John Cuthber Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Do you reaally not understand the difference? Asprin and frying pans have a usefull purpose; pitbulls don't. It's a good few pages back that I pointed out that we need to look at both sides of the "cost benefit" analysis here. From a practical point of view such as their conpanionship for people or their abillity as a guard dog, the pitbull can be replaced by, say, an alsation. Doing so reduces the risk to you and others. Why in the name of anything would you want a dog that's a pointless risk? Salicylic acid (without the acetyl group) will cure a headache but it's more dangerous than aspirin because it's more corrosive to the stomach. We use aspirin rather than salicylic acid because the latter is plainly an unneeded risk. Even if it were only a tiny bit more risk it would not be worth taking. Now, if you choose to take salicylic acid for your headache then, frankly that's your problem. It can't do me any harm. When you start taking risks with my life or health then I really have a right to question that choice. One way you might play dice with my life is to drive a car. You probably wouldn't harm me if you walked into me but if you drove into me you probably would harm me. On the other hand, I can see that a car might be useful to you. Since I can see that I to might want to drive a car I'm prepared to "trade". You drive and I take the risk that you might hit me because I want to drive and let you take the risk that I might hit you. What are you offering to me in trade for your choice to have a dangerous dog? The "guilt" of pitbulls is (whether you like it or not) well established- they are not a third of the dogs but they cause a third of the deaths. We are not talking about "innocent till proven guilty" here; 66 dead people is plainly guilty. This isn't some accademic point; if there were no pitbulls and their owners had chosen some other breed, then fewer people would have died. Your choice to allow pitbulls would kill other people; please give me a reason for it that their mothers will accept.
SkepticLance Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 To ParanoiA There are three points I would like to make regarding pit bulls and why it might be a good idea to legislate against them. 1. They kill people. Ok, you might say that 66 deaths in 20 years is trivial, but I am inclined to think that any human life saved is worth while. 2. They induce fear. If I walk down the street and see a pit bull, my stress levels immediately go up. I am inclined to say : "What right has that pit bull owner to cause my cortisol levels to rise, with the medical damage that generates?" And I am a big 6 foot male. Imagine how much fear is induced in those less able to defend themselves. 3. There is a perfectly suitable alternative. There are literally hundreds of breeds of dogs, with all kinds of qualities, including sporting ability, speed, intelligence, devotion etc. Owning a pit bull, unlike owning a frypan, confers no special advantage. You can get all the emotional bolstering you need from other breeds.
ParanoiA Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Asprin and frying pans have a usefull purpose; pitbulls don't. Pitbulls are the best dog for killing intruders. 66 deaths in 20 years is not a bad record to that end. Sounds pretty useful to me. Your choice to allow pitbulls would kill other people; please give me a reason for it that their mothers will accept. My choice to allow pitbulls will maintain a basic principle of liberty that dwarfs your cause like the size of the sun to a pebble. There is no freedom principle that allows your property to hurt others. Punish the idiots, not the masses. 1. They kill people. Ok, you might say that 66 deaths in 20 years is trivial, but I am inclined to think that any human life saved is worth while. I'm not. Some human life should be discarded. Like murderers, rapists, molesters, and etc. But, to counter your point, those are 66 deaths that a human is responsible for. Just as I'm responsible for my car not running over your kids in the street, so am I responsible for my dog not eating them. When you're ready to quit putting a price on humans and get rid of automobiles, then we'll talk about how every life is worth saving. If you want to save "every life", then Pit Bull murders at 66 per 20 years is a really low-bar starting point don't you think? 2. They induce fear. If I walk down the street and see a pit bull, my stress levels immediately go up. I am inclined to say : "What right has that pit bull owner to cause my cortisol levels to rise, with the medical damage that generates?" And I am a big 6 foot male. Imagine how much fear is induced in those less able to defend themselves. Just because you interpret a danger or have a phobia doesn't make your cortisol levels my fault. If I get stressed about little poodles do I get to outlaw them too? Does that owner need to get rid of his poodle? You don't have a right to not be afraid of things. Sorry, but that's elementary. 3. There is a perfectly suitable alternative. There are literally hundreds of breeds of dogs, with all kinds of qualities, including sporting ability, speed, intelligence, devotion etc. Owning a pit bull, unlike owning a frypan, confers no special advantage. You can get all the emotional bolstering you need from other breeds. But none of them kill people. I want a dog that is notorious for killing people so no one will break in my house. You don't have an alternative for that. Faulty logic anyway since you don't get to decide what particulars I should be attracted to. This is a dismissal of basic individual rights - good intentions with bad consequences.
SkepticLance Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 To ParanoiA If your aim is to get a dog that will kill people, you have lots of choice. Pit bulls are bad, not just because they kill people, but because they kill the WRONG people. In other words, they kill innocents who are doing nothing to warrant the attack. Most of the people they kill are, in fact, children. German Shepherds are the third on the list of those dogs that kill people, but their toll is way below that of pit bulls. However, they are highly intelligent, highly loyal, and willing to take risks for their owners. They are far better as guard dogs, since they tend to kill only those people who they are trained to kill, rather than innocents. If properly trained, of course, they do not kill. Only immobilise, which is far better. Cuts down on the paper-work. I believe there are lots of other breeds that can be trained as very effective guard dogs.
John Cuthber Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 "Pitbulls are the best dog for killing intruders" OK where is the evidence for this? "My choice to allow pitbulls will maintain a basic principle of liberty that dwarfs your cause like the size of the sun to a pebble." Reasserting this belief doesn't add to the debate and it doesn't make it true. "There is no freedom principle that allows your property to hurt others." That's a defense for permiting guns- it's not guns that kill, it's people. However dogs are capable of independent action. Jailing you after you dog kills someone doesn't save a life; banning the dog does. "I'm not. Some human life should be discarded. Like murderers, rapists, molesters, and etc. " If the 66 dead were all in one of those categories this would be relevant. They weren't ; it isn't. "But, to counter your point, those are 66 deaths that a human is responsible for. Just as I'm responsible for my car not running over your kids in the street, so am I responsible for my dog not eating them." Standing there yelling "bad dog" won't stop a detemined attack. You seem to have overlooked the fact that dogs are quite capable of autonomous behaviour. Srictly that statement you made would only be true if in each of the 66 cases the dogs had been ordered to attack. Otherwise you just have to accept that dogs sometimes "misbehave". When a poodle does that it's a p.i.t.a.; when a pitbul does it it could be a dead child. "When you're ready to quit putting a price on humans and get rid of automobiles, then we'll talk about how every life is worth saving. If you want to save "every life", then Pit Bull murders at 66 per 20 years is a really low-bar starting point don't you think" Did you not read the bit about the pointlessness of some risks, or did you just not understand it? (Incidentally I don't actually drive) If you don't hate dogs you should be particularly ashamed of this idea "But none of them kill people. I want a dog that is notorious for killing people so no one will break in my house. You don't have an alternative for that. " All you are doing is setting the poor dog up for a fall. Many "bad guys" carry guns and wouldn't hesitate to use them to kill or maim a dog. Now anyone who has been reading this thread will have realised that I'm not dog lover, but even I am offended when someone mistreats an animal by exploiting it's pack loyalty instinct like that. Shame on you. "Faulty logic anyway since you don't get to decide what particulars I should be attracted to. " If you were atracted to young boys, society would lock you up for it. Society does get to choose. "This is a dismissal of basic individual rights" No it's a dismissal of a single "right". Just like we dismiss the right to commit murder because the, actually rather more basic, right is to life. "- good intentions with bad consequences." The consequence is that some of the next 66 people will live. You might think that's a bad consequence.
ParanoiA Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 "Pitbulls are the best dog for killing intruders"OK where is the evidence for this? 66 people in 20 years. I thought that was "the number" you guys were throwing around. Surely if another dog has killed more people, you would have mentioned it? Either way, I'll concede they are great for killing people. Good enough for me. "My choice to allow pitbulls will maintain a basic principle of liberty that dwarfs your cause like the size of the sun to a pebble."Reasserting this belief doesn't add to the debate and it doesn't make it true. It does add to the debate since my position is based on a principle over 200 years old, just in my country alone, that way more than 66 people have fought and died for over and over again and yours is on based on the same intellect used by those we fought. The principle of liberty is more important than cherry picking freedom. Again, your property is already not free to hurt others - it's already illegal and not protected by the constitution nor the principles I'm talking about. "I'm not. Some human life should be discarded. Like murderers, rapists, molesters, and etc. "If the 66 dead were all in one of those categories this would be relevant. They weren't ; it isn't. Exactly. Glad we agree. SkepticLance however made a generalization and this was my sarcastic reply. "But, to counter your point, those are 66 deaths that a human is responsible for. Just as I'm responsible for my car not running over your kids in the street, so am I responsible for my dog not eating them."Standing there yelling "bad dog" won't stop a detemined attack. You seem to have overlooked the fact that dogs are quite capable of autonomous behaviour. Srictly that statement you made would only be true if in each of the 66 cases the dogs had been ordered to attack. Otherwise you just have to accept that dogs sometimes "misbehave". When a poodle does that it's a p.i.t.a.; when a pitbul does it it could be a dead child. I realize that, however, dogs are property. Like or not, when a human keeps a pet, that human is responsible for that pet's behavior, whether he can control it or not. When humans are punished for not taking the proper steps to control their autonomous property, they will alter their behavior. When you start putting people in prison because their Pit Bull mangled some kid down the street, they'll think twice before leaving their man-eater within range of others. This also applies to all dogs, so we don't swap one murdering mutt for another. That's how you solve the problem, rather than treat the symptoms. "When you're ready to quit putting a price on humans and get rid of automobiles, then we'll talk about how every life is worth saving. If you want to save "every life", then Pit Bull murders at 66 per 20 years is a really low-bar starting point don't you think"Did you not read the bit about the pointlessness of some risks, or did you just not understand it? (Incidentally I don't actually drive) You haven't proven owning a Pit Bull is pointless. And it wouldn't matter if you did anyway, since being point-full or point-less is entirely subjective. Laws should be an entirely objective, as possible, experience so we don't trample the rights of others simply because we dislike something they do. If you don't hate dogs you should be particularly ashamed of this idea "But none of them kill people. I want a dog that is notorious for killing people so no one will break in my house. You don't have an alternative for that. "All you are doing is setting the poor dog up for a fall. Many "bad guys" carry guns and wouldn't hesitate to use them to kill or maim a dog. Now anyone who has been reading this thread will have realised that I'm not dog lover, but even I am offended when someone mistreats an animal by exploiting it's pack loyalty instinct like that. Shame on you. No sir, shame on you for dismissing the value of crime PREVENTION. Man-eating animals and guns from hell scare the crap out of low life bottom feeders looking to terrorize some family. A Pit Bull's name, alone, can disuade someone from breaking in your house. The same cannot be said of a lick happy Laborador. "Faulty logic anyway since you don't get to decide what particulars I should be attracted to. "If you were atracted to young boys, society would lock you up for it. Society does get to choose. DOG particulars John - I don't know why you went pedophilia on me. Your rights end where mine begin. Pointing out really cool dog features is nice, but to use that as a basis to strip someone of a right is downright silly. Particularly when you consider the damage done from abandoning a principle. (Think Iraq, preemptive strike here...) "This is a dismissal of basic individual rights"No it's a dismissal of a single "right". Just like we dismiss the right to commit murder because the, actually rather more basic, right is to life. "- good intentions with bad consequences." The consequence is that some of the next 66 people will live. You might think that's a bad consequence. No one has a right to hurt others. You don't dismiss a right to murder when rights, as they are defined, don't provide for murder in the first place. Of course, we may well being reinventing the chicken and the egg argument here. In any case, it still comes down to hurting the person or property of another. No one has a right to do that. Murder doesn't escape that qualifier, and neither does vicious property that attacks others. I've argued your points by accepting the aggressive nature you assign Pit Bulls. Partly because I agree with many of those particular points. Dangerous dogs attack children most often as they are the only members of the pack they feel like they can take. I personally, will never own a Pit Bull due to that danger. I don't trust them. If I did own one however, I would be damn sure I had a privacy fence, and a system for isolating the dog from visitors and innocents - because it's my responsibility. I prefer my two yellow labs - beautiful, kid friendly, nice animals that "seem" to enjoy attention and love from humans. That's my kind of dog. I've got a gun for intruders.
SkepticLance Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 I have friends who are liberalists, and I have some sympathy for their view point. However, I do not entirely agree with them, because I also believe very firmly in the concept of balance, and I am suspicious of extreme viewpoints. Extreme liberalism is also known as anarchy. The opposite is tyrrany. We need a balance. That balance will include maximising liberty when it causes minimal harm, but placing restrictions on behaviours that are demonstrably damaging. I pointed out that driving drunk is demonstrably damaging and should not be permitted. The question here is whether owning a breed of dog that kills 66 people in 20 years is demonstrably damaging. I think the answer is self evident.
ParanoiA Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 The concept of liberty that I stand for is already a balance. A balance between self determinism and objective limitation. There is nothing extreme about liberty that is both empowered and restricted by the principle of rights that end where other's begin - the objective application of restricting harm to the person or property of another. Extremists that want to abandon principle will rationalize destroying liberty by using good intentions.
John Cuthber Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 The figure of 66 dead shows they are good at killing people. It's perfectly possible that none of those was an intruder but that some other type of dog did kill an intruder in which case that breed is better. We simply don't have the data so, once again, I ask you to provide evidence that pitbulls can in some magic way distinguish intruders from, for example, children. You made the assertion; back it up or withdraw it. "It does add to the debate since my position is based on a principle over 200 years old," My point rests on the fact that recklessly endangering human life has been legally debarred for a lot longer than that. "That's how you solve the problem, rather than treat the symptoms." If that worked we wouldn't have that death toll. "You haven't proven owning a Pit Bull is pointless." No, I have repeatedly asked what the point is and I have repeatedly received no valid reply. "they kill intruders" might be valid but there's no proof (or even evidence) that it's true. "No sir, shame on you for dismissing the value of crime PREVENTION. Man-eating animals and guns from hell scare the crap out of low life bottom feeders looking to terrorize some family. A Pit Bull's name, alone, can disuade someone from breaking in your house. The same cannot be said of a lick happy Laborador." I'm well aware of the value of crime prevention; it prevents human suffering. That's exactly the same reason I want to see this risk controlled. I see you are still happy to let the dog take a bullet for you because it's too dumb to know better. "DOG particulars John - I don't know why you went pedophilia on me. Your rights end where mine begin. " I was pointing out that society decides what rights you have. You assert that you have the right to keep a dangerous dog though you cannot provide a valid reason (at least you haven't yet done so). I'm just saying that society can, if it chooses, take that right away from you if it feels that the right causes more harm than good. "No one has a right to hurt others. " Quite, not even by recklessness; and I see keeping a dog that's known to be dangerous as reckless behaviour. "If I did own one however, I would be damn sure I had a privacy fence, and a system for isolating the dog from visitors and innocents - because it's my responsibility." If that were a legal requirement for anyone who wanted to keep one, and if it were enforced strictly then there would be no need for a ban. Unfortunately, many of the people who want these dogs are exactly the people who couldn't be trusted. Pragmatically, a ban can be enforced (and it has been here in the UK ). http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910065_en_1.htm Stupidity on the owner's part cannot be legislated against so society has to find another solution.
Solarcat Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Pangloss said : "I think the problem is humans, no dogs. Banning them is ridiculous. Many breeds can be turned vicious." The problem is always humans. However, in the case of pit bulls, the humans who began the problem were the original breeders. Pit bulls were originally bred as fighting dogs - to be put into a pit with another dog, and fight it until one was dead. This meant the ability to be highly aggressive, and to carry that aggression through to the final fatality. To argue from individual cases is a bit silly. We all know that humans are capable of violence against other humans. However, I could argue, using my now deceased and gentle old grandmother as an example, that she would not hurt anyone, and therefore humans are not violent. Yeah. Right! Pit bulls kill more people than any other dog. As a breed, they are dangerous. Individual pit bulls might be quite gentle, but that is not what this discussion is about. Sure, in the overall picture, this is a very minor issue. I do not agree, though, that 66 deaths in 19 years is 'OK'. Any human death is one too many, when it is preventable. The original breeders bred bull terriers to herd cattle and "bait" the bulls, grabbing their noses to turn them from attacking humans. Several hundred years ago they started being put into "pits" to fight each other. The "dogmen" had to go in the pits and break up the fights when necessary. Any dog that bit a handler was put down(killed), so those dogs were bred to be dog aggressive but NOT human aggressive. And that's what we normally have now, a dog that will(but not always) be hostile towards other dogs, but not be aggressive towards humans. The problem is the irresponsible owners who train their pit bulls to be human-aggressive guard dogs, which is against their nature, but it can be done. They make good watchdogs but should never be trained for guardian behavior. My son had to go away for awhile so he gave me his 10 year old male pit bull. I knew he was dog aggressive but I had known him all his life and felt I could deal with that. I walked him with a prong collar and a short leash so he would stay by my side even when he saw another dog. One day about six months after he came to live with me, we were walking close to a creek that runs behind my house and after looking around to make sure there were not people or dogs around I let him run around off leash. He went down to the creek for a drink and I followed him to watch him. He suddenly looked down the creek and took off. I yelled but he did not return. Then I heard growling and yelping. A woman with her children and their dog were walking at the creek and Bo Bo attacked the dog. When I got there, the woman had Bo by the neck while her children got their dog up the bank. Bo Bo NEVER ATTACKED THE WOMAN OR HER CHILDREN. He weighed 110lbs and could have overpowered her very easily but he didn't. I asked her if she was hurt and she said no he didn't attack me. I was amazed she could hold him. He was barking and growling but she had him sitting down. I couldn't believe it. Needless to say I was shaking like a leaf, thoughts of a lawsuit taking me for everything I owned running through my head. I apologized profusely and said I would pay any vet bills my dog caused. She said she was able to get Bo off her dog in time so that he wasn't hurt. I told her what a brave person she was. She said she had owned pit bulls before and knew how to handle them. When I got the leash on him and she let him go, she petted and stroked him and he licked her. So there you see the true nature of the pit bull breed I love so much. Bo Bo died of cancer last December. He plays in the meadow by the Rainbow Bridge now, waiting for me. To all you pit bull haters; I would love to throw you in a room with about 40 of those demon dogs and hellhounds and watch them lick your face raw. iNow You are calling for more numbers, but you are ignoring the ones we already have. More than one third of all dog attack-human deaths in the United States are from attacks by pit bulls. This figure alone is enough to say that pit bull owners are more likely to have dogs that kill people than owners of other types of dogs. The only number I am missing to make this conclusion absolute proof is the percentage of dogs in the United States that are pit bulls. For my conclusion to be wrong, pit bulls must be more than a third of all dogs in the United States. While I cannot 'prove' this to be wrong, I have been to the US, and I have seen heaps of dogs - and very few pit bulls. It seems probable that pit bulls are a lot less than one third. Does anyone else have the required figure? You might have seen "heaps of dogs", but you haven't been to the animal shelters and pounds to see that they are overrun with pit bulls and bull-type dogs. Pit bulls are now the most popular breed in America(unfortunately for the wrong reasons-fighting and guarding). Many of these dogs are the products of back-yard breeding by those who do not care about genetics; they only want the money from other unsavory characters who fight these unstable dogs. These dogs, none of whom every had the love of a human in their miserable lives and were chained as well, are responsible for the vast majority of bites and fatalities. There was a time in this country when pit bulls were respected and loved. In England they were called "nanny dogs" because they took care of the little ones while the parents were out working. Hellen Keller's service dog was a pit bull. Sgt. Stubby, a pit bull, was a WWI hero. The dogs who starred in Spanky and Our Gang were pit bulls. Pit bulls can be trained as service dogs, therapy dogs, Search and Rescue dogs and Law Dogs. I find it very instructive that on the pit bull forums I'm a member of, 99% of our members are women. As you are no doubt aware, women are the care-givers and they will NOT put their children in harm's way for anything, especially a 70lb dog with the pit bull's fighting history if they're not sure of him or her. With proper training, exercise and love, no pit bull will be a danger to its family or society. The pit bull is the greatest dog breed ever conceived by Man.
iNow Posted March 28, 2008 Author Posted March 28, 2008 There was a time in this country when pit bulls were respected and loved. In England they were called "nanny dogs" because they took care of the little ones while the parents were out working. Hellen Keller's service dog was a pit bull. Sgt. Stubby, a pit bull, was a WWI hero. The dogs who starred in Spanky and Our Gang were pit bulls. Pit bulls can be trained as service dogs, therapy dogs, Search and Rescue dogs and Law Dogs. Which seems pretty clearly to address John Cuthber's question, a question to which he repeatedly suggests that he has received no answer: Every time I get asked what the benefit of having these dogs is, I get pretty much ignored. I get asked questions about it, but I don't get an answer. And for the love of Thor, John, as a Resident Expert on SFN would you please learn to use the GD Quote button? We can do a one-on-one tutorial if you need it. To all you pit bull haters; I would love to throw you in a room with about 40 of those demon dogs and hellhounds and watch them lick your face raw. Indeed. Nice point, Feline photovoltaics.
Solarcat Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Pit Bulls are not protected by the constitution....so they are fair game. DrDna Wrong. Pets are considered property. You can buy them. This is why BSL is unconstitutional. No one can legally take your property away from you except through "eminent domain", which does not apply to pets.
SkepticLance Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 As I have said before, this is an utterly trivial issue. 66 deaths in 20 years does not compare with the 400,000 to 500,000 deaths each year in the USA from tobacco related illness. However, I am still here in this thread due to some horrible fascination with human stupidity. Even though the issue is trivial, I just stand back in total disbelief at all the supposedly rational science type people with totally irrational thought processes on this issue alone. Why is it that all these intelligent people cannot see that they are thinking emotionally? Quite simply : pit bulls are the nastiest and most dangerous of all common dog breeds in the western world, as shown by the very large numbers(relative to other breeds) of people they kill. There is absolutely no rational reason whatever why anyone should have a pit bull. There are hundreds of alternative dog types that will fill any dog lover's needs. An issue that does not really matter - but which attracts the most amazingly strange, emotional, non scientific and irrational thinking.
ParanoiA Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 What is irrational about not letting you destroy a civil right that costs us about 3 lives per year? The freedom to take aspirin kills more people than that. It has been demonstrated that these animals have value, albeit not to you, and that shouldn't even be necessary to prove in the first place. You're the one being overly emotional here. You're allowing emotion to mislead your energies toward a cause that's way down on the list of things that kill people. Way down. What is rational about that? Where's the logic? You'd save more humans by persuading them not to drive, or eat cheese.
SkepticLance Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 To ParanoiA What is irrational is the insistence of having an animal that kills children when you can have any one of hundreds of alternative breeds that will do any and all that a pit bull will. If your intent is to kill people, then you DEFINITELY should not be permitted to have a pit bull. I cannot see any other quality of pit bulls that cannot be supplied in equal or greater measure by one of the hundreds of wonderful dog breeds out there.
iNow Posted March 28, 2008 Author Posted March 28, 2008 To ParanoiA What is irrational is the insistence of having an animal that kills children when you can have any one of hundreds of alternative breeds that will do any and all that a pit bull will. If your intent is to kill people, then you DEFINITELY should not be permitted to have a pit bull. I cannot see any other quality of pit bulls that cannot be supplied in equal or greater measure by one of the hundreds of wonderful dog breeds out there. The fundamental point is that you are trying to restrict a freedom, and you accuse anybody who challenges you on that of being irrational. I quite agree with ParanioA that the emotional side of the issue appears to be coming from those who wish to implement a ban. The laws in place already handle the small handful of attacks which occur, and that small number hardly justifies the removal of one of my freedoms. You can choose for yourself what breed you wish to keep, but you cannot choose for me which breed is right for me in my situation.
SkepticLance Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 iNow Imagine that your favourite brand of ice cream is found to contain a toxic chemical, and is removed from sale. You go to an ice cream parlour and discover 200 flavours. However, number 201, which is toxic, is not there, and you throw a tantrum. Would you not consider that irrational? With hundreds of breeds of dog available, why choose one that is toxic? That kills children.
iNow Posted March 29, 2008 Author Posted March 29, 2008 iNow Imagine that your favourite brand of ice cream is found to contain a toxic chemical, and is removed from sale. You go to an ice cream parlour and discover 200 flavours. However, number 201, which is toxic, is not there, and you throw a tantrum. Would you not consider that irrational? With hundreds of breeds of dog available, why choose one that is toxic? That kills children. I don't see the relevance of your analogy. Pit bulls are not toxic. Do you know something I don't? Please, do share a link if you have some information supporting your strange contention above. Who's throwing a tantrum if not you?
truckrazy Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 I just found this link. I have owned 4 "pit bulls". I currently own 3. As far as this "research" goes, I would like to ask a question. How many of these pit bull attacks have been confirmed that they are indeed pit bulls? Now of those that have been confirmed, how many of these dogs have been mixed breeds. the reason I ask this is because I know for a fact that pit bulls are not "man eaters" or "beasts" as some people say. As far as these dogs being vicious, so you really think it is born in them, or do you think it has to do with other factors, such as irresponsible pet owners, and pit bull "haters". Many of these dogs that attack people are mistreated. Someone who doesn't know what they are doing will really screw up the good in these dogs. They are very loyal and loving dogs. They are like little children that are always striving for your approval and love, when they are raised and treated properly. Skeptic lance, you think this breed is so horrible. take a look at the pictures below. this is proof that these dogs are not "child killers" and below that is what people do to these dogs. I am putting a challenge to you and anyone else who would like to challenge me with proof of how "vicious" these dogs really are. Bring to the table any pictures, links, whatever of these dogs, and see if you can find information on the treatment of the dogs who attacked these people. if it says "pit bull attack" I want to see pictures of the actual dog. not just someone's hear say BS. yeah, this breed really kills kids... so tell me, these dogs do this to themselves, huh?? these dogs have the bad rep that they do because of stupid people. yes, these dogs can be trained to be vicious, or have dealt with extreme abuse or neglect, and those are probably the ones that are so "vicious". I did my research on these dogs before purchasing them. I love them, and they have not harmed me. They have not acted vicious unless they had a damn good reason to, like someone kicking them or hitting them while they were out on their chain and I was at work.
iNow Posted March 29, 2008 Author Posted March 29, 2008 Hi truckrazy, Thank you for sharing your experience. You've asked some good questions above, and shared some good points. The challenge in this thread, as you probably saw already if you read through it, is that these questions have already been raised, but to no avail. Folks who support a ban on this animal seem to do so blindly. When their suggestions are challenged, they accuse the challenger of being "emotional" and/or "irrational." They argue that these animals kill more than other types of dogs, yet cannot support with data how the breed was identified and by whom, so we have no way of knowing if this truly is a type specific phenomenon or a problem with identification. I quite agree with you that the dogs are inherently quite kind and sweet. I quite agree with you that the visciousness so often referenced as support for the outright ban position is something which has been taught to that tiny handful of dogs, not something fundamentally part of their genetics. I also suggest that ANY animal would engage in viscious behavior, regardless of breed or type, if subjected to the same treament that many of these great dogs have been. However, my primary argument has been that these people are trying to restrict a freedom with incomplete and very weak data. I have stated that it's fine if they choose for themselves not to raise one of these animals, and that the laws presently in place already effectively achieve the goal they seek, that others are not harmed by the property of someone else. It truly is an emotional argument they are making, because the numbers just aren't there, and the data which has been offered doesn't have a high degree of confidence on breed/type specificity. I've been charged with being overly emotional on this issue, but I fail to see where my points above are illogical. If I were only arguing on emotion, I would say something like: these people in favor of bans really need to remove their craniums from their colons and stop with all of their propaganda motivated fear-based Orwellian attempts trying to remove a freedom by implementing legislation unsupported by the data, and that the effects of said legislation have a nearly nonexistent probability of actually resolving the problem they are using as support for their position... But, I've actually said much more than just that. Cheers.
ParanoiA Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 iNow Imagine that your favourite brand of ice cream is found to contain a toxic chemical, and is removed from sale. You go to an ice cream parlour and discover 200 flavours. However, number 201, which is toxic, is not there, and you throw a tantrum. Would you not consider that irrational? With hundreds of breeds of dog available, why choose one that is toxic? That kills children. First of all, if you're proposing to ban them, then aren't you effectively promoting their extinction? Where are they going to live? What's humane and rational about that? Second, if the toxin is minimally dangerous, then yes I might very well throw a tantrum. Cigarettes are toxic, but they're still legal, rightly so. Oh yeah, you want to ban those too huh? Yeah, I don't know an argument for liberty that will be accepted by someone so committed to restricting it.
John Cuthber Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's special about pit bulls (apart from the death toll). Saying they can be trained to do things isn't an answer unless you can show that no other breed of dog can be trained to do those things. The fact that these dogs acted as children's nannies in the past isn't relevant. Imagine the outcry that you would get now if someone left their children all day and made the excuse that "the dog's looking after them". To be strictly acurate the "toxic ice cream" analogy would have to have some weird toxin that sometimes killed the person next to you rather than the person who ate it. Cigaretes are probably a better analogy and they are now very restricted in most of the Western world for essentially the same reasons given for banning pitbulls.
truckrazy Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's special about pit bulls (apart from the death toll). Saying they can be trained to do things isn't an answer unless you can show that no other breed of dog can be trained to do those things.The fact that these dogs acted as children's nannies in the past isn't relevant. Imagine the outcry that you would get now if someone left their children all day and made the excuse that "the dog's looking after them". To be strictly acurate the "toxic ice cream" analogy would have to have some weird toxin that sometimes killed the person next to you rather than the person who ate it. Cigaretes are probably a better analogy and they are now very restricted in most of the Western world for essentially the same reasons given for banning pitbulls. you would like to know what is so special about these dogs. In my and many other people's opinions, these dogs are incredible companions. They are loving and protective, just as any "other" dog. what is so special about a poodle, or chihuahua, or a beagle, etc. they are very good and loyal pets. these dogs are used as police K-9's, and as public service dogs. These dogs are very kind and loving when raised properly, and they will show that. These dogs reflect their owner, just as a child reflects their parent. They act how they are taught to. I think that is something special, that these dogs, despite all the people who hate them because of the name, can actually change their mind when they meet a pit that has not been teased, taunted, abused, etc. One that has been raised right.
iNow Posted March 29, 2008 Author Posted March 29, 2008 John Cuthber, Out of curiosity, how did you respond to the questions I posed in the OP? I've searched this thread and found that you have yet to answer it. The argument has been made that, since pit bulls harm more people than do other breeds that they are inherently dangerous and should be banned. Others have discussed the importance of conditioning, and how only dogs which have been raised improperly or with malicious intent will cause harm to humans, suggesting this behavior is not breed specific. This poll seeks to identify two things. First, how many distinct pit bull dogs you have encountered in your life time. Second, how many times you have been attacked by different pit bulls. If you answer anything other than "zero" to the first (and poll) question, please share your answer and describe how many times you've been attacked or bitten by a pit bull. Please also feel free to share stories about direct friends or family members that have been attacked by pit bulls, but recall that this thread is asking about your own personal experiences.
John Cuthber Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 Since I live in a country where these dogs are banned I haven't had any dealings with them. Truckrazy, last time I checked most dogs act pretty much the way they are taught to so there's nothing special about pitbulls.
Recommended Posts