Pitbulls are for poor stupid people

• BR1986FB

  Steel Valley Football;1207461 wrote:That's been your point all along. I'm not interested so move along. Nobody has insulted you here.

  I don't care if you're "interested." Why did you even start these threads in the first place? Your clear intent is to kill the dog. A stone cold ratard could figure out how to do that. No need to ask a message board for your "approval." You just posted these threads so you'd come off as some kind of "badass" or something.
• chicago510

  

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

  
  Lol, just stop.
• Steel Valley Football

  Con_Alma;1207460 wrote: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.

  Again, fair enough and I appreciate your honesty. I equate this to trying to be prepared for someone going after you with a gun. The odds are low, you can avoid all possible areas where it's more likely to occur, etc, but whats the answer to stop it when it happens. Concealed carry is the obvious answer, but it's not practical in this scenario.
• Steel Valley Football

  chicago510;1207466 wrote:Lol, just stop.

  Thank you for not missing that.
• Con_Alma

  I would agree that the odds seem low. I wish you luck.
• Steel Valley Football

  [MAP][/MAP]

  BR1986FB;1207465 wrote:I don't care if you're "interested." Why did you even start these threads in the first place? Your clear intent is to kill the dog. A stone cold ratard could figure out how to do that. No need to ask a message board for your "approval." You just posted these threads so you'd come off as some kind of "badass" or something.

  
  How'd you get so smart? Maybe you're too smart for this thread and for that reason alone you should just move along and leave it alone. Again, nobody has insulted you to my knowledge.
• gorocks99

  

  I don't want to have to move this thread with the other pit bull threads. Keep your heads...all of you.
• Steel Valley Football

  I'm trying. I've asked him to stop.
• Con_Alma

  gorocks99;1207489 wrote:I don't want to have to move this thread with the other pit bull threads. Keep your heads...all of you.

  
  ????
  
  Why not? Why would you rather see it as it own thread?
  
  What's the difference?
• BR1986FB

  gorocks99;1207489 wrote:I don't want to have to move this thread with the other pit bull threads. Keep your heads...all of you.

  Believe me, I'm done on this thread. Enough high comedy with the OP's "look at me" post.
• Steel Valley Football

  Con_Alma;1207495 wrote:????
  
  Why not? Why would you rather see it as it own thread?
  
  What's the difference?

  Because it's a serious question and meant to have been kept out of the basement, where I try to avoid.
• gorocks99

  

  Con_Alma;1207495 wrote:????
  
  Why not? Why would you rather see it as it own thread?
  
  What's the difference?

  Mainly that, in the Basement, you don't have to feign rational argument. Would it make everyone feel better if it were there? You can have a free-for-all at that point.
• Steel Valley Football

  BR1986FB;1207504 wrote:Believe me, I'm done on this thread. Enough high comedy with the OP's "look at me" post.

  It is greatly appreciated.
• Con_Alma

  gorocks99;1207508 wrote:Mainly that, in the Basement, you don't have to feign rational argument. Would it make everyone feel better if it were there? You can have a free-for-all at that point.

  
  
  It wouldn't make me have any different feelings at all.
  
  I guess that makes sense. Thanks.
  
  Personally I post the same no matter what forum I'm in.
• Steel Valley Football

  WebFire;1207274 wrote:I'm staying out the Pit Bull argument, but I do find it amusing that some of you think killing a dog, or even stopping an attack, with your bare hands is something so easy to do.

  This.
  
  You could break your knuckles smashing some pits in the head trying to get them off your other arm if he's got his jaw gripped on good enough.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1207385 wrote: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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  Didn't say it was. Here's that strawman fallacy we talked about. Your lack of logical process is the only thing laughable.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  See above. The most deadly dog is almost never ever deadly. Teenage drivers are deadly.
  
  
  
  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.

  Gosh a ruddies oh great science expert, zebras and horses are separate species,
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra
  Domestic cats are not the same species as lions and tigers.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat
  BUT domestic dogs and wolves are the same species. They are canis lupus (grey wolves) They are wolves.
  They are pack hunting carnivores. They search for the weak. When they make a big kill they do not immediately eat it.

  O-Trap wrote: 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.

  Gosh a ruddies, lets play your little numbers game. Age span 12 to 14 years
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier
  Given that fact, that one million number of your gets to be something of a joke, we would have to have 50 to 100 million pit bulls in America but
  Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population. When they kill it is not a “fluke.” In fact whenever the announcement is made dog kills child, it is a chalk bet that the killer was a pit. 53 deaths is the number of children they killed in that period, the total number they killed is double the number you quoted.
  http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2011.php
  But they cause half the deaths.
  But of course they were provoked by those children and oldsters they prefer to tear apart. Or was it that they are &#8220redisposed.” Finally hidden in all this verbiage is the truth. They are predisposed to be killers.
  And anyone who owns one or who fights to keep them among is to blame for the pain and death they cause.
  Jeez big guy lets see. You seem to have real in your area of knowledge you like to flaunt. (I do not claim to be either a scientist or a statistician but even an uninformed layperson like myself can notice a things that may be fallacious) Scientific problems with who are members of a species, dogs and wolves, and what are not horses and zebras. You seem to have a problem with statistics in particular that 1 million number you throw around which given the pit population, life span of a pit and total number of deaths attributed to them over that time does not hold up. But gosh I guess you will go to any extreme to keep killer dogs in people’s homes. Think about the lives of children. You can still be redeemed.
  
• rmolin73

  

  Walk around with a samurai sword that should do the trick.
• Heretic

  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:Gosh a ruddies
  
  Gosh a ruddies

  
  See how much more readable Izzy's post is when you take out everything that isn't "gosh a ruddies"? Much better and more logical.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  I think the entire OC should put him on the ignore list.
• Con_Alma

  Steel Valley Football;1207506 wrote:Because it's a serious question and meant to have been kept out of the basement, where I try to avoid.

  ??? Were you answering for Gorocks here?
• Steel Valley Football

  rmolin73;1207559 wrote:Walk around with a samurai sword that should do the trick.

  Illegal to carry in Ohio.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:Gosh a ruddies oh great science expert, zebras and horses are separate species,
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra

  I'm no science expert. Just able to actually make comparisons.
  
  As I recall, I said zebras were a different species, but they are the same genus. Apparently my parallel went over your head. My apologies.
  
  Here's the parallel. A genus is to a species as a species is to a sub-species. In both cases, the former is an umbrella categorization of the latter. Hence, just as two species can share a genus without being of the same species, two sub-species can share a species without being of the same sub-species.
  
  Just as a horse (categorization of species) and zebra (categorization of species) can share a genus (Equus) without being the same species (the identifying nomenclatures used: horse and zebra), a wolf (categorization of sub-species) and dog (categorization of subspecies) can share a species (lupus) without being the same subspecies (the identifying nomenclatures used: wolf and dog).
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:Domestic cats are not the same species as lions and tigers.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat

  Believe it or not, I'm somehow proud of you for figuring that out.
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:BUT domestic dogs and wolves are the same species.

  Correct, but domestic dog and wolf are both descriptors of sub-species. Hence, to say that a domesticated dog is a wolf is to say that sub-species category A is sub-species category B. They're not. They both fit under the umbrella taxonomy of a species, but if we're using the sub-species nomenclature, we can't say they're the same.
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:They are canis lupus (grey wolves) They are wolves.

  The already established point (per the Wiki wolf link I've posted already, so I am not going to again) is that not all Canis lupus are wolves, which is precisely why that article made a specific point to say that there are two sub-species within the Canis lupus species which are not wolves, and that one of them was the domesticated dog.
  
  If you'd like to debate that further, contact your local college's zoology professor. You're not arguing against me. You're arguing against the entire scientific community.
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:They are pack hunting carnivores.

  Not per the university study I posted earlier, which said that domesticated dogs have lost most all links with their wolf counterparts. The Wikipedia link you yourself cited said that the traits they still share make them loyal and able to coexist in community with humans. Thus far, you have provided zero evidence to assert that dogs of any kind hunt humans.
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:They search for the weak. When they make a big kill they do not immediately eat it.

  When they kill anything they don't eat it. Noticed in one link you posted that a newborn had been killed by a 100-pound pit. Aside from the fact that it definitely wasn't a purebred, a dog that big would not have viewed a newborn as small prey ... yet he did not eat the baby. Moreover, and that example only further's my point about weakness, the dog did to the baby what a normal person would have easily survived, so again, the fact that infants die at a higher rate would only defend what can be proven: that the physiology of a smaller, weaker being doesn't permit it to withstand the same trauma that an adult could.
  
  There is zero evidence for motive, as your attempts to say otherwise have been riddled with logical fallacies and assumptions.
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, lets play your little numbers game. Age span 12 to 14 years
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier
  Given that fact, that one million number of your gets to be something of a joke, we would have to have 50 to 100 million pit bulls in America but
  Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.

  Your reading comprehension is off. I said "... in a given year." Some die. Some are born. At any given moment, however, there are 5.5 million of them in the United States. If there are 5 deaths per year, then 1 out of every 1.1 million kills in a given year.
  
  As for your latter assertion that there would need to be 50 to 100 million if we go by the decade's stats, it's flawed only in that it assumes that we need 50 to 100 million simultaneously. It doesn't take into account that you have almost an entirely new generation by the end of that time frame. Given that, provided a lack of growth in the population or of the unregistered numbers, you're looking at about 11 million on the low side having lived at least part of their lives during that time frame. That drops the potential of a pit bull killing a child down to 1 in every 208,333. If the overall numbers are double that number of 53, then we're looking at 1 in every 104,167 killing anybody at all. That means that for every 104,167 pit bull dogs that lived some time in that decade, 104,166 didn't kill anyone.
  
  You're still applying a gross exception as the rule. Pop quiz: While fallacy (or fallacies) is that?
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:When they kill it is not a “fluke.”

  With a 1 in 104,167 chance, I'd say it is. That number certainly doesn't support the notion that it is a trend or pattern of pit bull dogs, as the vast, vast, vast majority (as if I can't say it enough, 1 in 104,167) of them kill nobody.
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:In fact whenever the announcement is made dog kills child, it is a chalk bet that the killer was a pit.

  Assuming that's true, fatal dog attacks are already absurdly rare, which is the point.
  
  Let's do this in terms of trading cards. If there are 1,000 cards in a basic series set in a year, and there were 1,000 basic series sets made, then we've got 1,000,000 basic series cards.
  
  Now, suppose there were 10 rare insert cards made (not per set, just 10 period, as is the custom). That gives us 1,000,010 total cards, including both the inserts and the basic set. Of those 10 inserts, 6 of them are Albert Pujols. Does that mean that if you buy a pack of cards, it would be commonplace to get an Albert Pujols insert? Of course not. But why not? After all, the majority of the inserts are Albert Pujols, right? Surely that means they're pretty common!
  
  Not at all, because the inserts as a whole are already so rare that even if a single player is the majority of the inserts, it would still be immensely rare to receive one. It would be a "fluke" to receive an Albert Pujols insert, even though the majority of the inserts are Albert Pujols, because the Albert Pujols insert only comprises 6 cards out of 1,000,010.
  
  Fatal attacks from pit bulls are to those Albert Pujols inserts what all dogs are to the total number of baseball cards, basic set included. IF you get killed by a dog, there is probably a 50% chance it's a pit bull, but the overwhelming majority of dogs that comprise ALL breeds, pit bulls included, don't harm or kill anyone.
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:53 deaths is the number of children they killed in that period, the total number they killed is double the number you quoted.
  http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2011.php
  But they cause half the deaths.

  
  
  I've already addressed this, going from 1 in 208,333 to 1 in 104,167.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1207551 wrote: But of course they were provoked by those children and oldsters they prefer to tear apart.

  
  
  Subtle leading fallacy using the word "prefer." Nobody knows why all dog attacks, or even all pit attacks, happen. Many have histories of abuse, which is indicative (even among humans, there is a correlation between being the victim of abuse and an increase in violent activity) of violence in many cases. Others react as though they feel threatened. Just as you have an irrational fear of a 45-pound dog, it's possible that a 45-pound dog could have an irrational fear of a 10-pound baby. The difference, of course, is that dogs lack the mental faculties to be reasonable and logical. You don't.
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:Or was it that they are &#8220redisposed.”

  
  
  To react to things that scare them? Sure. To react a certain way if abused? Absolutely. To calculate killing? No evidence suggests this.
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:Finally hidden in all this verbiage is the truth. They are predisposed to be killers.

  
  
  If that was the case, I'm suggesting that such a predisposition would manifest itself in more than 0.00095% (1 in 104,167) of them. Do you not find that odd that a predisposition to kill would manifest itself so absurdly rarely?
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote: And anyone who owns one or who fights to keep them among is to blame for the pain and death they cause.

  
  
  Same logic applied to parents who allow teens to drive or advocates of allowing teens to drive would bring about what conclusion?
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:You seem to have real in your area of knowledge you like to flaunt.

  
  
  Not at all. However, when someone's irrational prejudice causes divisiveness, I think it needs discussed.
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:I do not claim to be either a scientist or a statistician but even an uninformed layperson like myself can notice a things that may be fallacious ...

  
  
  Based on the number of logical fallacies you use to try to justify your position ... most of which never get pointed out ... it doesn't seem that you notice logically fallacious statements or positions at all.
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:Scientific problems with who are members of a species, dogs and wolves, and what are not horses and zebras.

  
  
  Don't take offense, but your reading comprehension wasn't so good when reading my post if you think I said that. In fact, I believe I stated, overtly, that both are Canis lupus. Doesn't seem that I have problems with identifying animal taxonomy, but I'm apparently having a bear of a time trying to get you to understand a simple parallel.
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:You seem to have a problem with statistics in particular that 1 million number you throw around which given the pit population, life span of a pit and total number of deaths attributed to them over that time does not hold up.

  
  
  Again, your struggles with reading comprehension rear their ugly heads, much to my dismay, as I would enjoy a good, logical discussion between you and I. I said that, in a given year, the odds are 1 out of 1.1 million. Five deaths resultant from a population of roughly 5.5 million dogs in a given year (hopefully underlining and italicizing will help you read it this time) translates to what?
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:But gosh I guess you will go to any extreme to keep killer dogs in people’s homes.

  
  
  0.00095 of every dog is a killer, assuming we're discussing pits over the course of their entire lifespan during the decade you referenced, and assuming no drastic fluctuation in birth and death rates.
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:Think about the lives of children.

  
  
  I am, and I would hate for my children to grow up with an irrational fear of an animal based on illogical prejudices and stereotypes. After all, look at the tizzy it has gotten you into about these dogs. No child should have to grow up with that kind of irrational paranoia.
  
  

  isadore;1207551 wrote:You can still be redeemed.
  

  I have been, but thank you!
• rmolin73

  

  A mini samurai sword then
• Automatik

  

  I'm not gonna read this entire thread.
  
  Just checking....the OP is going to buy and actively carry a fucking knife sharpener just IN CASE a pitbull attacks a child???
  
  LOLOLOLOL. Holy shit.
  
  The internet amazes me. Everyday it's possible to come across a crazier, weirder, more wacked out individual than the day before. Thanks for the laugh. :laugh::laugh::laugh: