Quote:
patron,
I addressed this all some years ago on my 'Chump Change' account and then again on my '5ive' account about a year ago, if you're actually serious about understanding, which you seem to be.
Okay, I didn't know you were Chump Change, I'll go back and look for your other posts. I've read all the recent posts itt, and skimmed most of the rest, but may have missed or forgotten things from years ago. It may take me some time to do so though, as it's a lengthy thread, so if there's anything you want to link to, or just give cliff notes on for now, please do so. I'm going to continue to respond to current conversation in the meantime, and will reply on previous stuff when I get to it.
My understanding of your position now is that you seem to be for (1), perhaps against (2), and I'm not sure if you've currently addressed (3) or (4). Is that right?
Quote:
I already thoroughly discredited dogsbite dot org so I can see why you wouldn't want to include a link, but I can still figure out where it came from.
Oh wait, nvm,
I used dogsbite because they were one of the first Google links, and they appeared to have citations and legal references. I haven't vetted the site myself, so I didn't use their statistics or refer to them authoritatively. I merely referenced them as "a site that advocates for victims and against pit bull ownership," which seems accurate, and as such, quoted their rationale for (2).
If you want to link to your discreditation or provide cliff notes, please do so, or I will look for it when I get a chance. Even if they are not reputable though, there does appear to be a reasonable rationale for (2), which is also why it is included in many state laws even where owning lions/tigers/etc is legal, or where felons are prohibited from gun ownership. That is a separate debate regardless of dogsbite, to which I have not yet seen a good argument on why it is a huge loss of civil liberty for felons to be prohibited from pit bull ownership when they can own 99%+ of types of dogs.
Quote:
That was totally a different guy you were having the 'vicious' discussion with.
p.s. But sure, I can get on board with your usage. Pitbulls are far more 'inherently vicious' than toy poodles, far less than cane corsos. But you're still talking about something separate.
p.p.s To give you an idea of how insane this thread is, my answer to the titular question has always been an overwhelming 'no'. And I'd obv be considered one of the very pro-pitbull people here. The insanity is what shakes out when the details were looked at, like dude thinking pitbulls were a separate species among other things.
Cool, so we agree then that pit bulls are inherently more vicious. What is the "something separate" that you are referring to, is it that you were also talking about whether pit bulls are more likely to attack other dogs? If so, isn't that something that even pit bull advocates admit to, and try to say that they are not more likely to be human aggressive even though they are more dog aggressive?
And what is so insane about this thread? (besides one dude not knowing about pit bull species status)