isadore;1186250 wrote:there is still a chance for your redemption and a small chance to overcome your addiction to profanity.

screw you and your redemption how was that.

mcburg93;1186252 wrote:screw you and your redemption how was that.

there remains the chance for your redemption.

Does anyone else think that isadore is sleeper's alter ego? their posts and views are complete polar opposites, almost too much for coincidence

vball10set;1186259 wrote:Does anyone else think that isadore is sleeper's alter ego? their posts and views are complete polar opposites, almost too much for coincidence

Sleeper can put together coherent thoughts isotard cannot.

isadore;1186246 wrote:Bite mean nothing, death are definitive and pitt are by far the deadliest.

Deaths are permanent, but bites are attacks. If you want to know how aggressive a dog is, you count how often he attacks, as an attack is a sign of aggression.

You don't look at a serial rapist and say he's not aggressive because he doesn't kill his victims.

Aggression can be gauged by the frequency of attack per capita, but not necessarily the frequency of killing per capita, because other variables can affect the latter. Size and strength of the dog, as well as size and strength of the victim. Actually, that's not a bad segway into the fallacy of your next conclusion (based on first-level Bloom's taxonomy facts).

isadore;1186246 wrote:As to your 2011 stat that most of the killed were 32-60. Lets do it right over an extended period of time from 2001 to early 2012. From ages 3 days to 12 years 53 Pit bull killings ...

isidore, consider the victim of the attacks in this case. Fatal attacks per overall attacks is going to be disproportionately high in this demographic, because you're dealing with a smaller, weaker victim who would be unable to survive the same attack that those of a more developed audience could.

isadore;1186246 wrote:... from ages 14 to 61 years 28 killing by Pit Bulls ...

The second-highest total. I'd be willing to bet that most happened at the extremes for the same reason as above. A full-grown male whose body has not aged too far past its physical peak would most likely survive an attack that others could not.

isadore;1186246 wrote:and from ages 65 to 90 25 killed by Pit Bulls.

Wait, so the LOWEST total is in the 65-90 age range, and yet you try to maintain that the "very old" are within some mythical "kill zone" parameter? Your own stats discredit your assertion of that, PARTICULARLY when taking into consideration the fact that the elderly are, like infants and young children, not likely to withstand an attack that a physically peaked human could.

Your silly paranoia is trumped by data ... even, in some cases, the very data you present as a defense for your paranoia.

isadore;1186246 wrote:They love to kill the very young and the very old.

Even if your conclusion was legitimate based on your own facts, it's impossible to establish motive in an animal. Once again, your paranoia causes you to assume the delusion that you can know a dog "loves" something.

vball10set;1186259 wrote:Does anyone else think that isadore is sleeper's alter ego? their posts and views are complete polar opposites, almost too much for coincidence

They are not the same. I checked.

Plus, though crudely put, sleeper's views aren't that disjointed. They're relatively cohesive. He's just brash, so it makes them harder to take objectively sometimes.

O-Trap;1186277 wrote:Deaths are permanent, but bites are attacks. If you want to know how aggressive a dog is, you count how often he attacks, as an attack is a sign of aggression.

You don't look at a serial rapist and say he's not aggressive because he doesn't kill his victims.

Aggression can be gauged by the frequency of attack per capita, but not necessarily the frequency of killing per capita, because other variables can affect the latter. Size and strength of the dog, as well as size and strength of the victim. Actually, that's not a bad segway into the fallacy of your next conclusion (based on first-level Bloom's taxonomy facts).



isidore, consider the victim of the attacks in this case. Fatal attacks per overall attacks is going to be disproportionately high in this demographic, because you're dealing with a smaller, weaker victim who would be unable to survive the same attack that those of a more developed audience could.



The second-highest total. I'd be willing to bet that most happened at the extremes for the same reason as above. A full-grown male whose body has not aged too far past its physical peak would most likely survive an attack that others could not.



Wait, so the LOWEST total is in the 65-90 age range, and yet you try to maintain that the "very old" are within some mythical "kill zone" parameter? Your own stats discredit your assertion of that, PARTICULARLY when taking into consideration the fact that the elderly are, like infants and young children, not likely to withstand an attack that a physically peaked human could.

Your silly paranoia is trumped by data ... even, in some cases, the very data you present as a defense for your paranoia.



Even if your conclusion was legitimate based on your own facts, it's impossible to establish motive in an animal. Once again, your paranoia causes you to assume the delusion that you can know a dog "loves" something.

O-trap wrote: False. Statistics in that same 2011 report showed that most victims killed were between 32 and 60.

Gosh a ruddies you got caught trying to cherry pick a statistic that was shown not to reflect information on who dogs kill. Pitt Bulls preferred to kill children.
Now lets take a look at the bite claim, how ridiculous. Deaths are important not bite. Garter snakes snap away at people but their aggressiveness is not a deadly threat. Rattlesnakes may strike less, but look at the effect. Other dogs may bite more than Pit Bulls. So what, they don’t kill, Pitt Bull attacks do.
Let tell you something else about numbers
If compare 14-61 age group to 65-90 age groups. There are more than twice many people in the 14 to 61 age group. Fewer years counted and a natural reduction in the older age group. So 25 death out of that age group is worse than 28 deaths out of the much larger younger group.
Animals do what comes natural to them, they enjoy it. Pit Bulls enjoy killing.

Raw Dawgin' it;1185943 wrote:Why? Too stupid to train a dog?

Yeah, because we all know that everyone who has a pitbull trains it.

Raw Dawgin' it;1185808 wrote:i hope it was your kid - stfu already

Thanks for the proof that you're a dick.

rmolin73;1186275 wrote:Sleeper can put together coherent thoughts isotard cannot.

O-Trap;1186278 wrote:They are not the same. I checked.

Plus, though crudely put, sleeper's views aren't that disjointed. They're relatively cohesive. He's just brash, so it makes them harder to take objectively sometimes.

Thanks. Sorry sleeper, my intention wasn't to insult you, but your posts were in such direct contrast to his, it was as if you were toying with us :thumbup:

isadore;1186248 wrote:reconsider your life, there is still a chance for you to be redeemed.

There's still a chance for you to stop living off our money and to get your lazy ass up off the couch and work for your money. Mcdonalds is always hiring. Sleeper can hook you up with that. Although, I wouldn't say "gosh a ruddies" to the gangstahs and mexicans behind the fries. They will literally beat the shit out of you.

rmolin73;1185739 wrote:Then come and perfom a citizens arrest. My pitbull will lick you to death while my wifes ****zu tries to tear your ass up.

Want proof that poor stupid people own pitbulls? Read the highlighted portion above, then look who wrote it.

DeyDurkie5;1186310 wrote:There's still a chance for you to stop living off our money and to get your lazy ass up off the couch and work for your money. Mcdonalds is always hiring. Sleeper can hook you up with that. Although, I wouldn't say "gosh a ruddies" to the gangstahs and mexicans behind the fries. They will literally beat the **** out of you.

gosh when i help those in need, I avoid profanity. You should try it as a step toward your character.

DeyDurkie5;1186310 wrote:There's still a chance for you to stop living off our money and to get your lazy ass up off the couch and work for your money. Mcdonalds is always hiring. Sleeper can hook you up with that. Although, I wouldn't say "gosh a ruddies" to the gangstahs and mexicans behind the fries. They will literally beat the shit out of you.

vball10set;1186259 wrote:Does anyone else think that isadore is sleeper's alter ego? their posts and views are complete polar opposites, almost too much for coincidence

negged. The comparison between isadore and I almost made me want to off myself.

vball10set;1186306 wrote:Thanks. Sorry sleeper, my intention wasn't to insult you, but your posts were in such direct contrast to his, it was as if you were toying with us :thumbup:

alright, forgiven.

DeyDurkie5;1186310 wrote:There's still a chance for you to stop living off our money and to get your lazy ass up off the couch and work for your money. Mcdonalds is always hiring. Sleeper can hook you up with that. Although, I wouldn't say "gosh a ruddies" to the gangstahs and mexicans behind the fries. They will literally beat the shit out of you.

Every other time I'd hire someone to work there, but I would never hire isadore. I hope he rots in a garbage can somewhere.

gosh a ruddies, there is still hope you may be redeemed.

skank;1186318 wrote:Want proof that poor stupid people own pitbulls? Read the highlighted portion above, then look who wrote it.

So I guess the DNA results came back huh? At least me and your wifes kids (your step kids) will be smart and athletic. I know its upsetting but everyone on the oc knows that you cant turn a hoe into a housewife.

isadore;1184836 wrote:lol you are too stupid to understand the true danger of pits. I dont worry about them fighting poodles, I worry about them killing chidren.

I agree, pits are very dangerous. Especially deep ones that are hard to climb out of.

isadore;1184893 wrote:what is stupid is denying the obvious fact that pit bulls kill and do not belong in people's homes.

Men rape and should not be allowed near women. Because they all rape, just like all pit bulls kill children.

rmolin73;1185659 wrote:I grew up with pitbulls as well as several members of my family yet no child, woman, or elderly person was murdered by them. Hell my one uncle bred them which means there were more than the norm.

Well, aren't you black? You guys probably know Mike Vick well?

http://christwire.org/2012/05/hell-hounds-the-five-worst-dog-breeds-to-own/.

End of argument.

Devils Advocate;1186403 wrote:http://christwire.org/2012/05/hell-hounds-the-five-worst-dog-breeds-to-own/.

End of argument.

I'm hoping this is a joke? Anything referenced from THAT site is a joke, correct? I was looking for the author's name to be "Isadore." :rolleyes:

isadore;1186246 wrote:Bite mean nothing, death are definitive and pitt are by far the deadliest. As to your 2011 stat that most of the killed were 32-60. Lets do it right over an extended period of time from 2001 to early 2012. From ages 3 days to 12 years 53 Pit bull killings, from ages 14 to 61 years 28 killing by Pit Bulls and from ages 65 to 90 25 killed by Pit Bulls. They love to kill the very young and the very old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

You can't use wikipedia as a credible source - if you had a job or any sense at all you'd know this.

skank;1186299 wrote:Yeah, because we all know that everyone who has a pitbull trains it.

lol if you don't treat a dog poorly they won't treat you poorly. Dogs react to humans, if you're nervous anxious around a dog it'll make them nervous and anxious. Your dog doesn't need to be professionally trained to not be aggressive. But idiots like Webfire and isadore blame the animal when it's the persons fault. It's ignorant fucks like them that give certain breeds bad reputations and dumb mother fuckers who don't know how to treat animals properly.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186432 wrote:lol if you don't treat a dog poorly they won't treat you poorly. Dogs react to humans, if you're nervous anxious around a dog it'll make them nervous and anxious. Your dog doesn't need to be professionally trained to not be aggressive. But idiots like Webfire and isadore blame the animal when it's the persons fault. It's ignorant fucks like them that give certain breeds bad reputations and dumb mother fuckers who don't know how to treat animals properly.

Enough of the name calling. I'm trying to have a sincere discussion. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean you need to have immature name calling responses.