Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-12-2009, 06:04 AM
 
Location: James Island, SC
1,629 posts, read 3,475,093 times
Reputation: 927

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by groar View Post
you're right. why own a large dog? there is nothing magical about pit bulls that makes their attacks worse.
Because they actually have personalities. The bigger the dog, the bigger the personality.

SOME of us appreciate animals for who they are, not just for what they can do for us.

Dogs were not just meant to sit still and be cute, or to be shown off inside someone's purse. Animals are the closest thing to spiritual beings on earth.

 
Old 08-12-2009, 06:07 AM
 
Location: James Island, SC
1,629 posts, read 3,475,093 times
Reputation: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
...
...it never ceases to amaze me how willfully, tenaciously ignorant some people are. i'm not even talking about a faulty premise or something here; i am talking just about the plethora of assumptions and blatant generalizations inherent to this kind of an argument.

aaron out.

Uh oh, you're using logic. You're going to make his brain explode.
 
Old 08-12-2009, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth/Dallas
11,887 posts, read 36,880,526 times
Reputation: 5663
You know what's amazing? That this thread has gone on for soooooo long.
 
Old 08-12-2009, 06:13 AM
 
Location: James Island, SC
1,629 posts, read 3,475,093 times
Reputation: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synopsis View Post
You know what's amazing? That this thread has gone on for soooooo long.
That would be because of the aforementioned "tenacious ignorance."

As well as the tenacious naivete and optimism we animal advocates have, that keeps us working toward opening the minds of even the most airtight skulls.
 
Old 08-12-2009, 10:32 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 5,449,835 times
Reputation: 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
Sorry but no pit bulls, or pit bull mixes, or pit bull look alike dogs for me.
this is exactly what needs to happen; miu has made up her (whack me if i am remembering wrong about your gender) own mind about what kind of a dog she can reasonably handle.

people need to take personal responsibility for their pet ownership. good decision, miu.

Quote:
All dogs have the potential to go into the red zone.
too true. all dogs have emotional and physical needs, and when they are not met, anxiety and fear occur. as we see in human beings as well as other animals, when anxiety and fear are present, violence is often the outcome.

let it be clarified though that in almost every case of dog violence, as in almost every case of human violence, there were always warning signs beforehand. there are very few cases where the perpetrator, either four-legged or two-legged, suddenly snaps and becomes uncharacteristically violent, as compared to the numerous instances of conditioned aggression and mounting violence.

in humans, we often refer to the rare cases of attacks without any kind of warning or reason as psychosis. in dogs, it is generally referred to as rage syndrome. either way, they are rare cases.

Quote:
Why own a dog that has the potential to do such damage to the human body?
now, this still goes to personal choice, but miu is now reflecting her personal choices on to others. there could be multiple motivations for this kind of a question, the most innocent among them being merely a sincere desire to understand a viewpoint that she doesn't share. however, as we often see in any controversial issue, darker reasons for voicing questions like these are the dissapproval and fear of issues not well understood.

either way, i'll trust that miu's motives fall closer to the former range rather than the latter.

why own something that can cause a subjectively defined unreasonable amount of damage to a human?

a few reasons.

a) because it is very much debatable (to say the least) that they can cause "such damage," and that qualifier has yet to be scientifically defined. pit bulls are strong for their size, but they are not superdogs. they are not lions or dire wolves. they are dogs.

b) because there are literally thousands... scratch that, millions of other things that humans deal with every day that can do much more damage than a dog. let us talk about automobiles, heavy machinery and equipment, swimming pools, power lines, gas stoves, prescription medication, explosives, firearms, allergens, poisonous plants, chemical cleaners, and many other things.

then there are other animals that people deal with on a daily basis that are capable of tremendous amounts of damage: horses, cows, buffalo, camels, elephants, bears, wolves, among others. and again, because the damage capability of pit bulls as compared to other animals and objects is still debatable at worst estimate, and fairly tame at best estimate.

some of the above objects cause hundreds of times the pain and death that dogs as a whole are responsible for, mucg less a single breed. probably none of the animals listed cause more deaths than dogs, but that has nothing to do with the question asked, and is notably at least partially accounted for by the fact that dogs are the most successfully domesticated animal in the history of mankind, living right alongside us in our communities and social infrastructures.

c) on a much narrower level, because big dogs in general are capable of that kind of physical trauma, and so for objective purposes the question should not specify a single breed, but any dog strong or large enough to cause the aforementioned, subjectively defined amount of damage that society finds unpalatable.

d) owing to the fact that large and strong dogs in general are capable of that kind of physical trauma if angered, and yet history showing even abused dogs rarely attack–much less a properly maintained and cared for animal–it is a risk that is deemed socially and morally acceptable for the majority of large and strong breeds out there at any given time.

e) because the large and strong breeds that are not socially or morally palatable because of aggressive or physical capability issues change over the decades, and when a dog is deemed socially unacceptable as a puppy, but then perfectly fine as a large adult later on when the trends change, we tend to think that breed hysteria is overrated and actuarial risk (like that? an allusion to merritt's study) is fairly low.

Quote:
And I'm woman, so not as strong as the average man. I also like to have several rescued dogs at once, so pit bulls being a breed that has a tendency to be dog aggressive would further make owning one a poor choice to make.
and for this analysis, miu deserves at least a few rep points from the crowd here that is always pushing for responsible owners. so give them up to her if you are able.

how many of you have seen the youtube video of the old lady walking that massive dog on the leash, who simply and utterly disappears from the camera view when the dog takes off after the object that she throws?


YouTube - old lady, big dog

is there anything wrong with this picture regarding responsible dog ownership? HELL YES. what was this lady thinking? how did it occur to her that she could control a dog this size? how did she come to the conclusion that she could meet the exercise and firm leadership needs of a dog such as this?

obviously i am making a few assumptions in this analysis: namely that the video is not a hoax or staged incident (though it illustrates my point beautifully either way), and that the dog does in fact belong to her.

but from the video alone we conclude that she at least felt that she could meet those requirements for the temporary period during which the video was shooting. if one does not have the know-how, physical capacity, and experience sufficient to comfortably own or permanently care for a venomous snake, does it make sense for that person to consider managing such an animal even temporarily? would you, reader, having no experience with pit vipers, feel comfortable taking in your hands an eastern diamondback rattlesnake for some photos, even if the film crew promised that it would be ok and that it would last for only a few moments?

why should dogs be any different? better question, why are they any different? as shown in this video and countless, tragic news stories across the world, dogs are treated differently.

first time dog owners assume that they can handle mastiffs, norwegian elkhounds, pit bulls, rottweilers, border collies, and all manner of other high-maintenance dog breeds–every day. people like this little old lady decide that they have the ability to control a dog that outweighs them and has more brute strength in just its head and neck alone than the person does in his or her entire frame.

from a standpoint of personal responsibility, this does not make sense. from a psychological standpoint, it only makes sense because these people have assumed that these dogs are inherently capable of operating in human society under the rules and restrictions of human social construct; in other words, they assume that these dogs can think like and act like humans.

this is specifically the type of mentality that ends up tragically ruining lives, both human and canine, and it needs to stop.

therefore, miu in her decision not to own a pit bull (and i would then presume a rottweiler, mastiff, st bernard, or other large, powerful breed) has made a responsible decision. whatever other biases or factors influence her decision are at the moment moot, so long as she realizes that they apply to her alone, because she made a judgment based off of what she is capable of handling–something that very few dog owners ever even consider when they go to the puppy mill or pet store looking for their designer dog of whatever breed happens to be the current fad.

Quote:
What about this news story?

...

It seems that this young man was trying to save the family's pug mix when his brother's pit bulls turned on him. Or the pit bulls could have just been fighting each other and the young man and pug mix became collateral damage.

Man Dead After Dog Attack in Leesburg (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/081009_leesburg_dog_attack - broken link)

Autopsy: Pit Bulls Bit Man Repeatedly (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/081109_autopsy_shows_pit_bulls_bit_man_repeatedly - broken link)
what of it? other than it proves my point that people do not understand or value an understanding of animal-human relations or dog psychology, and that thus selfish apathy is only going to continue to kill humans and other animals until we educate and regulate the public. notice that it is the public–the humans–that need education and regulation, not the animals themselves.

aaron out.
 
Old 08-12-2009, 10:45 AM
 
1 posts, read 960 times
Reputation: 11
They are a very intellegent dog far from ignorant. Pit bulls are not the problem, it is people. So what are you propossing the solution be.....ban all people. Banning is not the answer education and registration of dog breeders is the answer.
 
Old 08-12-2009, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
1,067 posts, read 2,975,748 times
Reputation: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mearth View Post
That would be because of the aforementioned "tenacious ignorance."

As well as the tenacious naivete and optimism we animal advocates have, that keeps us working toward opening the minds of even the most airtight skulls.
Sad that good faith can be a weakness or even a total waste in some instances.

The abuse of good faith is the very root of all humane problems.

This travesty's failure to reduce the application of good faith - thanks to the very nature of good faith - demonstrates why good faith can out-perpetuate even the mighty self-perpetuation of fear and its consequential hatred. Fear and hate eventually wear on those who harbor them. Good faith in the potential of oneself and our fellows saps no motivation, but only feeds the will to persevere.

Even challenges that have made us wonder in the short term have only served in the long term to reaffirm this ultimate truth in the fight against all the self-imposed adversity of human kind.
 
Old 08-12-2009, 05:52 PM
 
Location: James Island, SC
1,629 posts, read 3,475,093 times
Reputation: 927
The Anatomy of a Dog Attack

"There are NO devil dogs. There are NO unprovoked dog attacks. There IS a huge gap in understanding amongst some dog owners about why dogs attack and until we can bridge that gap in education people will continue to be attacked...

Killing individual dog breeds is not the solution to a problem which runs throughs an entire species. Oh, and if you were left in any doubt, that species isn’t canine."
 
Old 08-12-2009, 05:55 PM
 
Location: James Island, SC
1,629 posts, read 3,475,093 times
Reputation: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by stingraynm View Post
Sad that good faith can be a weakness or even a total waste in some instances.

The abuse of good faith is the very root of all humane problems.

This travesty's failure to reduce the application of good faith - thanks to the very nature of good faith - demonstrates why good faith can out-perpetuate even the mighty self-perpetuation of fear and its consequential hatred. Fear and hate eventually wear on those who harbor them. Good faith in the potential of oneself and our fellows saps no motivation, but only feeds the will to persevere.

Even challenges that have made us wonder in the short term have only served in the long term to reaffirm this ultimate truth in the fight against all the self-imposed adversity of human kind.

I love this - especially the bolded part. But the whole post is very well said.

Dang, I can't rep you again yet. But I'll be back!
 
Old 08-12-2009, 06:32 PM
 
716 posts, read 1,118,673 times
Reputation: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
Why own a dog that has the potential to do such damage to the human body?

Most big dogs have this potential. A lab has the size and strength to hurt an adult badly if it wanted to. Dogs are much stronger than humans pound for pound, so your idea basically rules out any big dog. I heard once that a 100 lb dog has the strength of a 150-160 lb human.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top