First, I do not self admit any such thing. I have avoided tooting my horn and brought up my extensive experience when it was required for a point. Usually a tangent since my direct point IS one of opinion, as of course are the objections and denials. Since no one has actually expressed a counter point.
Refreshing for those joining late:
FACTS: Family dog mauls child. Dog is adopted adult with an unknown history and was brought into the family within just the last years time.
UNKNOWNS: The level of care provided by the family. The disposition of the dog. The dog's previous experience with children.
My stated opinion which caused guilt, projection, shame and outrage from a dozen "usual suspects" who all know each other and with whom I have had no previous contact:
I would, that is me personally, never, never, never, adopt an adult dog because of the unknowns. I further would not recommend adoption for families with young children. If you are looking for a suitable alternative for an older dog, I support and believe that placing them in a single persons home or with an elderly person is a lessor risk.
That's it. That's the great big controversy which drives grown men to irrational pejoratives of sexual harassment, and grown women to hand wringing overly defensive guilt trips.
Second: You suggest I supply facts. No. I do not need to supply any more "facts" than self evident common sense. A trained animal which was raised in and around said children is safer, by far, than a random unknown and untrained adult animal. Period. If you need some facts outside of your own good sense to refute that, by all means.
No one did. No one has.
I didn't make any demands of others to PROVE their points. It is silly.
All I did, subsequent to making my beliefs known, was point out the simple fact that someone's personal experience with an adult dog in their house being safe, only means that.
If your dog hasn't bit anyone, it only means.. ONLY... MEANS... your dog hasn't bit anyone yet!
It does not mean a damn thing more.
It proves NOTHING.
It is simply your story, so far. Now, next year, you can tell me, "sparky hasn't bit any one yet" and guess what?
It ONLY MEANS "Sparky hasn't bit anyone yet".
It does not mean I am wrong.
It does not mean you are right.
It sure as hell doesn't mean I have small boobs, a low IQ, am only 10 years old or that I have poor debate skills.
On the contrary. Making said accusations and attacks is Prima facie that those making said statements have NO debate skills.
I have tried to make this a debate. I have tried to use logic and reason and examples. To no avail.
This was never going to be a debate, because the author of the post is personally biased and subject to the very conditions we were discussing. Of course, I did not know this at first. And I thought, perhaps some would have a differing point of view. I mean other than "You are wrong, you are stupid, ha ha, are you ten, you have small tits, and bad hair.".
I really didn't set out for that to be the level of debate.
So my opinion remains: Unknown and untrained adult dogs, in general, present a greater risk to children than do known, raise and trained dogs. So far. No one has actually made an reasonable objection to that.
So there we are.
It sure as hell doesn’t mean I have small boobs
But you do.
Where were you trained? Do you have any mode other than attack?
Attacking the people you have chosen to attack on this thread is the behavior of old trolls, not of a Conservative FReeper.
Man, you are weak.
Go back to school and take classes in debate.