Ohio Chatter DEV

O-Trap

se-alum;1206489 wrote:This officer was able to subdue a human and Pitbull at the same time. So obviously fighting off a Pitbull isn't as tough as some make it out to be.

http://http://www.wkkj.com/pages/LocalNews.html?feed=106759&article=10216069#.T-Iwho-bvUE.facebook

Make no mistake, they're not kittens. They're strong for their size, but at the end of the day, strong for 45 pounds can be pretty weak for 200 lbs. The myth of them transcends the logic that they are a fraction of a full-grown adult.

xKoToVxSyNdRoMe

Wtf is wrong with you

O-Trap

Alibaba.com?

Someone's computer just got accessed by someone over in India.

#h4x0r'd

DeadliestWarrior34

What the fuck are you talking about?

O-Trap

isadore;1205961 wrote:Gosh a ruddies we have homo sapiens, a species. Everyone in that species no matter what their differences are members of the species. We can interbreed as members of a species. We have canis lupus, a species. Everyone in that species no matter what their differences are members of the species. They can interbreed as members of a species. In your little study they did not include the Staffordshire Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/9552/1/9552.pdf?DDD6+drk0gl

"Wolf" as used today, refers to 35 of the 37 SUBSPECIES of Canis lupus. "Wolf" as used today is not a species, hence the link I posted earlier saying that Canis lupus familiaris is a Canis lupus, but NOT characterized as a wolf. Please explain to me which part of that is difficult. Naturally, a wolf and a dog are of the same species, but neither is a species unto itself, but a subspecies. There are only so many ways to explain this before it's clear that you either can't understand it or that your irrational fear makes you refuse to. I'm assuming the latter, as it at least assumes you're intelligent.

isadore;1205961 wrote: As you admit pit bulls are responsible for by far the largest percentage of deaths.

Just over 50% of a very small number, but yes. I do admit that dogs characterized as pit bull dogs (mischaracterization is a whole different argument, but that's neither here nor there) are involved in the largest number of human deaths among all Canis lupus familiaris.

isadore;1205961 wrote:As you refuse to accept as percentages show they favor children as victims, those 12 and under making up over half their kills.

I would openly admit that if it were true. Again, your illogical fear seems to cause you to see intent where the numbers cannot even do so. Your irrationality is laughable; it's almost sad.

isadore;1205961 wrote:Is 52 dead kids over a ten year period enough for you. I guess not.

If 52 is enough, I suppose parents should stop allowing their 16-year-old kids to drive, as that causes WAY more death per year than all dog attacks combined. There's a reason you had to go with 10 years. Because a single year would have validated my point, that the numbers of pit bull deaths ... even the numbers of dog deaths in general ... is too small to accurately display a pattern, because the sample size is several times too small to validate any kinds of consistent percentages.

So, why stop at pit bulls then? If 52 over ten years is enough to justify removing a breed of animal, why not a subspecies? Domestic dogs as a whole have, of course, been responsible for more than that, so why stop there? Why shouldn't owning a dog ... excuse me, a wolf ... be illegal?

isadore;1205961 wrote:Pits are so good at it:
Baby killed by pit bull in grandparents' home
Monday, January 16, 2012
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8505754

Pit Bull Quarantined After Baby Killed
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Pit-Bull-Quarantined-After-Baby-Killed/-/1735978/2831334/-/qfxx8w/-/index.html

Sleeping Michigan baby killed by pit bull
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/02/21/Sleeping-Michigan-baby-killed-by-pit-bull/UPI-36591298326504/
Atlanta police say the dog climbed into the baby's crib and bit her on the head.
abcnews.go.com/.../day-baby-killed-family-pit-bull-99...Feb 25, 2010

And right here in Ohio last month.
http://www.limaohio.com/articles/dog-84294-infant-euthanized.html

Anecdotal fallacy. Here, I'll demonstrate another example that you've seen before:

Family's Pomeranian kills their baby:
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/09/local/me-34015

Golden Retriever kills AND DISMEMBERS baby:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132912/Horror-family-dog-kills-dismembers-month-old-baby-father-slept.html

Of course, a RATIONAL person immediately acknowledges that a small sample of the whole can't be used to define the whole. That's called stereotyping. In the world of logical reasoning, it's a fallacy known as the "hasty generalization fallacy," where one takes characteristics from an inadequate sample of the whole to define the whole.

Do you justify your logically fallacious beliefs, deeply rooted in your irrational paranoia?

isadore;1205961 wrote:Of course in your view that tragedy is the pit being euthanized.

Ah, and THIS is what those of us who think rationally call a strawman fallacy. I believe you're familiar with this one, as I've shown you where you've committed it before.

Since you're falling behind, let me give you a hand. The dog had to be put down, regardless of whose fault it was. Perhaps it was the parents' fault, for leaving their child alone in a house with dogs big enough to kill a baby even if they only thought it was a squeak toy. Perhaps it was a former owner who abused, neglected, or abandoned the dog. Perhaps it was the fact that that particular dog didn't have the logical faculties to know the devastation of killing a human baby (I know, it's crazy to think that dogs aren't cunning, evil geniuses). In any case, the dog would have been unable to coexist with the humans at that point. As such, the tragedy is the death of a baby, and only an insensitive person would try to use such a horrible event to further an agenda ... such as what you are doing here.

isadore;1205961 wrote:It was of course the baby’s fault, never the dogs.

False dichotomy fallacy. You certainly are running the gamut of illogical statements today, aren't you?

It's not the baby's. The baby can't reason or defend itself. It's not the dog's. The dog can't reason either (or again, do you know something that the world's scientific community doesn't? If so, please write a book, speak in lectures, and make millions.). Maybe it was or wasn't the parents', a former owner's, or the breeder's. The blame isn't what matters in tragedy. Again, only those who don't care about the tragedy would ever use an example to further an agenda, especially when their agenda is based on logical fallacies.

isadore;1205961 wrote:Probably the kid’s rattle or the child laughed, or cried, or breathed. Anything to excuse a killer, if it happens to be a breed you favor.

Ah, what an interesting dichotomy. I favor no breed at all. In fact, given my own dogs, you could say I favor chihuahuas, since two of my three dogs are half chihuahua.

I regard all dogs equally, which is why I don't suggest putting down an entire breed based on the results of a few. You, however, seem to regard breeds on different levels, while I maintain an even keel regarding all of them.

isadore;1205961 wrote: You know most people rush to help others when they hear screams. And a 15 baby is still large prey for a 50 pound dog.

And yet the child died of head trauma. You'd think it would be blood loss if the dog was going about ripping the body apart (which, of course, you have zero indication that that was taking place).

isadore;1205961 wrote:I realize you have a self centered fixation on pits. BUT

Actually, your own irrational fear of a dog breed AGAINST all scientific evidence, AND without any logical construct, would suggest that you, in fact, have the fixation. Based on the fact that you believe others should concede to your own irrational fear would indicate self-centered fixation.

See how that works when you actually back up statements with a logical construct? You should try it once you give up your irrationality and embrace logic instead.

isadore;1205961 wrote: if you have to have a dog any other type would be less dangerous to children and the elderly than these killers.

Again, your irrational appeal to a hasty generalization fallacy, as you generalize a breed by numbers that aren't even remotely close to enough to make any accurate conclusion. Then again, I'm not sure why I'd hope to hear logical thought and accurate conclusions from someone who displays such rational paranoia. Your level of thinking is on par with those who display racism against entire races for the actions or circumstances of a sample too small to paint an accurate picture of a whole race.

Tell me, are you racist? If you believe the things you say here, you're either racist or intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.

I'll opt for sane, rational thinking that is grounded in scientific fact. You are free to choose your irrational fear if you'd like, but it would be good to see you making relevant contributions to the discussion for a change.

Steel Valley Football

xKoToVxSyNdRoMe;1206579 wrote:Wtf is wrong with you

I was earlier looking for a way to end immediately a pit bull "latching on" attack to a two and/or three year old. This, or something similar, would be the best solution as the other methods I mentioned either have attached dangers or would prolong the attack as the animal is fighting death. Hopefully, in the statistically minute chance that a loved one, elderly or young, of yours is ever severely attacked, you have a method to possibly save their life or prevent other permanent injuries.

O-Trap

Steel Valley Football;1206936 wrote:I was earlier looking for a way to end immediately a pit bull "latching on" attack to a two and/or three year old. This, or something similar, would be the best solution as the other methods I mentioned either have attached dangers or would prolong the attack as the animal is fighting death. Hopefully, in the statistically minute chance that a loved one, elderly or young, of yours is ever severely attacked, you have a method to possibly save their life or prevent other permanent injuries.

It would be EXTREMELY rare to be attacked by a dog that would threaten the children's lives, given the small number of dog-related fatalities in the country each year.

I do actually see an issue with protection here, as using a gun isn't only dangerous, but you can still be charged with several crimes, even if you're using it to defend your own children or yourself against a dog (particularly if you are in certain city limits). One would think this isn't the case, but I did some reading up on it this evening.

Again, your bare hands should suffice, as I doubt you want to be carrying a knife sharpener around with you wherever you go. If you are at least 1.5x the size of a dog, there isn't a reason you shouldn't be able to handle the dog.

rmolin73

I think he has short arms and little hands.

BR1986FB

rmolin73;1206940 wrote:I think he has short arms and little hands.

Circus folk....

rmolin73

BR1986FB;1206957 wrote:Circus folk....

He is one bad mofo!

isadore

O-Trap;1206838 wrote:

"Wolf" as used today, refers to 35 of the 37 SUBSPECIES of Canis lupus. "Wolf" as used today is not a species, hence the link I posted earlier saying that Canis lupus familiaris is a Canis lupus, but NOT characterized as a wolf. Please explain to me which part of that is difficult. Naturally, a wolf and a dog are of the same species, but neither is a species unto itself, but a subspecies. There are only so many ways to explain this before it's clear that you either can't understand it or that your irrational fear makes you refuse to. I'm assuming the latter, as it at least assumes you're intelligent.

Just over 50% of a very small number, but yes. I do admit that dogs characterized as pit bull dogs (mischaracterization is a whole different argument, but that's neither here nor there) are involved in the largest number of human deaths among all Canis lupus familiaris.

I would openly admit that if it were true. Again, your illogical fear seems to cause you to see intent where the numbers cannot even do so. Your irrationality is laughable; it's almost sad.

If 52 is enough, I suppose parents should stop allowing their 16-year-old kids to drive, as that causes WAY more death per year than all dog attacks combined. There's a reason you had to go with 10 years. Because a single year would have validated my point, that the numbers of pit bull deaths ... even the numbers of dog deaths in general ... is too small to accurately display a pattern, because the sample size is several times too small to validate any kinds of consistent percentages.

So, why stop at pit bulls then? If 52 over ten years is enough to justify removing a breed of animal, why not a subspecies? Domestic dogs as a whole have, of course, been responsible for more than that, so why stop there? Why shouldn't owning a dog ... excuse me, a wolf ... be illegal?

Anecdotal fallacy. Here, I'll demonstrate another example that you've seen before:

Family's Pomeranian kills their baby:
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/09/local/me-34015

Golden Retriever kills AND DISMEMBERS baby:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132912/Horror-family-dog-kills-dismembers-month-old-baby-father-slept.html

Of course, a RATIONAL person immediately acknowledges that a small sample of the whole can't be used to define the whole. That's called stereotyping. In the world of logical reasoning, it's a fallacy known as the "hasty generalization fallacy," where one takes characteristics from an inadequate sample of the whole to define the whole.

Do you justify your logically fallacious beliefs, deeply rooted in your irrational paranoia?

Ah, and THIS is what those of us who think rationally call a strawman fallacy. I believe you're familiar with this one, as I've shown you where you've committed it before.

Since you're falling behind, let me give you a hand. The dog had to be put down, regardless of whose fault it was. Perhaps it was the parents' fault, for leaving their child alone in a house with dogs big enough to kill a baby even if they only thought it was a squeak toy. Perhaps it was a former owner who abused, neglected, or abandoned the dog. Perhaps it was the fact that that particular dog didn't have the logical faculties to know the devastation of killing a human baby (I know, it's crazy to think that dogs aren't cunning, evil geniuses). In any case, the dog would have been unable to coexist with the humans at that point. As such, the tragedy is the death of a baby, and only an insensitive person would try to use such a horrible event to further an agenda ... such as what you are doing here.

False dichotomy fallacy. You certainly are running the gamut of illogical statements today, aren't you?

It's not the baby's. The baby can't reason or defend itself. It's not the dog's. The dog can't reason either (or again, do you know something that the world's scientific community doesn't? If so, please write a book, speak in lectures, and make millions.). Maybe it was or wasn't the parents', a former owner's, or the breeder's. The blame isn't what matters in tragedy. Again, only those who don't care about the tragedy would ever use an example to further an agenda, especially when their agenda is based on logical fallacies.

Ah, what an interesting dichotomy. I favor no breed at all. In fact, given my own dogs, you could say I favor chihuahuas, since two of my three dogs are half chihuahua.

I regard all dogs equally, which is why I don't suggest putting down an entire breed based on the results of a few. You, however, seem to regard breeds on different levels, while I maintain an even keel regarding all of them.

And yet the child died of head trauma. You'd think it would be blood loss if the dog was going about ripping the body apart (which, of course, you have zero indication that that was taking place).

Actually, your own irrational fear of a dog breed AGAINST all scientific evidence, AND without any logical construct, would suggest that you, in fact, have the fixation. Based on the fact that you believe others should concede to your own irrational fear would indicate self-centered fixation.

See how that works when you actually back up statements with a logical construct? You should try it once you give up your irrationality and embrace logic instead.

Again, your irrational appeal to a hasty generalization fallacy, as you generalize a breed by numbers that aren't even remotely close to enough to make any accurate conclusion. Then again, I'm not sure why I'd hope to hear logical thought and accurate conclusions from someone who displays such rational paranoia. Your level of thinking is on par with those who display racism against entire races for the actions or circumstances of a sample too small to paint an accurate picture of a whole race.

Tell me, are you racist? If you believe the things you say here, you're either racist or intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.

I'll opt for sane, rational thinking that is grounded in scientific fact. You are free to choose your irrational fear if you'd like, but it would be good to see you making relevant contributions to the discussion for a change.

Gosh a ruddies
Your charge of racism is beyond a reach. 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.But there is truth hidden in your obfuscations. I guess we have to go to another language to get you to the truth.

O-Trap wrote: Canis lupus familiaris (Latin term for dog) is a Canis lupus (Latin term for grey wolf)

. Dogs remain wolves, pack carnivores.

O-Trap wrote:
I do admit that dogs characterized as pit bull dogs (mischaracterization is a whole different argument, but that's neither here nor there) are involved in the largest number of human deaths among all Canis lupus familiaris.

I am again sorry that you find the statistic that show pit bulls favor killing children laughable. The death of children is not laughable under any circumstance. And that you find the numbers of children killed in a year by pit bulls is insignificant. 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
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.
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.

Raw Dawgin' it

I would never argue with O-trap, my response would always be tl;dr and move on.

LJ

Raw Dawgin' it;1207047 wrote:I would never argue with O-trap, my response would always be tl;dr and move on.

Or you could just be Isadore and give the same response over and over and over and over

Raw Dawgin' it

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

it's why i blocked him - he's like sleeper in the sense that he doesn't listen to reason on views he's set in. At least sleeper is intelligent, isadore a retarded hypocrite who talks from a soap box about bullshit. He's a total waste of space on society and thinks people who don't work and aren't as fortunate as others deserve hand outs for no reason other than they're poor. Fuck him, if he doesn't like capitalism he can go to china.

sleeper

Raw Dawgin' it;1207047 wrote:I would never argue with O-trap, my response would always be tl;dr and move on.

Yup.

Steel Valley Football

O-Trap;1206938 wrote:It would be EXTREMELY rare to be attacked by a dog that would threaten the children's lives, given the small number of dog-related fatalities in the country each year.

I do actually see an issue with protection here, as using a gun isn't only dangerous, but you can still be charged with several crimes, even if you're using it to defend your own children or yourself against a dog (particularly if you are in certain city limits). One would think this isn't the case, but I did some reading up on it this evening.

Again, your bare hands should suffice, as I doubt you want to be carrying a knife sharpener around with you wherever you go. If you are at least 1.5x the size of a dog, there isn't a reason you shouldn't be able to handle the dog.

The odds of this occurring are irrelevant. I also wouldn't be carrying the tool everywhere I go, rather only at the park or another outdoor activity like a street festival downtown Columbus. Or in Warren at my parents, which is near an apartment complex loaded with pit bulls that sometimes get loose.

As far as handing a pit bull that has latched onto my child, the dog has to die instantly IMO. Not in one minute or in two minutes from me beating it with my fists or kicking it while it's still has it's jaws locked on the child. Nor, with an irate pit bull owner possibly trying to stop me from hurting his dog. There are too many variables. The dog must die immediately.

Also, regarding the odds. You can't calculate the odds. They change based on where you live. My odds in Worthington are very very different than my odds in Warren or Youngstown. Trust me.

BR1986FB

Steel Valley Football;1207129 wrote:The odds of this occurring are irrelevant. I also wouldn't be carrying the tool everywhere I go, rather only at the park or another outdoor activity like a street festival downtown Columbus. Or in Warren at my parents, which is near an apartment complex loaded with pit bulls that sometimes get loose.

As far as handing a pit bull that has latched onto my child, the dog has to die instantly IMO. Not in one minute or in two minutes from me beating it with my fists or kicking it while it's still has it's jaws locked on the child. Nor, with an irate pit bull owner possibly trying to stop me from hurting his dog. There are too many variables. The dog must die immediately.

Also, regarding the odds. You can't calculate the odds. They change based on where you live. My odds in Worthington are very very different than my odds in Warren or Youngstown. Trust me.

You are a sad, sad individual.

Rotinaj