gosh a ruddies the natural divide between pit bull supporters and people fighting to save children's lives
A controversial ad about pit bulls that ran in the Aurora Sentinel and Denver Post will appear in two more editions of the Post’s “YourHub” insert after the sponsor said the Denver newspaper threatened to pull the ad after pit-bull proponents reportedly flooded the newspaper with complaints.
The ad, which states “fact: pit bulls kill more humans and animals than all breeds combined,” was created by Jeff Borchardt of Daxton’s Friends. The non-profit advocacy group formed after Borchardt’s 14-month-old son was mauled to death by two pit bulls in 2013 while at a babysitter’s house. The ad does not mention Aurora’s ballot question 2D, which would end the city’s 8-year-old ban on pit bulls. Election stories draw heavy and heated comment from both sides of the issue. YourHub is a weekly zoned reader-contributed content section of the Denver Post.
Borchardt has also received prolific critical comments since the ad went to print. From emails he forwarded to the Sentinel, many focused on his deceased son. One commenter posted a picture of his son’s head and wrote “my dart board lmfao.”
http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/pit-bull-ban-proponent-says-denver-paper-threatened-pull-political-ad-ban-critics-complained/

HitsRus;1745303 wrote:How sad your understanding of statistics...


Since the odds that they would have a dog bite related fatality at all, ban or not, is about 18 to 1.....:RpS_lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/denver-pit-bull-ban-leads_n_826557.html
This illustrates a statistic that was shown in studies, that in 81% of dog bite cases, the breed of the dog was mis-identified by eyewitnesses.

that goes nowhere, a little abstract referring you to site with no information.

Denver animal control officers mislabeled another dog as a pit bull, raising additional questions over the department's credibility when handling the lives of both the dogs themselves and the families they come from.
An administrative-law judge this month ruled that animal control officers mislabeled a 10-month-old boxer-mix puppy as a pit bull.

How sad you gave trouble reading.

gosh a ruddies when dealing with killer dogs, always best to rule on the side of the most restricted caution.

http://www.whio.com/news/news/local/fairborn-police-officer-shoots-kills-2-pit-bulls/nnxny/

Pits are killers and do not belong in our communities.

isadore;1756165 wrote:Black people are drug users and do not belong in our communities.

See how well that logic works?

O-Trap;1756246 wrote:See how well that logic works?

seems very sound...it's the drug dealers who usually have pit bulls

O-Trap;1756246 wrote:See how well that logic works?

It is hardly a surprise that you would equate African Americans with killer dogs. People are not analogous to killer types of dogs.

isadore;1756695 wrote:It is hardly a surprise that you would equate African Americans with killer dogs. People are not analogous to killer types of dogs.

You're using a fraction of a fraction to define the entirety of a group, despite the fact that the fraction isn't a sound portrayal of the entirety of the group. I just paralleled your own logic.

O-Trap;1756820 wrote:You're using a fraction of a fraction to define the entirety of a group, despite the fact that the fraction isn't a sound portrayal of the entirety of the group. I just paralleled your own logic.

what you did was take a type of dog breed to kill and made it analogous to a race of human beings. it is the same thing the Nazis did comparing rats to the Jews.

isadore;1756951 wrote:what you did was take a type of dog breed to kill and made it analogous to a race of human beings. it is the same thing the Nazis did comparing rats to the Jews.

Not at all. I didn't compare them. I paralleled them within like logical constructs. As such, if you conclude that one is true, the other can be asserted on the same merits.

You're using a fraction of a fraction to define the entirety of a group, despite the fact that the fraction isn't a sound portrayal of the entirety of the group. I just paralleled your own logic.

If one uses a minute fraction in order to broadly paint the whole in one case, which is what you're suggesting, then the same process can be applied elsewhere. In fact, if you submit that it serves as a logical defense for the broad treatment of one, then it is necessary to treat other such segments of an overall group the same way.

It's your own construct. I'm just applying it in like situations.

Did you understand that? Am I going too fast? Are you lost, isadore?

O-Trap;1756967 wrote:Not at all. I didn't compare them. I paralleled them within like logical constructs. As such, if you conclude that one is true, the other can be asserted on the same merits.

You're using a fraction of a fraction to define the entirety of a group, despite the fact that the fraction isn't a sound portrayal of the entirety of the group. I just paralleled your own logic.

If one uses a minute fraction in order to broadly paint the whole in one case, which is what you're suggesting, then the same process can be applied elsewhere. In fact, if you submit that it serves as a logical defense for the broad treatment of one, then it is necessary to treat other such segments of an overall group the same way.

It's your own construct. I'm just applying it in like situations.

Did you understand that? Am I going too fast? Are you lost, isadore?

what ever speed your moving at you asserted that the a race of human beings was comparative to an type of animal that was bred to kill. The Nazis did something similar in their attack on the Jews by comparing them to rats who had to be exterminated. You and they freely chose to make those analogies, no matter what word games you try to play after your statement.

If after 12 years you demonstrate you're too stupid for college, then you should get free college.

But if a pitbull bites one person, it should be put down.

gut;1757021 wrote:If after 12 years you demonstrate you're too stupid for college, then you should get free college.

But if a pitbull bites one person, it should be put down.

Now there is a real equivalence, whether any American deserves a chance at post secondary education or if a killer type dog deserves a shot at finishing off a person, usually a child or an oldster.
Every American deserves the opportunity for post secondary education either academic or vocational.

Isadore's refusal to acknowledge the logical fallacy of his argument is a tacit and unequivocal admission of the error of his argument.

So as far as your debate is concerned O-trap, isadore already admitted defeat by not acknowledging your valid objection to his logical fallacy, instead choosing to focus on the subject matter and not the underlying logic.

the only thing acknowledged is his attempt to compare apples and oranges, or in his case a human race and a type of killer dog.

isadore;1757052 wrote:the only thing acknowledged is his attempt to compare apples and oranges

Thank you for making my point. That's why I said this.

lhslep134;1757029 wrote:Isadore's refusal to acknowledge the logical fallacy of his argument is a tacit and unequivocal admission of the error of his argument.
.

in which o-trap used the same comparison the Nazis used, comparing a group of humans to despicable type of animal.

lhslep134;1757029 wrote:Isadore's refusal to acknowledge the logical fallacy of his argument

Accusing Isadore of a logical fallacy is, itself, a logical fallacy.

gut;1757075 wrote:Accusing Isadore of a logical fallacy is, itself, a logical fallacy.

I would have assumed more like a logical futility.

Isadore, go back and read. I'm not comparing the two in any way, whatsoever, except within their own respective logical constructs.

Now, please demonstrate how your own logic involving the use of an inadequate sample and can be used to vilify an entire breed of dog but cannot be used to vilify any of several groupings of people. My own parallel was just a comparison. I can use another if you're incapable of seeing past that.

O-Trap;1757104 wrote:I would have assumed more like a logical futility.

Isadore, go back and read. I'm not comparing the two in any way, whatsoever, except within their own respective logical constructs.

Now, please demonstrate how your own logic involving the use of an inadequate sample and can be used to vilify an entire breed of dog but cannot be used to vilify any of several groupings of people. My own parallel was just a comparison. I can use another if you're incapable of seeing past that.

The comparison you selected is definitive of you. On a thread entitled "Pit Bulls kill again" what group for you is analogous to the Pit Bull, the proven most deadly type of dog" ? You select a race of human beings. Now you rave on about how you could have selected some other grouping, but the fact is you didn't. Out of all nearly infinite grouping you could select, you picked African Americans. Throughout history persecutors of human groups have made that analogy to some dangerous type of animal to justify their actions and that act was your first choice.

isadore;1757111 wrote:The comparison you selected is definitive of you.

Only inasmuch as you want it to be. Also, this sentence doesn't really make sense. The above sentence means I'm being compared in such a way as to define me. However, I was never part of any comparison, analogy, parallel, etc.

isadore;1757111 wrote:On a thread entitled "Pit Bulls kill again" what group for you is analogous to the Pit Bull, the proven most deadly type of dog" ? You select a race of human beings.

Why are you calling anyone a separate race? Humans are a race. Any grouping or classification therein is not a separate race.

And again, I pulled out an offensive comparison to demonstrate that your line of reasoning is what leads to the unjust classification of entire segments of the population. You've compared me to the Nazis (Reductio ad Hitlerum, but whatever), but it's interesting how you think an inadequate sample can be used to define the whole, which is precisely what they did with not only the Jews, but any people group they decided (based on a too-small sample) were preventing human progress. You set a dangerous precedent with your insistence that an entire population can be defined by an action or characteristic that is only present in an insufficient sample.

isadore;1757111 wrote:Now you rave on about how you could have selected some other grouping, but the fact is you didn't.

Perhaps I should have, as it appears you've again missed the forest for the trees. I trust that your density is intentional.

isadore;1757111 wrote:Out of all nearly infinite grouping you could select, you picked African Americans.

No, I used black people. They're as American as you or I. And I picked them because I knew you'd object to the conclusion. However, the conclusion was only reached by applying your own logical construct. By the same extension, we can essentially treat every segmentation ... slice it however you like ... according to their stereotypes. If we assert that your logical construct is accurate, which would suggest that pitbull breeds are killers, we'd also have to assume that all white people are superficial (See what I did there?), all the elderly are terrible with electronics, all dads are blithering idiots, all people who live in Texas are politically conservative, etc.

By objecting to any of the parallels above, not to mention the first one that paralleled an inaccurate stereotype about pitbull breeds with an inaccurate stereotype about black people, you've demonstrated that you don't actually believe your own logical construct. You merely adhere to it when it suits your irrational fears, which you should really work on by the way. Maybe therapy?

isadore;1757111 wrote:Throughout history persecutors of human groups have made that analogy to some dangerous type of animal to justify their actions and that act was your first choice.

Ah, but they aren't dangerous, and that has been my position all along. If anything, it is you who is comparing anyone to anything you assert as dangerous. Interesting how quickly you took a parallel involving two different subjects and quickly turned it into a comparison between the two. You might want to look into why you did that.

isadore;1757111 wrote:The comparison you selected is definitive of you.

Only inasmuch as you want it to be. Also, this sentence is awkwardly stated. You might want to work on that.

isadore;1757111 wrote:On a thread entitled "Pit Bulls kill again" what group for you is analogous to the Pit Bull, the proven most deadly type of dog" ? You select a race of human beings.

Why are you calling anyone a separate race? Humans are a race. Any grouping or classification therein is not a separate race.

And again, I pulled out an offensive comparison to demonstrate that your line of reasoning is what leads to the unjust classification of entire segments of the population. You've compared me to the Nazis (Reductio ad Hitlerum, but whatever), but it's interesting how you think an inadequate sample can be used to define the whole, which is precisely what they did with not only the Jews, but any people group they decided (based on a too-small sample) were preventing human progress. You set a dangerous precedent with your insistence that an entire population can be defined by an action or characteristic that is only present in an insufficient sample.

isadore;1757111 wrote:Now you rave on about how you could have selected some other grouping, but the fact is you didn't.

Perhaps I should have, as it appears you've again missed the forest for the trees. I trust that your density is intentional.

isadore;1757111 wrote:Out of all nearly infinite grouping you could select, you picked African Americans.

No, I used black people. They're as American as you or I. And I picked them because I knew you'd object to the conclusion, which is the correct response. However, the conclusion was only reached by applying your own logical construct. By the same extension, we can essentially treat every segmentation ... slice it however you like ... according to their stereotypes. If we assert that your logical construct is accurate, which would suggest that pitbull breeds are killers, we'd also have to assume that all white people are superficial (See what I did there?), all the elderly are terrible with electronics, all dads are blithering idiots, all people who live in Texas are politically conservative, etc.

By objecting to any of the parallels above, not to mention the first one that paralleled an inaccurate stereotype about pitbull breeds with an inaccurate stereotype about black people, you've demonstrated that you don't actually believe your own logical construct. You merely adhere to it when it suits your irrational fears, which you should really work on by the way. Maybe therapy?

isadore;1757111 wrote:Throughout history persecutors of human groups have made that analogy to some dangerous type of animal to justify their actions and that act was your first choice.

Ah, but they aren't dangerous, and that has been my position all along. If anything, it is you who is comparing anyone to anything you assert as dangerous. Interesting how quickly you took a parallel involving two different subjects and quickly turned it into a comparison between the two subjects. You might want to look into why you did that.

Been a couple posts since we got a "gosh a roodies" Please fuck off