Raw Dawgin' it;1186023 wrote:lol at this idiot agreeing with isadore

Isadore is taking it way beyond my thoughts. But in general, yes, I agree that pit bulls are a more vicious breed by nature, or evolved to be vicious over time by humans. The end result is the same.

And, you don't agree that inanimate objects are inanimate? That makes you the idiot.

O-Trap;1186022 wrote:Genetics and scientific fact would disagree with you. What secret authority do you appeal to that supersedes scientific fact? I'm curious.

facts, ok pit bulls kill many more people than any other type dog. fact. they have a preference for killing the very young and the very old. fact
the protection of human life should supersede the shared lunacy of pit bull owners and their supporters who wish to inflict this killer on our communities.

WebFire;1186027 wrote:Isadore is taking it way beyond my thoughts. But in general, yes, I agree that pit bulls are a more vicious breed by nature, or evolved to be vicious over time by humans. The end result is the same.

And, you don't agree that inanimate objects are inanimate? That makes you the idiot.

Link where i argued about this or even alluded to it in a post?

BR1986FB;1186021 wrote:Where are the links that all pit bulls are natural born killers and will kill all babies and old people?

There is no evidence that pits will kill all babies and old people. I've never said that. Ask isadore.

As for the natural born, I think that fatal statistics speak for themselves. I'm not reposting them as they are all in this thread.

isadore;1186030 wrote:facts, ok pit bulls kill many more people than any other type dog. fact. they have a preference for killing the very young and the very old. fact
the protection of human life should supersede the shared lunacy of pit bull owners and their supporters who wish to inflict this killer on our communities.

" Under the new law, which goes into effect Tuesday, pit bulls are no longer considered vicious dogs solely on their breed."

Move out of Ohio or you're a hypocrite

Raw Dawgin' it;1186031 wrote:Link where i argued about this or even alluded to it in a post?

My post...

WebFire;1186019 wrote:Inanimate object is inanimate.

You're reply...

Raw Dawgin' it;1186023 wrote:lol at this idiot agreeing with isadore

Raw Dawgin' it;1186028 wrote:Ohio doesn't even consider pitbulls to vicious based on breed
" Under the new law, which goes into effect Tuesday, pit bulls are no longer considered vicious dogs solely on their breed." - from an article YOU posted.

Ha so your own state doesn't think they're vicious but you think they're criminal. Maybe you'll see one in line while you wait to cash your welfare check tomorrow

I will not base my decision on what breeds I think are vicious based on whether a state does. I will read the stats for myself and decide.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186028 wrote:Ohio doesn't even consider pitbulls to vicious based on breed
" Under the new law, which goes into effect Tuesday, pit bulls are no longer considered vicious dogs solely on their breed." - from an article YOU posted.

Ha so your own state doesn't think they're vicious but you think they're criminal. Maybe you'll see one in line while you wait to cash your welfare check tomorrow

and what do we get right after they change the law, another pit bull kills baby in beaverdam, ohio. thank you, ohio general assembly for being accomplices before the fact in the murder of baby.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186035 wrote:" Under the new law, which goes into effect Tuesday, pit bulls are no longer considered vicious dogs solely on their breed."

Move out of Ohio or you're a hypocrite

gosh I dont think you understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy. you know how to be one while not understanding its meaning. why that makes you an idiot savant. how many tooth picks did I just drop.

WebFire;1186036 wrote:My post...



You're reply...

Do you not agree pitbulls are killers based on breed? My argument was never about inanimate objects and never even alluded to it. You agreeing with isadore makes you a close minded sheep though.

isadore;1186048 wrote:gosh I dont think you understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy. you know how to be one while not understanding its meaning. why that makes you an idiot savant. how many tooth picks did I just drop.

You live in a state that goes against your beliefs. You should move since all these vicious pitbulls will be around now. Maybe move to Utah - they have enough close minded idiots in that state, you'd fit right in.

isadore;1186024 wrote:sorry about your lack of reading comprehension.

My reading comprehension is fine, isastump, it's the reading 'material' you posted that you should be apologizing for.

said_aouita;1166068 wrote:http://tewksbury.patch.com/articles/tewksbury-man-and-his-dog-injured-in-pit-bull-attack-in-wilmington
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/neighbor-tries-save-toddler-pit-bull-attack-shoots/nNy8n/
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11596559-family-pit-bulls-maul-2-california-toddlers-in-separate-incidents

Seriously, it seems every story you hear in the news about pitbulls has to do with somebody getting attacked. Usually also mentioned in the story is somebody shot or other illegal activities like drugs.

I'm sure if you search Google hard enough, one or two positive stories can be found about these beasts.

Still, majority wise only poor and/or stupid people own pit bulls.

Governor of Hawaii has 4 pitbulls, he's rich. Hope this helps.

vball10set;1186055 wrote:My reading comprehension is fine, isastump, it's the reading 'material' you posted that you should be apologizing for.

I am sorry if my posts contain too many word that are beyond your reading level.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186053 wrote:You live in a state that goes against your beliefs. You should move since all these vicious pitbulls will be around now. Maybe move to Utah - they have enough close minded idiots in that state, you'd fit right in.

No a good citizen works to undo mistaken legislation. I work to protect the lives of my fellow Ohioans.

isadore;1186069 wrote:No a good citizen works to undo mistaken legislation. I work to protect the lives of my fellow Ohioans.

Maybe you shouldn't have voted him into office in the first place. The real crime here is isadore abusing a system meant to help poor people.

my efforts are to help those in need and to protect my fellow citizens. Your efforts are to feather your own nests, denigrate those in need and to put killer dogs in people's homes.

isadore;1186064 wrote:I am sorry if my posts contain too many word that are beyond your reading level.

*words

vball10set;1186084 wrote:*words

now that is great, you get to have some positive reinforcement when I used one of the terms that is in your vocabulary.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186051 wrote:Do you not agree pitbulls are killers based on breed? My argument was never about inanimate objects and never even alluded to it. You agreeing with isadore makes you a close minded sheep though.

Sorry. I was going off of what you replied to. That is usually how these message board things work.

isadore;1186093 wrote:now that is great, you get to have some positive reinforcement when I used one of the terms that is in your vocabulary.

*Now

isadore;1186093 wrote:now that is great, you get to have some positive reinforcement when I used one of the terms that is in your vocabulary.

Now*

On my phone, so please excuse spelling errors, but here goes.

WebFire;1186017 wrote:Where are the links to the genetic scientific facts that you claim?

If you insist:

This study suggests that no "aggressive" genetic disposition exists.
http://www.mercer.edu/psychology/faculty_staff/wright_jc/downloadable_articles/Canine%20Aggression%20-%20Dog%20Bites%20to%20People.pdf

A Cornell University study on the genetics of canine species suggests since 1998, there are more human deaths by Rottweiler than by pittbull terrier:
http://actavet.vfu.cz/pdf/200776030431.pdf

The same study goes on to explain that a rise in attacks from a particular breed is most likely the result of the popularity of the breed, and that if fatalities increase, it is the result of the size and strength of the dog, and not an ingrained aggressive trait.

If you look up a study done by the American Canine Foundation on dog bites in Ohio from 2001 to 2002, you'll read that pitbull bites only acounted for about 2% of all the documented dog bites reported. Conversely, mutt/mixed breeds accounted for 34%, German Shepherds accounted for 7%. Labs accounted for 7%. Rotts accounted for 6%. Boxers accounted for 4%, and Chows 3%. Excluding the mixed breeds, pitbulls were sixth in bite attacks in Ohio during that stretch of time. Fatalities are higher based on their strength, but aggression measured by bite attacks found that those other five were more aggressive than pitbulls. The study was cited in an Ohio court hearing in 2006, per below:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf

I can keep going if you'd like.

WebFire;1186019 wrote:Inanimate object is inanimate.

Correct, but each one becomes dangerous if acted upon improperly.

WebFire;1186025 wrote:My problem with this stance is that you are assuming all dogs are properly trained. I would be willing to bet that a very, very high % of all dogs do not receive any formal training. Most people get a dog, and train it at home. None of my dogs have ever had formal training. And I've never had to give a thought to whether that would cause the dog to be vicious.

Not at all. Most dogs are not trained properly at all. But that's the fault of the owner, not the genetics of the breed or type.

WebFire;1186027 wrote:Isadore is taking it way beyond my thoughts. But in general, yes, I agree that pit bulls are a more vicious breed by nature, or evolved to be vicious over time by humans. The end result is the same.

Evolution requires genetic change. Zero genetic change has been documented to suggest an increase in aggression among a particular breed or type. Plus, while they have been bred to be aggressive as of late, it hasn't been NEARLY long enough for any actual genetic evolution to take place, and we still have documented history of a time when pitbulls were bred to never be aggressive to humans.

isadore;1186030 wrote:facts, ok pit bulls kill many more people than any other type dog. fact.

Of a very low number, yes, because their attacks carry a higher average mortality rate, but this is skewed by the low number of deaths each year by dog attack. For example, in 2011, only 31 people in the entire US died from canine attacks. Plus, as I mentioned above, they have been seen to attack less often than other breeds, per the American Canine Foundation's study as well as the Cornell University study.

isadore;1186030 wrote:they have a preference for killing the very young and the very old. fact

False. Statistics in that same 2011 report showed that most victims killed were between 32 and 60.

isadore;1186030 wrote:the protection of human life should supersede the shared lunacy of pit bull owners and their supporters who wish to inflict this killer on our communities.

And the protection of human intelligence should supersede the lunacy of the baseless paranoia you exhibit here and wish to inflict on other communities. Feel free to follow your conspiracy, but for the sake of intelligence, stop spreading the fear mongering so selectively. At least have the intellectual honesty to vilify Shepherds, Labradors, Rottweilers, Boxers, and Chows as well.

WebFire;1186094 wrote:Sorry. I was going off of what you replied to. That is usually how these message board things work.

I just clicked your most recent post at the time - but seriously, lol that you agree with isadore that a domestic dog is dangerous because society makes them out to be and only focus on exceptions to rules.

Here's some reading for you
http://www.cesarsway.com/dog-behavior/dog-biting/How-You-Can-Prevent-Dog-Bites

5. Do not leave your dog alone with babies or small children."

This goes for any dog, not just pitbulls