Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[LogGrad98]

Not quite. More like if you give your little girl huge breast implants, don't blame it on her race if she turns out to be a slut. Even if a bunch of losers have posted on some message board that they only did it for "cosmetic" purposes.

So in this example we would have to assume that every little girl was part of a line bred for prostitution, since bulls are part of a line bred for fighting.

 

[moevillini]

Hey don't dis the cheese.

hey, I didn't dis the cheese at all - - my thought was that you had dignified the cheese by omitting from this particular argument. So I was giving you credit for that




correct me if I'm wrong, but I just didn't see cheese fitting into this particular argument at all ;-)

 

[moevillini]

So in this example we would have to assume that every little girl was part of a line bred for prostitution, since bulls are part of a line bred for fighting.

no, those bred for prostitution are those with big breasts whether they are naturally occurring or enhanced through artificial means

 

[candrew]

My suggestion on this issue is to worry about psychotic jackasses, not the dogs they might own. Fix the psychotic jackass problem, and the dog problem goes away. But even if you can't fix psychotic jackasses, or even get it under control, I'm 100% sure psychotic jackasses pose a much greater threat to my safety than dogs and they always will.

Of course the psychotic jackasses are the also the ones most likely NOT to spay or neuter their pit bulls; which leads to more aggressive pit bulls in the population.

So by basic logic this problem will only get worse. I say a 5K fine to any owner who doesn't spay or neuter their pit bull sounds about right. With the exception of registered show dogs - this way you don't wipe out the population altogether. You just make sure breeding is in the hands of responsible owners.

/Thread

 

[SaltyDawg]

The most hilarious thing is your insistence on all or nothing stances. EVERY owner that ever crops ears are nothing but wifebeater-wearing rednecks who fight their dogs every weekend and cropped the ears so they could be a better fighter, and if they claim it is for aesthetics, they are lying. EVERYONE who ever used marijuana had EXACTLY the same experience you did and if they say they didn't they are lying. Basically, everyone with an opinion or actual experience different than yours is a liar. It is a very convenient, if entirely specious, assertion.

Not to let facts get in the way of your tirade, but I actually never said any of that. I actually said:

Maybe they didn't want it to really be mean, they just wanted it to look mean. Either way, it is still a pretty good indicator about the type of owners that dog has had.

I guess if you don't understand what the cropped ears are for, then it's no surprise you think all pit bulls are inherently evil.

To clarify, I am absolutely not saying that everyone who owns a pit bull is a trailer park loser who fights dogs every weekend. I am saying that if there is a trailer park loser who fights dogs every weekend, he probably has a pit bull.

These are NOT the ONLY irresponsible owners though. Mutilating your dog, just because you think it is "cool" to make him look as ferocious as possible, is irresponsible. Even if you don't intend to fight your dog every weekend, even if you aren't a trailer park loser, you still can't blame it on the breed if your dog turns out to be aggressive after you mutilate him in order to look aggressive.

Also, I never said it was ONLY dogs with clipped ears that were ever aggressive. On the contrary, I said:

And that can (and does) happen with just about any dog breed. It happens more often with pit bulls because that is the trashy losers' dog of choice.

So of course it happens with pit bulls that don't have cropped ears. Check this out:
https://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/off-topic-discussions/140106-lab-puppy-kills-2-month-old-baby.html

It happens with all dogs.

So in this example we would have to assume that every little girl was part of a line bred for prostitution, since bulls are part of a line bred for fighting.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. You are saying the "intent" is everything, even posting a bunch of quotes from people saying they only crop ears for cosmetic purposes. Then you argue that the original intent is all that matters, arguing that because pit bulls were originally bred for fighting, then that must be why they are bred now. And if you are not arguing that they must be bred for fighting now, then why would we have to assume a little girl is bred for prostitution just because she had breast implants for "cosmetic" purposes?


Oh, and moe, since you seem to be taking offense at this, let me clarify for you. I, like most men (I am sure), have absolutely nothing against big breasts on women. I have nothing against breast implants either. I am simply saying that if you have a little girl, and you give her breast implants, then it is not responsible parenting and I wouldn't blame it on her race if she turned out to be a slut. Now if an adult chooses to get breast implants, that is another matter altogether (and I have no problem with it whatsoever). I am not saying big breasts are linked to sluts. But I am saying breast implants on little girls isn't responsible parenting, and irresponsible parenting can absolutely lead to little girls growing up to be sluts.

 

[GVC]

The relevant questions seem to be:

1. Are Pit bulls inherently more aggressive/dangerous than other breeds?

2. Does cropping ears ("mutilating") actually affect a dog's level of aggression?


I don't care to dig up evidence on either side of either of those questions, but if I cared about this issue that's where I'd start.

 

[Scat]

Mutilating your dog, just because you think it is "cool" to make him look as ferocious as possible, is irresponsible. Even if you don't intend to fight your dog every weekend, even if you aren't a trailer park loser, you still can't blame it on the breed if your dog turns out to be aggressive after you mutilate him in order to look aggressive.

So your argument is that clipping ears and docking tails to comform to recognized standards will make the dog aggressive?!? And that there is no other reason to clip ears and dock tails?? This is hands down the dumbest thing you have ever said. Bar none. You are so woefully uneducated regarding this subject it is mind-boggling. You have no facts to back up your argument. Log and others have at least presented some facts. You argue against the facts and place your opinion as more relevant. Truly incredible.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So your argument is that clipping ears and docking tails to comform to recognized standards will make the dog aggressive?!? And that there is no other reason to clip ears and dock tails?? This is hands down the dumbest thing you have ever said. Bar none. You are so woefully uneducated regarding this subject it is mind-boggling. You have no facts to back up your argument. Log and others have at least presented some facts. You argue against the facts and place your opinion as more relevant. Truly incredible.

I actually posted a link (which is common knowledge anyway, but still posted proof) showing that pit bulls ears were originally clipped so they didn't get hurt during fights. If someone is clipping them to conform to a standard, this is the standard they are trying to meet. Whether they intend to fight the dog, or they just want it to look like a fighter, the cropped ears were originally meant to make the dog a better fighter.

Try reading a little before you go off on your rants. When you say I haven't posted any facts you are either flat out lying, or you haven't read everything.

 

[Scat]

I actually posted a link (which is common knowledge anyway, but still posted proof) showing that pit bulls ears were originally clipped so they didn't get hurt during fights. If someone is clipping them to conform to a standard, this is the standard they are trying to meet. Whether they intend to fight the dog, or they just want it to look like a fighter, the cropped ears were originally meant to make the dog a better fighter.

Try reading a little before you go off on your rants. When you say I haven't posted any facts you are either flat out lying, or you haven't read everything.

I read your original post regarding clipping ears and docking tails and I agree 100% that it was originally done for reasons that involved fighting the dogs. Where you go south is claiming only those that fight dogs now have the proceduers performed and that the procedure in and of itself will make the dog aggressive. That's where you turn into crazy conspiracy dude.

Over time, a standard is set. That standard is carried through regardless of why a person obtained the dog. Look at Cocker Spaniels. Their tails were originally docked to prevent burrs getting caught in their tails while flushing game. When is the last time you heard of anyone using a Cocker to flush game? Yet nearly every Cocker sold comes with a docked tail because that is the standard. The original intent no longer matters. It simply is now the standard.

It would be interesting to see stats on how many pitbull attacks are carried out by clipped/docked dogs vs. not clipped/docked. I bet there is no difference.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Until guns get banned, I cannot remotely fathom how this is even a topic of discussion.

And before someone flies off the handle, I'm not necessarily saying guns should be banned.

 

[Scat]

Until guns get banned, I cannot remotely fathom how this is even a topic of discussion.

And before someone flies off the handle, I'm not necessarily saying guns should be banned.

This has already been discussed. Apples and oranges. A gun does not climb the fence and attack on it's own. A gun needs direct human use.

 

[LogGrad98]

I read your original post regarding clipping ears and docking tails and I agree 100% that it was originally done for reasons that involved fighting the dogs. Where you go south is claiming only those that fight dogs now have the proceduers performed and that the procedure in and of itself will make the dog aggressive. That's where you turn into crazy conspiracy dude.

Over time, a standard is set. That standard is carried through regardless of why a person obtained the dog. Look at Cocker Spaniels. Their tails were originally docked to prevent burrs getting caught in their tails while flushing game. When is the last time you heard of anyone using a Cocker to flush game? Yet nearly every Cocker sold comes with a docked tail because that is the standard. The original intent no longer matters. It simply is now the standard.

It would be interesting to see stats on how many pitbull attacks are carried out by clipped/docked dogs vs. not clipped/docked. I bet there is no difference.

This. In spades.

And there is no evidence at all that cropping a dogs ears will make it more aggressive in and of itself.