Please remind me, why do we need pitbulls?

Homepage Forums Small Talk Please remind me, why do we need pitbulls?

This topic contains 68 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  jakelafort 4 days, 22 hours ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 69 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39267

    Davis
    Moderator

    Pitbul kebabs?

    #39270

    Unseen
    Participant

    Pitbul kebabs?

    Put the whole pup on a stake and rotate them over an open flame the way we do suckling pigs (which are about the same size).

    #39271

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Looking for favorable P. Bull press and found these:

    Pit Bull Mix Saves Owner from Knife-Wielding Robbers

    Astro the American pit bull terrier who was just a stray one year ago is now being hailed a hero after he saved his owner’s life during a medical emergency. … She told the news outlet that she had a fear of pit bulls and actually didn’t know how long they’d keep him.

    Bruce the pit bull saves a stranger

    Pit Bull saves life of woman randomly attacked in Brooklyn

    Hero Pit Bull Mix Saves Owner from Robbery at Knifepoint

    Heroic Pit Bull Saves His Owner’s Life By Alerting … – Daily Paws

    Pit Bull Sacrifices Self to Save Owner from Attacker – Life With …

    Pit Bull Saves Owner From Man Attacking With A Screwdriver

    Rescued Pit Bulls save owners life during attempted robbery

    #39272

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Here is an informative article about Pit Bulls. Four breeds get lumped into one. But only one was bred for fighting. The others were for AKC? Author disputes the stats. pretty good article.

    The Truth About Pit Bulls: “The Most Feared & The Most Misunderstood”

    #39273

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Pitbulls (and Jesus) Save. LOL.

    #39274

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    I agree that the solution to the pitbull problem will have to be through making owning one a risky and potentially expensive proposition, exposing the owner to both civil and criminal liabilities. Facing a judgment in the $100s of thousands and a year or more behind bars might have people thinking, maybe I don’t need a pitbull.

    I fully agree and get behind that.  Mauling and homicide, whether by specially-bred dogs or automobiles or other human artifacts is wrong and deserves both punishment for the perpetrator and full restitution for all victims.

     

    #39281

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Davis,

    A person can pine to own a pitbull all they want, but if they don’t have the means to buy one and don’t have the means to pay for their liabilities or do prison time for their pet’s maulings and homicide, then owning a pitbull would have the same metaphysical status as owning a dragon: a pipe dream.

    The difference between you and me is I hold that individual freedom is the default position for a civilized society and State control of that freedom requires justification (and restraining pet actions by holding owners civilly and criminally liable is fully justified.)

    Whereas you seem to think that State control is the default position and that that individual freedom requires justification of a “Big Brother May I?” and whatever is not mandatory is forbidden.

    I hold that all life involves risk–the famous bumper sticker sums it up as “Shit Happens”– that you live at your own risk, and that you deal with that risk by rational preparedness beforehand and undoing the damage if and when it happens.  (And holding pet owners civilly and criminally liable for their pet’s actions fits this worldview perfectly.  It encourages and requires pet owners to prepare for pet damages and offset all their damages as well.)

    You, however, seem to hold that life can be made risk-free by law.  That is simply not possible.  The only place on Earth that is risk-free for it’s inhabitants is a graveyard.

     

     

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling. Smartphone keyboards are risky things
    #39287

    Davis
    Moderator

    Once again Enco strawmans the shit out of one of us.

    You don’t seem to understand Enco that it is very possible to have something inbetween absolute unconstrained freedom and a controlling communist tyranny. It is basically called: most of the Western world. The very country you live in constrains all sorts of freedoms like driving without seatbelts, not shouting “fire” in a cinema and not feeding your children only one piece of bread a day. There are TONS of these constraints and it baffles me how you cannot get that and act as though there are not. Every freedom in your constitution has active functioning limits and I doubt you disagree with most of them. Tons of limits. The difference between many American states and the rest of the civilised world is honestly just a few extra constraints and social programs, only those constraints are usually entirely reasonable, keep people from unnecessary harm, protect vulnerable people and minorities, and bring untold advantages to nearly everyone. Add in the social programs and yeah, they don’t immorally and cruelly allow the homeless to suffer and die in the streets when they are filthy rich nations that can easily help them.

    So no, not only do I not agree that you actually believe in absolute freedom, because it doesn’t and couldn’t exist in any western country and I am fairly confident you would be against removing many of the current restraints against freedoms your country has, I don’t believe it is reasonable to permit pitbulls when then can kill my pet or children and they are easily prohibited with the most trifling cost to society. And I wouldn’t ever want to live in a country that is afraid to enact blatantly obvious and sensible laws that seriously improve almost everyone’s lives to the miniscule inconvenience of a few nut cases and deal with the social disease that stems from it.

    Take a step back from some of your more extreme ideas enco and join the rest of the free world in enjoying the “middle way”, which is honestly just a few notches dialed down from where you are.

    #39288

    jakelafort
    Participant

    That is well said Davis.

    Additionally, Enco is under a chimera as to the relationship between unbridled capitalism and freedom. It inures to the benefit of the few. It hoses the many. What is freedom but an empty slogan for ideologues when enslaved to a mindless job of repetition that pays just enough to put food on the table and is often under dangerous conditions. History shows that capitalist moguls exploit the shit out of people and the environment. I will resist the temptation to expand with historical instances of exploitation. The reason there was such popular support for socialism in so many places is because people were outraged at the injustice of the capitalist system and felt they had nothing to lose. Capitalists murdered strikers and early labor union organizers.

    Enco is a shining example of the danger of ideology. Ideology restricts the parameters of thought. Ya have to be flexible to reason about issues.

    #39289

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    I, too, have noticed that all living world religions have some form of grudge against some form of protein.

    Hindus refrain from beef and give cattle first dibs on all crops while children beg and starve in the streets, all because they think Ol’ Bossy was Grandma in a previous life.  That is a very warped and misplaced regard for other speciesanimals.  Even vegetarians and Vegans in India have a hard life because of this superstition.

    Jainists refrain from all meat and sweep their own paths and wear masks so they don’t even accidentally breath in a bug.  (There is a group of Jains who do litter pick-up on a stretch of highway in my State in exchange for a sign advertising their group.  How they get their work done without harming bugs entirely, I’ll never know.)

    Buddhists tend to be Vegetarians and Vegans, though it doesn’t correlate with weight loss, judging from all the fat and happy statues of Buddha.

    Jews and Muslims both refrain from eating pork, though this may be waning with Jews, since the Israeli stock and commodities market includes trading in pork bellies.  (I was reading a book on the spread of Islam and it pointed out that in areas wherever Islam conquered, pigs were let loose into the wild where they ate all the grass and ate the bark off of trees, which then died and fell over and either rotted or burned in forest fires.  Farmers gave up on crops used to feed pigs.  Vineyards and orchards for growing grapes and fruit for wine were also abandoned.  Thus, Islamic strictures on diet led to whole swaths of land getting turned into desert.)

    Within Christianity, Roman Catholics refrain from eating meat during Lent and many refrain from eating meat on Friday.

    And , of course, Protestant barbecues evidently don’t believe in sauce, so their meat’s not worth eating. 😁

    Anyway, all of these prohibitions on protein make me wonder if it’s a form of mind control.  The brain does need B-12 and doesn’t do well without it and the major source of that is meat.  Even synthetic B-12 ultimately derives from meat.

    Many of the New Religions and offshoots from mainstream religions get into Vegetarianism and Veganism, such as that Halellujah Acres Ministry that gets into raw food that they claim Adam and Eve lived on prior to The Fall.  When I’ve heard them talk on the radio, their voice has a pace and tone that indicates they aren’t all there. 🤪

    While I think eating less of everything is probably a best practice for a lot of us and while other species should be treated humanely, the need for protein is a strong one and I don’t see giving it up entirely as long a we have physical frames that require it.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling. I feel the protein jones coming on
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling. I xan't fight the meat tooth any more
    #39302

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Davis and Jake,

    Do either of you read any text outside of your own text or are you in some Postmodern self-referential loop of copypasta?

    People in the U.S. are already civilly and criminally liable for the acts of their pets, I support that and harsher punishment and restitution for all victims of pets.   I support all workers and businesses right to refuse to work in homes with unrestrained animals.   My position addresses the Pitbull problem and any other pet problem without presuming to say whether a species should live or die. It is the Goldilocks Spot and I’m fine with that.

     

    #39303

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Enco, Davis and I have similar views on some issues. So? Are you asserting that we are reinforcing each other instead of having arrived independently at our views? Any other text? Are you serious? I am well read and i am certain Davis is as well.

    Civil liability is great for attorneys. I had a few dog bite cases. Easy Peezy lemon squeazy. The owner or keeper is liable for a dog biting a plaintiff as long as the plaintiff was not teasing, tormenting or provoking the dog. And homeowner’s pays the tabs. So it is shake and bake.

    I am not aware of statutes that make owners or keepers of dogs who injure another criminally responsible. There may be such statutes i simply do not know. There are laws protecting animals from cruelty. That is new because historically the law views animals as property like it once did for Blacks. But we have this general libertarian tendency in american jurisprudence that we are responsible for ourselves and not others. If i recall correctly even criminal responsibility for acts of children is limited and a late development.

    #39304

    Unseen
    Participant

    Davis and Jake,

    Do either of you read any text outside of your own text or are you in some Postmodern self-referential loop of copypasta?

    People in the U.S. are already civilly and criminally liable for the acts of their pets, I support that and harsher punishment and restitution for all victims of pets. I support all workers and businesses right to refuse to work in homes with unrestrained animals. My position addresses the Pitbull problem and any other pet problem without presuming to say whether a species should live or die. It is the Goldilocks Spot and I’m fine with that.

    The problem with your sort of solution is that it is totally post hoc.  Once the pitbull maims the little old lady, kills the family’s Yorkie or cat, or kills the 2 year old by yanking his arm off, sue the bastards!

    How about a solution that keeps all that mayhem from happening in the first place?

    #39305

    Unseen
    Participant

    I am not aware of statutes that make owners or keepers of dogs who injure another criminally responsible.

    If one were to have a guard-type dog and were to sic it on a person, I suspect a prosecutor would contemplate the dog as the equivalent of a gun or knife or club and expose the owner to criminal liability.

    You’re the attorney. Am I wrong?

    #39306

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, you are correct.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 69 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.