amount of zeal you put into this thread but I doubt you have lifted one finger to contact your local representatives to get the ball rolling on pit bull legislation in your area.

Excuse for killer dogs #400: It's my fault. Yeah, that's a good one Chaka.

All you have done in this thread is dodge reason and say "kill them all". That's not very productive.

It's not unreasonable.

It's entirely unreasonable and I sincerely hope you know that. It won't happen, not ever. And even if it did (which will never, ever happen) it wouldn't fix the problem. But people being proactive in getting proper legislation passed just might have a positive impact.

This is the other annoying thing about the thread. You guys are talking about two different "problems". One side's talking about limiting the pit bull attacks and the other insists on expanding it to dog attacks in general Not sure why that's occurring, but for those wanting a solution for pit bull attacks I fail to see how getting rid of pit bulls wouldn't fix that problem.

Stop making sense, jesus lover, you're screwing up my perceptions

I can't have that. Carry on with the rant. Please turn off the lights when you're done. NOTE: My comments weren't to you. Though I appreciate being able to read the drunken rants first thing in the morning, I was referring to the discussions previous to your entrance.

 

[3C's]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

You're right though, it is done. But the haters will keep coming back to "prove" their point. And the circle will continue. I do appreciate your reasonable points of view and your unemotional posts though.

 

[pantherclub]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

You're right though, it is done. But the haters will keep coming back to "prove" their point. And the circle will continue. I do appreciate your reasonable points of view and your unemotional posts though.

haters

 

[The Commish]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

What's difficult to process is the "the breed is dangerous" part. Generalizations like that are part of the problem. There are approximately 9 million "pit bulls" in the US and yet only a handful of attacks per year. When you have nearly 9 million "good" dogs and only a few "bad" ones I don't see how you can label them all as dangerous.

Why is it difficult to process? Do you disagree that it's a breed that's had many more iterations of in breeding than other breeds? Do you disagree that the in breeding aspect is a major influence on potential problems? I have no real emotion tied to any of the dogs we've discussed here, but these natural facts alone make things more risky than other breeds. I'm not in the numbers game here. Best I can tell any numbers (for either side of the argument) are dubious at best for the obvious reasons already mentioned. My point is, not every pit bull is dangerous, however, I'd imagine from the get go, for evolutionary reasons alone, there is a higher chance that one of these animals would cross the line of dangerous if one is not incredibly careful and diligent with the care of their animal. The margin of error with these specific animals is far smaller than most other breeds.

 

[Otis]

Do you guys put hats on your dogs?

 

[The Commish]

Do you guys put hats on your dogs?

 

[The Commish]

Otis...you should get one of these things to help with the mouse problem. I think there's a youtube gem in there somewhere.

 

[3C's]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

What's difficult to process is the "the breed is dangerous" part. Generalizations like that are part of the problem. There are approximately 9 million "pit bulls" in the US and yet only a handful of attacks per year. When you have nearly 9 million "good" dogs and only a few "bad" ones I don't see how you can label them all as dangerous.

Why is it difficult to process? Do you disagree that it's a breed that's had many more iterations of in breeding than other breeds? Do you disagree that the in breeding aspect is a major influence on potential problems? I have no real emotion tied to any of the dogs we've discussed here, but these natural facts alone make things more risky than other breeds. I'm not in the numbers game here. Best I can tell any numbers (for either side of the argument) are dubious at best for the obvious reasons already mentioned. My point is, not every pit bull is dangerous, however, I'd imagine from the get go, for evolutionary reasons alone, there is a higher chance that one of these animals would cross the line of dangerous if one is not incredibly careful and diligent with the care of their animal. The margin of error with these specific animals is far smaller than most other breeds.

There's a huge problem with overbreeding, which is why the animal aid societys are pushing spay and neuter so strongly. I disagree wholeheartedly that the margin of error is smaller than for other breeds. German Shepherds are more likely to attack humans. It's why they're used as attack/guard dogs. Same with several other breeds that have already been discussed.And with that, I'm done. Nothing fruitful is to be gained here. You may now return to you regularly scheduled otis doushiness.

 

[pantherclub]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

What's difficult to process is the "the breed is dangerous" part. Generalizations like that are part of the problem. There are approximately 9 million "pit bulls" in the US and yet only a handful of attacks per year. When you have nearly 9 million "good" dogs and only a few "bad" ones I don't see how you can label them all as dangerous.

Why is it difficult to process? Do you disagree that it's a breed that's had many more iterations of in breeding than other breeds? Do you disagree that the in breeding aspect is a major influence on potential problems? I have no real emotion tied to any of the dogs we've discussed here, but these natural facts alone make things more risky than other breeds. I'm not in the numbers game here. Best I can tell any numbers (for either side of the argument) are dubious at best for the obvious reasons already mentioned. My point is, not every pit bull is dangerous, however, I'd imagine from the get go, for evolutionary reasons alone, there is a higher chance that one of these animals would cross the line of dangerous if one is not incredibly careful and diligent with the care of their animal. The margin of error with these specific animals is far smaller than most other breeds.

There's a huge problem with overbreeding, which is why the animal aid societys are pushing spay and neuter so strongly. I disagree wholeheartedly that the margin of error is smaller than for other breeds. German Shepherds are more likely to attack humans. It's why they're used as attack/guard dogs. Same with several other breeds that have already been discussed.And with that, I'm done. Nothing fruitful is to be gained here. You may now return to you regularly scheduled otis doushiness.

and the excuses roll on

 

[The Commish]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

What's difficult to process is the "the breed is dangerous" part. Generalizations like that are part of the problem. There are approximately 9 million "pit bulls" in the US and yet only a handful of attacks per year. When you have nearly 9 million "good" dogs and only a few "bad" ones I don't see how you can label them all as dangerous.

Why is it difficult to process? Do you disagree that it's a breed that's had many more iterations of in breeding than other breeds? Do you disagree that the in breeding aspect is a major influence on potential problems? I have no real emotion tied to any of the dogs we've discussed here, but these natural facts alone make things more risky than other breeds. I'm not in the numbers game here. Best I can tell any numbers (for either side of the argument) are dubious at best for the obvious reasons already mentioned. My point is, not every pit bull is dangerous, however, I'd imagine from the get go, for evolutionary reasons alone, there is a higher chance that one of these animals would cross the line of dangerous if one is not incredibly careful and diligent with the care of their animal. The margin of error with these specific animals is far smaller than most other breeds.

There's a huge problem with overbreeding, which is why the animal aid societys are pushing spay and neuter so strongly. I disagree wholeheartedly that the margin of error is smaller than for other breeds. German Shepherds are more likely to attack humans. It's why they're used as attack/guard dogs. Same with several other breeds that have already been discussed.And with that, I'm done. Nothing fruitful is to be gained here. You may now return to you regularly scheduled otis doushiness.

If you go up several posts, you'll see my concern with animals as:1. Pinchers2. German Shepherds3. Pit BullsGerman Sheppards are naturally dangerous. They aren't far removed from wolves. If we take the human element out when comparing the pits and shepherds they're probably 1a/1b with a case to be made for either, however, they are much more intelligent animals and easier to train.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

What's difficult to process is the "the breed is dangerous" part. Generalizations like that are part of the problem. There are approximately 9 million "pit bulls" in the US and yet only a handful of attacks per year. When you have nearly 9 million "good" dogs and only a few "bad" ones I don't see how you can label them all as dangerous.

Why is it difficult to process? Do you disagree that it's a breed that's had many more iterations of in breeding than other breeds? Do you disagree that the in breeding aspect is a major influence on potential problems? I have no real emotion tied to any of the dogs we've discussed here, but these natural facts alone make things more risky than other breeds. I'm not in the numbers game here. Best I can tell any numbers (for either side of the argument) are dubious at best for the obvious reasons already mentioned. My point is, not every pit bull is dangerous, however, I'd imagine from the get go, for evolutionary reasons alone, there is a higher chance that one of these animals would cross the line of dangerous if one is not incredibly careful and diligent with the care of their animal. The margin of error with these specific animals is far smaller than most other breeds.

There's a huge problem with overbreeding, which is why the animal aid societys are pushing spay and neuter so strongly. I disagree wholeheartedly that the margin of error is smaller than for other breeds. German Shepherds are more likely to attack humans. It's why they're used as attack/guard dogs. Same with several other breeds that have already been discussed.And with that, I'm done. Nothing fruitful is to be gained here. You may now return to you regularly scheduled otis doushiness.

and the excuses roll on

 

[parasaurolophus]

Has the resident ffa metro finished doushing the thread up yet?

Best I can tell, this thread was done several pages before I started posting. Not sure what's so difficult to process here. The breed is dangerous and the owners matter. Why folks have to defend either extreme is beyond me, but doing so really is of no benefit. Thread's done.

What's difficult to process is the "the breed is dangerous" part. Generalizations like that are part of the problem. There are approximately 9 million "pit bulls" in the US and yet only a handful of attacks per year. When you have nearly 9 million "good" dogs and only a few "bad" ones I don't see how you can label them all as dangerous.

Is your 9 million figure counting all the mixes?

 

[Otis]

Otis...you should get one of these things to help with the mouse problem. I think there's a youtube gem in there somewhere.

Yeah and then I'd have to get a missile-firing catcopter to take down the killer beast roaming my home. No thanks.

 

[The Commish]

Otis...you should get one of these things to help with the mouse problem. I think there's a youtube gem in there somewhere.

Yeah and then I'd have to get a missile-firing catcopter to take down the killer beast roaming my home. No thanks.

 

[Exit 1]

Otis, please answer these questions....

1. Would you say that pitbulls are the most abused dog breed in the US? If not, what breed is more abused in your opinion?

2. Do you agree that an abused or tortured dog is more inclined to have an aggressive and unpredictable personality or behavior?

 

[Chaos Commish]

Otis, please answer these questions....1. Would you say that pitbulls are the most abused dog breed in the US? If not, what breed is more abused in your opinion?2. Do you agree that an abused or tortured dog is more inclined to have an aggressive and unpredictable personality or behavior?

Really? Otis comes undone starts wiggling his wenis while drooling all over the thread and you engage him expecting... what... exactly?

 

[Exit 1]

Otis, please answer these questions....1. Would you say that pitbulls are the most abused dog breed in the US? If not, what breed is more abused in your opinion?2. Do you agree that an abused or tortured dog is more inclined to have an aggressive and unpredictable personality or behavior?

Really? Otis comes undone starts wiggling his wenis while drooling all over the thread and you engage him expecting... what... exactly?

That maybe there's a slim chance of hope that he'll turn the dousche setting off for at least 2 minutes to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[jomar]

Sure there are good ones, but if I'm forced to leave my kid out in the yard playing with a random sample of dog, I'd take any breed any day over a pitt bull.

do your kids and everyone a favor and don't ever get a dog and I don't care if its just a little toy dog. you have no clue.I said it before but got no response. the pit haters have no clue what the pro-pit crowd is saying because they have their hands over their ears and yelling PITS ARE DANGEROUS!!!OMGZZZ111!!! yes, Pits are dangerous, as dangerous as any doberman, rott, shephard, great dane, mastiff, boxer, lab, irish wolfhound, saint bernard....I could list 50 breeds here. it just so happens that Pits are overbred and are a dog of choice for stupid people who don't know how to raise and train a dog. getting rid of all Pitbulls is not a solution, it just changes the problem. yes, you could eliminate pit attacks by getting rid of pit bulls, but the pit attacks will just be replaced with Rott attacks, and shepherd attacks, and boxer attacks. Do you people understand this?, because I don't think most of you do. guns kill more people than Pit bulls, do any of you think guns should be outlawed? or would you rather have the gun owner responsible for what he does with his gun? if statistics showed 50% of gun crimes were with glocks, would you be arguing to ban glocks? do you think that would curtail the criminals or would they just go get a 9 mm? some of you anti-pit people are arguing to eliminate glocks when it is painfully obvious to anyone with an ability to think beyond this small little picture, that that would do absolutely nothing to solve the issue of people getting killed with guns. sure, it may cut back on glock murders but not the number of gun murders as a whole. think people!

 

[Chaka]

I'm through with this thread. Page me if you guys need me to clean up again. Let's not let this go 26 pages before you call me again this time. It's like weeding a backyard after four seasons of ignoring it.

It's pointless really, the mods should just close this thread. The lengths people will go to to defend these monsters includes blaming the media and saying that 10 kids a year is statistically insignificant. Unreal.

What I find unreal is the amount of zeal you put into this thread but I doubt you have lifted one finger to contact your local representatives to get the ball rolling on pit bull legislation in your area.

Excuse for killer dogs #400: It's my fault. Yeah, that's a good one Chaka.

All you have done in this thread is dodge reason and say "kill them all". That's not very productive.

It's not unreasonable.

It's entirely unreasonable and I sincerely hope you know that. It won't happen, not ever. And even if it did (which will never, ever happen) it wouldn't fix the problem. But people being proactive in getting proper legislation passed just might have a positive impact.

This is the other annoying thing about the thread. You guys are talking about two different "problems". One side's talking about limiting the pit bull attacks and the other insists on expanding it to dog attacks in general Not sure why that's occurring, but for those wanting a solution for pit bull attacks I fail to see how getting rid of pit bulls wouldn't fix that problem.

I can't, and won't (and haven't) argue with getting rid of them ending their contribution to the problem but 1) how exactly do you plan to get rid of them? A viable plan because just going out and killing them all isn't viable.2) If it doesn't change the number of dog attacks overall then what has been accomplished?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any worse... Great work Otis

 

[Synthesizer]

Good luck with your pit bull ban. "I'm sorry officer, this isn't a pit bull, it's a (whatever breed is similar to a pit bull but still legal)."

 

[Zow]

Exit until you can prove abuse is a direct cause of all puttbulls propensity to be aggressive that argument is just s red herring. Correlation is not causation.

 

[The Commish]

I'm through with this thread. Page me if you guys need me to clean up again. Let's not let this go 26 pages before you call me again this time. It's like weeding a backyard after four seasons of ignoring it.

It's pointless really, the mods should just close this thread. The lengths people will go to to defend these monsters includes blaming the media and saying that 10 kids a year is statistically insignificant. Unreal.

What I find unreal is the amount of zeal you put into this thread but I doubt you have lifted one finger to contact your local representatives to get the ball rolling on pit bull legislation in your area.

Excuse for killer dogs #400: It's my fault. Yeah, that's a good one Chaka.

All you have done in this thread is dodge reason and say "kill them all". That's not very productive.

It's not unreasonable.

It's entirely unreasonable and I sincerely hope you know that. It won't happen, not ever. And even if it did (which will never, ever happen) it wouldn't fix the problem. But people being proactive in getting proper legislation passed just might have a positive impact.

This is the other annoying thing about the thread. You guys are talking about two different "problems". One side's talking about limiting the pit bull attacks and the other insists on expanding it to dog attacks in general Not sure why that's occurring, but for those wanting a solution for pit bull attacks I fail to see how getting rid of pit bulls wouldn't fix that problem.

I can't, and won't (and haven't) argue with getting rid of them ending their contribution to the problem but 1) how exactly do you plan to get rid of them? A viable plan because just going out and killing them all isn't viable.2) If it doesn't change the number of dog attacks overall then what has been accomplished?

It's not my plan. I don't answers to your question in #1. I don't care about getting rid of them. My question was asking how getting rid of all the pit bulls wouldn't fix the problem of pit bull attacks. It seems nonsensical to suggest that if the animal doesn't exist that the bites somehow could. Perhaps folks are so entrenched in defense of their position, they don't really understand what they are arguing?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Exit until you can prove abuse is a direct cause of all puttbulls propensity to be aggressive that argument is just s red herring. Correlation is not causation.

You don't believe that dogs abused by humans have a higher propensity for attacking? Really?

 

[The Commish]

Exit until you can prove abuse is a direct cause of all puttbulls propensity to be aggressive that argument is just s red herring. Correlation is not causation.

You don't believe that dogs abused by humans have a higher propensity for attacking? Really?

That's not close to what he said.

 

[Chaka]

I'm through with this thread. Page me if you guys need me to clean up again. Let's not let this go 26 pages before you call me again this time. It's like weeding a backyard after four seasons of ignoring it.

It's pointless really, the mods should just close this thread. The lengths people will go to to defend these monsters includes blaming the media and saying that 10 kids a year is statistically insignificant. Unreal.

What I find unreal is the amount of zeal you put into this thread but I doubt you have lifted one finger to contact your local representatives to get the ball rolling on pit bull legislation in your area.

Excuse for killer dogs #400: It's my fault. Yeah, that's a good one Chaka.

All you have done in this thread is dodge reason and say "kill them all". That's not very productive.

It's not unreasonable.

It's entirely unreasonable and I sincerely hope you know that. It won't happen, not ever. And even if it did (which will never, ever happen) it wouldn't fix the problem. But people being proactive in getting proper legislation passed just might have a positive impact.

This is the other annoying thing about the thread. You guys are talking about two different "problems". One side's talking about limiting the pit bull attacks and the other insists on expanding it to dog attacks in general Not sure why that's occurring, but for those wanting a solution for pit bull attacks I fail to see how getting rid of pit bulls wouldn't fix that problem.

I can't, and won't (and haven't) argue with getting rid of them ending their contribution to the problem but 1) how exactly do you plan to get rid of them? A viable plan because just going out and killing them all isn't viable.2) If it doesn't change the number of dog attacks overall then what has been accomplished?

It's not my plan. I don't answers to your question in #1. I don't care about getting rid of them. My question was asking how getting rid of all the pit bulls wouldn't fix the problem of pit bull attacks. It seems nonsensical to suggest that if the animal doesn't exist that the bites somehow could. Perhaps folks are so entrenched in defense of their position, they don't really understand what they are arguing?

Who is arguing the position that getting rid of pit bulls would not eliminate pit bull bites? Of course it would.The argument is that 1) it does not seem viable to simply get rid of them and 2) getting rid of them would not change the number of dog attack injuries and fatalities from same.

 

[The Commish]

Who is arguing the position that getting rid of pit bulls would not eliminate pit bull bites? Of course it would.

The argument is that 1) it does not seem viable to simply get rid of them and 2) getting rid of them would not change the number of dog attack injuries and fatalities from same.

You said:

It's entirely unreasonable and I sincerely hope you know that. It won't happen, not ever. And even if it did (which will never, ever happen) it wouldn't fix the problem. But people being proactive in getting proper legislation passed just might have a positive impact.

This was a response from someone else suggesting that all the pit bulls be killed off. It makes no sense to me. Best I came up with was that you guys were willfully talking about two separate things and arguing completely different points It was clear the person you replied to with this response was talking about pit bull attacks/bites.

 

[Chaka]

Who is arguing the position that getting rid of pit bulls would not eliminate pit bull bites? Of course it would.

The argument is that 1) it does not seem viable to simply get rid of them and 2) getting rid of them would not change the number of dog attack injuries and fatalities from same.

You said:

It's entirely unreasonable and I sincerely hope you know that. It won't happen, not ever. And even if it did (which will never, ever happen) it wouldn't fix the problem. But people being proactive in getting proper legislation passed just might have a positive impact.

This was a response from someone else suggesting that all the pit bulls be killed off. It makes no sense to me. Best I came up with was that you guys were willfully talking about two separate things and arguing completely different points It was clear the person you replied to with this response was talking about pit bull attacks/bites.

The problem of dog bites and fatalities. Did I really need to spell that out any further? They are not remotely different points. We have covered that ground multiple times in this thread, I really did not think that after 17 pages I would need to reiterate it to the letter every single time.This is crazy. I agree lets shut this one down.

 

[joffer]

i mistreated/abused pitbull is no more dangerous than a similarly mistreated/abused poodle

BS.

Pretty horrible IMO. This what goes on throughout this thread? Seems not worth reading IMO

this is like an Otis-Hippling think you can work the word "nerd" in a few more times?FYI, you and i agree on this issue

 

[The Commish]

Who is arguing the position that getting rid of pit bulls would not eliminate pit bull bites? Of course it would.

The argument is that 1) it does not seem viable to simply get rid of them and 2) getting rid of them would not change the number of dog attack injuries and fatalities from same.

You said:

It's entirely unreasonable and I sincerely hope you know that. It won't happen, not ever. And even if it did (which will never, ever happen) it wouldn't fix the problem. But people being proactive in getting proper legislation passed just might have a positive impact.

This was a response from someone else suggesting that all the pit bulls be killed off. It makes no sense to me. Best I came up with was that you guys were willfully talking about two separate things and arguing completely different points It was clear the person you replied to with this response was talking about pit bull attacks/bites.

The problem of dog bites and fatalities. Did I really need to spell that out any further? They are not remotely different points. We have covered that ground multiple times in this thread, I really did not think that after 17 pages I would need to reiterate it to the letter every single time.This is crazy. I agree lets shut this one down.

Then I'd recommend not replying to a quote talking about the pit bull problem specifically. That would be a fantastic start! I'm not even sure how/why the overall dog bite "problem" is even in this thread. This thread was specific to pit bulls, not all dangerous dogs.

 

[Exit 1]

Exit until you can prove abuse is a direct cause of all puttbulls propensity to be aggressive that argument is just s red herring. Correlation is not causation.

I didn't say that was the entire problem. Bad owners are just as much, if not more, of an issue than an abused dog, imo. You have owners who don't take the time to train their dog, leave the dog alone with faulty snaps/leashes, don't take the time to socialize the dog, etc. It's horrible and actually sad for the dog too.That being said, you have to admit that an abused dog would be more likely to attack though, right? Can we agree on that point?

 

[beavers]

I am in favor of keeping this thread open. In fact, let's try to talk about pits every day so this stays on the front page.

 

[Otis]

Otis, please answer these questions....1. Would you say that pitbulls are the most abused dog breed in the US? If not, what breed is more abused in your opinion?2. Do you agree that an abused or tortured dog is more inclined to have an aggressive and unpredictable personality or behavior?

What am I, an animal scientist? How the hell do I know what animals are more abused than other animals? And why do I care that the least intelligent dog owners all tend to step on each others units crowding around the same stupid dog breed?What I do care about is big dumb killer beasts with hats on roaming my neighborhood. I'd prefer to avoid that. But then again I'm not a moron.

 

[Otis]

Great work Otis

They pretty much only call in the big gun when they need me. Mods, lock 'er up. This is all cleaned up.

 

[Otis]

I said it before but got no response. the pit haters have no clue what the pro-pit crowd is saying because they have their hands over their ears and yelling PITS ARE DANGEROUS!!!OMGZZZ111!!! yes, Pits are dangerous, as dangerous as any doberman, rott, shephard, great dane, mastiff, boxer, lab, irish wolfhound, saint bernard....I could list 50 breeds here. it just so happens that Pits are overbred and are a dog of choice for stupid people who don't know how to raise and train a dog. getting rid of all Pitbulls is not a solution, it just changes the problem. yes, you could eliminate pit attacks by getting rid of pit bulls, but the pit attacks will just be replaced with Rott attacks, and shepherd attacks, and boxer attacks. Do you people understand this?, because I don't think most of you do.

You pitt bull nerds should be psyched about this, no? If there's a nastier dog out there killing children, then you could carry on with this love affair with your dumb animals without all the negative press. Isn't that a good thing for you? Or would it be like "oh man, pitt bulls aren't cool anymore, I better git myself another dumber, meaner animal as a roommate!"Nobody responded to my great white post. Because it makes too much sense.Do you guys make your animals wear boots in the winter?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Great work Otis

They pretty much only call in the big gun when they need me. Mods, lock 'er up. This is all cleaned up.

... when the rest of the post is included.

Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any worse...

 

[Zow]

Exit until you can prove abuse is a direct cause of all puttbulls propensity to be aggressive that argument is just s red herring. Correlation is not causation.

I didn't say that was the entire problem. Bad owners are just as much, if not more, of an issue than an abused dog, imo. You have owners who don't take the time to train their dog, leave the dog alone with faulty snaps/leashes, don't take the time to socialize the dog, etc. It's horrible and actually sad for the dog too.That being said, you have to admit that an abused dog would be more likely to attack though, right? Can we agree on that point?

Of course I'd agree to that. I see it as taking something from bad to worse when a pit bull is abused. It's like playing russian roullette with more bullets in the chamber. I view bad pit owners as akin to terrible gun owners - which has been my consistent analogy in this thread. I also feel I should clarify: I don't blame dogs at all. They are animals who lack the ability to reason. I wouldn't want to see an animal get hurt for no reason. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis here where harm to humans substantially outweighs any positive effects the dogs have. I extend this line of thinking to any dog with the physical capability of killing.

 

[Zow]

I said it before but got no response. the pit haters have no clue what the pro-pit crowd is saying because they have their hands over their ears and yelling PITS ARE DANGEROUS!!!OMGZZZ111!!! yes, Pits are dangerous, as dangerous as any doberman, rott, shephard, great dane, mastiff, boxer, lab, irish wolfhound, saint bernard....I could list 50 breeds here. it just so happens that Pits are overbred and are a dog of choice for stupid people who don't know how to raise and train a dog. getting rid of all Pitbulls is not a solution, it just changes the problem. yes, you could eliminate pit attacks by getting rid of pit bulls, but the pit attacks will just be replaced with Rott attacks, and shepherd attacks, and boxer attacks. Do you people understand this?, because I don't think most of you do.

You pitt bull nerds should be psyched about this, no? If there's a nastier dog out there killing children, then you could carry on with this love affair with your dumb animals without all the negative press. Isn't that a good thing for you? Or would it be like "oh man, pitt bulls aren't cool anymore, I better git myself another dumber, meaner animal as a roommate!"Nobody responded to my great white post. Because it makes too much sense.

Do you guys make your animals wear boots in the winter?

:goosposting:Nail, meet head.

 

[jomar]

I said it before but got no response. the pit haters have no clue what the pro-pit crowd is saying because they have their hands over their ears and yelling PITS ARE DANGEROUS!!!OMGZZZ111!!! yes, Pits are dangerous, as dangerous as any doberman, rott, shephard, great dane, mastiff, boxer, lab, irish wolfhound, saint bernard....I could list 50 breeds here. it just so happens that Pits are overbred and are a dog of choice for stupid people who don't know how to raise and train a dog. getting rid of all Pitbulls is not a solution, it just changes the problem. yes, you could eliminate pit attacks by getting rid of pit bulls, but the pit attacks will just be replaced with Rott attacks, and shepherd attacks, and boxer attacks. Do you people understand this?, because I don't think most of you do.

You pitt bull nerds should be psyched about this, no? If there's a nastier dog out there killing children, then you could carry on with this love affair with your dumb animals without all the negative press. Isn't that a good thing for you? Or would it be like "oh man, pitt bulls aren't cool anymore, I better git myself another dumber, meaner animal as a roommate!"Nobody responded to my great white post. Because it makes too much sense.

Do you guys make your animals wear boots in the winter?

So many swings and misses here that I'm not sure where to start.1. I don't, nor have I ever, owned a Pitbull

2. you comparing a dog to a great white shark is about as smart as the religious wackos that compare homosexuals to child molesters

3. there's dogs out there killing children that aren't pitbulls

4. Pitbulls are not dumb, nor mean.

My link this link also shows the Chihuahua, Toy Poodle and Dachsund as mean.

"Which dog breed comes to your mind when we talk about world's meanest dogs? The American Pit Bull? The Rottweiler or the German Shepherd? If those are what you are thinking, then you are in for a big surprise, just like me! A recent study has shown that the English Cocker Spaniel is the most aggressive breed of dogs.

"Aggression in the case of these breeds (talking about Pitbulls, Rotts and other large breeds) may not come as a surprise because of their size. Nevertheless, these breeds are feared and have gained notoriety as being mean and dangerous dog breeds. It is more so because these are large dog breeds and are powerful. When agitated they can cause harm with their sharp teeth and powerful jaws."

another link

"Chihuahuas and Dachshunds scored higher than average for aggression directed to both humans and dogs, putting them towards the top of the list.

Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers, which have "bad boy" reputations, mostly scored high for dog-directed aggression."

some simple google research might do you some good but I doubt it. face it, you've bought into the media hype. consider yourself one of the ignorant masses on this subject. congrats

 

[Zow]

I said it before but got no response. the pit haters have no clue what the pro-pit crowd is saying because they have their hands over their ears and yelling PITS ARE DANGEROUS!!!OMGZZZ111!!! yes, Pits are dangerous, as dangerous as any doberman, rott, shephard, great dane, mastiff, boxer, lab, irish wolfhound, saint bernard....I could list 50 breeds here. it just so happens that Pits are overbred and are a dog of choice for stupid people who don't know how to raise and train a dog. getting rid of all Pitbulls is not a solution, it just changes the problem. yes, you could eliminate pit attacks by getting rid of pit bulls, but the pit attacks will just be replaced with Rott attacks, and shepherd attacks, and boxer attacks. Do you people understand this?, because I don't think most of you do.

You pitt bull nerds should be psyched about this, no? If there's a nastier dog out there killing children, then you could carry on with this love affair with your dumb animals without all the negative press. Isn't that a good thing for you? Or would it be like "oh man, pitt bulls aren't cool anymore, I better git myself another dumber, meaner animal as a roommate!"Nobody responded to my great white post. Because it makes too much sense.

Do you guys make your animals wear boots in the winter?

So many swings and misses here that I'm not sure where to start.1. I don't, nor have I ever, owned a Pitbull

2. you comparing a dog to a great white shark is about as smart as the religious wackos that compare homosexuals to child molesters

3. there's dogs out there killing children that aren't pitbulls

4. Pitbulls are not dumb, nor mean.

My link this link also shows the Chihuahua, Toy Poodle and Dachsund as mean.

"Which dog breed comes to your mind when we talk about world's meanest dogs? The American Pit Bull? The Rottweiler or the German Shepherd? If those are what you are thinking, then you are in for a big surprise, just like me! A recent study has shown that the English Cocker Spaniel is the most aggressive breed of dogs.

"Aggression in the case of these breeds (talking about Pitbulls, Rotts and other large breeds) may not come as a surprise because of their size. Nevertheless, these breeds are feared and have gained notoriety as being mean and dangerous dog breeds. It is more so because these are large dog breeds and are powerful. When agitated they can cause harm with their sharp teeth and powerful jaws."

another link

"Chihuahuas and Dachshunds scored higher than average for aggression directed to both humans and dogs, putting them towards the top of the list.

Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers, which have "bad boy" reputations, mostly scored high for dog-directed aggression."

some simple google research might do you some good but I doubt it. face it, you've bought into the media hype. consider yourself one of the ignorant masses on this subject. congrats

Okay, and the striped angel fish is probably far more aggressive than the great white shark as well. Doesn't make the great white shark any less deadly. I have no doubt toy poodles are more aggressive they just can't KILL PEOPLE.

 

[The Commish]

They are just jumping in The Oat Boat ®

 

[jomar]

I also feel I should clarify: I don't blame dogs at all. They are animals who lack the ability to reason. I wouldn't want to see an animal get hurt for no reason. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis here where harm to humans substantially outweighs any positive effects the dogs have. I extend this line of thinking to any dog with the physical capability of killing.

this is a step in the right direction for you. but ANY dog with the physical capability of killing? I'd think that'd eliminate 90% of dog breeds if not more. Under the right circumstances, I'm say almost any dog could kill. why not just eliminate all dogs? no more dogs in the world. but what about cats? I'm sure one of those things could claw my eyes out as I sleep and then gang up on me and kill me. no more cats either. we'll all have to settle on golf fish and possibly hamsters, only possibly though as I'm not sure on them either.

 

[jomar]

I have no doubt toy poodles are more aggressive they just can't KILL PEOPLE.

are you sure about that? might want to google 'Poodle attacks' and see the viciousness of these animals. I have no doubt a group of them could kill an elderly person or an infant.I think what you mean to say is that a toy poodle couldn't kill you. I get the impression that you're just afraid of Pitbulls and large dogs. I got to admit that I get you and Otis mixed up but which one of you was always getting attacked by dogs while jogging?

 

[3C's]

Exit until you can prove abuse is a direct cause of all puttbulls propensity to be aggressive that argument is just s red herring. Correlation is not causation.

until you can prove the propensity of all pitbulls to be aggressive you have no argument at all.

 

[TexanFan02]

Exit until you can prove abuse is a direct cause of all puttbulls propensity to be aggressive that argument is just s red herring. Correlation is not causation.

until you can prove the propensity of all pitbulls to be aggressive you have no argument at all.

I thought you were done with this thread?

 

[The Commish]

Exit until you can prove abuse is a direct cause of all puttbulls propensity to be aggressive that argument is just s red herring. Correlation is not causation.

until you can prove the propensity of all pitbulls to be aggressive you have no argument at all.

And you're bashing the other side for their stance?

 

[eoMMan]

I said it before but got no response. the pit haters have no clue what the pro-pit crowd is saying because they have their hands over their ears and yelling PITS ARE DANGEROUS!!!OMGZZZ111!!! yes, Pits are dangerous, as dangerous as any doberman, rott, shephard, great dane, mastiff, boxer, lab, irish wolfhound, saint bernard....I could list 50 breeds here. it just so happens that Pits are overbred and are a dog of choice for stupid people who don't know how to raise and train a dog. getting rid of all Pitbulls is not a solution, it just changes the problem. yes, you could eliminate pit attacks by getting rid of pit bulls, but the pit attacks will just be replaced with Rott attacks, and shepherd attacks, and boxer attacks. Do you people understand this?, because I don't think most of you do.

You pitt bull nerds should be psyched about this, no? If there's a nastier dog out there killing children, then you could carry on with this love affair with your dumb animals without all the negative press. Isn't that a good thing for you? Or would it be like "oh man, pitt bulls aren't cool anymore, I better git myself another dumber, meaner animal as a roommate!"Nobody responded to my great white post. Because it makes too much sense.

Do you guys make your animals wear boots in the winter?

:goosposting:Nail, meet head.

I didn't see a great white reference (probably because Otis is busy typing a bunch of silly BS) but are you guys really comparing a pitbull.....a dog....to a great white shark? Really?

 

[Zow]

I also feel I should clarify: I don't blame dogs at all. They are animals who lack the ability to reason. I wouldn't want to see an animal get hurt for no reason. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis here where harm to humans substantially outweighs any positive effects the dogs have. I extend this line of thinking to any dog with the physical capability of killing.

this is a step in the right direction for you. but ANY dog with the physical capability of killing? I'd think that'd eliminate 90% of dog breeds if not more. Under the right circumstances, I'm say almost any dog could kill. why not just eliminate all dogs? no more dogs in the world. but what about cats? I'm sure one of those things could claw my eyes out as I sleep and then gang up on me and kill me. no more cats either. we'll all have to settle on golf fish and possibly hamsters, only possibly though as I'm not sure on them either.

I'm on board

 

[Zow]

I have no doubt toy poodles are more aggressive they just can't KILL PEOPLE.

are you sure about that? might want to google 'Poodle attacks' and see the viciousness of these animals. I have no doubt a group of them could kill an elderly person or an infant.I think what you mean to say is that a toy poodle couldn't kill you. I get the impression that you're just afraid of Pitbulls and large dogs. I got to admit that I get you and Otis mixed up but which one of you was always getting attacked by dogs while jogging?

I used to get attacked no matter what i was doing. but yes that was me.