Posted on 09/10/2010 12:01:58 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs
A TERRITORY girl is lucky to be alive after she was mauled by a savage dog.
Seven-year-old Meg Croton and her brother Connor, 9, had been feeding their family's dog - an eight-year-old mastiff cross - in their Humpty Doo back yard when the girl was attacked by the vicious hound.
"I tripped on a rock and fell, and I think I kicked his leg," Meg recalled the attack. "And then it hurt very badly and he was on top of me and ripped on my head. "But my brother saved my life."
(Excerpt) Read more at ntnews.com.au ...
It's okay for people to disagree but to blast you like this, name calling and a total disregard for civil debate. There's no excuse.
Oh, with reference to your post 24, you berate a Freeper for saying something of their personal experience with adopted adult dogs and you maintain that that person’s experience has no relevance because it constitutes a small sample. Perhaps you could enlighten us by providing studies that show one should never, never, etc. adopt an adult dog. I’ll bet you that they don’t exist, and you know it,
Damn it, if you want to criticize someone in that manner, be prepared to back up your assertions!
Good for you. Like I said. Just because YOU haven't had any such problems does not make for a scientific case. Lucky you.
You miss my post about the land mines? Just because YOU don't blow up kicking one, doesn't in any way make the theory that they are safe nor a good idea to put in playgrounds around the country.
You all talk about "your experience" and I continue to point out, that your case is NO MORE VALID than these articles we post about when someone ELSE has an equally BAD experience.
It is a BAD idea to plug too many lights into the same outlet. Just because YOU haven't burned your house down YET is not a sufficient defense, and it sure isn't an acceptable advocacy.
Well, I appreciate the heck out of those prayers, I really do. Since we’re passive-aggressively attacking each other with prayer, I will say two for you.
The first, that you never again make such sweeping statements that you will probably have to eat at some point in your life; that you will be able to admit you were wrong when you do, and that you will not have expressed them in such a sassy way that the person they were directed at will not be able to forgive you.
And the second, that one day you will realize that responsibility, education, and commitment to a goal are a choice, and so is neglect, permissiveness and foolish blindness, and Blind Random Luck has nothing to do with it.
Now that we’re done arguing please explain to me when, exactly, I belittled you.
And just where are your studies that buttress your assertions about adult dogs?
Of course, I realize that mine is but one example. You are maintaining that your argument is valid. If so, let’s hear it with a listing of the studies.
It's okay for people to disagree but to blast you like this, name calling and a total disregard for civil debate. There's no excuse.
Thanks for the kind sentiment. But, I do not feel badly. Which is why, when I posted, I said right up front "Animal rights wackos won't like to hear this".
I deal with this ALL the time. I am probably one of the ONLY conservatives who does any of the volunteer work for ARL. Here, anyway, maybe I have a few clones in other states and towns. But speaking of my local scene. 99.999% would put their animal over their child. 99.99% are pro choice too. I deal with THAT. A few times a month. Every month and in person, not some drunk troll in his basement posting on a board in his boxers. LOL
I am just a little taken back that they are so blind as to not even see the SIMPLE "A is riskier than B" element. I mean, for real... they think it's SAFER with a random animal... just because nothing has happened to them YET?? That fails every basic logic course on face value, and the subject matter isn't even relevant.
So, don't feel bad for me... feel bad for them, their kids and some poor innocent friend or neigbor when their luck runs out and they find out how wrong they were. THAT is something worthy of our feelings.
Of course, I realize that mine is but one example. You are maintaining that your argument is valid. If so, let’s hear it with a listing of the studies.
Start by reading the thread. I've already posted this. You are 4 hours late to the party.
In about 10 years if RachelFaith has children she will look back on this and realize how little she knew.
Give her time as even she will grow up.
Maybe.
If she doesn’t pray for her kids.
Well, you're very patient and a great debater. I learned some things reading your posts. Stay well. Nice to have met you here. Enjoy your evening.
Yeah, I bet you are.
Alright then, how old? I’m 28, you can see it on my profile page. Care to give us a ballpark figure on your age? I hate to turn this into a referendum on your age, but if you’re going to scoff at the idea of being 17 you really have to follow it up.
In post 26 you mention that ‘we’ paid $1,200 for a registered pup in 1995. Either that ‘we’ was you and your husband, you divorced, childless, and are now looking to start a family at the age of 33, or the ‘we’ in question was Mom and Dad.
ruh-roh. You may be up all night! lol!
You never defined this even after you we asked to do so.
Wee one, you have proven you know nothing now you are just dancing in your stupidity. It is a mess and it is all you.
First things first. You only were sarcastic and an enabler for the rude belittling troll who has not yet even debated, and has only been pinging you his insults about me a dozen or so times. So do not go too far into martyrdom as his accomplice. Unless the shoe fits. well, the "age thing" was a bit personal and belittling. But, then I have thick enough skin to have given that right back at you saying you math and reading skills suck. Sadly I would have thought, based on other posts you have made, that you would read my responses. And had I known otherwise, I would have treated you like the troll. But that is there and done.
And as I said, I understand now, based on your revelation, WHY you reacted to me... you HAVE put your own children at greater risk, at least from my point of view, and you do NOT want to hear or accept that information. So you reject it forcefully. I know how that works. So, we are done, what I have shared and said is here for all to read and make up their own minds with regard to its validity.
never again make such sweeping statements that you will probably have to eat Seriously?
YOU think my generic statement that it is RISKY to place your children with an unknown animal is "sweeping" and that I will have to "eat" those words?
How? There is NO condition on earth whereby I can be INVALIDATED. I am suggesting you AVOID risks. You are the one TAKING the risks. I cannot LOSE. I cannot WIN, unless you count that fact that if you LOSE, I would win. But I sure as hell do not want to see your child killed or mauled to "win".
So my premise, which is an act of avoidance is impossible to prove, because if it never happens, it just never happens.
Your premise is, so far so good, so what. And THAT is the only position which COULD change. You COULD be proven wrong, IF one of your animals attacks.
That is simple logic. I do not have to BE right or PROVE being right to hold a position which is risk avoiding. Do you see this? Can you depersonalize it, and see it, from dispassionate logic?
Oh it's funner than debating the Mac vs PC nonsense. LOL
I mentioned my one anecdotal experience with adopting an adult dog so I am no expert. I would consider taking in an adult dog under very strict circumstances. I would own no other pets, dog or cat. I would have time to spend several hours a day with the animal. I would try to socialize the animal with other dogs and adult humans before I introduced the dog to a child and that child would be at least 12 years old and would be familiar with dogs. If the dog appeared to being doing well I would not ask any unfamiliar person to take care of the dog for me for at least 6 months and the first few times would only be for a day.
You are right. I did make and edit to my post and forgot that I did not include an age. The mouse backclicked on me when writing that and it was all lost so I had to retype it and left out the details I thought I had included. So, it is not your bad math. There is an X missing from the algebra. Still, since 1995 is 15 years ago and I trained my dog and horse for 4H, you can still take a MUCH better guess than 17. I would have had to have been 2 when I was training my animals to be 17. So your first guess was still pretty off on the math. But, I was 10 when I got the puppy for my birthday. Now, I am 25, and recently graduated from law school. My dog is dead. My cat and my horse as well as many other of their relatives are all still living fine on our farm.
That all sounds very reasonable. As I said on a couple posts. The single, the elderly, all make for better choices of adult dogs. Children, especially young, wild and those who may not know better than to tease an animal are at a significantly greater risk. And to me, no animal is worth it. If my kids, someday, as I did, want a dog, then need to be old enough to care for it, train it, and I will PAY good money for a safe puppy. Just not worth the risk otherwise. And for all those who say their is NO Problem, I can only say "so far".
And you also. See ya round. Like Harry Truman said.. I don't givem' hell, I give'm the truth... they just THINK it's hell.
He was supposedly a border collie mix, but I think that was just a shelter that wanted to be sure he found a home. He is pretty photogenic at any rate. I love when I have the chance to take photos of people’s dogs. My own is very tired of me chasing her with a camera.
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.