What's new
By:

Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

LogGrad98 said:
Are you now an expert on helmets? If not invented for battle, then why were they invented?

So by your own definition (highlighted) cropped ears cannot be weapons. How are they used? They just sit there. The dog does nothing with them. He does not use them.

It is still a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that cropped ears fit the definition of a weapon. It is the opinion of many on this board that they do NOT. Since I found a definition that specifies causing harm as the purpose of a weapon, I cannot understand why you would disagree with the definition, since it is so clear. Obviously you need to take it up with the authorities who wrote the definition, since obviously cropped ears are not used to cause harm in and of themselves so they cannot be construed to be weapons.
Click to expand...

If your helmet was invented specifically to help you win a fight, then yes, it's a weapon.

Cropped ears may just sit there, but they are still used to prevent damage, prevent blood loss, and help maintain consciousness. A paper weight just sits there but it is still a tool that is being used.

So I take it you're not interested in actually discussing this, you're just interested in making snarky remarks. By the way, you never answered my questions. Is a suit of armor a weapon? Is the missile defense system a weapon?
 
LogGrad98 said:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/weapons

Just realized I forgot to post this definition.
Click to expand...
That is weapons, not weapon. And it's from a legal dictionary.

From that same site's regular dictionary:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/weapon

weap·on (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.


I think it's pretty obvious that cropped ears on a pitt bull, which were made specifically to help the dog win a fight, fall under this definition.
 
SaltyDawg said:
That is weapons, not weapon. And it's from a legal dictionary.

From that same site's regular dictionary:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/weapon

weap·on (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.


I think it's pretty obvious that cropped ears on a pitt bull, which were made specifically to help the dog win a fight, fall under this definition.
Click to expand...

Hey take it up with the authorities at that dictionary. I just agree with the definition. If you have a problem with it, feel free to contact them. If you think they have contradicting definitions that is not my problem.
 
moevillini said:
well, I did have to sleep on it for a while
;-D

besides, we can't just let sleeping dogs lie (or is it lay?) - or maybe we should, now I'm all confused.
Click to expand...

Mark Twain believed you should let sleeping dogs lie.

"Let sleeping dogs lie, unless there is much at stake. Then you'd better let the newspapers do it." Sam bragged about how much money he made on the Comstock mines doing just that. Times seem to change some. Today once in a while some little boomer gets sent to jail for doing that, unless you're "Too Big To Jail" like Goldman-Sachs. As long as you serve the right people, it's the bread and butter of business.

"Journalism" is a sorta club where the media honchos don't even have to pay much to the liars/personalities/talking heads/pretty faces who do that professionally, just like the socialized schoolteacher guild. Except of course the lawyers, and the medical research propagandists the BigPharma folks bankroll, and the happy little fascists we call politicians, who want to help manage the "plantation world" in the New World Order.

It really is no wonder "management" wants to outlaw pitbulls as well as anything else that portends uncertainty for their personal safety while serving the honchos. I liked that "If pitbulls are outlawed, only outlaws will have pitbulls" idea, but the same principle applies to having a sense of humor as well, or being so inconveniently "anti-social" that you might occasionally slip up and speak the truth.

The other night a young commuter fell under the wheels of a trax train. . . must've stumbled getting onto his bike on the platform, and the machine tore him to pieces as bad as any pitbull could, but of course trax is a holy cow so to speak, and nobody is suggesting we oughtta outlaw mass transit.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Hey take it up with the authorities at that dictionary. I just agree with the definition. If you have a problem with it, feel free to contact them. If you think they have contradicting definitions that is not my problem.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with that site or their definition, and I never said I did. On the contrary, I posted their definition for "weapon" and I agree with it.

For all the talk about me cherry picking definitions, I think it's now clear that I wasn't the one trying to cherry pick.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I don't have a problem with that site or their definition, and I never said I did. On the contrary, I posted their definition for "weapon" and I agree with it.

For all the talk about me cherry picking definitions, I think it's now clear that I wasn't the one trying to cherry pick.
Click to expand...

I took the one interpretation of the issue upon which laws are predicated. That should be the one true definition since it would affect how people live their lives, not just how they understand a book or a wikipedia article. That is obviously a more valid source.

All I did was exactly what you did. You cherrypicked and even went so far as to argue that the source that contradicted your opinion was not as valid as your source (Miriam-Webster has always been questionable, right?) So I cherry-pick one back, but of course, that is not what you did. Hilarious.
 
I cropped my ears over the weekend, and something funny happened which caused me to do a complete 360 and believe Salty on this now.
I was waving my head around in an angry manner at a neighbor, and a passing cop arrested me for brandishing a weapon.

/thread, and Salty is now king for just one day
 
LogGrad98 said:
I took the one interpretation of the issue upon which laws are predicated. That should be the one true definition since it would affect how people live their lives, not just how they understand a book or a wikipedia article. That is obviously a more valid source.

All I did was exactly what you did. You cherrypicked and even went so far as to argue that the source that contradicted your opinion was not as valid as your source (Miriam-Webster has always been questionable, right?) So I cherry-pick one back, but of course, that is not what you did. Hilarious.
Click to expand...
I never argued that any other source was questionable, and I didn't cherry pick. I didn't see any that contradicted mine either.

I just argued that I wasn't cherry picking, and my source is valid.

If you want to use your own dictionary, that's fine. Knock yourself out. It doesn't mean mine isn't valid.

Your dictionary site had roughly the same definition as dictionary.com anyway (especially the one I posted from that site). It's not like they were totally different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top