Archive

Pitbulls are for poor stupid people

  • BR1986FB
    O-Trap going all "Jimmy Connors/John McEnroe/Bjorn Borg" on Isadore as he's "serving" him a nice, tall glass of Shut Up Juice...
  • sleeper
    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.
    /Con_Alma'd
  • lhslep134
    isadore;1186549 wrote: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.
    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-22/news/31383925_1_police-officers-pooch-beautiful-dog
  • isadore
    hey whenever another dog breed kills, pits kill another just so they can keep their reputation as no. 1 baby killers and they do it right after ohio repeals the law identifying them as a killer breed.
    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/pit-bull-kills-3-day-old-ohio-baby-breed-states-vicious-list
  • LJ
    Holy fucking shit, there is a whole god damned website full of you!!!!
  • BR1986FB
    isadore;1186866 wrote:hey whenever another dog breed kills, pits kill another just so they can keep their reputation as no. 1 baby killers
    Stuff like this just goes to show that this asshat doesn't believe the shit he's spewing. Pure shock value.
  • isadore
    O-Trap;1186716 wrote: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.
    Do pits prefer killing certain groups, why the death count would show that. Nearly 50% of their kills are from 3 days to 12 and another 25% are from 65 to 90. Those are their preferences for the kill.
    Most pit bulls don’t attack any human, so what. Most rattlesnakes do not attack any human. So lets bring them into our homes.
    Gosh German shepherds, chows, rottweilers and boxers attack more people than pitt bulls. So what, we would have to add the fatalities from all those types together and it would not equal the deaths from pit bulls.
    The pit bulls temperament is compared to any other dog to kill when they attack.
    Carnivores have a sensate pleasure when they kill prey.
    Allergic reaction kills from bee stings, they dies from their own allergies. People killed by pit bulls not some allergy.
    Pit bulls actively seek out humans for the purpose of attack.
    “
    Roy McSweeney 74 years Mauled to deat by neighbors' two pit bulls while walking on his property. Margaret Salcedo 48 years Killed by four dogs when she was out walking in her neighborhood. Henry Piotrowski 90 years Killed in his own back yard by his neighbor's dogs. Jimmie McConnell 71 years Killed while gardening in her own yard by her neighbor's dog. Lillian Styles 76 years Killed by her neighbor's six dogs in her own front yard”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
    Even though other types of dogs are more popular, they still continue to lead in killing.
    The more you know, the less you want pits in your community. Allowing them in should be criminal.

  • isadore
    LJ;1186870 wrote:Holy ****ing ****, there is a whole god damned website full of you!!!!
    gosh a ruddies, is this true you have a gun collection, carry a concealed weapon and have a pit bull?
  • isadore
    O-Trap wrote:
    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.

    We have a dog that is much more deadly than any other type of dog. How often a attack ends successfully is most important, rather than how often it is attempted. A baseball hitter who has 100 attempts and no hits, is nowhere near the threat at the plate than the hitter who has 10 attempts and 6 hits.
    O-Trap wrote:
    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.
    I do have question about the American Temperament Test Society. You read its materials and it is much more an advocacy group than objective tester. Beyond that the 83 rating for the pits is not that much better than 77% average. Then we have the obvious fact as mentioned above that the slightly fewer average attacks by pits are much more likely to end up deadly. 100 time or even infinitely more likely to be deadly than many types of dogs.
    O-Trap wrote:
    "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.
    The killing is sensate and pleasurable for them. They are carnivores and humans are one of the prey.
    O-Trap wrote:
    The statistical improbability that a given pitbull will ever kill in its lifetime would suggest otherwise. Raw statistics don't lie. Emotional paranoia does.
    They do it so much more often than any other type of dog, so the statistical probability for them is higher than for any other of their species.
    O-Trap wrote:
    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.
    Again the repetition with aggressiveness is insignificant when we consider the much higher success rate of the pit bulls in doing what comes natural to them. A pro golfer sure takes a lot fewer swings in the game than a hacker, they know what they are doing.
    O-Trap wrote: 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.
    To give equivalency to a child being nipped on the finger and a child having his throat ripped out is ridiculous. The first can even be an accident, not the second.
    O-Trap wrote:
    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.

    O-Trap wrote:
    And a baby can be killed by many types of dogs. See my 4-pound Pomeranian example above.
    Not that many compared to the number of types of dogs out there. The large majority of types of dog have killed no one. And of course the list for any other dog pales beside the pit.
    O-Trap wrote:
    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.
    Dogs are basically wolves and they can instinctually tell who are the easiest kills. They have been doing it for millions of years. The pit bull has those instincts coupled with the physical tools to carry the attack off successfully
    O-Trap wrote:
    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.
    Excellent point, we have fewer deaths from rattlesnake bites because people do not bring them into their homes. Now if we did the same thing with Pit Bulls, fewer dead humans. Less interaction with them the better. What does make a rattler more deadly is its size, the bigger they are, the more poison they can produce and inject. And that makes them more deadly when combined with their skill at killing. Obviously many of supposedly friendly dogs are “pre disposed” to attack. We can see the results.
    They are killers and should not be among us.
    　
    　
  • LJ
    isadore;1186887 wrote:gosh a ruddies, is this true you have a gun collection, carry a concealed weapon and have a pit bull?

    No I do not own a Pit Bull Terrier
  • isadore
    LJ;1186917 wrote:No I do not own a Pit Bull Terrier
    my mistake, I thought you had said on this thread or some other you did.
  • LJ
    isadore;1186918 wrote:my mistake, I thought you had said on this thread or some other you did.

    I have an American Staffordshire Terrier.
  • isadore
    nice dog?
  • LJ
    isadore;1186922 wrote:nice dog?

    Extremely. And well trained and behaved. I told her to "stay" on the porch the other day, came back 45 min later and she was still waiting for me, didnt move.

    Our Cocker Spaniel is an idiot and a fear biter. She will be gone before we have kids
  • isadore
    staffordshire terrier types come under the description as pit bulls.
  • LJ
    isadore;1186927 wrote:staffordshire terrier types come under the description as pit bulls.

    Pit bull is a breed. Bull terrier is a type.
  • isadore
    he look like that
  • LJ
    isadore;1186932 wrote: he look like that

    No. There are pics of her on this thread. She is a slight mix (father full amstaff, bitch half lab half amstaff)
  • isadore
    nice looking dog
    be careful
    Labrador Retriever-Pit bull
    -type mix kills Alice Broom 82 years

    Labrador retriever-Pit bull-type mix kills Isaiah Calandis Smith 18 months
  • Big_Mirg_ZHS
    isadore;1186935 wrote:nice looking dog
    be careful
    Labrador Retriever-Pit bull
    -type mix kills Alice Broom 82 years

    Labrador retriever-Pit bull-type mix kills Isaiah Calandis Smith 18 months
    He said mastiff not labrador you ass hat.

    I hope you get mauled to death by a pack of rabid fucking poodles.
  • Thinthickbigred
    said_aouita;1166068 wrote:http://tewksbury.patch.com/articles/tewksbury-man-and-his-dog-injured-in-pit-bull-attack-in-wilmington
    http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/neighbor-tries-save-toddler-pit-bull-attack-shoots/nNy8n/
    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11596559-family-pit-bulls-maul-2-california-toddlers-in-separate-incidents

    Seriously, it seems every story you hear in the news about pitbulls has to do with somebody getting attacked. Usually also mentioned in the story is somebody shot or other illegal activities like drugs.

    I'm sure if you search Google hard enough, one or two positive stories can be found about these beasts.

    Still, majority wise only poor and/or stupid people own pit bulls.
    did you forget to add black people? Or is that not politically correct ? In any case the animals who make pitt bulls fight and teach them that disgusting behavior all need to be jailed or sent to some far away arctic island.
    Since you where stereo-typing people you should have added black folks .
    I have seen very nice pitt bulls when they are raised correctly but I still would not trust one around a little child . Its humans that are truely disgusting including America's hero M Vick.
  • isadore
    Big_Mirg_ZHS;1187272 wrote:He said mastiff not labrador you ass hat.

    I hope you get mauled to death by a pack of rabid ****ing poodles.
    LJ wrote:My AmStaff/Lab mix would do nothing but lick someone to death.
    No. 2# on thread
    shame, shame, shame. Check your character, you can still be redeemed.
  • Black Jaguar
    Any dog can be "mean," without good training. Whether it's a Pit Bull or not.
  • vball10set
    lol--here we go again....
  • said_aouita
    isadore;1186932 wrote: he look like that
    Is that a red choke collar pulled tight to control that wild beast?