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.

I've had dogs my entire life. I know how to treat them properly. Take the humans away, and my opinion is that pits are more dangerous than other breeds. If you feel so strongly otherwise, please provide some proof to support your theory. Name calling just makes you look like the ignorant fuck.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186430 wrote:You can't use wikipedia as a credible source - if you had a job or any sense at all you'd know this.

listen little fellow and learn about sources. The problem with wiki or any other source is if statements can or can not be checked for truthfulness. In this discussion several killer dog supporters have made statements that are out and out lies if you check, some of Al Bundy's claims would be an example. With the article about dog fatalities there are in the citations to primary sources that can be checked. If you had any type of quality education either at the post secondary or secondary level you would be aware of this. You should consider a return to school, your life can still be redeemed. Look up what primary sources mean it could be the beginning of that education.

WebFire;1186474 wrote: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.

You do realize this is the basement, correct? Whether immature, or not, it's allowed in here.

BR1986FB;1186479 wrote:You do realize this is the basement, correct? Whether immature, or not, it's allowed in here.

I understand. I actually do forget that it was moved to the basement. I wasn't saying it wasn't allowed. I'm saying it doesn't help his cause.

WebFire;1186477 wrote:I've had dogs my entire life. I know how to treat them properly. Take the humans away, and my opinion is that pits are more dangerous than other breeds. If you feel so strongly otherwise, please provide some proof to support your theory. Name calling just makes you look like the ignorant fuck.

baseless claims like "pits are more dangerous because they're pits" makes you look like one too. We had a rescue poodle that would attack for no reason and couldn't be around children, but it's ok because it's a poodle right? Can do as much damage as a pitbull. He was rehabilitated and was no longer aggressive. People think pits are dangerous because they're a dominant breed like bulldogs, boxers, rottys, dobermans, etc etc and were used for dog fighting. They have a bad rep for what PEOPLE did to them, not for what they do on their own. You have a pit puppy and a golden puppy - you raise them the same way yet you think the pit would end up aggressive and bite or attack but the golden wouldn't? It makes no sense to me how people blame an animal reacting to surroundings that they were put in by ignorant people.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186505 wrote:baseless claims like "pits are more dangerous because they're pits" makes you look like one too. We had a rescue poodle that would attack for no reason and couldn't be around children, but it's ok because it's a poodle right? Can do as much damage as a pitbull. He was rehabilitated and was no longer aggressive. People think pits are dangerous because they're a dominant breed like bulldogs, boxers, rottys, dobermans, etc etc and were used for dog fighting. They have a bad rep for what PEOPLE did to them, not for what they do on their own. You have a pit puppy and a golden puppy - you raise them the same way yet you think the pit would end up aggressive and bite or attack but the golden wouldn't? It makes no sense to me how people blame an animal reacting to surroundings that they were put in by ignorant people.

I look at stats and my own experiences and make my opinion. Pits kill more than any other breed, period. And the reason those breeds you mentioned were used the way they were? Aggressiveness and body make up. How can you deny that? There is a reason you don't see Poodle fighting being bet on.

isadore;1186294 wrote:Gosh a ruddies you got caught trying to cherry pick a statistic that was shown not to reflect information on who dogs kill.

Not at all. I just used the one available in the academic study. Moreover, I was focused on the number of dog attacks.

isadore;1186294 wrote:Pitt Bulls preferred to kill children.

1. Dogs' "preference" is not the same as "instinct." Were you not paying attention in elementary and middle school science classes?

2. The mortality rate among the weaker of society probably has to do with them being the weaker members of society. Gosh a ruddies, if it weren't for your blind paranoia, I'd be shocked if you couldn't see that.

Just for the record, in October of 2000, a baby was killed by a four pound family Pomeranian dog in California. It appears that Pomeranians prefer to kill infants ... or that was a case of the weakness of the victim being the cause of the death ... sort of like any other dog.

Also, here's a fun little fact.

In 2004, in a temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society, the American Pit Bull Terrier had a passing rate of 83.9% -- compared to only 77% of the general dog population. The temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers. Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test.

isadore;1186294 wrote: Now lets take a look at the bite claim, how ridiculous.

Yes, because dog attacks ... even if they maul the victim ... don't count unless the victim dies. It's so nice to see that you don't care about hospitalized or mauled victims, and choose to discredit their attack since they didn't die.

Dog attacks can stem from a perceived threat or as a sign of aggression. Some of those turn into deaths, but but the dog has shown aggressive behavior by attacking, whether the victim dies or not.

isadore;1186294 wrote:Deaths are important not bite.

Ah, I see. So if someone loses a finger to an aggressive mastiff, gets mauled by an aggressive Dalmatian, or even has to get stitches from an aggressive Dachshund, those aren't important you say?

isadore;1186294 wrote:Garter snakes snap away at people but their aggressiveness is not a deadly threat. Rattlesnakes may strike less, but look at the effect.

Their aggressiveness is not a deadly threat, you say? So are you admitting that they are (in your scenario) more aggressive, then? That they just do less damage despite attacking more often (again in your example)? In that case, we agree. Pitbulls, it has been established, attack LESS often than several other types (3.5 times less often than German Shepherds or Labradors per the aforementioned study), but I don't disagree that they are very dangerous on the extremely rare chance that they do.

isadore;1186294 wrote:Other dogs may bite more than Pit Bulls. So what, they don’t kill, Pitt Bull attacks do.

So what? If your face had been disfigured by an Akita, but you lived, you wouldn't count that?

isadore;1186294 wrote: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.

If not for the fact that the two age ranges you pick are the weakest of the population, you'd have a point. I recant the part about "fewest." You cannot, however, deny that the two you've got climbing up on that cross are the weakest, and therefore not likely to survive an attack that normal people would.

isadore;1186294 wrote:Animals do what comes natural to them, they enjoy it. Pit Bulls enjoy killing.

Logic doesn't follow that doing what comes naturally is equitable to enjoying. That may be what you read in a children's book, but as I recall (and feel free to cite sources if I speak in error), dogs cannot be proven to enjoy anything of psychological gratification.

Not only are attacks extremely rare among ALL breeds (though several large breeds attack more often than pitbulls). Even more rare is a death from an attack. Pitbulls do have more deaths attributed to them than any other on an annual basis, but even a pitbull attack rarely results in a death. Given that attacks are the exception to the rule, and that deaths are exceptions to THAT exception, it would appear that killing is not only not enjoyed (since that can't be established among dogs anyway), it's not even a normative response, PARTICULARLY given the study done by the American Temperment Test Society.

However, some people will have a responsible, self-aware fear or apprehension about them (educated on them, but cannot shake fear) while others will have an ignorant paranoia. You seem to fit the latter. I hope you overcome your paranoia someday and at least educate yourself on the breed, so that you stop believing in nonsense. Until then, feel free to continue voicing your own ignorance in light of study after study after study. Surely you know more than all of these universities and institutions, yes?

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

By "train," I meant the same way you would train any dog. Do you train any dog not to bite? Do you train them not to jump up? When you train them, do you use non-violent reenforcement?

It's not "special" training necessary. Love, take care of, and train any dog, and they'll be good dogs. Abuse, neglect, or abandon any dog, and they could become violent.

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

There are poor and/or stupid people who own any breed of dog. Paris Hilton. The defense rests.

isadore;1186320 wrote:gosh when i help those in need, I avoid profanity. You should try it as a step toward your character.

Though I typically try to refrain from the more extreme forms of profanity (not perfectly, as I use them to convey the extremes of emotion ... as I believe they were designed to convey), I'm curious why you bring it up whenever someone else uses them? Are you offended by profanity?

sleeper;1186337 wrote:negged. The comparison between isadore and I almost made me want to off myself.

Repped for humor.

dwccrew;1186361 wrote:I agree, pits are very dangerous. Especially deep ones that are hard to climb out of.

Truth.

dwccrew;1186361 wrote:Men rape and should not be allowed near women. Because they all rape, just like all pit bulls kill children.

Not a dog, so it doesn't count.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186430 wrote:You can't use wikipedia as a credible source - if you had a job or any sense at all you'd know this.

Eh, in all fairness to isadore, Wikipedia is usually accurate. Not with a frequency acceptable to those in academia, but usually for matters discussed in the public square, it's okay. For credibility, it's probably best to cite a truly accurate source as well, but I didn't attack the source, because in all fairness, it's often correct.

I don't know why everyone has such ill will for isadore. He seems extremely misguided, and his positions may often be disjointed in light of one another, but if anything, I would think that just deserves a little patience and a lot of dialogue.

Ah well. C'est la vie.

So....if THIS quote from O-Trap's upper post (posted by Isadore) "Deaths are important not bite" is true, why the FUCK does this assclown (Isadore) keep posting a picture of a little mauled girl? Bites aren't important, correct?

rmolin73;1186354 wrote: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.

Wow, you got me good.

The only thing I learned from this entire 25 page thread is that sleeper obviously owns more pitbulls than anyone in the World if what the Op stated is true.

I wasn't reffering to your comment O-Trap, about training a dog.

skank;1186534 wrote:I wasn't reffering to your comment O-Trap, about training a dog.

Ah, sorry. The multi-quoting frenzy got away from me.

O-Trap;1186519 wrote:Not at all. I just used the one available in the academic study. Moreover, I was focused on the number of dog attacks.



1. Dogs' "preference" is not the same as "instinct." Were you not paying attention in elementary and middle school science classes?

2. The mortality rate among the weaker of society probably has to do with them being the weaker members of society. Gosh a ruddies, if it weren't for your blind paranoia, I'd be shocked if you couldn't see that.

Just for the record, in October of 2000, a baby was killed by a four pound family Pomeranian dog in California. It appears that Pomeranians prefer to kill infants ... or that was a case of the weakness of the victim being the cause of the death ... sort of like any other dog.

Also, here's a fun little fact.

In 2004, in a temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society, the American Pit Bull Terrier had a passing rate of 83.9% -- compared to only 77% of the general dog population. The temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers. Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test.



Yes, because dog attacks ... even if they maul the victim ... don't count unless the victim dies. It's so nice to see that you don't care about hospitalized or mauled victims, and choose to discredit their attack since they didn't die.

Dog attacks can stem from a perceived threat or as a sign of aggression. Some of those turn into deaths, but but the dog has shown aggressive behavior by attacking, whether the victim dies or not.



Ah, I see. So if someone loses a finger to an aggressive mastiff, gets mauled by an aggressive Dalmatian, or even has to get stitches from an aggressive Dachshund, those aren't important you say?



Their aggressiveness is not a deadly threat, you say? So are you admitting that they are (in your scenario) more aggressive, then? That they just do less damage despite attacking more often (again in your example)? In that case, we agree. Pitbulls, it has been established, attack LESS often than several other types (3.5 times less often than German Shepherds or Labradors per the aforementioned study), but I don't disagree that they are very dangerous on the extremely rare chance that they do.



So what? If your face had been disfigured by an Akita, but you lived, you wouldn't count that?



If not for the fact that the two age ranges you pick are the weakest of the population, you'd have a point. I recant the part about "fewest." You cannot, however, deny that the two you've got climbing up on that cross are the weakest, and therefore not likely to survive an attack that normal people would.



Logic doesn't follow that doing what comes naturally is equitable to enjoying. That may be what you read in a children's book, but as I recall (and feel free to cite sources if I speak in error), dogs cannot be proven to enjoy anything of psychological gratification.

Not only are attacks extremely rare among ALL breeds (though several large breeds attack more often than pitbulls). Even more rare is a death from an attack. Pitbulls do have more deaths attributed to them than any other on an annual basis, but even a pitbull attack rarely results in a death. Given that attacks are the exception to the rule, and that deaths are exceptions to THAT exception, it would appear that killing is not only not enjoyed (since that can't be established among dogs anyway), it's not even a normative response, PARTICULARLY given the study done by the American Temperment Test Society.

However, some people will have a responsible, self-aware fear or apprehension about them (educated on them, but cannot shake fear) while others will have an ignorant paranoia. You seem to fit the latter. I hope you overcome your paranoia someday and at least educate yourself on the breed, so that you stop believing in nonsense. Until then, feel free to continue voicing your own ignorance in light of study after study after study. Surely you know more than all of these universities and institutions, yes?



By "train," I meant the same way you would train any dog. Do you train any dog not to bite? Do you train them not to jump up? When you train them, do you use non-violent reenforcement?

It's not "special" training necessary. Love, take care of, and train any dog, and they'll be good dogs. Abuse, neglect, or abandon any dog, and they could become violent.



There are poor and/or stupid people who own any breed of dog. Paris Hilton. The defense rests.



Though I typically try to refrain from the more extreme forms of profanity (not perfectly, as I use them to convey the extremes of emotion ... as I believe they were designed to convey), I'm curious why you bring it up whenever someone else uses them? Are you offended by profanity?



Repped for humor.



Truth.



Not a dog, so it doesn't count.



Eh, in all fairness to isadore, Wikipedia is usually accurate. Not with a frequency acceptable to those in academia, but usually for matters discussed in the public square, it's okay. For credibility, it's probably best to cite a truly accurate source as well, but I didn't attack the source, because in all fairness, it's often correct.

I don't know why everyone has such ill will for isadore. He seems extremely misguided, and his positions may often be disjointed in light of one another, but if anything, I would think that just deserves a little patience and a lot of dialogue.

Ah well. C'est la vie.

You get caught using a stat seemingly supports your case, but is completely at odds with real truth and you try to weasel out of it claiming you were focused elsewhere.
If you have ever been around a dog you can see how they enjoy themselves when they are doing what is natural to the breed. Killing is natural to the Pitt.
All this bite and aggressive stuff is just a smoke screen. Gosh there is no equivalency between a child with a bitten finger and a dead child. You can get a bitten finger with many types of dogs, Pit Bulls specialize in death. Oh and going after the weakest, just something in bred in the species, always look for the easiest kill.
There are many non venomous snakes that are more aggressive and more likely to bite than rattle snakes. I guess you are ready to bring one into your home. So what. that Rattlers are killers just like Pit Bulls. In fact Pit Bulls kill many more people in the United States than rattlesnakes.

BR1986FB;1186523 wrote:So....if THIS quote from O-Trap's upper post (posted by Isadore) "Deaths are important not bite" is true, why the **** does this assclown (Isadore) keep posting a picture of a little mauled girl? Bites aren't important, correct?

I know you would prefer to see a picture of a child killed by a pit bull. So you can see what the breed you so strongly support is best at doing.

isadore;1186548 wrote:You get caught using a stat seemingly supports your case, but is completely at odds with real truth and you try to weasel out of it claiming you were focused elsewhere.
If you have ever been around a dog you can see how they enjoy themselves when they are doing what is natural to the breed. Killing is natural to the Pitt.
All this bite and aggressive stuff is just a smoke screen. Gosh there is no equivalency between a child with a bitten finger and a dead child. You can get a bitten finger with many types of dogs, Pit Bulls specialize in death. Oh and going after the weakest, just something in bred in the species, always look for the easiest kill.
There are many non venomous snakes that are more aggressive and more likely to bite than rattle snakes. I guess you are ready to bring one into your home. So what. that Rattlers are killers just like Pit Bulls. In fact Pit Bulls kill many more people in the United States than rattlesnakes.

idiot dies from rattlesnake bite - idiot also is a pastor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith/2012/05/31/gJQA3fRP5U_story.html?hpid=z2

And you can't tell someone not to get caught up in stats when that's what matters! Stats are facts, what're you spewing is opinionated garbage.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186561 wrote:...

And you can't tell someone not to get caught up in stats when that's what matters! Stats are facts, what're you spewing is opinionated garbage.

Yep. We established that quite some time ago.

Con_Alma;1186565 wrote:Yep. We established that quite some time ago.

Reps to you - You are no longer the worst imo

isadore;1186548 wrote:You get caught using a stat seemingly supports your case, but is completely at odds with real truth ...

Actually, I used a truthful claim that was not indicative of the whole, but again, my point this whole time is that aggressiveness is not determined by how often something kills, but by how often it tries to injure or kill. Again, your paranoia is apparently clouding your ability to reason logically.

isadore;1186548 wrote:and you try to weasel out of it claiming you were focused elsewhere.

Nope, I'm totally okay with saying that they kill more often, despite the fact that they attack far less often than other breeds. Their size and strength does make them more dangerous when they do attack. I've admitted that more than once. However, their size and strength is not connected to their aggressiveness or temperment.

isadore;1186548 wrote:If you have ever been around a dog you can see how they enjoy themselves when they are doing what is natural to the breed.

"You can tell" is a logical fallacy. There is zero credible evidence to suggest that a dog enjoys anything non-sensate, which would include the psychology of killing something.

Plus, unless you have personally been around a pit killing someone to "see the enjoyment," you couldn't make that statement even if it weren't logically fallacious.

isadore;1186548 wrote:Killing is natural to the Pitt.

The statistical improbability that a given pitbull will ever kill in its lifetime would suggest otherwise. Raw statistics don't lie. Emotional paranoia does.

isadore;1186548 wrote:All this bite and aggressive stuff is just a smoke screen.

Suppose an animal attacks and fails to kill. Does that mean he didn't attack? Does that mean he didn't attempt to kill? No, it just means he didn't succeed. The AGGRESSIVENESS of a dog is better measured by how often it attacks. Not how often its attacks kill.

isadore;1186548 wrote:Gosh there is no equivalency between a child with a bitten finger and a dead child.

Both were attacked by a dog, quite realistically with the same intent, in our postulations. The result is different, but for you to assume that a dog actually reasons that out is laughable.

isadore;1186548 wrote:You can get a bitten finger with many types of dogs ...

And a baby can be killed by many types of dogs. See my 4-pound Pomeranian example above.

isadore;1186548 wrote:Pit Bulls specialize in death.

Again, the statistical improbability that a given pitbull ever attacks, let alone kills, anyone would suggest otherwise, but again, that's your paranoia speaking. Not truth based on raw data.

isadore;1186548 wrote:Oh and going after the weakest, just something in bred in the species, always look for the easiest kill.

You've provided no evidence to suggest that pitbulls "go after" the weakest. You've only shown the mortality rate being higher, but the weakness itself lends itself to a higher mortality rate per attacks ... likely exponentially so.

Moreover, again you suggest that a dog has the ability to reason that an elderly man or woman is weak, despite the fact that they are often as large as any regular person. Dogs aren't people, and we have no evidence to suggest that they recognize physical signs of aging in humans. What you suggest borders on infantile thinking.

But we shouldn't be surprised. Your paranoia is obviously long-standing, and you've obviously never questioned it, so it's easy to see how it has blinded you to scientific facts.

isadore;1186548 wrote:There are many non venomous snakes that are more aggressive and more likely to bite than rattle snakes. I guess you are ready to bring one into your home. So what. that Rattlers are killers just like Pit Bulls. In fact Pit Bulls kill many more people in the United States than rattlesnakes.

Do you contest the fact that the likely reason there are few rattlesnake bites/deaths is BECAUSE few people bring them into their houses, and they thus have less interaction with human beings at all?

Moreover, what makes a rattler more deadly is not its size and strength, but the ability to poison. Other than strength, pitbulls are no more dangerous than Labradors, and they attack far less often. Their strength, however, makes an attack more fatal per capita.

However, again we're dealing in such small numbers against the overall population that the statistical data would suggest that no dog is predisposed to even attacking, let alone killing, at all.

Once more, though, your appeal to your own paranoia apparently doesn't enable you to look at that.

O-Trap = the waiter
Isadore = the customer
Isadore = SERVED

BR1986FB;1186583 wrote:O-Trap = the waiter
Isadore = the customer
Isadore = SERVED

This literally made me spit water outta my nose. I shall rep you when I am able again.

Raw Dawgin' it;1186561 wrote:idiot dies from rattlesnake bite - idiot also is a pastor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith/2012/05/31/gJQA3fRP5U_story.html?hpid=z2

And you can't tell someone not to get caught up in stats when that's what matters! Stats are facts, what're you spewing is opinionated garbage.

yes the basic stats, pit bulls kill far more people than any other dog, they have a preference for the very young and very old.

isadore;1186678 wrote:they have a preference for the very young....

when did this thread become about ccrunner?

isadore;1186678 wrote:yes the basic stats, pit bulls kill far more people than any other dog, they have a preference for the very young and very old.

Basic stat: Pitbulls kill more people than any other dog.

Subjective addition: "far"

Opinion devoid of rational or factual defense: They "prefer" attacking anybody.

Fact: Most pitbulls don't attack anyone.

Fact: Most pitbulls who do attack someone don't kill them.

Fact: Labradors, German Shepherds, Chows, Rottweilers, and Boxers attack humans more often than pitbulls.

Fact: Any reputable study done on pitbulls' natural temperament finds them to be no more aggressive than the average other dog.

Fact: There is no reputable study to evaluate pleasure experienced by a dog from non-sensate experiences.

Fact: No reputable study done on pitbulls has found a predisposition to killing.

Fact: In addition to pitbulls in question, Basset Hounds, Beagles, Dachshunds, Labradors, Rottweilers, Huskies, Pomeranians, Dobermans, and even Golden retrievers have killed United States citizens.

Fact: Bees kill more than twice as many Americans per year as pitbulls.

Fact: Sharks, Alligators, and Mountain Lions are the only animals in the United States to have been recorded in studies to actively seek out humans for the purpose of attack.

Fact: There are 4.5 million pitbull breeds (since pitbull is technically a "type' and not a breed) registered in the United States. The number of unregistered pitbulls is undetermined (according the the registry, it is the most unregistered breed in existence, suggesting that there are substantially more than 4.5 million in the United States). Annually, approximately 21 of them kill humans.

Fact: American Pit Bull Terriers are one of the most commonly used dogs by police across the United States for the purpose of apprehending fleeing suspects alive.




Ignorance of the facts perpetuates false information, which in turn perpetuates paranoia.

The more you know.

O-Trap;1186716 wrote:...

..., which in turn perpetuates paranoia.

....

perpetuates stems from the word perpetual.

The word formed from the name Perpetua. She has an interesting story. All she had to do to save herself was declare she wasn't a Christian. She refused to do so and was slain by the sword.

Con_Alma;1186726 wrote:perpetuates stems from the word perpetual.

The word formed from the name Perpetua. She has an interesting story. All she had to do to save herself was declare she wasn't a Christian. She refused to do so and was slain by the sword.

I actually enjoy etymology studies. Thanks!

And again: The more you know!