Yes. That IS what I said. You are STILL not stepping back and just reading it. You interject it with your own feelings. I can't control that. I can't even address that.
As Bob Newhart said: STOP IT! Just STOP IT!
We're talking about your statement that adult dogs are unpredictable time bombs that are innapropriate for adoption and my disagreement with that opinion based on my experience with adult dogs I have owned. I back up my opinions with my experience, which you then inform me is invalid.
Again. Yes. It is INVALID.... ready... AS a Predictor or Proof. Sure you can offer it. SO WHAT? I offered Mine. Best case is a tie. Who cares? Why the hubris? Get over it. Let it go.
Now, see how, even when you totally "quote" things I didn't say, I reply? See that? I did not say "time bomb" You did. Just now. Don't think those words were ever here on this thread until now.
I posted my belief. You posted yours. You said "my adult dogs have never bitten my children" and I said "lucky you" "Don't prove a thing". And guess what. It doesn't.
Now maybe you are just used to getting your way or posting your opinion and having your friends back you up like it was the gospel.
Get over it. Sometime, you are going to encounter someone with a different opinion. Wow.
No, you offer your experience and articles you found on the internet as unassailable proof.
I further site, this very article which conforms to this situation, as the proof of my claim and of this context in particular, making it clear that the attack was more likely the result of the unknowns and the age of the animal and the fact that it was introduced to the situation only a year ago, as the majority contributing factors.
Hello? I cited THIS article. I did not go a "look up some proofs". I said "this" article.
Let me see if I can break it down for you.
This article, an adopted dog DID attack a child. Yes?
Then, ergo, that is A proof. That is what I said. It is. Man walking on the moon IS a proof that man has walked on the moon. Please!
You see the problem is, you are LOOKING for something to refute. I didn't offer anything to refute. Just my opinion. You can offer your own. But that is all it is. Yours and Mine.
Not a damned thing more. So, STOP IT! Stop reading into it. Stop adding to it. Stop stop stop!
My post #79 "Since you’ve discounted my opinion as useless and probably false since it’s based on my own personal experience, what do you base yours on?"
Your #103What do I base it on? Hundreds of books, classes, and hours spent with dogs and other animals. Hundreds of articles like this, all with the one common thread: An unsocialized dog with children.
Post 103. Do you see that? Not my first post by a long shot. I told you. I answer questions. YOU ASKED ME. I did not OFFER it. I did not say it was Better than yours. I did not do anything other than chase your latest strawman and burn it.
Discounting your experiences does not mean, placing anyone else's experiences into a superior position. How many times do I have to say this before you let that go?
Seriously.
You invalidated my opinions based on your presumtion of my childless state before you had any knowledge of my children. Now please, answer the original question.
That should prove my standing. That I dismissed your personal experience without regard to your status is THE PROOF that your status was not a determinate. I dismissed your experience DE FACTO. Without regard to anything. Other than common sense.
Again, I will say it. Just because your dog has not bit your children, has no other meaning, no other value, than... YET. That is all. Yet. YET YET YET.
Someday your dog MIGHT. Maybe they never will and here is hoping so. I said that too. Remember?
It is simple logic and you are unable to depersonalize it. Unable or unwilling to just SEE it as it IS and not as some judgment upon you.
Can I make it totally third party? I will try.
Experience in a given situation is not valid as a proof for or against any future situation, outside of the conditions of that experience.
For example. Someone who is violent when drunk, is not a predictor nor proof for everyone who drinks. It is as best, only an indicator for the specific person, in the specific situation who was drunk and then became violent.
So if I then said "You should Never Never Never be around violent people when they get drunk"
If I said this, and knew nothing of you. And you reacted to me by saying "My husband drinks all the time and He has never hit me". What should I say?
I should say as I have... so what lady? I ain't talkin' about your old man. Maybe he's not violent. maybe he's not violent to you YET.
Get it? YOU took... no... ARE TAKING this personally. You should not.
None of you. It is crazy and very unbecoming.
If you understand sarcasm, then why ask this question?
*sigh* I knew this would come down to your misuse of the /sarc tag. The fact is, your post was not sarcastic. Neither was it ironic or sardonic. It might be characterized as wry because that I'm sure you meant it humorusly, but taken in context with the whole of your post, you truly meant what you said. So tell me why you said it, reassure me that you didn't mean to use it to preempt all debate, all disagreement. Go ahead.
Go ahead you say? Go ahead and what? Convince you that I mean what I say and say what I mean?
As if hanging around here putting up with this abuse for 3 days isn't proof enough?
As if never once telling you go to #^#&@ yourself isn't proof enough?
As if not responding to those who insult my age, name, sex, hair color, breast size and intelligence and compare me to excrement isn't enough?
What kind of proof could I possibly offer which could be more convincing than to stay and reason, slowly winning over half of the most vicious crowd of angry self righteous people I have even encountered on this forum?
Go ahead yourself. Tell me. Tell me and everyone else reading this, how much MORE you demand before the blood lust will be sated.
Because you know what?
I will pay it!
LOL!
Name one person you have "won over".
You keep telling me this, but you are the one who feels the need to tell me what I'm 'missing' from my posts, and what I am 'implying'. You keep trying to take control by crying 'stop it' and declaring the thread over and dead. You can't control people that disagree with and that makes you crazy, so you dance around the quotes I am providing from your own posts, trying to make this about me and what you think my 'feelings' are. You compared me to a drunk, for Christ's sake. The facts are, and I CITE this entire thread as proof, that you are opinionated and obstinate and in love with the sound of your own voice. You can't see your self contradiction because you don't want to.
Again. Yes. It is INVALID.... ready... AS a Predictor or Proof. Sure you can offer it. SO WHAT? I offered Mine. Best case is a tie. Who cares? Why the hubris? Get over it. Let it go.
You can't discount my experience as invalid and then cite yours as proof. That's not debating, it's bloviating.
Now, see how, even when you totally "quote" things I didn't say, I reply? See that? I did not say "time bomb" You did.
No, you compared them to land mines, being continually whacked. Since whacking a land mine is a demonstrably foolish act, and you posit that adult dogs can be set off by unknown triggers and conditioning, I think my example is a more accurate portrayal of your opinion. Notice please that I did not use quotation marks or italics to imply that this is what you had actually said. I used plain text because it was MY summary.
Hello? I cited THIS article. I did not go a "look up some proofs". I said "this" article.
If you're using this one article as your proof, you're foolish. If you were actually citing the lengthy article which you posted in it's entirety in the same post, you're presumptous. I can only go off what you post.
Let me see if I can break it down for you.
This article, an adopted dog DID attack a child. Yes?
Then, ergo, that is A proof. That is what I said. It is. Man walking on the moon IS a proof that man has walked on the moon. Please!
Yes, it's proof that A man has walked on the moon. Not that all men will almost inevitably walk on the moon, and that to reduce our risk of men walking on the moon, we should stay away from men.
Post 103. Do you see that? Not my first post by a long shot. I told you. I answer questions. YOU ASKED ME. I did not OFFER it. I did not say it was Better than yours. I did not do anything other than chase your latest strawman and burn it.
Let me post this again so you can read it this time. I said ""Since you’ve discounted my opinion as useless and probably false since it’s based on my own personal experience, what do you base yours on?"
You said (my summary) "My experience".
I dismissed your personal experience without regard to your status is THE PROOF that your status was not a determinate. I dismissed your experience DE FACTO. Without regard to anything. Other than common sense.
No, you dismissed the experience of anyone who did not have children. Which includes you, but not me.
Again, I will say it. Just because your dog has not bit your children, has no other meaning, no other value, than... YET. That is all. Yet. YET YET YET.
Someday your dog MIGHT. Maybe they never will and here is hoping so. I said that too. Remember?
Yeah, he might bite. So might any other dog on the planet with teeth. Your assertion that his 'unknown triggers' make him more likely to bite are backed up by...Nothing.
Get it? YOU took... no... ARE TAKING this personally. You should not.
None of you. It is crazy and very unbecoming.
*snerk*
Go ahead you say? Go ahead and what? Convince you that I mean what I say and say what I mean?
As if hanging around here putting up with this abuse for 3 days isn't proof enough?
As if never once telling you go to #^#&@ yourself isn't proof enough?
As if not responding to those who insult my age, name, sex, hair color, breast size and intelligence and compare me to excrement isn't enough? Uh, no, I'm asking you to prove somehow that you didn't mean what you said. That bringing home an adult dog to a home without children is NOT tantamount to training it to attack and kill your children. Are you even reading what I post?
What kind of proof could I possibly offer which could be more convincing than to stay and reason, slowly winning over half of the most vicious crowd of angry self righteous people I have even encountered on this forum?
Well, you could convince me by displaying some actual capacity to reason, for starters. Using words in their proper context instead of like some TV addict with a penchant for legal shows would be awesome.
Go ahead yourself. Tell me. Tell me and everyone else reading this, how much MORE you demand before the blood lust will be sated.
Because you know what?
I will pay it!
Oh, honey, this isn't bloodlust. This is a slow weekend. I don't think you've ever seen me when I'm actually pissed off by someone's opinion. That's when I start breaking out the Monty Python references. The fact is that your opinion, though disagreeable to me, is slightly interesting. What is fascinating is your ability to maintain your utter conviction of superiority in the face of your own overwhelming inability to construct, defend, and remain constant to a single cogent point. You're so obsessed with how you enthrall people you can't go back and say "Hmm, I contradicted myself there. Maybe I was wrong." Once you learn how to do that, you knowledge will increase beyond your wildest dreams.