As a long time dog owner I’m not buying your sanctimonious virture-signalling, snowflake. It’s a moral-selfie which no one else participates in or wants to witness. Some FReepers you’ve disparaged here made valid, rational and well-supported reasoning for putting a dog down. It was just their misfortune or misjudgement to proffer such reasoning before all the facts were known. Taunting and praddling on about the facts supporting your argument is of no credit to the discussion and it maligns reasonable posters who simply did not have all the facts.
Having gotten that out of the way the woman is clearly suffering from bi-polar disorder. I don’t think schizophrenia just for the fact her actions exhibit a pattern of consistent reasoning and decision making. A life lived in highs and lows with no control or responsibility over either is bipolar.
I pity the dog. He seems like innocent little chap caught up in the vagaries of instability and vice. The orignal owner who is the protagonist here only had the dog for two weeks, and that was two years ago.
I’m fairly confident the law will address this adequately. Her illness will likely be disclosed during psych eval and she’ll need to develop a course of treatment pursuant to her parole. The male accomplice may carry around a felony conviction.
As for slandering ‘victorian era values’ that is as revisionist as it is incorrect. Using animal fighting for entertainment pre-dates the historical record. It stands as yet another inappropriate, rude and predatious comment on your part. You bend reality and employ demagoguery in order to exploit history for your own self-aggrandizement while maligning posters who made a mis-judgement of fact. Very bad behavior.
Oh, dear God....yet another one enamored with textbook logical fallacy tactics.
I have not time to pick all of them apart so I’ll just address my favorite one, warped Victorians and blood sports.
*If* you had been paying attention to the discussion, you would have noticed that the specific point being made was a direct reply to whether “pit bulls” were ‘created as fighting dogs’ or not.
The Victorians did indeed first exploit bully breeds for their own deranged amusement.
Like it or not, that is fact and not “slander”.
For all your projections of “sanctimonious virtue-signalling”, you also carefully avoided the core issue, which is not that some people were initially “mistaken” about what went down, but that they, after finding out the truth, *continued* to defend their ‘mistakes’, and in extreme cases, expand upon them and double down.
The people who came onto the thread and postulated a ‘reasonable’ defense for the crazy bitch and her blood thirsty dude, for the most part, also openly expressed their ‘anti-pit” sentiments.
That alone showed ulterior motive, prejudice and no desire to even learn the truth, anyway.
If that is not so, where are those posters, now?
If we are addressing bad behavior, I would put intellectual dishonesty right at the top of the list.
Sorry, but you have offered nothing more than those before you.