Posted on 09/11/2018 1:51:06 PM PDT by Tarasaramozart
Dogs don't require any training to be viciously protective of their turf or clan. Some breeds are more vicious than others, when it comes to that inborn instinct.
As I quoted in my previous post, pit bull terriers are responsible for two thirds of dog bites in America, even though they only represent a small fraction of the total number of dogs in the country.
Logic dictates that there is something about pit bulls' instinctual wiring that is different than other breeds.
Good grief, we see adults now who think wild animals are safe to torment and make selfies with. You bring up a very good point.
I agree with all you said. In my opinion the risk with a PB is just too great. But that’s just me.
I meant exactly what I wrote. To improve your education and your spelling, The Greek word for death, a state of complete lifelessness, is "thanatos." The particle "eu-" implies goodness. From these, we get the word "euthanize," which essentially means essentially to give a living being a "good death" prior to its termination due to natural causes. That is not the word I chose to use. I meant the word "thanatize"; i. e., put to death, with prejudice (as soon as feasible, shooting or otherwise), and that is what I wrote.
It really depends if the history of the dog and its previous owners are known.
You completely missed the point of fact, and take off down an illogical emotional rabbit trail away from my sense of how to deal with the pit bull genetic trait. Genes do not care who the owner was or how much the animal is "loved," or who the trainer or handler is.
The issue is that a full-breed pit bull having the dominant killer gene when bred with any other dog will transmit that dominant gene to the mixed-breed resultant offspring individual.
And when that mixed-breed canine is bred with another dog, that dominant gene stands at least 50% chance of being passed along to the second generation offspring, together with other components of the chromosomes that dictate the physical appearance.
To stamp out the unacceptable trait, any dog exhibiting the PB conformance should be thanatized immediately. Those retained should only be under license and to aome such agency as a zoo, which accepts and sequesters dangerous animals for research and exhibition purposes. No exceptions.
To just kill them all willy nilly like you stated just proves your ignorance on the subject.
This elimination of the breed as a public threat is not willy-nilly. It is determined, direct, forceful, exclusive, and unemotional. And whatever ignorance you think my claim demonstrates (and it is not much) is wholly eclipsed by the enormity of your misplaced compassion for killer dogs in comparison to the damages wrought on unsuspecting and unwarned humans.
From the theological standpoint, unlike humans, animals exist for use by mankind. They do not have eternal souls and spirits as humans do. How man deals with them depends on the purpose involved, and killing one, even when one becaomes inconvenient, is not a crime. Dogs are not some form of untermenschen.
Cutting to the chase, pit bull dogs were selectively bred for the purpose of killing, and were not meant to be hybridized with your living-room pooch, nor with other working-dog breeds.
This is the fact: Pit bull dogs or their degraded half- or quarter-breeds should not be in your living room or on the streets any more than a rattlesnake, cobra, or human predator. To think otherwise is just plainly foolish. And that includes your estimate of the situation, which also makes you just as dangerous as a full-bred pit bull.
Your mileage may vary.
I don't know exacty what you mean by this, but your lack of critical and survival thinking cuts no ice with me, regardless of your pejorative comments. You need to get a little more Darwinian in your approach to zoology, as well as in your credibility towards a FR discussion.
Uh, thanks but no thanks, you're far too full of yourself for me to care one whit about what you think.
Why did you include me on this comment. I hadn’t posted anything
>> Why did you include me on this comment. I hadn’t posted anything <<
Why? Because it is not uncommon to send a regular FR participant who has similar interests a “heads-up” note just to make sure he/she/they perceives what is being discussed, although it is a response primarily to the comment of someone else. The note was not sent to you at all in the sense of criticizing you or your stance, only that of the primary addressee.
Perhaps you would have seen my response anyway, but I was just making sure you did. If you prefer that I not be so presumptuous, just say so, and I will not attempt to draw your attention. In this case, my argument (in the debate sense) was a little different approach than most people commonly take, and I thought you might take note of that tack in maneuvering troubled waters.
The statistics can be a bit cold from the emotional point of view, but so also can be the rational consequences. Too many dog-lovers pitch their argument on a misplaced compassion or false morality about their pet, or an animal which is their source of income. In fact, my grandpa took very good care of his cows, of their health and welfare. He milked them by hand, and helped them through the pain of delivering their calves; but when one dried up and could no longer provide milk to be sold, it was the same hand that drew the sharp knife across the animal’s throat, that cut up its body into pot roasts and steaks, and held the fork that lifted a succulent piece of beef (or pork, or chicken, or venison) to his mouth for daily sustenance.
A dog is just that. You do not need to get so affectionate about one that you can’t put one away if it is chronically ill, or has a temperament that you cannot rely on. If you are not going to use a pit bull to kill off dangerous predators, to to fight them in a cruel sport, then there is no reason to have one or to defend them as a pet. In fact, if you want a pet, it is just as easy and makes a lot more sense to settle one’s affection on a dog that is suitable, likeable, trainable, and trustworthy around oneself and others, particularly children.
I see the defense of keeping a pit bull type as a pet, or even as a brute to scare off unwanted visitors, wholly irrational and oppositionally defiant to common sense.
You have good reason for your opinion. I hope your grandkids are safe.
In the Idaho news today:
“53-year-old Baker City man dies trying to stop pit bull fight inside his home”
This was on the daily pit bull attack list at the NationalPitBullVictimAwareness website.
Thank you for your previous post. I enjoyed to read it. Norski
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.