Pit Bull Video

Off Topic
143

Define provocation. Just as there are dog owners who believe their dogs are angels, there are parents who think their children can do no wrong. Who are you Dirty Harry or something? If my dog barked at your kids and you shot him you had better shoot me next. If not you’ll be playing catch with them from a wheelchair. Sue me for that and win or lose you will still be in a wheelchair.

The threat of a lawsuit works but if the majority of pit attacks are from dogs who have poor owners then it doesn’t mean much as far as reducing attacks. The threat of killing the dog also doesn’t mean much if the owner has no problem killing you. There are a lot of pits in the city and if one wanders off and bites someone, unless the victim is a close neighbor, good luck finding the owner.

144

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I hope your son is well now DM. Sorry that happened. I hope your son outgrows his fear of dogs, if he is afraid, and gets over the trauma of the attack.
[/quote]

Thank you very much. It has been nearly 8 years since he was attacked. He still holds a fear of Pits and other larger dogs unless he knows them but that is getting better with time. He will need additional reconstructive surgery after he finishes growing but he seems okay with that.

I probably have more problems with it than he does at this point. About four months before the attack I was cornered in another neighbor’s yard by the same two dogs early one morning while out for a run. By the time I arrived back home and got my gun the dogs were no where to be found and I did not know who owned them at that point. By the time I found the owner a few weeks later my anger had subsided. Consequently, I never acted on my intent to kill those dogs and my son paid the price for it.

That will never happen again.

145

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I have never seen a car drive itself into car after car, attacking those other vehicles, without the presence of the owner. Does this happen often where you live?

If so then yes, that would make the car analogy a good one.

You must not live near any hills or ice.

Parking brakes fail all of the time, and cars drift away under the force of gravity, smashing in to people and buildings.

Drivers lose control of cars and trucks on ice, skidding, crashing, and killing many people, year after year.

These are caused by properties of nature(gravity,friction,inertia), but they are made wors by the sheer size and composition of the vehicles.

The analogy is good.

Your fear prevents you from accepting that though.

No it isn’t.

The car does not put itself on ice! The car does not then put ITSELF into reverse and go attack another car. The car does not decide to jump its fence and go after the neighbor’s cat.

Your stubborness will not allow you to admit that analogy sucks.

stop beating that dead horse.

[/quote]

I quoted the whole thing again so that you can try again.

Aside from blinding you to reason, your fear has obviously impaired your ability to read.

And why should I stop? You haven’t.

To use your own reason for carying on this campaign-

It is a public forum. You have an opinion, which you have finaly started to express as less than fact, and so do I.

The difference in opinion is that mine and many others is supported by experience, and yours is supported by a couple of articles that you read.

You see, if experience, which could be taken as fact, were different, the opinions that I and others who agree would be different, but since your experience is limited to reading a couple of articles which were chosen by you, with the inherent bias that you have toward the subject, your opinion is not only not based in fact, it is biased.

Thus rendering it worthless.

So, why are You beating a dead horse?
(with an imaginary club, none the less)

146

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Did you just realize you can’t make up lies or say that I want all men in prison?
[/quote]

Show me where I’ve lied. Good luck on that one. And I didn’t say you wanted all men in prison, but by using your logic, that is one of the “solutions” we’re looking at.

If anything you’re the one who lied.

Remember saying that? If you can’t back that claim up, then you’re a liar.

147

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Define provocation. Just as there are dog owners who believe their dogs are angels, there are parents who think their children can do no wrong. Who are you Dirty Harry or something? If my dog barked at your kids and you shot him you had better shoot me next. If not you’ll be playing catch with them from a wheelchair. Sue me for that and win or lose you will still be in a wheelchair.

[/quote]

When your little child was mauled by two dogs and comes close to dying you can threaten to put him in a wheelchair. Not until then. Give him a break, huh?

148

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Again sorry for misunderstanding. You are right, I will grow a pair and not take things personally.
[/quote]

Hey, I’d rather debate you for hours than spend the night agreeing with some boring impassionate lump. It’s great we can debate here. I hate when it gets personal though (which it too often does).

Whatever you do, don’t lose your passion and fire. We don’t agree but it’s ok that you’re wrong. kidding

149

[quote]derek wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
Define provocation. Just as there are dog owners who believe their dogs are angels, there are parents who think their children can do no wrong. Who are you Dirty Harry or something? If my dog barked at your kids and you shot him you had better shoot me next. If not you’ll be playing catch with them from a wheelchair. Sue me for that and win or lose you will still be in a wheelchair.

When your little child was mauled by two dogs and comes close to dying you can threaten to put him in a wheelchair. Not until then. Give him a break, huh?[/quote]

Doesn’t give him the right to shoot someone’s dog that HE judges as a potential threat. What if he misses and hits someone else’s child. Would he have no problem if that father shot him?

150

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
Lighten up, Francis.[/quote]

Darlene, there is no lighten up option in the internet penis measuring war. It’s like one of those old text adventures.

A Wizard has turned you into a whale. Is this awesome?

1: Yes
2: No
3: Maybe
4: Falafel

See? No lighten up.

I don’t think she’s ever advocated a position herself that there is a genetic link between the pitbull breed, specifically the American bulldog, and aggression. She may have quoted some stupid bullshit like that, but I’ve never seen her actually use it as a crux for her argument. Pitbulls are targeted more than any other dog by trailer trash pieces of shit for fighting, and I don’t see how this could be disputed.

I worked overnight last night, but before I went to sleep this morning I actually called an attorney I use for real estate (he was the only one available on Sunday) and I had 3 new companies incorporated.

I am now the CEO of:

Ameritreme Xtreme Snowboard Manufacturer Inc.
Biotek ElectroPhonics USA Inc.
Bob and John’s Pizza Wonderland Inc.

Now, I’ve never actually seen snow and I don’t really like snowboarding, but I thought the name was catchy. I’m thinking I should have put another X somewhere in manufacturer. Manufaxturer. Hmm.

I don’t know what “Biotek” is, or what ElectroPhonics are supposed to do, but I ended it with USA so atleast I’m patriotic.

I don’t actually have any friends named Bob or John, but I do love pizza. It’s like what Target did with Sutton and Dodge, they’re totally made up names, but they sound great for a couple of guys who make steaks. Bob and John sound good for pizza to me. And since it’s a wonderland, it’ll be kid-friendly, but also child molester friendly. No sense blocking out one consumer demographic from purchasing your product just because you’re appealing to another, right?

The breed is only maligned by people stupid enough to believe that breed plays a significant role in aggression. These people also most likely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and Tom DeLay was trying to save that poor Terri Schiavo woman who was completely responsive and being held against her will. If you’re trying to bolster anything in their eyes it would be like trying to fuck an electrical outlet. It won’t fit in their heads, and the time you waste trying to get it in there will only result in frustration on your end.

And possible electrocution of the peener.

151

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I have never seen a car drive itself into car after car, attacking those other vehicles, without the presence of the owner. Does this happen often where you live?

If so then yes, that would make the car analogy a good one.

You must not live near any hills or ice.

Parking brakes fail all of the time, and cars drift away under the force of gravity, smashing in to people and buildings.

Drivers lose control of cars and trucks on ice, skidding, crashing, and killing many people, year after year.

These are caused by properties of nature(gravity,friction,inertia), but they are made wors by the sheer size and composition of the vehicles.

The analogy is good.

Your fear prevents you from accepting that though.

No it isn’t.

The car does not put itself on ice! The car does not then put ITSELF into reverse and go attack another car. The car does not decide to jump its fence and go after the neighbor’s cat.

Your stubborness will not allow you to admit that analogy sucks.

stop beating that dead horse.

I quoted the whole thing again so that you can try again.

Aside from blinding you to reason, your fear has obviously impaired your ability to read.

And why should I stop? You haven’t.

To use your own reason for carying on this campaign-

It is a public forum. You have an opinion, which you have finaly started to express as less than fact, and so do I.

The difference in opinion is that mine and many others is supported by experience, and yours is supported by a couple of articles that you read.

You see, if experience, which could be taken as fact, were different, the opinions that I and others who agree would be different, but since your experience is limited to reading a couple of articles which were chosen by you, with the inherent bias that you have toward the subject, your opinion is not only not based in fact, it is biased.

Thus rendering it worthless.

So, why are You beating a dead horse?
(with an imaginary club, none the less)
[/quote]

Well you really seem to think this is a good analogy so I will try and follow it.

I have seen cars skid on ice. I have never seen a car, skid on ice, crash redirect itself, and then go after another car, and another, and another by its own design.

Has this happened and I just AM truly ignorant? Has a car been trained to attack other cars? (that was flippant, sorry) I have never seen a car decide to dig under the fence to get out. Cars are not sentient and do not act on will. Gravity may cause them to slide, ice may cause them to skid, but they are not acting out of malice.

There are just better analogies out there. The one about restricting people is better, but I just don’t get the car analogy.

You do see it as being a good one so I am going to have to just say we don’t agree.

And I have never said I didn’t have any experience with pitbulls. I just don’t own one. I absolutely agree with you that our experiences are probably not the same.

You claim bias, if you want to get technical, all opinions are.

But, I agree with you that our experiences are different resulting in different opinions and perspectives.

Now what is the solution?

152

[quote]derek wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Again sorry for misunderstanding. You are right, I will grow a pair and not take things personally.

Hey, I’d rather debate you for hours than spend the night agreeing with some boring impassionate lump. It’s great we can debate here. I hate when it gets personal though (which it too often does).

Whatever you do, don’t lose your passion and fire. We don’t agree but it’s ok that you’re wrong. kidding
[/quote]

EXACTLY we can agree to disagree.

And really people should debate and have discussions and communications.

Although I am not keen on those dogs I would be even less for a complete ban on the dogs than I was before after reading these posts.

I do hope a solution is found.

153

[quote]malonetd wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Did you just realize you can’t make up lies or say that I want all men in prison?

Show me where I’ve lied. Good luck on that one. And I didn’t say you wanted all men in prison, but by using your logic, that is one of the “solutions” we’re looking at.

If anything you’re the one who lied.
I do know that the majority of owners for that breed, mixed breed, assumed to be aggressive dog, are the type of owners that want that dog to be mean and want them to attack.
Remember saying that? If you can’t back that claim up, then you’re a liar.
[/quote]

I edited my post. I should not have said lied. I apologize.

I have not lied and I have posted the links regarding the owners in my first posts.

No I haven’t lied.

I used a strong word and slung it around and that was completely uncalled for. You did not deserve that and it was unwarranted. I apologize.

But I would never say all men should be in prisons and that was uncalled for.

154

Legally dogs have no freewill. They are animals, i.e., property, just like a car. Who trained the dog to attack? A human who modified the dog’s natural behavior to suit his needs. Where is the dog’s freewill in all of this? The dog did not choose how he was raised or his living conditions-all things that influence his behavior. The idea that car does nothing without a person’s actions apply to the dog as well. Dogs wouldn’t even be dogs if not for humans.

155

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Now what is the solution?[/quote]

Who says that there even needs to be one?

It is apparent that you would Like one, but is your life in any way harmed by not having one?

Do you in fact NEED one?

I don’t.

156

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Cars are not sentient and do not act on will. Gravity may cause them to slide, ice may cause them to skid, but they are not acting out of malice.

[/quote]

I hope you see where you are going with this. If my dog bites you what are you going to do? He acted of HIS will and therefore I am not responsible. Will you have him killed? Then how will you sue him? If you sue him what will you get? By giving property will (and emotions, as well as other human traits such as malice), you give it responsibility for its actions. Are you seriously saying that dogs are capable of being good or evil?

If my car’s brakes malfunction do I blame the car and take it to court? No. I take the manufacturer, the PEOPLE who are responsible, to court. By your logic they could turn around and say the car had a mind of its own. Dogs do not have minds of their own as cars do not have minds of their own.

157

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Legally dogs have no freewill. They are animals, i.e., property, just like a car. Who trained the dog to attack? A human who modified the dog’s natural behavior to suit his needs. Where is the dog’s freewill in all of this? The dog did not choose how he was raised or his living conditions-all things that influence his behavior. The idea that car does nothing without a person’s actions apply to the dog as well. Dogs wouldn’t even be dogs if not for humans. [/quote]

I am not sure where you get your legal definitions from. Dogs are legally found to be roaming “at will.”

158

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Now what is the solution?

Who says that there even needs to be one?

It is apparent that you would Like one, but is your life in any way harmed by not having one?

Do you in fact NEED one?

I don’t.
[/quote]

That might be a good question to consider also.

Maybe we don’t need a solution such as a ban but I think quite a few people would like a solution to the bad owners and bad dogs.

I would like a solution.

159

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Cars are not sentient and do not act on will. Gravity may cause them to slide, ice may cause them to skid, but they are not acting out of malice.

I hope you see where you are going with this. If my dog bites you what are you going to do? He acted of HIS will and therefore I am not responsible. Will you have him killed? Then how will you sue him? If you sue him what will you get? By giving property will (and emotions, as well as other human traits such as malice), you give it responsibility for its actions. Are you serously saying that dogs are capable of being good or evil?

If my car’s brakes malfunction do I blame the car and take it to court? No. I take the manufacturer, the PEOPLE who are responsible, to court. By your logic they could turn around and say the car had a mind of its own. Dogs do not have minds of their own as cars do not have minds of their own. [/quote]

I don’t know if you are in the legal field, but that isn’t the correct interpretation as it would stand here in California.

Dogs do have will but they are property.

In regards to your brakes, have you maintained them properly? Did you know they were bad and drove anyways? Did you with full knowledge put a dangerous car on the road?

I don’t think dogs are evil but I think they can be exploited to be viscious.

160

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Define provocation. Just as there are dog owners who believe their dogs are angels, there are parents who think their children can do no wrong. Who are you Dirty Harry or something? If my dog barked at your kids and you shot him you had better shoot me next. If not you’ll be playing catch with them from a wheelchair. Sue me for that and win or lose you will still be in a wheelchair.

The threat of a lawsuit works but if the majority of pit attacks are from dogs who have poor owners then it doesn’t mean much as far as reducing attacks. The threat of killing the dog also doesn’t mean much if the owner has no problem killing you. There are a lot of pits in the city and if one wanders off and bites someone, unless the victim is a close neighbor, good luck finding the owner.
[/quote]

  1. If your dog walks by and my kid throws a rock or does something mean you and your dog get an apology and my kid gets his butt whipped. If your dog roams the street or comes into my yard and GROWLS (not barks) then it is GAME ON. Home Depot sells shovels for less than $4. Get one.

It is incumbent upon you to love your dog(s) enough to keep them in a protected environment. That isn’t in my yard. BTW, I am an excellent marksman and I won’t endanger other people in the process but the execution will occur.

  1. That wheelchair comment was cute.

  2. I have personal experience with two Pit attacks involving three dogs. None of those dogs ever attacked again because they were killed afterwards.

  3. One of my sons was nearly killed by two Pits when he was playing with a child in another yard. Do you honestly think I will ever allow that to happen again? While I blame that squarely on the owner I could have prevented it by taking action months early when those same dogs came after me.

Derek, thanks.

161

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
Legally dogs have no freewill. They are animals, i.e., property, just like a car. Who trained the dog to attack? A human who modified the dog’s natural behavior to suit his needs. Where is the dog’s freewill in all of this? The dog did not choose how he was raised or his living conditions-all things that influence his behavior. The idea that car does nothing without a person’s actions apply to the dog as well. Dogs wouldn’t even be dogs if not for humans.

I am not sure where you get your legal definitions from. Dogs are legally found to be roaming “at will.”

[/quote]

So the owner is not culpable for the dog’s actions? Are you saying an owner can say, “it’s not my fault the dog was acting on his will,” as a defense in court? that’s messed up since a dog lacks the ability to defend himself in a court of law. It’s the owner’s word against the dog’s bark.

162

[quote]DM246 wrote:

  1. One of my sons was nearly killed by two Pits when he was playing with a child in another yard. Do you honestly think I will ever allow that to happen again? While I blame that squarely on the owner I could have prevented it by taking action months early when those same dogs came after me.

Derek, thanks.

[/quote]

I’m not trying to be mean here and as a parent I of course understand your feelings however, had you not played Mr. Macho and gone for your gun to go and find the dogs and instead called the proper authorities maybe something would have been done to prevent what happened. You acted on anger and didn’t use your intelligence to resolve what happened. Once you were no longer angry you lost the urge to act.