We had a guy in my neck of the woods in Ohio who owned a few African lions and some tigers. It did not end well.

Look, I'm pretty comfortable admitting other people are more intelligent and more educated than I am. It may be on me that I have to decipher your posts and miss the point the first run. You leave blanks to fill in that I personally have jammed lower level, more obvious answers in in the past and it appears I am not the only one. If you don't care about that, carry on. It isn't an issue that you own alone, it is common af for there to be misunderstandings on nuanced and complex issues where careful consideration of many lines of thinking are reasonable but the discourse is flooded with hot takes, dunks and blocks, emotions and also terrible arguments from all directions. Not many people truly care what your point is above making their own in this kind of discussion, however, so if it becomes expensive to figure yours out it is likely not going to happen. I don't think this is a revelation by any means but we'd all do well to admit there are very few complete dumbasses around here but plenty of dumbass arguments.

I mean there is no perfect analogy or perfect answer. As far as guns go though, it should be extrapolated talking about AKs vs caulking guns just because they are both guns. You ever get your skin pinched in a caulking gun? Smarts.

See I don't think this is entirely fair. I accept that it isn't a chess play on your part but you have waded into a bs chess tournament and are making arguments that sound like chess plays. See below.


So if your point is that the news is a bad source for valuable insight because they are promoting "pit bull" attacks as a means to sell clicks to reactionaries, that is true. Here are the issues with your choice of analogy aside from being needlessly loaded. There are pro pit bull people who make the actual argument that it is racist against pit bulls to want a ban and it is a form of ethinic cleansing. Literally racist. If you use a phenomenon like breitbart which is actually motivated by racism in their purpose as an example, you can easily be confused for making that argument. If you were instead to use, say the "summer of shark attack" stories that happened right before 9/11 buried that bull****, it wouldn't be loaded or confused the same way.

To respond to the spirit of your argument as I now understand it, I make this counterpoint. While the motivation by the media for the dog attack stories is likely sensationalism and clicks, since more kids get run over in their driveways or drown in pools each year than attacked by pits or whatever illustration you would like, it doesn't mean there is no value to the stories. That almost invariably the owner says the dog never acted that way, that they were fine for years, or some variation....or conversely that the dog was brand new to the family and quickly killed a kid....highlights two versions of the pro argument that should be debunked as often as possible. That if your dog has been sweet for years it is proof that they won't attack, and that it is the owner not the dog exclusively that create vicious dogs. This is why I am glad every single story gets posted.

JFC, take this shizz to the pitbull thread.

6ix,

You should start a pitbull thread in politics. Mods, you should like him moderate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_wheel

Before anything, are you still both-sidesing a subargument where one side said he wants to ban pitbulls but doesn't know or care if pitbulls are a separate species from dogs, or are you branching out?

If it's the former just consider how you, personally you, wouldn't accept or even see that same level of shamelessly celebrated ignorance anywhere else. Even in the derpiest of derp we don't see it:

"If climate change is real why is it cold today?"

"Uhhh you know there's a difference between climate and weather, right?"

"No, I don't know and I don't care!"

There's usually wiggling instead of that last one.

Do you believe that dude really think pits may not be dogs or is it like when someone says "I don't care if you are black, white, purple or green!". I can't be arsed to research it, but I have never seen anything from cranberry tea to make me think it is the first. I assume by the context he is saying he is not interested in engaging in that aspect of the argument for or against a ban.

You made me read it again and ironically enough it's not that he doesn't know or doesn't care, he definitely thinks they're not 'dogs' and are at least a different subspecies. There's no other reason to respond like this:
So that's incredible. It really is White Man Storytime on meth. Hold up everybody a dog barked at this guy, let's bust out the computational phylogenetics, we might've gotten it all wrong!

But anyhow, if one were to make the claim pitbulls are uniquely, inherently aggressive and dangerous, it would go a long way if one could somehow say or at least imply and hint they are a separate species, otherwise the analogy with wild boars or lions doesn't make sense. That's the claim, right?

THEY'RE JUST NATURALLY SO FEROCIOUS AND AWFUL

Aw hell naw +rep done up and done it.

That reminds me, CranberryTEA actually said something even more ridiculous:

Lol what an hysterical idiot

Absolutely shocked that someone as transparently angry and hostile as +rep would like pit bulls.

ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED THAT SOMEONE AS......oh wait, idk who you are and dont care either.

you gotta be a real special snowflake to hate on pit bulls

Unironic use of "snowflake", especially in regards to your pit bull fetish, is very Trumpian, dickwad.

Here, now you sh¡theads can yell at each other in peace. Enjoy.

PS idgaf what you do here, don’t waste our time reporting posts, just have your goddamn dog thread and keep it out of literally anywhere else.

Lol, yeah

http://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-...a-little-girl/

I thought you were a math guy?

I think Polar Bears should allowed to be pets

Thread title A+

Theses posts are too long to not be banning people, pussy.

They are uniquely dangerous because of the damage they can inflict with their attack style which is grab and shake, their high pain threshold which makes it hard to get them to stop, their strength and their general game that was bred into them by humans purposefully. Other dogs are "more aggressive" in terms of frequency of bites, but many of them bite once and that's it or else can't physically do the same level of damage, so they are still less dangerous. It's not that complex. If it were not true then why would they be chosen for dog fighting? Also, how the **** could any pit bull lover say they are the most special, loyal, loving cuddle bugs if then say there is not a difference between them and any other breed? Of course there is a difference in breeds.

I understand that there is a complexity with determining what constitutes a pit bull vs a mix vs another breed with a big head and neck or whatever. I understand that anything that looks like a pit is called a pit often times leading to incorrect identification. I agree that pits get sensationalized in the news. I understand that pit bull may not be distinguishable by a genetic marker and may be inappropriate term as a classification for this discussion when you get into the details, but guess what? I don't care. It is not that important to me. I still think this is what CT was saying as well, but I'll add that even if he was saying exactly what you think he was, it doesn't change much about the overall question or negate other arguments, even by him.

When you get down to the nitty gritty, it is questionable whether Americans should be allowed dogs at all. The irresponsibility extends far beyond the maulings to neglect, inbreeding, cruelty, abandonment....we claim to be dog lovers but it is a very selfish love. I said it before in the other thread but any real pit bull lover should be pushing for a ban more than anyone else. Pits are the biggest victims in the whole dynamic. They are mass produced, trained for fighting, coveted by ****heads, feared and loathed, abandoned and destroyed, placed in situations where they hurt other animals and people then pay for it, isolated and chained....but hey as long as you can have the EXACT kind of dog YOU want in your yard then I guess you really care about them, right?

i don't understand anything in this thread but if you want to "ban" (w/e the **** that means) pitbulls, you're an ******* and i hate you.

otoh if you go out of your way to buy a pitbull you're also an ******* and i hate you too.

i might have an anger problem, but adopt a ****ing dog *******s.

lol

ahhhahaaaha