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?
First things first, absolutely. Pinging someone that you're talking about is courteous, not trolling. Having a side conversation with me while I'm arguing with you is also not trolling. Eaker tried to engage you, you refused. Not particularly courteous, but it's up to you. The 'age' thing was not belittling, I was making allowances for what I percieve to be your youth and/or lack of experience. I said things I cringe to think of when I was younger, and it would have been nice if someone had taken into account I was only a dumb kid at the time. I'm not saying that you are dumb, by the way, just that I was. Saying that my mathematical and reading comprehension 'suck' is juvenile and defensive, but I've had worse.
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.
You're right, I don't want to hear your point of view that I am putting my kids in danger. It's no more valid than my point of view which is that I'm not. In fact, it's quite a bit less valid because you know nothing about me or the dog in question other than what I've told you. You didn't even bother to read my profile page before you started schooling me about my complete lack of children (har!).
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?
Now why do you have to be so rude about my prayers? I thanked you for yours, assuming(hoping?) that they were well-intentioned. The fact is we're not talking about an unknown dog, we're talking about a dog I've had for years. I say he's safe, based on my training and observation of his behavior, and you say he's not based on...what, exactly? Your opinion? You haven't even suggested you've had a bad experience with an adult dog. In fact, you point out the fact that you have placed many older dogs in the homes of elderly people. What, do you want someone's granny to get eaten? If you were intellectually honest you'd insist that all unwanted adult dogs should be put to sleep as potentially dangerous beasts...Instead, you foist them off on Nana.
How? There is NO condition on earth whereby I can be INVALIDATED.
Unless someone asks you to back up your assertion with something other than your personal beliefs...Then you do kind of lose, because you can't do it. You have dismissed the plausability of everyone else's personal experience, then ask us to accept your unquestioningly. You're operating solely under the influences of what you believe, not what you can prove.
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?
Absolutely. And if you had said something along the lines of "I would never have a pre-owned dog because you just never know..." I wouldn't have objected to it. But when you start making assertions that I am somehow being a negligent mother because I act differently than you would, well, I kind of have to get involved.