Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[SaltyDawg]

I agree with your general point, but I think you misspoke when you said "weapon". The dictionary defining it that way was pretty damn lucky, and yes that opens the door to the ears maybe being considered a weapon. It is advantageous to a dog while fighting, so who cares if it is a weapon or not. Let it go, and get back to the real issue. If you make the leap that even though TECHNICALLY they can be considered a weapon, they probably shouldn't be, then maybe some people would be willing to take the leap that a higher proportion of people that want aggressive dogs would choose a pitbull making their aggressiveness a self fulfilling prophecy. I agree with that despite the lack of evidence, but I think half a thread discussing the definition of weapon is a waste. Especially since there is now a small glimmer of hope lockout wise.

The point is the people who said I was stupid for calling them a weapon were out of line. Whether you think they should be called a weapon or not, technically I was correct. It was all just another attempt at an ad hominem by them because my original argument upset them.

 

[LogGrad98]

Technically you are not correct. No one disputed that depending on how an object is used, almost anything can be a weapon. Where you fell down was the insistence that, despite the fact that you acknowledged that other objects may or may not be weapons depending on how they were used, you insisted that cropped ears are ALWAYS weapons. If it is for fighting, then sure that argument could be made, but if the crop was done for aesthetics then it is decidedly not a weapon as that is not the use of the object. It is the insistence of all or nothing stances where you so often fail to make a valid point. Cropped ears are not always used as weapons. They are often used for looks alone. If the dog is being put into fights then sure it could conceivably be a weapon, but there is no way you can say that something like say a helmet is only sometimes a weapon, but cropped ears are always a weapon. That is a simply logical fallacy.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Technically you are not correct. No one disputed that depending on how an object is used, almost anything can be a weapon. Where you fell down was the insistence that, despite the fact that you acknowledged that other objects may or may not be weapons depending on how they were used, you insisted that cropped ears are ALWAYS weapons. If it is for fighting, then sure that argument could be made, but if the crop was done for aesthetics then it is decidedly not a weapon as that is not the use of the object. It is the insistence of all or nothing stances where you so often fail to make a valid point. Cropped ears are not always used as weapons. They are often used for looks alone. If the dog is being put into fights then sure it could conceivably be a weapon, but there is no way you can say that something like say a helmet is only sometimes a weapon, but cropped ears are always a weapon. That is a simply logical fallacy.

No, it is a weapon. Even if the owner stupidly gets it done for cosmetic purposes, if the dog gets in a fight it will still be used by the dog (the reason they were invented).

Helmets are not always used in fights. If a dog has cropped ears, they are always used in fights. So it's easy to see why a helmet might not always be a weapon while cropped ears are.

If you have a permanently mounted helmet that was made for battle, then that would probably be considered a weapon too.

 

[LogGrad98]

No, it is a weapon. Even if the owner stupidly gets it done for cosmetic purposes, if the dog gets in a fight it will still be used by the dog (the reason they were invented).

Helmets are not always used in fights. If a dog has cropped ears, they are always used in fights. So it's easy to see why a helmet might not always be a weapon while cropped ears are.

Well there you go. Black and white. Your opinion is it is a weapon. My opinion is it is not unless the dog gets in a fight, and even then it is highly suspect as a weapon, since by that definition the dog's food the day of the fight could be considered a weapon.

Fact is you cannot concretely say that cropped ears always fit the exact definition of a weapon. You can personally believe that they do, but your opinion does not make it fact. Plenty of others disagree, not with the definition of the word weapon necessarily but with the assumption that cropped ears fit that definition. If the dog never fights, then no the cropped ears are not a weapon since they would never have been used to win a fight. That fits the dictionary.con definition exactly.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Well there you go. Black and white. Your opinion is it is a weapon. My opinion is it is not unless the dog gets in a fight, and even then it is highly suspect as a weapon, since by that definition the dog's food the day of the fight could be considered a weapon.

Fact is you cannot concretely say that cropped ears always fit the exact definition of a weapon. You can personally believe that they do, but your opinion does not make it fact. Plenty of others disagree, not with the definition of the word weapon necessarily but with the assumption that cropped ears fit that definition. If the dog never fights, then no the cropped ears are not a weapon since they would never have been used to win a fight. That fits the dictionary.con definition exactly.

If the dog never gets in a fight, then it had a weapon that it never used.

Either way, my point that got all of this started stands. Remember that? I said the cropped ears on the pit in that picture said a lot about the owners. That set you off on your ad hominem rampage, and all the losers looking for camaraderie decided to join in with you.

 

[LogGrad98]

If the dog never gets in a fight, then it had a weapon that it never used.

Either way, my point that got all of this started stands. Remember that? I said the cropped ears on the pit in that picture said a lot about the owners. That set you off on your ad hominem rampage, and all the losers looking for camaraderie decided to join in with you.

What ad hominem? I responded that the cropped ears cannot be used to judge the owners. There have been arguments all around this. You were the first one to start calling people idiots for not believing your interpretation of definitions. If all you saw in all of it was ad hominem that explains why you are so happy in your little world. Evidence contrary to salty's opinion = personal attack = automatically false. Makes sense, in a warped kind of way.

By the way this whole group ad hominem thing is pretty good straw man attempt when you have no good response for my last argument. Nice try. Concession acknowledged.

Have a nice day.

 

[NUMBERICA]

So are you clowns suggesting that if you give a pit bull a gun it will shoot another dog? Or if you give it a club it will use it to beat another dog?

Or is a club not a weapon to a pit bull, and instead they use other things as weapons, that humans probably don't use as weapons?

That just happened.

 

[freakazoid]

Let it go, and get back to the real issue. I think half a thread discussing the definition of weapon is a waste.

Repped. Some people should learn to use the phrase "agree to disagree" as a weapon.

 

[SaltyDawg]

What ad hominem? I responded that the cropped ears cannot be used to judge the owners. There have been arguments all around this. You were the first one to start calling people idiots for not believing your interpretation of definitions. If all you saw in all of it was ad hominem that explains why you are so happy in your little world. Evidence contrary to salty's opinion = personal attack = automatically false. Makes sense, in a warped kind of way.

By the way this whole group ad hominem thing is pretty good straw man attempt when you have no good response for my last argument. Nice try. Concession acknowledged.

Have a nice day.

I'm not going to go through all 19 pages, but a quick look turned up these gems. I don't see how you can claim this isn't ad hominem:

But I forget that many people sharing an opinion different than yours are all simply wrong, so you can go on living in your delusion that any and all pitbulls with cropped ears have it done solely so they dog can be a meaner fighter.

That makes it so hard not to just laugh at everything you post. You are obviously very narcissistic, very young or naive, or not very intelligent if you can't see that in life there is actually mostly gray area and not very much that is as black and white as you would have everyone believe. And your insistence on black and white in all arguments shows how desperate you are to win and represents absurdity at its finest.

I love how free you are with definitions just so you never have to admit you got it wrong. If you can freely redefine anything you can win any argument. Nice, if insane, tactic.

If it agrees with Salty's opinion it is true, otherwise it is false. You need to change your name to SpeciousDawg.

 

[One Brow]

That doesn't change the fact that weapon was defined the way I thought it was, and an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would fall under that definition.

Technically, by butchering the context of the definition in dictionary.com, it can be read the way you want it to read, and you want to read it so an invisibility cloak (or a MRE, for that matter) would qualify. In the two jobs I've had with the DoD, bunkers were not weapons (even though they let soldiers last longer in battle), the stealth materiel on the plane was not a weapon (even though the plane was a weapon, whose stealth capabilities let the plane do more damage), and invisibility cloaks would not have been weapons.

However, I know the futility of trying to convince you that you has misunderstood something, so I will say no more on htis subject in this thread.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not going to go through all 19 pages, but a quick look turned up these gems. I don't see how you can claim this isn't ad hominem:

An ad hominem is a logical fallacy that your argument is wrong because you are stupid, ugly, dishonest, etc. Not one of those quotes from LogGrad98 says the reason you argument is wrong is your putative stupidity, ugliness, dishonesty, etc.; they say the argument is so bad that it afects their opinion of you. You have the causal lines reversed from an ad hominem argument.

 

[Bronco70]

Okay, just to make sure I understand...

If I, knowing I am going to be involved in a tussle, preemptively cut off my own left leg, it's actually a weapon because now I've eliminated the possibility of a serious left ankle sprain, which may hinder my ability to fight?

Sweet. The interwebz rule.