Is it an option to not take your kids to the park until you solve the issue of the dogs being present?

If you are in the park and the dogs arrive after you, can you choose to leave and have the issue addressed with authorities? I think you said the authorities haven't responded to your concerns already. Are the dogs permitted to be there by rule at all?

LJ;1207050 wrote:Or you could just be Isadore and give the same response over and over and over and over

Maybe Izzy could just do his own version of "tl;dr" and simply respond to everything with nothing but "gosh a ruddies". Since its posts do tend to go downhill from there, that might be best for all.

isadore;1207025 wrote:Your charge of racism is beyond a reach.

Aw, look at you grasping at straws. It's almost endearing.

I didn't say you were racist. I said the logic you use to justify your irrational fear is the same logic used to justify racism. Sorry, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

isadore;1207025 wrote:I believe all homo sapiens are human, we are all the same species. And that all wolves including including dogs are the same species. You seem to find it that hard to admit.

Not at all. Dogs are Canis lupus. Wolves are Canis lupus. Doesn't mean dogs are wolves. They are different subspecies, hence they are not the same. Perhaps you can't wrap your mind around the fact that classification goes further than species. It does, hence things like subspecies, types, and breeds.

Let's take it a classification up, so that maybe it will make sense to you. Equus is a genus that contains horses, donkeys and zebras. They all fit within that classification. However, does that mean that they are the same? Of course not, because "zebra," "horse," and "donkey" are terms used to describe their speciation since all being the same animal.

Now, "wolves" and "dogs" are terms used to describe subspecies types. They are not terms used to describe the species. As such, they are the same species, but they are different subspecies, and since the term "wolf" and "dog" is used to describe the subspecies type, and NOT the species as a whole, it is disingenuous to refer to them as the same at the "wolf" level. Their "same-ness" ends at Canis lupus.

Did you follow that? It seem to be a crap shoot with you as to whether or not you'll follow something, so I felt the need to ask.

isadore;1207025 wrote:But there is truth hidden in your obfuscations. I guess we have to go to another language to get you to the truth. Dogs remain wolves, pack carnivores.

If you insist that that logic is true, then it applies to other levels of taxonomy. As such, one cannot contend that dogs are wolves without also contending that zebras are horses. After all, one taxonomic level up from the descriptor, they fit the same classification.

If you were to say that dogs and wolves are both from the species Canis lupus, then we'd agree. They are. But Canis lupus does not equal wolf. All wolves are characterized under Canis lupus, but not all animals characterized under Canis lupus are wolves. Same for dogs. As such, simply fitting under a taxonomical categorization doesn't require them to be the same at any level lower.

isadore;1207025 wrote: I am again sorry that you find the statistic that show pit bulls favor killing children laughable.

The statistic isn't laughable at all. Your illogical reach FROM the statistic to suggest that they reflect a FAVOR, while you completely disregard the PHYSIOLOGICAL evidence that children are weaker and less able to survive the same injuries an adult could survive, is what is laughable. Facts are facts. Your lack of logic is the only laughable part.

isadore;1207025 wrote:The death of children is not laughable under any circumstance.

Didn't say it was. Here's that strawman fallacy we talked about. Your lack of logical process is the only thing laughable.

isadore;1207025 wrote:And that you find the numbers of children killed in a year by pit bulls is insignificant.

I didn't say it was insignificant to the families, or that the suffering was insignificant. Your assumption that I did is what's known as an Equivocation Fallacy. You're wandering into fresh, new fallacious territory now (at least it's not the monotonous fallacy you normally use).

Based on conservative estimates of pit bull breeds in the United States (lowest estimates of unregistered pits are around a million), over the ten year stretch that you mentioned earlier (53 deaths in ten years, which is actually too low, but even using the higher number, it won't change the overall odds drastically), that would mean an average of five deaths per year from one of 5.5 million pit bull breeds in the U. S.

Now, we're gonna do some math, so you might want to get your calculator out. It's pretty basic, but you're obviously not good with odds and probability.

5 deaths per 5.5 million pit bulls. That means that less than one in every MILLION pit bulls will kill someone in a given year, meaning that 1,099,999 pit bulls will NOT kill for every 1 that does. That is statistical fact, given your numbers of deaths in a 10-year span.

In 2008, there were 5,864 fatal car accidents involving teen drivers, of which there are just under 10 million. That means that 1 in every 1,705 teens were involved in a fatal crash that year.

So, using these numbers, a teen driver is almost 1000 times as dangerous to the American population as a pit bull. If you think pits are dangerous, I can't WAIT to hear your rant on letting teenagers drive.

isadore;1207025 wrote:Jace Valdez (16month), Kylar Johnson (4 years), Jazilyn Mesa (15 months) and Makayla Darnell (3 days) all killed by Pit Bulls so far this year are to you insignificant, as are pit’s 59 year old, 72 year old, 73 year old and the 92 year old victims. Their death toll for 2012 more than all other types of dogs combined, but insignificant to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2012

More of the Equivocation Fallacy. Their suffering matters, but suffering from fluke happenings (worse than 1 in a million) cannot logically be used as justifications to view the rest of the whole by the exception. The RULE for pit bulls is that they don't kill. The one-in-over-a-million exceptions do.

isadore;1207025 wrote:The fact that the most deadly type of dogs favors killing children should be relevant not just to parents but to all of us, but to pit lovers its insignificant.

See above. The most deadly dog is almost never ever deadly. Teenage drivers are deadly.

isadore;1207025 wrote:I will concede one of your points. You can not blame the dog. The Pit Bulls are killers, that is their nature. I should not blame them for doing what comes natural, killing the young, the old and the weak. I should blame people who bring these killers among us and those who defend them. Those who refuse to realize the true nature of pits or those who glory in it.

A conservative estimate would suggest that more than one million pits are not killers for every one that ends up killing someone, and that doesn't take into account the fact that many are provoked or predisposed.

Their nature ... what is natural to them ... is dictated by their genetics. All genetic study of pitbulls, as well as behavioral study of pit bulls (like that temperment one mentioned earlier), validate the claim that they are no more aggressive than any other dog breed or type.

If you wish to blame those who don't realize the true nature of them, who base all their beliefs on fear and anecdotes, who have zero logical framework on which to stand, then you stand in the camp you say you should blame.

Steel Valley Football;1207317 wrote:Btw, you won't win this debate with long drawn out posts because it's not a debate on anything you posted.

Believe it or not, I don't try to type long posts. All I do is try to be logical and thorough.

Actually, trying to win an argument by just having an exhausting long argument, regardless of logical construct, is a logical fallacy called the Proof by Verbosity Fallacy.

BR1986FB;1207308 wrote:I'm talking about you wanting to take your kids to the basketball courts where that guy supposedly let's his pit run loose. You CAN avoid that but it sounds like you CHOOSE not to. If you have a rampant pit bull "problem" on your street, have animal control take care of it.

Well, we haven't been back there since.

Now tell me about what to do at the point of attack. That is the question. Not how to avoid going to places where there MIGHT be pit bull. Not how dangerous they are on a national level. Only what to do if one attacked and was biting a two yr old.

What do you have?

Con_Alma;1207331 wrote:Is it an option to not take your kids to the park until you solve the issue of the dogs being present?

If you are in the park and the dogs arrive after you, can you choose to leave and have the issue addressed with authorities? I think you said the authorities haven't responded to your concerns already. Are the dogs permitted to be there by rule at all?

None of this addressd the actual question.

Al Bundy;1207322 wrote:You aren't smart enough to shoot the spray in the right direction? No wonder the Warren state report card has the scores that it does.

No. I'm a killer not pepper sprayer.

LJ;1207312 wrote:BTW, there is no such thing as a "latch" or "locking jaws"

I never said there were locking jaws. You never seen a pit latch onto another dog and kill it. I have twice. Three adults could not get the jaws open. Use a different word instead of latch then answer the question presented.

Steel Valley Football;1207418 wrote:None of this addressd the actual question.

I'm aware of that. I wasn't attempting to answer your question because I don't have an answer. I was asking you a question.

O-Trap;1207407 wrote:Believe it or not, I don't try to type long posts. All I do is try to be logical and thorough.

Actually, trying to win an argument by just having an exhausting long argument, regardless of logical construct, is a logical fallacy called the Proof by Verbosity Fallacy.

National studies are irrelevant. Answer the question. What's the best way to kill a pit that has it's jaws on a two yr old and won't let go?

Steel Valley Football;1207421 wrote:No. I'm a killer not pepper sprayer.

Which brings us back to the fact that you're only looking to kill a pit bull, NOT protect your kids. You're also an idiot.:thumbdown:

Steel Valley Football;1207421 wrote:No. I'm a killer not pepper sprayer.

From this thread it is pretty clear that your goal is to kill a dog and not simply avoid or get away from the attack. While I admit that I would kill a dog if I had to in order to protect someone, it would be last resort. I have carried spray while running, and I actually used it once. It stopped the dog, and I simply continued on my run. I know that you said you might spray it in the wrong direction and get yourself, but it is not exactly rocket science. If you know an area has dogs, why take little kids there? Why not watch your kids if you are at the park or at someone else's house?

Anytime isadore tries to use stats quote him with this "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." He said it himself. Basically - he contradicts himself to make his own argument. He's a drain on society and should be deported.

Con_Alma;1207433 wrote:I'm aware of that. I wasn't attempting to answer your question because I don't have an answer. I was asking you a question.

Fair enough. Yes, to all the above. I'm looking for help with a scenario that could happen after I've done everything in my power to avoid the danger, short of not ever leaving the safety of my home.

Al Bundy;1207439 wrote:From this thread it is pretty clear that your goal is to kill a dog and not simply avoid or get away from the attack. While I admit that I would kill a dog if I had to in order to protect someone, it would be last resort. I have carried spray while running, and I actually used it once. It stopped the dog, and I simply continued on my run. I know that you said you might spray it in the wrong direction and get yourself, but it is not exactly rocket science. If you know an area has dogs, why take little kids there? Why not watch your kids if you are at the park or at someone else's house?

Apparently, pit bulls are like a zombie apocalypse in his area...they're EVERYWHERE! :rolleyes: You CAN'T avoid them !

BR1986FB;1207437 wrote:You're also an idiot.

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

FatHobbit;1207444 wrote:Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

I guess.

Al Bundy;1207439 wrote:From this thread it is pretty clear that your goal is to kill a dog and not simply avoid or get away from the attack. While I admit that I would kill a dog if I had to in order to protect someone, it would be last resort. I have carried spray while running, and I actually used it once. It stopped the dog, and I simply continued on my run. I know that you said you might spray it in the wrong direction and get yourself, but it is not exactly rocket science. If you know an area has dogs, why take little kids there? Why not watch your kids if you are at the park or at someone else's house?

You missed the joke.

I'm not looking for help on how to avoid dogs. Please try to follow along.

BR1986FB;1207437 wrote:Which brings us back to the fact that you're only looking to kill a pit bull, NOT protect your kids. You're also an idiot.:thumbdown:

As did you.

BR1986FB;1207443 wrote:Apparently, pit bulls are like a zombie apocalypse in his area...they're EVERYWHERE! :rolleyes: You CAN'T avoid them !

As I thought, you have no answer. If that's the case then stop trolling this thread please.

Steel Valley Football;1207447 wrote:As did you.

What? It's pretty clear that you're pretty fucked up in the head.

It's one thing to protect your kids...it's completely another to start two threads, one asking "how to kill a pit bull" and a second boasting gleefully about the weapons you had found to kill the animal. You're pretty fucked up, mentally, dude.

By the way, the "idiot" insult was reported.

Steel Valley Football;1207442 wrote:Fair enough. Yes, to all the above. I'm looking for help with a scenario that could happen after I've done everything in my power to avoid the danger, short of not ever leaving the safety of my home.

I surmised that from your posts. It seems as if it's an avoidable danger or at least a very rare chance. If a know danger exists, taking a chance that that the worst case scenario occur but planning for a response if it does is an interesting approach when considering the fear of potential death to a your children. You know, that whole an ounce of prevention is greater than a pound of cure thing.

The reason I don't have an answer is because it's juts not an approach I would ever take.

I hope you find your answer though. Seems as if there are a lot of experts of pit-bulls on here.

BR1986FB;1207457 wrote:What? It's pretty clear that you're pretty ****ed up in the head.

It's one thing to protect your kids...it's completely another to start two threads, one asking "how to kill a pit bull" and a second boasting gleefully about the weapons you had found to kill the animal. You're pretty ****ed up, mentally, dude.

That's been your point all along. I'm not interested so move along. Nobody has insulted you here.

Steel Valley Football;1207448 wrote:As I thought, you have no answer. If that's the case then stop trolling this thread please.

Quit being a fucking pussy and TACKLE the animal as O-Trap said. But, NOOOOO....it's ALL about the kill with you. There's ONE of the solutions recommended. Can also use the pepper spray.