Vick to Plead Guilty (Non-BB)

[Limey]

Not a surprise really, after all his co-indictees had already entered guilty pleas, just very, very sad.

[Fredia]

sad(from the point of view that he saw nothing wrong) and there should be a lesson learned by other athletes but a certain section will go on thinking they are immune or above the law..
i am a big aniaml lover and kathy and i always have a cat around.. we even tamed the one named cheryl the demon cat from the deepest pits of the bowels of hell..

[Ty in Tampa]

I don't quite see the sad in this, unless you're referring to the fact that what was alleged to have happened to those dogs actually happened. It's also unfortunate that Vick won't face the maximum sentence allowed.

[Froback]

What is sad is that there are places in our society where what he did is acceptable and even encouraged.  Don't think Vick woke up one day and said, "I want to break a law" and randomly picked that one.

[JimR]

What is sad is that there are places in our society where what he did is acceptable and even encouraged.  Don't think Vick woke up one day and said, "I want to break a law" and randomly picked that one.

Vick, like many who are in his position, likely believed that he was above the law or that the law would not do anything to him.

[Limey]

I don't quite see the sad in this, unless you're referring to the fact that what was alleged to have happened to those dogs actually happened. It's also unfortunate that Vick won't face the maximum sentence allowed.

The former.  Not sad that this douche is going to jail (which I believe is almost a certainty).

[MusicMan]

Both Fro and Jim are right.

Personally, I'm hoping that many of his fellow prisoners find him to be a handsome man.

[Limey]

Vick, like many who are in his position, likely believed that he was above the law or that the law would not do anything to him.

Maybe, like most people breaking the law, he simply didn't think he'd get caught.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Maybe, like most people breaking the law, he simply didn't think he'd get caught.

It's a combination of the two.  They think they'll never get caught and, when they do, rationalize that their crime isn't really hurting anyone.  Fortunately for the rest of us, once you do get caught, you don't get to be your own judge and jury. 

[Ty in Tampa]

It's my belief that Vick's issue is arrogance. He has repeatedly tested the boundaries of law and society. Faced with the full weight of the consequences of his crime, he crumbled. I hope he falls all the way down.

[Houston]

There are probably more cockfighters in Texas than dogfighters. The difference seems to be that not many people have chickens as pets, so there's not the public outrage. If enticing animals to fight to the death is wrong, it is wrong for all animals.

Obviously, Vick knew what he was doing was wrong because he built fences and painted his buildings black to hide his actions. But as has already been mentioned, in many parts of society, this activity is not viewed negatively. That's the sad part.

[Andyzipp]

There are probably more cockfighters in Texas than dogfighters. The difference seems to be that not many people have chickens as pets, so there's not the public outrage. If enticing animals to fight to the death is wrong, it is wrong for all animals.

What does that have to do with anything? Crime is crime, and the lack of public outrage has more to do with the idea that the general population has NO IDEA that these things ever happen.  If Hunter Pence happens to be running an intrastate cock fighting operation, and also happens to torture (or suggest the torture of) loser chickens, he'd be prosecuted too.

[pravata]

There are probably more cockfighters in Texas than dogfighters. The difference seems to be that not many people have chickens as pets, so there's not the public outrage. If enticing animals to fight to the death is wrong, it is wrong for all animals.

Obviously, Vick knew what he was doing was wrong because he built fences and painted his buildings black to hide his actions. But as has already been mentioned, in many parts of society, this activity is not viewed negatively. That's the sad part.

Humans made a pact with dogs a long time ago.  Or the other way around, there is some discussion on who chose whom.  This goes way past illegal.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

There are probably more cockfighters in Texas than dogfighters. The difference seems to be that not many people have chickens as pets, so there's not the public outrage. If enticing animals to fight to the death is wrong, it is wrong for all animals.

Obviously, Vick knew what he was doing was wrong because he built fences and painted his buildings black to hide his actions. But as has already been mentioned, in many parts of society, this activity is not viewed negatively. That's the sad part.

I'm not sure why you brought up cock-fighting but the public outrage is more likely attributed to the person involved than the actual crime.  Vick is a sports-celebrity.  He's a fool for getting involved with this type of behavior for the fact that when he got caught it became a national news item instead of a "local dog fighting ring is broken up" type bullet on the local news.  I hope you aren't trying portray this as some double standard between chickens and dogs.  It carries as much weight as asserting the prosecution of Vick is racially motivated. 

[Houston]

I'm not sure why you brought up cock-fighting but the public outrage is more likely attributed to the person involved than the actual crime.  Vick is a sports-celebrity.  He's a fool for getting involved with this type of behavior for the fact that when he got caught it became a national news item instead of a "local dog fighting ring is broken up" type bullet on the local news.  I hope you aren't trying portray this as some double standard between chickens and dogs.  It carries as much weight as asserting the prosecution of Vick is racially motivated. 

Of course, there's the celebrity (and probably racial, too) aspect of this. My point is the amount of media coverage is more intense because people are more sympathetic to dogs than chickens. I'm not saying one is "more" illegal than another. My point is that the reaction to this particular crime is more passionate because it is a dog -- the loyal companion of man.

[Andyzipp]

Of course, there's the celebrity (and probably racial, too) aspect of this. My point is the amount of media coverage is more intense because people are more sympathetic to dogs than chickens. I'm not saying one is "more" illegal than another. My point is that the reaction to this particular crime is more passionate because it is a dog -- the loyal companion of man.

Why is it "probably racial" other than the fact that Michael Vick is a black man?  Do you think the feds would look the other way if Tom Brady was committing interstate crimes?

[Phil_in_CS]

The gambling allegations alone could trigger a lifetime ban under the NFL's personal conduct policy.

It was reported over the weekend that if this went to trial, he would called 'many' current players as witnesses to the dog fighting.

[94CougarGrad]

Vick, like many who are in his position, likely believed that he was above the law or that the law would not do anything to him.

And so goes the criminal mindset, at least in part.

I'm sure whatever plea agreement the jackass enters into will be what's best for him and his career- what remains of it. I, however, would be less unsatisfied if he were to be locked up. I'm not suggesting that killing dogs is more outrageous than killing banty roosters- breeding animals to fight for profit is horribly distasteful, and anybody who does so needs a boot to the head, at the very least.

Part of the reaction to the Vick outrage? His jerseys are being put to good use at the Atlanta Humane Society.

[Duman]

Cock fighting is alive and well in East TN.  Last year, there was a bust of a ring in nearby Cocke County (yes they are the Cocke County Fighting Cocks).  There was some outrage in the KNoxville paper about law enforcement resources being used on these "petty" criminals. 

[otterjb]

If the allegations about Vick personally murdering many dogs himself are true, then he's probably a borderline sociopath. It takes a special type of sicko to do that kind of stuff, imo. Odds are, his soon to be fellow inmates will look at him only slightly better than a child molestor. Also, race has zero to do with the entire situation.

[Gizzmonic]

This whole Vick episode kinda reminds me of strosray's "13 Steps of the OWA Troll"- you know, get caught, take the high road and deny everything.  Next, deny you were directly involved.  Your co-conspirators plead guilty.  Finally, you plead guilty and apologize for all the harm that you denied you caused in the first step.

Not a surprise really, after all his co-indictees had already entered guilty pleas, just very, very sad.

[remy]

If the allegations about Vick personally murdering many dogs himself are true, then he's probably a borderline sociopath.

I'd say it's well past the borderline.

[Houston]

Why is it "probably racial" other than the fact that Michael Vick is a black man?  Do you think the feds would look the other way if Tom Brady was committing interstate crimes?

NO! NO! NO! You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the legality of this case. I'm talking about the public's reaction to it.

To be bluntly honest, there is a racial aspect to this that I didn't even want to get into. Here in Baltimore and down in Atlanta, there are a lot of blacks who don't think Vick did anything wrong. To get back to my original point, that's the sad part.

Clinton Portis (RB - Redskins) was reprimanded for saying "it's just a dog, man." That's the mindset I was addressing, not whether Vick was prosecuted because he's black. That didn't even cross my mind.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

NO! NO! NO! You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the legality of this case. I'm talking about the public's reaction to it.

To be bluntly honest, there is a racial aspect to this that I didn't even want to get into. Here in Baltimore and down in Atlanta, there are a lot of blacks who don't think Vick did anything wrong. To get back to my original point, that's the sad part.

Clinton Portis (RB - Redskins) was reprimanded for saying "it's just a dog, man." That's the mindset I was addressing, not whether Vick was prosecuted because he's black. That didn't even cross my mind.

Thank you for clarifying.  For what it's worth, I distanced myself from the people I knew he enjoyed cock-fights.  I never really understood the appeal but it became apparent these guys were cruel in ways they concealed from most acquaintances. 

[TheWizard]

I wonder what Vick's prison term will be in dog years?

[Andyzipp]

NO! NO! NO! You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the legality of this case. I'm talking about the public's reaction to it.

To be bluntly honest, there is a racial aspect to this that I didn't even want to get into. Here in Baltimore and down in Atlanta, there are a lot of blacks who don't think Vick did anything wrong. To get back to my original point, that's the sad part.

Clinton Portis (RB - Redskins) was reprimanded for saying "it's just a dog, man." That's the mindset I was addressing, not whether Vick was prosecuted because he's black. That didn't even cross my mind.

Okay,  I totally misunderstood where you were coming from.  Sorry, Melvin.

[Houston]

Okay,  I totally misunderstood where you were coming from.  Sorry, Melvin.

No problem at all. I'm glad we got this cleared up.

[Limey]

I wonder what Vick's prison term will be in dog years?

I think he has to worry more about how long it is in bitch years.

[MusicMan]

I'd say it's well past the borderline.

Exactly.  Torture of animals is the number one precursor of homicidal behavior.  This is medical fact.

[Taras Bulba]

Exactly.  Torture of animals is the number one precursor of homicidal behavior.  This is medical fact.

Throwing toads onto a barbecue grill was a popular sport in my neighborhood.  Later, I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

[Holly]

NO! NO! NO! You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the legality of this case. I'm talking about the public's reaction to it.

To be bluntly honest, there is a racial aspect to this that I didn't even want to get into. Here in Baltimore and down in Atlanta, there are a lot of blacks who don't think Vick did anything wrong. To get back to my original point, that's the sad part.

Clinton Portis (RB - Redskins) was reprimanded for saying "it's just a dog, man." That's the mindset I was addressing, not whether Vick was prosecuted because he's black. That didn't even cross my mind.

Quicky poll results I heard on 740 during the drive this morning, relating to what locals think the NFL should do: 76% = ban for life, 15% = 1-year ban, 9% = "forgive and forget."

Ew.

[Houston]

This is exactly the kind of reaction I was talking about. That reaction right there...

http://www.cbs46.com/news/13938060/detail.html

For the record, I don't agree with these opinions. At all.

[Holly]

I saw that same article and just about choked. What, exactly, are folks "supporting" when they say they support Vick? Surely they aren't thinking "I support him in his animal torture and illegal activities?" What bugs me most is that they express disappointment in -- apparently -- the plea, and not in what he plead *to*

Disgusting.

[94CougarGrad]

"It's bad. I don't condone it at all, but the punishment is too severe, (they’re ruining) a man's career," said barber Dontrell Mapp.

Horseshit. Vick knew the risks, and either didn't care, or assumed that other people wouldn't. Wouldn't be the first time a sports figure's career had been ended by his past actions. You don't condone it at all? We need a punishment that's severe enough to actually punish Vick without being so punitive as to negatively affect the rest of his life? Society would be kinder to a white athlete who did the same things Vick did? Horseshit, Mr. Vitalis.

[Houston]

"It's bad. I don't condone it at all, but the punishment is too severe, (they’re ruining) a man's career," said barber Dontrell Mapp.

I can't wait for the day to see a white guy named Dontrell. But I guess for now, we'll to settle for Khalil Greene.

[MusicMan]

I can't wait for the day to see a white guy named Dontrell. But I guess for now, we'll to settle for Khalil Greene.

Reggie Willits vs. Howie Kendrick on the Angels.

[Houston]

Reggie Willits vs. Howie Kendrick on the Angels.

Good point.

Free at last. Free at last.

[MusicMan]

Good point.

Free at last. Free at last.

Progress.

[Limey]

Quicky poll results I heard on 740 during the drive this morning, relating to what locals think the NFL should do: 76% = ban for life, 15% = 1-year ban, 9% = "forgive and forget."

Ew.

The NFL may ban him for the illegal gambling aspect of his wrongdoings.

Apparently, arranging, financing and hosting an illegal dog fighting circus, and personally killing at least 8 "under-performing" dogs, is just not enough to get you kicked out of the NFL these days.  (These are all things for which Vick was going to be fingered by his co-conspirators).

[matadorph]

This is exactly the kind of reaction I was talking about. That reaction right there...

http://www.cbs46.com/news/13938060/detail.html

For the record, I don't agree with these opinions. At all.

I think you're misrepresenting their complaints. From what I've heard and read, the general attitude among the so-called black supporters of Michael Vick has less to do with his crime than their perception of the treatment he's received from the judicial system and the national media.  Other than braintrusts like Clinton Portis, there aren't many advocating the dog-fighter agenda, and those that silently agree with Portis may just as well be rural whites.

[xxx]

I wonder what Vick's prison term will be in dog years?

I heard on the news last night he MIGHT get 17 months. You know he will probably only serve 1/2 of that time. Makes me sick.

[MusicMan]

I heard on the news last night he MIGHT get 17 months. You know he will probably only serve 1/2 of that time. Makes me sick.

Everything I've heard is that federal sentencing dictates that 85% of the sentence must be served.

[astrox]

Everything I've heard is that federal sentencing dictates that 85% of the sentence must be served.

I would be shocked if I didn't see him playing in a game this season.

[Arky Vaughan]

I think he has to worry more about how long it is in bitch years.

That's still seven-to-one, right?

[MikeyBoy]

Everything I've heard is that federal sentencing dictates that 85% of the sentence must be served.

Somewhere, the inmates / guards football game just got a little more interesting.

[matadorph]

This is completely illogical and utterly homerist, but I'm absolutely convinced this whole Vick affair portends brighter days for the Houston Texans (finally). For a franchise cursed by shitty personnel decisions and injuries to key players, the idea that this team finally got over on someone else is refreshing. Those two second round draft picks the Falcons landed don't look so great now that Vick's going to jail and Matt Schaub is playing well in a Texans uniform.

[Houston]

Schaub is playing well? The season hasn't even started yet. Let's get some wins before we make this declaration.

[MusicMan]

I would be shocked if I didn't see him playing in a game this season.

There is no way in hell Michael Vick plays a game this season.

No.  Way.  In.  Hell.

[Limey]

That's still seven-to-one, right?

Yep.  But bitch years are harder on the knees.

[Limey]

Schaub is playing well? The season hasn't even started yet. Let's get some wins before we make this declaration.

He looks good playing against the Texans defensive line...

[Ty in Tampa]

There is no way in hell Michael Vick plays a game this season.

No.  Way.  In.  Hell.

Unless it's "Hide the Salami".

[matadorph]

Schaub is playing well?

Yes, most definitely. And more importantly, the offensive line has only allowed one sack with Schaub and Rosenfels under center.

[MusicMan]

He looks good playing against the Texans defensive line...

Giff Nielsen would still look good playing against the Texans defensive line.

[MikeyBoy]

Yep.  But bitch years are harder on the knees.

Mike...Can you point to the angus area?

[Taras Bulba]

Yep.  But bitch years are harder on the knees.

golf clap.

[Houston]

Yes, most definitely. And more importantly, the offensive line has only allowed one sack with Schaub and Rosenfels under center.

David Carr just called. He said "whatever," then slammed the phone down.

[MusicMan]

David Carr just called. He said "whatever," then slammed the phone down.

Unfortunately, he stared directly at the phone for a few seconds before taking too long to slam it down.

[Houston]

Unfortunately, he stared directly at the phone for a few seconds before taking too long to slam it down.

Are you saying the call was disconnected before he hung up?

[MusicMan]

Are you saying the call was disconnected before he hung up?

Yes, but everyone blamed his offensive line for the call being disconnected when he could have hung up long ago.

[JGrave]

There is no way in hell Michael Vick plays a game this season.

No.  Way.  In.  Hell.

Even for the Mean Machine?

[pravata]

Here's an example of a recent obituary headline "Leona Helmsley, hotelier and tax cheat, dies aged 87".  When Mike Vick dies, his obit lead will read something like, "Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcons quarterback and dog murderer, dies...".

[MusicMan]

Here's the list of the various prop bets on Vick's future.

[Curly]

Throwing toads onto a barbecue grill was a popular sport in my neighborhood.  Later, I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

Did you hear a train a comin'...comin' 'round the bend?

[austro]

Did you hear a train a comin'...comin' 'round the bend?

When I hear that lonesome whistle, I hang my head and cry.

[Astroholic]

When I hear that lonesome whistle, I hang my head and cry.

and I ain´t seen the sunshine since I don´t know when,

[Andyzipp]

and I ain´t seen the sunshine since I don´t know when,

I bet there's rich folks eating in a fancy dining car
they're probably drinkin' coffee and smoking big cigars.

[Jose Cruz III]

NO! NO! NO! You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the legality of this case. I'm talking about the public's reaction to it.

To be bluntly honest, there is a racial aspect to this that I didn't even want to get into. Here in Baltimore and down in Atlanta, there are a lot of blacks who don't think Vick did anything wrong. To get back to my original point, that's the sad part.

Clinton Portis (RB - Redskins) was reprimanded for saying "it's just a dog, man." That's the mindset I was addressing, not whether Vick was prosecuted because he's black. That didn't even cross my mind.

There are alot of whites that don't think Vick did anything wrong. Here in the deep south most folks, black and white alike, think spending one minute in jail for killing an animal is the most ridiculous thing they have ever heard. And unfortunately, alot of the deep south football fans are Falcons fans. Thats why they are talking about it. The opinion of these people is this "I like a big steak and some pork chops. Why is a dog any different from a cow or pig".

Not saying that is my opinion but that is the opinion of many.

Myself, personally, I think the breed of dog Vick was using, along with a few others, should be illegal to own.

[Houston]

I bet there's rich folks eating in a fancy dining car
they're probably drinkin' coffee and smoking big cigars.

Mike Vick's going to have plenty of chances to smoke some big cigars after next Monday.

[pravata]

There are alot of whites that don't think Vick did anything wrong. Here in the deep south most folks, black and white alike, think spending one minute in jail for killing an animal is the most ridiculous thing they have ever heard. And unfortunately, alot of the deep south football fans are Falcons fans. Thats why they are talking about it. The opinion of these people is this "I like a big steak and some pork chops. Why is a dog any different from a cow or pig".

Not saying that is my opinion but that is the opinion of many.

Myself, personally, I think the breed of dog Vick was using, along with a few others, should be illegal to own.

I bet it's only the opinion of some.  Here's the difference.  A dog is a pet.  Most of us have pets when we're young.  Lots of time it's a dog.  When you're young you have a hard time differentiating the "other".  That other creatures, other humans, maybe dogs, have feelings and an existence just like you do.  Caring for a pet is one of the ways we create empathy.  If you were in 4H or the Livestock Show maybe you raised pigs or a cow, or like my cousin, turkeys.  But you were grown by then and already developed a sense that you were not the only sentient being in the world and everything else didn't exist just to be used by you.  And that cows or pigs, sad as it is, were domesticated to be food and not a companion or helper, like dogs. Or not, in which case you become a psychopath.

Dogs walked with man 100,000 years ago when we started on the road to becoming human.  They help us be human.  They help us understand that other creatures, even though they don't look like us and think differently, have earned respect.  At least in Western cultures.  If you're in some Eastern country, they're likely to be stir fry.   

[Jose Cruz III]

I bet it's only the opinion of some.  Here's the difference.  A dog is a pet.  Most of us have pets when we're young.  Lots of time it's a dog.  When you're young you have a hard time differentiating the "other".  That other creatures, other humans, maybe dogs, have feelings and an existence just like you do.  Caring for a pet is one of the ways we create empathy.  If you were in 4H or the Livestock Show maybe you raised pigs or a cow, or like my cousin, turkeys.  But you were grown by then and already developed a sense that you were not the only sentient being in the world and everything else didn't exist just to be used by you.  And that cows or pigs, sad as it is, were domesticated to be food and not a companion or helper, like dogs. Or not, in which case you become a psychopath.

Dogs walked with man 100,000 years ago when we started on the road to becoming human.  They help us be human.  They help us understand that other creatures, even though they don't look like us and think differently, have earned respect.  At least in Western cultures.  If you're in some Eastern country, they're likely to be stir fry.   

But apparently the culture is different. Let me first state that Vick is a heartless beast for what he did. But most folks differentiate dogs and humans from a child. At least in these parts. They grew up with their dogs in a cage (fence) or tied to a tree. Thats how they keep them in the yard. My folks never tied me to a tree. So I saw the difference. Vick broke laws and will and should be punished. But the reality still exists that the people in Vicks part of the world think Ray Lewis is a criminal. Not Vick.

These folks shoot dogs for running their cows and pigs. And I wouldn't call them psychopaths. They fail to realize that what Vick did had nothing to do with protecting his cows or his kids or his property. It was just blatant cold hearless torture for no other reason than he wanted to. He will serve his time (less than he should have) but the court of public opinion will be that it was a waste of taxpayer money and ridiculous. And the public opinion thing was what I was commenting on.

[pravata]

But apparently the culture is different. Let me first state that Vick is a heartless beast for what he did. But most folks differentiate dogs and humans from a child. At least in these parts. They grew up with their dogs in a cage (fence) or tied to a tree. Thats how they keep them in the yard. My folks never tied me to a tree. So I saw the difference. Vick broke laws and will and should be punished. But the reality still exists that the people in Vicks part of the world think Ray Lewis is a criminal. Not Vick.

These folks shoot dogs for running their cows and pigs. And I wouldn't call them psychopaths. They fail to realize that what Vick did had nothing to do with protecting his cows or his kids or his property. It was just blatant cold hearless torture for no other reason than he wanted to. He will serve his time (less than he should have) but the court of public opinion will be that it was a waste of taxpayer money and ridiculous. And the public opinion thing was what I was commenting on.

Don't get me started on the public and what they deserve. 

[Limey]

Don't get me started on the public and what they deserve. 

We typically get what we deserve.

[pravata]

We typically get what we deserve.

Not the half of it.  If we had any sense we'd be in mind numbing terror of getting what we deserve.

[tophfar]

Myself, personally, I think the breed of dog Vick was using, along with a few others, should be illegal to own.

redamndiculous.  It's not the dog.  The dog from they used on the Little Rascals was a pit bull.  And I dont recall anyone being worried that he was going to bite Alfalfa's head off.  You see a bad dog, and what you are looking at is really a bad owner.

[Jose Cruz III]

redamndiculous.  It's not the dog.  The dog from they used on the Little Rascals was a pit bull.  And I dont recall anyone being worried that he was going to bite Alfalfa's head off.  You see a bad dog, and what you are looking at is really a bad owner.

That may possibly be the most ridiculous BS I have ever read here. When a dog viciously attacks a small child is that the fault of a bad owner? Dogs have no soul and cannot distinguish right and wrong. They are not human. And if Vick had killed 50 more than he did it still wouldn't be worth one innocent human life.

[94CougarGrad]

Myself, personally, I think the breed of dog Vick was using, along with a few others, should be illegal to own.

Ain't the dog. It's the way its owners raise the dog.

I have a Rottweiler, several cats, and two sons, and my dog has yet to eat any person (or any cat, much to my husband's disappointment) who has entered my property. We got the dog when she was eight weeks old and while she's big and strong, she's also very sweet.

I feed and water my dog, take her for walks, pet her, bathe her, get her annual checkups and shots, and play with her, and she treats us well in return. If I kept her in a small, confined area, barely gave her enough sustenance to survive, beat her when she didn't do what I wanted, and spoke harshly to her, she wouldn't be so kind.

[94CougarGrad]

That may possibly be the most ridiculous BS I have ever read here. When a dog viciously attacks a small child is that the fault of a bad owner? Dogs have no soul and cannot distinguish right and wrong. They are not human. And if Vick had killed 50 more than he did it still wouldn't be worth one innocent human life.

I'm having difficulty responding clearly to your comment, so please bear with me. I understand we're trying to have intelligent debate here.

You said earlier that you believe some breeds of dogs should be illegal to own. In regards to your comment now about a dog viciously attacking a small child, what are you saying? That any breed of dog that viciously attacks a small child should be illegal to own? German Shepherds? Collies? Cocker Spaniels? Miniature schnauzers? Large poodles? It ain't just pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermans that have attacked people. About two months ago, a neighbor's Lhasa Apso lunged at me and ripped a gash in my shirt and scratch my chest with his teeth, and all I did was knock on the front door and stand there when my neighbor opened it. Should I be screaming for her Lhasa Apso to be put down, or is it possible that this was a one-time, unfortunate occurrence which resulted in temporarily scaring the shit out of me?

[tophfar]

That may possibly be the most ridiculous BS I have ever read here. When a dog viciously attacks a small child is that the fault of a bad owner?

Yes. 

"There is no scientific evidence that some breeds are more aggressive than others," said Blindauer. "In Texas in 2000, the chow was the breed that bit more people. In Lincoln, Nebraska, it's the lab (Labrador).

"There are literally tens of thousands of Rottweilers and pit bulls that are loving pets in homes with families. You can't single out a breed for aggression. What you can do is look at the owners who don't take responsibility for their pets." ... said veterinarian Dr. Kim Blindauer, at the CDC in Atlanta. It means owners need to be more responsible.

Blindauer worked on a canine aggression task force with the CDC that found five factors that determine a dog's tendency to bite: heredity, early experience, later socialization, training, and the victim's behavior.

If you notice, out of the 5 factors cited, 80% of them deal with human actions in regards to the dogs.  60% of which are the owners responsibility, and the other 20% the actions of the person who was attacked. 

and this is especially true in the case of Pit Bulls.  They were specifically bred to remove human aggressive behavior and have been long recognized to be good family pets.  Pitties, Rotties, and GSD's have long scored higher on temperament testing than other "safer" breeds of dogs.  It's the irresponsibility of the people that raise, train, and breed the dog to be fighting machines, and teach them to be aggressive to any and all, abuse and mistreat the animals, in the manner that are detailed in the Vick case that CAUSE the animals to go against their nature in regards to humans. 

Pit Bulls are favored in the dog fighting world because of their natural tendency to be aggressive towards other dogs, their high drive, strength and tenacity.  Their abuse and mistreatment have caused people like you to throw about ignorant conclusions about things they know nothing about.

The most common biters in Memphis are chows and Labrador retrievers, said Ken Childress, manager of the city-operated shelter, which reported 725 bites in Memphis last year.

The most common dogs that bite usually reflect the popularity of the breed in that community, Blindauer said. It doesn't mean that that breed has a propensity to bite.

Childress uses this analogy: If more people are driving red cars and statistics show more red cars in wrecks, does it mean that red cars cause wrecks or are there just more of them?

Obviously, according to your brand of mislogic Labradors are dangerous animals and should be banned for the good of all mankind.  We simply cannot allow this vicious animal to continue to pose a threat to our neighborhoods, wont somebody please think of the children.

Dogs have no soul and cannot distinguish right and wrong.

you sir, have never owned a dog.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Yes. 

If you notice, out of the 5 factors cited, 80% of them deal with human actions in regards to the dogs.  60% of which are the owners responsibility, and the other 20% the actions of the person who was attacked. 

and this is especially true in the case of Pit Bulls.  They were specifically bred to remove human aggressive behavior and have been long recognized to be good family pets.  Pitties, Rotties, and GSD's have long scored higher on temperament testing than other "safer" breeds of dogs.  It's the irresponsibility of the people that raise, train, and breed the dog to be fighting machines, and teach them to be aggressive to any and all, abuse and mistreat the animals, in the manner that are detailed in the Vick case that CAUSE the animals to go against their nature in regards to humans. 

Pit Bulls are favored in the dog fighting world because of their natural tendency to be aggressive towards other dogs, their high drive, strength and tenacity.  Their abuse and mistreatment have caused people like you to throw about ignorant conclusions about things they know nothing about.

Obviously, according to your brand of mislogic Labradors are dangerous animals and should be banned for the good of all mankind.  We simply cannot allow this vicious animal to continue to pose a threat to our neighborhoods, wont somebody please think of the children.

you sir, have never owned a dog.

Tophar, I agree with most of what you posted with one exception.  There are some individual dogs that are simply more aggressive.  It's not the alpha/beta types but the runts that are usually the most aggressive as they are usually the most fearful.  Can this behavior be modified with positive conditioning?  Absolutely.  And this, I think, is why you put the responsibility on the owner (which i also agree with).  But there is no denying some dogs, and even some breeds, do not instinctively socialize with confidence or ease. 

Some dogs/breeds require a more experienced owner/trainer as many pet owners don't have a clue when their dog is exhibiting insecure or fearful behavior nor how to respond and change this behavior.  There are rare instances where this undesirable behavior can't be modified, at least to the point of being a minimal risk.  In those instances, the dog has to be destroyed or kept in an environment where the negative behavior is not provoked/triggered.  Instability in breeds like pit bulls (stafford, bull-terrier, and american) and rottweilers is due to poor breeding, not the breed itself.  Again, it's more a reflection of the breeder/owner.  And as a parent, it's my responsibility to check out any dog I allow my children to be around.  If I assume a dog is safe, well we all know what happens when one assumes.   

As a dog owner, I also have a responsibility to be honest about my dogs behavior and ensure the safety of those I invite into my home.  Which is why my dog gets put in the bedroom when we have visitors.  I actually don't want my dog to socialize outside the family because this is how I learned to train a guard dog.  If I introduce my dog to you, he knows you are "okay".  Otherwise, you are fair game if you venture into his territory uninvited.  And yes, he bites.   I also never leave him alone with my children, not that I think he would do anything but I'm simply not willing to risk it.  And my oldest calls our dog "his friend" just to be clear that our dog is a family pet as well.  My youngest can crawl up to our dog and take away food from his mouth (not that I encourage this but my dog knows consequences of aggression towards any small children).   

As for owners, I think alot of people over-humanize their pets.  It's good and necessary to make them feel loved and part of the pack.  At the same time, they have to know their place in the pack is below all the humans.  It's when that boundary is not maintained that you see a good dog "go crazy" one day.  The likely truth is that this event was building from day 1 until all the circumstances were in place leading to a tragic event. 

[pravata]

Tophar, I agree with most of what you posted with one exception.  There are some individual dogs that are simply more aggressive.  It's not the alpha/beta types but the runts that are usually the most aggressive as they are usually the most fearful.  Can this behavior be modified with positive conditioning?  Absolutely.  And this, I think, is why you put the responsibility on the owner (which i also agree with).  But there is no denying some dogs, and even some breeds, do not instinctively socialize with confidence or ease. 

Some dogs/breeds require a more experienced owner/trainer as many pet owners don't have a clue when their dog is exhibiting insecure or fearful behavior nor how to respond and change this behavior.  There are rare instances where this undesirable behavior can't be modified, at least to the point of being a minimal risk.  In those instances, the dog has to be destroyed or kept in an environment where the negative behavior is not provoked/triggered.  Instability in breeds like pit bulls (stafford, bull-terrier, and american) and rottweilers is due to poor breeding, not the breed itself.  Again, it's more a reflection of the breeder/owner.  And as a parent, it's my responsibility to check out any dog I allow my children to be around.  If I assume a dog is safe, well we all know what happens when one assumes.   

As a dog owner, I also have a responsibility to be honest about my dogs behavior and ensure the safety of those I invite into my home.  Which is why my dog gets put in the bedroom when we have visitors.  I actually don't want my dog to socialize outside the family because this is how I learned to train a guard dog.  If I introduce my dog to you, he knows you are "okay".  Otherwise, you are fair game if you venture into his territory uninvited.  And yes, he bites.   I also never leave him alone with my children, not that I think he would do anything but I'm simply not willing to risk it.  And my oldest calls our dog "his friend" just to be clear that our dog is a family pet as well.  My youngest can crawl up to our dog and take away food from his mouth (not that I encourage this but my dog knows consequences of aggression towards any small children).   

As for owners, I think alot of people over-humanize their pets.  It's good and necessary to make them feel loved and part of the pack.  At the same time, they have to know their place in the pack is below all the humans.  It's when that boundary is not maintained that you see a good dog "go crazy" one day.  The likely truth is that this event was building from day 1 until all the circumstances were in place leading to a tragic event. 

Absolutely.  Worst thing you can do to a dog is treat it like a human.  They get very confused.

[Limey]

Absolutely.  Worst thing you can do to a dog is treat it like a human.  They get very confused.

I believe a new season of "The Dog Whisperer" is starting soon.  Anyone who thinks that owners aren't to blame for their dog's bad behaviour should take the time to watch.  One episode will do it.

[JackAstro]

Myself, personally, I think the breed of dog Vick was using, along with a few others, should be illegal to own.

So, should we round them all up and euthanize them, or just turn them loose in the wild and see how it plays out? Perhaps you could get on the phone with my neighbor, and let her know why exactly she's no longer allowed to keep her sweet, docile pit bull, while my other neighbor should keep his golden retriever that keeps biting everyone.

Once we've removed these terrible breeds from domestication or existence, there will be a tremendous void of owners who, for various reasons – sport, status, idiocy, etc. – enjoy breeding and raising dogs to be powerful and aggressive. One or more breeds will sift out as being the new de facto option for these owners, and they will take the statistical place of pit bulls and the like on the dog bites man list. Which breeds do you think these will be, and should we pre-emptively remove them now?

[pravata]

So, should we round them all up and euthanize them, or just turn them loose in the wild and see how it plays out? Perhaps you could get on the phone with my neighbor, and let her know why exactly she's no longer allowed to keep her sweet, docile pit bull, while my other neighbor should keep his golden retriever that keeps biting everyone.

Once we've removed these terrible breeds from domestication or existence, there will be a tremendous void of owners who, for various reasons – sport, status, idiocy, etc. – enjoy breeding and raising dogs to be powerful and aggressive. One or more breeds will sift out as being the new de facto option for these owners, and they will take the statistical place of pit bulls and the like on the dog bites man list. Which breeds do you think these will be, and should we pre-emptively remove them now?

People come to my house and ask if the sweet looking beagle/ border collie mix (looks like a minature lab) will bite.  I say, "oh absolutely".  She has boundry issues.

[Noe]

Absolutely.  Worst thing you can do to a dog is treat it like a human.  They get very confused.

Especially when you dress them like a human.  Next thing you know, they expect it and require their very own credit card to go shopping for all the latest in doggy wear.

[JackAstro]

People come to my house and ask if the sweet looking beagle/ border collie mix (looks like a minature lab) will bite.  I say, "oh absolutely".  She has boundry issues.

Do these people generally ask this question as they're extending their hand out to your dog? Because roughly half of the people who ask if my pointer bites do it while they're reaching out to pet her. "Well, shit... I hope not," I says to them. Fortunately, no, she doesn't.

[Limey]

Which breeds do you think these will be, and should we pre-emptively remove them now?

I expect we'd see a whole new range of hybrids, like the Labraweiler or the Lhaso Mastiff.

[pravata]

Do these people generally ask this question as they're extending their hand out to your dog? Because roughly half of the people who ask if my pointer bites do it while they're reaching out to pet her. "Well, shit... I hope not," I says to them. Fortunately, no, she doesn't.

Yes! And quickly snatch it back.  The dog has her own sense of obligations and duties.  If you try to interfere with her she gets testy.  If you let her go about her business, she's fine.  Being petted is not one of her priorities.

[94CougarGrad]

People come to my house and ask if the sweet looking beagle/ border collie mix (looks like a minature lab) will bite.  I say, "oh absolutely".  She has boundry issues.

When I'm walking my goofy, drooling, not-barking-or-being-otherwise-threatening Rottie, people don't bother to ask me if she bites. They just assume she does, even when she's so excited to see any human or cat run up to her that she piddles on the sidewalk and wriggles like a big baby.

[Noe]

When I'm walking my goofy, drooling, not-barking-or-being-otherwise-threatening Rottie, people don't bother to ask me if she bites. They just assume she does, even when she's so excited to see any human or cat run up to her that she piddles on the sidewalk and wriggles like a big baby.

There is this house near us where the gentleman works the night shift and thus allows his rottie's to run wild in his back yard.  So they're barking all the freaking time.  Which of course causes my daschund to react and provide his own contribution to the symphony.  So while I walk the weiner later that night, usually around 9:00 or 9:30 or so, the neighbor's big dogs come up the fence and bark wildly and want so seriously to get at both of us.  We don't tease, we just walk more animated away from these two freaks.

So one night whilest walking the weiner, I notice no dogs barking at us, no wild scratching at the fence, nada.  Hmmmmm... I think, "ahhhh... they're inside or in their doghouse and chained something proper"... NICE!  But within a nanosecond later, I think... "hey, what if they've escaped?"  Sure enough two huge rotties come out from behind the bushes in the next house and run towards us.

I scream "NOOOOO!"

They stop.  I walk the weiner backwards and then they start to attack again.  I again scream "NO!".  They stop, look at each other and then run away.  Me and weiner walk hastily back home, lock the door and both look out the window.  The two huge dogs are now camped in our front yard, waiting for us to come back out.  I have no gun and of course no desire to go talk to these two, so I call the police.

They come, try to capture the dogs, only to find them less than willing.  So they call for backup.  Now we have six officers chasing the dogs down the street.  One manages to herd them back to their own home.  But before they jump back over the fence, one turns and decides to attack the officer.  The second officer pulls his gun and is ready to shoot but the dog stops.  Good thing too because the owner pulls up and steps in.

That dog came this close to being shot.  The owner is cited, told one more incident like that and those dogs will be taken away.

Now he has them chained at night.

[Houston]

Noe, not to seem insensitive, but you should have encouraged us to get some popcorn first! That seemed like a movie.

On another note, people talk about dogs sensing fear, but I guarantee they sense other things, too.

One day I was out for a run and in a not-too-good mood. A dog jumps out of the bushes and starts running toward me. I stopped, then turn and started running toward him, which is something I ordinary wouldn't do. But that dog must have thought I was crazy because he ran away with his tail between his legs.

[geezerdonk]

my daschund

God bless you.
I have known quite a few dachshunds over the years.
Each has been fearless and I believe would have not hesitated to attack a grizzly bear.
Do you find it so?

[Jose Cruz III]

Yes. 

If you notice, out of the 5 factors cited, 80% of them deal with human actions in regards to the dogs.  60% of which are the owners responsibility, and the other 20% the actions of the person who was attacked. 

and this is especially true in the case of Pit Bulls.  They were specifically bred to remove human aggressive behavior and have been long recognized to be good family pets.  Pitties, Rotties, and GSD's have long scored higher on temperament testing than other "safer" breeds of dogs.  It's the irresponsibility of the people that raise, train, and breed the dog to be fighting machines, and teach them to be aggressive to any and all, abuse and mistreat the animals, in the manner that are detailed in the Vick case that CAUSE the animals to go against their nature in regards to humans. 

Pit Bulls are favored in the dog fighting world because of their natural tendency to be aggressive towards other dogs, their high drive, strength and tenacity.  Their abuse and mistreatment have caused people like you to throw about ignorant conclusions about things they know nothing about.

Obviously, according to your brand of mislogic Labradors are dangerous animals and should be banned for the good of all mankind.  We simply cannot allow this vicious animal to continue to pose a threat to our neighborhoods, wont somebody please think of the children.

you sir, have never owned a dog.

I have owned several dogs. I didn't mistreat them. Fed them good. And they were good to me. But there are certain breeds that is as dangerous as having a loaded gun in the house. You might never have an accident, but you just might. And there is not a dog, or an entire breed for that matter, that is worth the life of a child. Should they be hanged and tortured? Absolutely not. But it don't change the fact that dogs are not human.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

NAACP has weighed in
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_vick_naacp;_ylt=Ai9gnT.XPdXXGIF..Mi67OQLMxIF

I especially enjoyed this take from the head of the Atlanta NAACP Chapter, R. L. White:

"White said he does not support dogfighting and that he considers it as bad as hunting.

"His crime is, it was a dog," White said."

[Astroholic]

NAACP has weighed in
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_vick_naacp;_ylt=Ai9gnT.XPdXXGIF..Mi67OQLMxIF

I especially enjoyed this take from the head of the Atlanta NAACP Chapter, R. L. White:

"White said he does not support dogfighting and that he considers it as bad as hunting.

"His crime is, it was a dog," White said."

What the hell is wrong with Hunting?

[Andyzipp]

What the hell is wrong with Hunting?

Hunting is legal.  Dog fighting isn't.  Hunters by and large go for clean kills and when they don't get them will be quick to put the animal out of it's misery.  Dog Fighters will typically kill the dog if it isn't inflicting enough damage on their opponents. Hunters by and large eat their kills.  Near as I can tell, Dog fighters do not eat their dogs.

So hunting would appear to be a strawman.

[tophfar]

I have owned several dogs. I didn't mistreat them. Fed them good. And they were good to me. But there are certain breeds that is as dangerous as having a loaded gun in the house. You might never have an accident, but you just might. And there is not a dog, or an entire breed for that matter, that is worth the life of a child. Should they be hanged and tortured? Absolutely not. But it don't change the fact that dogs are not human.

Oh holy jesus, did you even read anything?

certain breeds that is as dangerous as having a loaded gun in the house

is false.  pure, 100%, blatent willfull ignorance and untruth.  because if you truly WANTED to know the truth and why that is wrong you could educate yourself.  but instead of reading the verifiable information presented to you on the nature of the animal, you simply repeat a platidude and invest it with more illogical analogies.

we've moved on from the "think of the children" to equivocating a dog to a firearm.  if you keep talking you can hit every logical fallacy in the book in one sinlge argument.  there is no and/or choice between a so called "dangerous breed" and the lives of children.  

wanting to eradicate a breed, because that is what you would have to do to "ban" a breed, because you simply refuse to educate yourself is revolting to me.

[Arky Vaughan]

Ain't the dog. It's the way its owners raise the dog.

I have a Rottweiler, several cats, and two sons, and my dog has yet to eat any person (or any cat, much to my husband's disappointment) who has entered my property. We got the dog when she was eight weeks old and while she's big and strong, she's also very sweet.

I feed and water my dog, take her for walks, pet her, bathe her, get her annual checkups and shots, and play with her, and she treats us well in return. If I kept her in a small, confined area, barely gave her enough sustenance to survive, beat her when she didn't do what I wanted, and spoke harshly to her, she wouldn't be so kind.

If I had a pit bull whom I'd raised from a puppy and treated as gently as can be, there's still no way in hell I'd have him around my son.

[Limey]

On another note, people talk about dogs sensing fear, but I guarantee they sense other things, too.

A recent study has shown that dogs can smell cancer.

[tophfar]

then these children would have died.

When the deadly cottonmouth snake struck out at "her" children, Dixie never hesitated. The dog pushed the children aside, putting her 50-pound body between them and the snake. Dixie saved Frank Humphries, 9, and his 7-year-old twin siblings, Katie and Codi. But the venomous snake inflicted two bites on the face of the 16-month-old dog.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/dixie.html

and when this man's own dog would not help him, his neighbor's pit bull saved his life

Move over Lassie. A pit bull terrier has shown Auburn's Jim Roach that heroic dog deeds don't just happen in the movies or on TV.

Roach fell from a 12-foot-high ladder while picking peaches last month on his rural Mount Vernon Road property. Dazed and unable to move because of his injuries, he soon found renter Jeanne Davis' two-year-old pit bull Gabby hovering over him and
barking.

"I was unconscious pretty much," Roach said Tuesday. "I remember a dog licking the side of my face and standing by me and barking and barking and barking."

But nobody came. That's when Gabby did the heroically unexpected and went for help.

About 100 yards away and not able to see or hear Roach, Davis heard Gabby furiously barking and thought perhaps someone had entered the property. But Roach's dog, also nearby, wasn't barking.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/thomson.html

and god forbid helping out the hearing imparied

A friend of mine, John Ledum, was trying to start a hearing-dog program in Alaska. He and a local veterinarian, Dr. Joyce Murphy, temperament-tested 170 dogs and RCA scored the highest, so she was chosen to be the first hearing dog in Alaska. At the time she completed her training and was certified, there was talk of banning pitbulls in the city of Anchorage and the SPCA was concerned about placing her with someone who might have to give her up. So they decided to make RCA their demonstration dog because it would also promote the idea that pitbulls are smart, loving animals with good temperaments

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/rca.html

this one is such a monster that he saved his owner from dying of a spider bite

While I was in the bathroom I was bitten by a spider. I was on medication at the time and it inhibited my body from producing any antihistamines, so I went into anaphylactic shock. My throat closed and I got very light headed, I felt like I was being put under anesethic. I couldn't make it out of the bathroom and I couldn't make a sound. For some unknown reason, Norton got up from his bed in the closet and went over to my sleeping husband and kept pushing him with him nose until Barrie woke up.

this one not only saved the life of a child once

Gary Watkins, eleven years old, was absorbed in chasing lizards when Weela, the family Pit Bull, plowed into him with a body slam that sent him sprawling. Gary's mother, Lori, saw the whole incident and remembers being surprised at first, because Weela always played kindly with children. But her surprise quickly turned to horror when she saw a rattlesnake sink its fangs into Weela's face. Somehow Weela had sensed the snake's presence from across the yard and rushed to push Gary out of strinking range.

but then after surviving that full bite to the face of a rattlesnake, during a flood carried food to stranded animals, located lost horses, and saved the lives of 30 people trying to cross flood waters in a dangerous location.

Periodically, over a month's time, sixty-five pound Weela crossed the flooded river to bring food to seventeen dogs and puppies and one cat, all stranded on an island. Each trip she pulled thirty to fifty pounds of dog food that had been loaded into a harnessed backpack. The animals were finally evacuated on Valentine's Day.

On another occasion, Weela led a rescue team to thirteen horses stranded on a large manure pile completely surrounded by floodwaters. The rescue team successfully brought the horses to safe ground.

Finally, during one of Weela's trips back from delivering food to stranded animals, she came upon a group of thirty people who were attempting to cross the floodwaters. Weela, by barking and running back and forth, refused to allow them to cross at that point where the waters ran deep and fast. She then led the group to a shallower crossing upstream, where they safely crossed to the other side.

Willfull Ignorance.

[NeilT]

http://www.vickdogchewtoy.com/

[Outlawscotty]

If I had a pit bull whom I'd raised from a puppy and treated as gently as can be, there's still no way in hell I'd have him around my son.

And there you have it...  

No.  Way.  

I've seen almost every breed imaginable; owned Great Danes, Dachsunds, Border Collies, Shelties, Dingos, Commodores, etc.; and I agree on this point above.  Every dog breed has a genetic disposition just as every dog used to have a specific 'working' purpose.  Some still do 'work', while others have been spoiled/trained for other purposes.  The genetic disposition never changes.  I don't trust them and probably never will.  I now own an Akita/Great Pyrenese mix that won't hesitate to protect at all cost (strictly by disposition) my family.  I have never had a second thought about leaving my son with this dog, as the dog simply won't leave my son, out of sight or otherwise.

[Houston]

You owned a Commodore? Did you keep it in a brick house?

[tophfar]

Every dog breed has a genetic disposition just as every dog used to have a specific 'working' purpose.  Some still do 'work', while others have been spoiled/trained for other purposes.  The genetic disposition never changes.  I don't trust them and probably never will.

genetic disposition, once again argued from people that don't what that means, especially in regard to pits.  The Pit Bull was specifically bred to not have human-agressive tendencies.  They have long, long been considered great family pets.  It is the fault of Vick and his ilk, that have ruined what was once a well respected animal.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is a good-natured, amusing, extremely loyal and affectionate family pet, which is good with children and adults. Almost always obedient, it is always eager to please its master. It is an extremely courageous and intelligent guard dog that is very full of vitality.

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm

Are Pit Bulls naturally aggressive towards humans?
While many Pit Bulls do tend to be aggressive towards other DOGS (as are most terriers), the normal, well raised Pit Bull has NO human-aggressive tendencies! In fact, human-aggression was actually bred out of the breed. The majority of Pit Bulls are affectionate, intelligent, trainable dogs. In fact, the highest obedience trial record of all time is held by an American Pit Bull Terrier named Maddy!

-Can Pit Bulls "turn" on people?
In fact, no breed of dog does. Dog aggression is nearly always preceded by some kind of warning, and there is always a reason behind the attack. However, many inexperienced owners do not recognize the dog's behavior as aggression, or refuse to acknowledge it as a warning sign. The only exception I can think of is Springer Rage, a rare and controversial neurological condition that manifests itself as a spontaneous attack, followed by confusion, and then a return to normal behavior. Pit Bulls are NOT prone to this condition. There are individual dogs of any breed that may be more aggressive to others.

http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorner/2October/pitbull.htm

5. Pit Bulls tend to LOVE people. All people. This makes them a poor choice for a "guardian breed". Most of them are simply too friendly to protect a house against strangers. A Pit Bull that shows unprovoked human aggression (puppy play nips do NOT count) is showing BAD temperament and in most cases should be put to sleep. Such a dog should obviously NEVER be bred under any circumstances. The breeding of dogs with bad temperaments is one of the largest problems the breed faces today and fuels the fire of breed specific legislation.

6. Pit bulls tend to be very "soft" with their family, meaning that they are eager to please their humans. They should not have to be "shown who's boss", but will thrive under "positive leadership". A Pit Bull of proper temperament is a devoted and loving family member, inspiring immense loyalty to the breed. You will often hear a Pit Bull's owner tell you that after owning one, they will never own any other breed.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/breedinfo.php

A correct Pit Bull will never be aggressive with people. The Pit Bull has been breed for centuries to be a human-friendly dog.

It is not a guardian breed, and therefore should not display suspicion towards strangers or view them as potential threats. It is uncommon for a Pit Bull to be overly shy.

The Pit Bull is likely to meet all strangers with an open heart and a wagging tail. A normal Pit Bull looks upon all people as friends unless their actions prove otherwise.
Generally Pit Bulls are submissive with people and confident in their surroundings, making for a well-adjusted family dog. Since times past when the Pit Bull was used for hunting of large game and as a farm dog, it has been a cherished fixture of family life.

The Pit Bull has a special fondness for children and a pleased, relaxed look crosses its face when they approach. It can prove to be a safe, hardy friend that can keep up and put up with the active play life of kids. For a child, no better companion can be found.

http://www.pitbulllovers.com/pit-bulls-and-human-aggression.html

[Outlawscotty]

Yep, one of it's puppies went on to be a slut poodle who hung out with other slut poodles who in turn, owned their own lap dogs.  Vicious cycle if you please.

[Outlawscotty]

The Pit Bull was specifically bred to not have human-agressive tendencies.

First, I don't think it worked.  Second, maybe the term is agressive by nature.  Either way -- No Way.

[MusicMan]

Hunting is legal.  Dog fighting isn't.  Hunters by and large go for clean kills and when they don't get them will be quick to put the animal out of it's misery.  Dog Fighters will typically kill the dog if it isn't inflicting enough damage on their opponents. Hunters by and large eat their kills.  Near as I can tell, Dog fighters do not eat their dogs.

So hunting would appear to be a strawman.

A local leader of a lobbying group used a strawman?  Go figure!

(I'm vaguely remembering this guy creating another controversy lately, but I can't recall it.)

[tophfar]

First, I don't think it worked.  Second, maybe the term is agressive by nature.  Either way -- No Way.

Yah, Everyone else out there that knows anything is Wrong.  And You, with all your obvious expertise is right.

Willfull, intentional stupidity, even in the face of facts.  God bless the American Public.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

-Can Pit Bulls "turn" on people?
In fact, no breed of dog does. Dog aggression is nearly always preceded by some kind of warning, and there is always a reason behind the attack. However, many inexperienced owners do not recognize the dog's behavior as aggression, or refuse to acknowledge it as a warning sign. The only exception I can think of is Springer Rage, a rare and controversial neurological condition that manifests itself as a spontaneous attack, followed by confusion, and then a return to normal behavior. Pit Bulls are NOT prone to this condition. There are individual dogs of any breed that may be more aggressive to others

Wow, this perfectly describes the behavior of two rottweilers I know of.  The owners had no explanation for the aggression by a dog that had never displayed any signs of aggression.  In both cases, the dogs were put down and neither involved ignorant or inexperienced owners.  Very interesting.  I was not aware this was a known condition. 

I do have to add, however, that many of the typical characteristics of a breed become unreliable due to over-breeding.  To say the entire breed is harmless is no more true than saying the entire breed is flawed.   

[tophfar]

I do have to add, however, that many of the typical characteristics of a breed become unreliable due to over-breeding.  To say the entire breed is harmless is no more true than saying the entire breed is flawed.  

Over breeding, and irresponsible breeding.  Any and all dog breeds are can fall victim to this.  Over the years it's just shifted breeds, as to what was the popular, "macho" breed of the day.

German Shepherds went through this, Rottweilers went through this, Dobermans have gone through this, and now Pit Bulls are going through this.

To hold an entire breed responsible, and perpetuate misconceptions with total disregard for the truth, just pisses me off.

[Outlawscotty]

Yah, Everyone else out there that knows anything is Wrong.  And You, with all your obvious expertise is right.

Willfull, intentional stupidity, even in the face of facts.  God bless the American Public.

Look in the mirror.

My opinions are based on personal experiences, not something you read on the internet.  You can certainly have any dog you choose, didn't say otherwise.  I simply stated I would not and why.

[tophfar]

Look in the mirror.

My opinions are based on personal experiences, not something you read on the internet.  You can certainly have any dog you choose, didn't say otherwise.  I simply stated I would not and why.

What mirror?  your self stated opinions are the same as gathered factual data from experts across the field? 

I have stated nothing that cannot be independently verified.  If you do not wish to believe the links provided, you are welcome to go to any library and research the information yourself.

I have no doubt that you will not do this, and you will continue to argue from an intellectually dishonest position.

[Limey]

To hold an entire breed responsible, and perpetuate misconceptions with total disregard for the truth, just pisses me off.

There are elements of society that are doing this to segments of the World's human population.

[Outlawscotty]

What mirror?  your self stated opinions are the same as gathered factual data from experts across the field? 

I have stated nothing that cannot be independently verified.  If you do not wish to believe the links provided, you are welcome to go to any library and research the information yourself.

I have no doubt that you will not do this, and you will continue to argue from an intellectually dishonest position.

and right you are.  I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove my opinion to be correct to you or anyone else.  I didn't mean to rain on your parade with my opinion, but you aren't going to change it either with the links provided.  If this is your dog of choice, great.  You can have all you want.  I choose to believe what my eyes tell me rather than what the experts across the fields say.  It is not binary factual irrefutable data.  Either one.  I'm not arguing with you because it really makes no difference to me what kind of dog you prefer.  For the record, Vick was wrong, as is anyone else exhibiting this behavior.  I just choose to believe that this breed is, as you say, over or irresponsibly bred for this purpose, and that there are far more bad ones than good ones in my experience.  Sorry to rattle your dog cage, but I'm done.

[das]

There are elements of society that are doing this to segments of the World's human population.

Unless you are talking about the Germans.  Or the French.

[tophfar]

There are elements of society that are doing this to segments of the World's human population.

yup, and it is a direct result of attitudes such as this one.

and right you are.  I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove my opinion to be correct to you or anyone else.  I didn't mean to rain on your parade with my opinion, but you aren't going to change it either with the links provided.  If this is your dog of choice, great.  You can have all you want.  I choose to believe what my eyes tell me rather than what the experts across the fields say.  It is not binary factual irrefutable data.  Either one.  I'm not arguing with you because it really makes no difference to me what kind of dog you prefer.  For the record, Vick was wrong, as is anyone else exhibiting this behavior.  I just choose to believe that this breed is, as you say, over or irresponsibly bred for this purpose, and that there are far more bad ones than good ones in my experience.  Sorry to rattle your dog cage, but I'm done.

[tophfar]

Unless you are talking about the Germans.  Or the French.

the French count as people?  you learn something new everyday.

[otterjb]

There are elements of society that are doing this to segments of the World's human population.

Definitely. At minimum, 99% of Muslims are peaceful people. From watching the news, you'd think it'd be 1%.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Definitely. At minimum, 99% of Muslims are peaceful people. From watching the news, you'd think it'd be 1%.

Oh!  Here I was thinking he was referring to what the British did to the native inhabitants of India, Australia, New Zealand, and various parts of Africa.  I never would have guessed this statement was about muslims. 

[Arky Vaughan]

Definitely. At minimum, 99% of Muslims are peaceful people. From watching the news, you'd think it'd be 1%.

Those 1% seem to get into the news an awful lot. And the polls show that a not insignificant share of the peaceful 99% don't have a lot of problem with what the 1% are up to.

[otterjb]

Those 1% seem to get into the news an awful lot. And the polls show that a not insignificant share of the peaceful 99% don't have a lot of problem with what the 1% are up to.

The 1% sure as hell do. What polls are those?

[Andyzipp]

Oh!  Here I was thinking he was referring to what the British did to the native inhabitants of India, Australia, New Zealand, and various parts of Africa.  I never would have guessed this statement was about muslims. 

I think he was talking about the Spaniards and what they did to the Mayans...or Aztecs...or was it the Incas?

[Arky Vaughan]

I'm sure there are plenty of pit bulls out there who are sweet and lovable, never had an unkind incident toward humans, save lives from snakes, ladder-falls, spiders and the like. I'm not really prepared to have my child be the test case for whether any particular pit bull falls into that category.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I think he was talking about the Spaniards and what they did to the Mayans...or Aztecs...or was it the Incas?

Oh, playing dirty huh!  What about the french!  Huh?  Yeah! 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Yep, one of it's puppies went on to be a slut poodle who hung out with other slut poodles who in turn, owned their own lap dogs.  Vicious cycle if you please.

You sayin' she was easy? Like sunday morning?

[Limey]

Oh!  Here I was thinking he was referring to what the British did to the native inhabitants of India, Australia, New Zealand, and various parts of Africa.  I never would have guessed this statement was about muslims. 

To be fair, I don't think we villainised those people, we just subjugated them with the cunning use of flags.

[das]

Oh, playing dirty huh!  What about the french!  Huh?  Yeah! 

They were marginalized and de-humanized about 10 posts ago.  Keep up.  I think Okies are next in the sights.

[Limey]

Those 1% seem to get into the news an awful lot. And the polls show that a not insignificant share of the peaceful 99% don't have a lot of problem with what the 1% are up to.

Bomb 'em all, and let Allah sort 'em out!

[Arky Vaughan]

The 1% sure as hell do. What polls are those?

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

[Andyzipp]

To be fair, I don't think we villainised those people, we just subjugated them with the cunning use of flags.

Have you seen Gunga Din? 


Neither have I.  What's it about?

[Arky Vaughan]

Bomb 'em all, and let Allah sort 'em out!

I think you've hit upon a sympathetic message ... among a sizeable segment of Allah's believers.

[JackAstro]

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

I am shocked - shocked! - that you of all people would have a statistical document at hand to justify a position. That said, when I got to the relevant bits, I'm having trouble reconciling the paper's "Muslims in the United States are widely concerned about Islamic extremism, and express strong disapproval of terrorists and their tactics" with your "polls show that a not insignificant share of the peaceful 99% don't have a lot of problem with what the 1% are up to." Elaborate?

[tophfar]

I'm sure there are plenty of pit bulls out there who are sweet and lovable, never had an unkind incident toward humans, save lives from snakes, ladder-falls, spiders and the like. I'm not really prepared to have my child be the test case for whether any particular pit bull falls into that category.

then the fear mongers of the world have already won.

For three days following the death of Mr. Jacob Adams (found on the property of Ving Rhames) over 450 newspapers and media sources reported that Jacob Adams had been attacked and killed by Ving Rhames' dogs.

An autopsy was performed on J. Adams on August 7th revealed that the dogs had NOT caused the death of the victim.

In the 3 days following the autopsy only TWO newspapers have reported the results of the autopsy.  

450 newspapers either directly stated or implied that Ving Rhames's dogs were either indirectly or directly responsible for the death of Mr. Adams 3 days prior to the autopsy being performed.

2 newspapers have reported the official cause of death in the 3 days after the autopsy was performed.

Clearly an "undetermined death" and facts are not even remotely as newsworthy as suspicion or the idea of being mauled to death by dogs.

Additionally, all 450+ newspapers identified one of seven (7) different breeds to be implicated in this attack - many with discussions on the "aggressiveness" of these particular breeds.  

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/casestudies.asp

[Limey]

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

I didn't read all of it, but the title "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream", coupled with statements such as "The poll reveals that Muslims in the United States reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries..." do not seem to back up your statistics.  Only 5% of U.S. muslims had a favourable opinion of al Qaeda.

[otterjb]

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

Nothing in there suggests that Muslims are violent people.

[MusicMan]

Is there a poll showing how soon Spack will nuke this thread?

[tophfar]

Is there a poll showing how soon Spack will nuke this thread?

i'm honestly surprised it hasnt happened already.  i assumed Limey's hijacking was a direct attempt to get it to hit critical mass.

[Ty in Tampa]

i'm honestly surprised it hasnt happened already.  i assumed Limey's hijacking was a direct attempt to get it to hit critical mass.

No, man. Only OPS, Zone Ratings and VORP can do that.

[MusicMan]

Fine.  Al Qaeda loves Zone Ratings, high VORPs, and hates us for our pit bulls.  And we were vulnerable to 9/11 due to our low OPS from the catcher position.

NUKE IT, SPACK!

[Andyzipp]

Fine.  Al Qaeda loves Zone Ratings, high VORPs, and hates us for our pit bulls.  And we were vulnerable to 9/11 due to our low OPS from the catcher position.

NUKE IT, SPACK!

You guys really think Spack is going to do something because you want him to?

[Limey]

Nothing in there suggests that Muslims are violent people.

Muslims aren't violent people.  Some people, who happen to be Muslims, are.

In another context, it always makes me laugh/annoyed when, for example, heavy metal music is blamed for inciting the Colombine school shooters.  They listened to heavy metal and decided to kill people, ipso dipso heavy metal is dangerous.  Given the chance, which is rare, I point out that the BTK killer was a deacon in his church, and all those priests who molested boys were...umm...priests!!!  Therefore, by that same scientific approach, Christianity is one of the most dangerous and subversive influences on society today!

[Limey]

i'm honestly surprised it hasnt happened already.  i assumed Limey's hijacking was a direct attempt to get it to hit critical mass.

I didn't hijack it, I just pointed out that people have a propensity to tar people with huge brushes.  Why should it be any different for dogs?  This whole thing's non-BB anyway...

[MusicMan]

You guys really think Spack is going to do something because you want him to?

I assumed begging would be involved.

[EasTexAstro]

I didn't hijack it, I just pointed out that people have a propensity to tar people with huge brushes. 

Tarring with small brushes takes too long.

[JackAstro]

Fine.  Al Qaeda loves Zone Ratings, high VORPs, and hates us for our pit bulls.  And we were vulnerable to 9/11 due to our low OPS from the catcher position.

NUKE IT, SPACK!

It says Non-BB right there in the subject. Doesn't that mean I can run around with my ass hanging out with complete impunity? I contend that you are a fascist, sir.

[MusicMan]

It says Non-BB right there in the subject. Doesn't that mean I can run around with my ass hanging out with complete impunity? I contend that you are a fascist, sir.

Nobody needs "non-BB" to run around with their ass hanging out with complete impunity.  I think we've demonstrated that many times over.

[tophfar]

I didn't hijack it, I just pointed out that people have a propensity to tar people with huge brushes.  Why should it be any different for dogs?  This whole thing's non-BB anyway...

i wasnt trying to be belligerent about it.  i just assumed with the newly injected subject matter, it would be enough to put some wind in spack's sails.

[tophfar]

Nobody needs "non-BB" to run around with their ass hanging out with complete impunity.  I think we've demonstrated that many times over.

pffft i dont even wear pants in public.

[Arky Vaughan]

Those 1% seem to get into the news an awful lot. And the polls show that a not insignificant share of the peaceful 99% don't have a lot of problem with what the 1% are up to.

Turn to Chapter 7 and read the data.

How Concerned Are You about the Rise of Islamic Extremism Around the World?

Not Too/Not At All
------------------
United States  19%
Great Britain  20%
France         27%
Spain          38%
Germany        37%
Pakistan        9%
Indonesia      32%
Jordan         32%
Nigeria        41%
Egypt          45%
Turkey         43%

In every country except Pakistan, from one-fifth to almost half of the Muslims polled are not too concerned or not at all concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world. Which directly supports my statement that "that a not insignificant share of the peaceful 99% don't have a lot of problem with what the 1% are up to." In Pakistan, of course, the moderates are more threatened by the extremists than in just about any other country, so it’s not surprising that Pakistani Muslims take the issue more seriously.

Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?

Often/Sometimes
------------------
United States   8%
France         16%
Spain          16%
Great Britain  15%
Germany         7%
Nigeria        46%
Jordan         29%
Egypt          25%
Turkey         17%
Pakistan       14%
Indonesia      10%

Perhaps those numbers seem unthreateningly low. I happen to think even 8 percent is troublesome, but I won't argue that it's significant. What happens when you add up often/sometimes with rarely (i.e., a refusal to absolutely reject the practice)?

Often/Sometimes + Rarely (i.e., not Never)
------------------
United States  13%
France         35%
Spain          25%
Great Britain  24%
Germany        13%
Nigeria        69%
Jordan         57%
Egypt          53%
Turkey         26%
Pakistan       22%
Indonesia      28%

Everywhere except the United States and Germany, the numbers run from one-fifth to over two-thirds.

It is peddling a mendacious proposition to contend that there is not significant lack of concern in Muslim communities in many countries -- by no means every Muslim, or a majority of them, but still a sizeable chunk of those polled -- for their coreligionists' violence or methods.

[JackAstro]

Nobody needs "non-BB" to run around with their ass hanging out with complete impunity.  I think we've demonstrated that many times over.

Very good, then. I retract portions of my earlier statement.

[Arky Vaughan]

And the of above does not even include the denial represented by this:

Do You Believe Groups of Arabs Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks?

Answered No
------------------
United States  28%
France         46%
Germany        44%
Spain          35%
Great Britain  56%
Nigeria        47%
Jordan         53%
Egypt          59%
Turkey         59%
Indonesia      65%
Pakistan       41%

This has nothing to do with whether every Muslim is a terrorist or whether every Muslim is responsible for the violence or support for violence among his coreligionists. Especially given that speaking out in a traditionally unself-critical culture can be extremely dangerous thanks to the threats of a radical few. But there is nothing in the data to support the notion that it's 1% of Muslims in favor of violence, 99% against.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Arky, you obviously haven't heard that 9/11 was an inside job.  Like the Spike Lee joint where that dude hangs out behind a fake wall in that nazi funded bank. 

[JackAstro]

Arky, how do you equate "a refusal to absolutely reject the practice" with "not concerned with their coreligionists' violence or methods"? If I think that the death penalty is only rarely justifiable, is that the same as me being unconcerned with any practice of people being killed out of retribution? And how did I get suckered into this? I never do this. Damn it.

[Ty in Tampa]

How bout that Michael Vick, eh? Sum bitch, he's in some deep shit, huh? Gonna plead guilty, that should just about do it for him.

OK, were done, right?

[Limey]

Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?

There are elected leaders in Washington who have advocated the bombing of civilian targets in Muslim countries.  Coalition forces bombed civilian targets in the run up to the ground invasion in both Gulf Wars.

[Arky Vaughan]

Arky, how do you equate "a refusal to absolutely reject the practice" with "not concerned with their coreligionists' violence or methods"? If I think that the death penalty is only rarely justifiable, is that the same as me being unconcerned with any practice of people being killed out of retribution? And how did I get suckered into this? I never do this. Damn it.

Your analogy breaks down at the point that you compare the two practices you're talking about. Rephrase it:

"The death penalty is rarely justified, i.e., only when a defendant is found guilty of a particularly vile crime by a jury of his peers."

"Suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam is rarely justified, i.e., only when ..."

What's the "when" for the second practice?

[Limey]

"Suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam is rarely justified, i.e., only when ..."

What's the "when" for the second practice?

When such bombing is a reaction to a clear and present danger posed to the Islamic world?  Perhaps from WMDs?  Works the other way around...

[Ty in Tampa]

Damn! Lied to the commissioner, his teammates, everybody. I doubt we'll see him in an NFL uniform again.

[Arky Vaughan]

There are elected leaders in Washington who have advocated the bombing of civilian targets in Muslim countries.  Coalition forces bombed civilian targets in the run up to the ground invasion in both Gulf Wars.

Advocating targeting elementary schools and buses and pizzerias and hotel dining rooms with the end of blowing up as many civilians as possible to provoke terror in the population? Is that what they did?

[Arky Vaughan]

When such bombing is a reaction to a clear and present danger posed to the Islamic world?  Perhaps from WMDs?  Works the other way around...

No, it doesn't work the other way around, unless you use a moral equivalency argument that is in itself immoral by effectively trying to justify evil.

[Noe]

God bless you.
I have known quite a few dachshunds over the years.
Each has been fearless and I believe would have not hesitated to attack a grizzly bear.
Do you find it so?

Yes, this is true.  He is especially protective of my wife.  And my youngest son.  He would fight a grizzly bear if they ever came near either one of them.  Me?  I dunno, maybe... if I had a box of his favorite treats on me and he saw it as a lost of a treat provider, maybe.  Maybe.

[JackAstro]

Your analogy breaks down at the point that you compare the two practices you're talking about. Rephrase it:

"The death penalty is rarely justified, i.e., only when a defendant is found guilty of a particularly vile crime by a jury of his peers."

"Suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam is rarely justified, i.e., only when ..."

What's the "when" for the second practice?

Well, you filled in the death penalty "when" for me with something I wouldn't have said, why not fill in the other one, too?

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Damn! Lied to the commissioner, his teammates, everybody. I doubt we'll see him in an NFL uniform again.

And even that isn't really the problem.  He lied about gambling which, for a number of reasons, threatens the integrity of the game.  I wonder whether the NFL would care beyond the fact that there's no work release program for the NFL players if  gambling was not a factor?  I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try to get him released for "practice and games" and agree to have him housed in the local pokey when they had away games.   The public outrage may be over dogs.  I doubt Goodell cares.  Then again, he's probably a hunter....

[Limey]

Advocating targeting elementary schools and buses and pizzerias and hotel dining rooms with the end of blowing up as many civilians as possible to provoke terror in the population? Is that what they did?

There you go, conflating tactics with morality.

Some Iraqis believe that they have been illegally occupied and use car / suicide bombs to oppose such occupation because that's all they really have.  Taking the Coalition forces on face to face is just a waste of ammo.  Same with the Palestinians and Israelis.  Instead they choose to hit where it hurts most, and that's to attack the soft targets.  It's despicable, but they are fighting, they believe, for their freedom and their of their way of life.

I didn't see too many people crying foul when Randy Quaid flew his jet up the alien spaceship's chuff.

[Arky Vaughan]

Well, you filled in the death penalty "when" for me with something I wouldn't have said, why not fill in the other one, too?

So insert your own when. Narrow it down. Maybe it's never, as it is for many people.

How is that analogous to "rarely" supporting suicide bombing of civilian targets?

Unless your contention is that supporting the death penalty, even in the rarest of circumstances, is no different than supporting suicide bombing of civilian targets in even the rarest of circumstances.

[Limey]

No, it doesn't work the other way around, unless you use a moral equivalency argument that is in itself immoral by effectively trying to justify evil.

Ahh, but you're assuming that you are the arbiter of what's evil.  You're not; it's entirely subjective.

[Arky Vaughan]

There you go, conflating tactics with morality.

Some Iraqis believe that they have been illegally occupied and use car / suicide bombs to oppose such occupation because that's all they really have.  Taking the Coalition forces on face to face is just a waste of ammo.  Same with the Palestinians and Israelis.  Instead they choose to hit where it hurts most, and that's to attack the soft targets.  It's despicable, but they are fighting, they believe, for their freedom and their of their way of life.

I didn't see too many people crying foul when Randy Quaid flew his jet up the alien spaceship's chuff.

Soft targets, like elementary schools?

[Arky Vaughan]

Ahh, but you're assuming that you are the arbiter of what's evil.  You're not; it's entirely subjective.

I reject categorically that I'm the arbiter of what's evil. I also reject categorically that it's entirely subjective.

If it's entirely subjective, then this whole thread was meaningless before it ever got to this point, because there was nothing absolutely wrong with Michael Vick electrocuting dogs to death.

[Arky Vaughan]

Also, if there's no subjective right or wrong, why do you care whether Muslims get painted with a broad brush for being violent or supporting violence? That could be a good thing, right? Just differently good.

[JackAstro]

So insert your own when. Narrow it down. Maybe it's never, as it is for many people.

How is that analogous to "rarely" supporting suicide bombing of civilian targets?

Unless your contention is that supporting the death penalty, even in the rarest of circumstances, is no different than supporting suicide bombing of civilian targets in even the rarest of circumstances.

Honestly, I could, and we could go on for quite a while about it, but that's just going to kill the ratings. You and Limey have always had a great rapport with the sociopolitical tennis, so I'll leave you guys to it. This isn't the stomp off in a huff post or anything, just getting back to my happy place, wherever that might be.

[Limey]

Soft targets, like elementary schools?

Daycare centers, maternity wards, old people's homes, my house...

I'm not saying that I think it's ok, I'm saying that they think it's ok and that's what matters to them.  The only way to stop it is to fix whatever it is that set them off in the first place.

[Arky Vaughan]

Honestly, I could, and we could go on for quite a while about it, but that's just going to kill the ratings. You and Limey have always had a great rapport with the sociopolitical tennis, so I'll leave you guys to it. This isn't the stomp off in a huff post or anything, just getting back to my happy place, wherever that might be.

Definitely understood. I suspect even Limey and I will be blasted out of here if it goes on much longer.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Daycare centers, maternity wards, old people's homes, my house...

I'm not saying that I think it's ok, I'm saying that they think it's ok and that's what matters to them.  The only way to stop it is to fix whatever it is that set them off in the first place.

Doesn't that assume it CAN be fixed?

[Arky Vaughan]

Daycare centers, maternity wards, old people's homes, my house...

I'm not saying that I think it's ok, I'm saying that they think it's ok and that's what matters to them.  The only way to stop it is to fix whatever it is that set them off in the first place.

And my point is that the numbers clearly indicate that more than just 1% of them think it's OK.

[Jose Cruz III]

These caveats notwithstanding, a CDC study detailing dog bite related fatalities in the US between 1979 and 1998 reveals that roughly one-third were caused by Pit Bull type dogs. The highest number of attacks (118) were by Pit Bull type dogs, the next highest being Rottweilers at 67. The full report can be accessed at: [5]

A Pierce County woman was still in bed Tuesday morning when she was awakened by a pair of pit bulls that charged into her home and began tearing into her.



Listen to the 911 call received by Pierce County. The original audio had been edited to delete personal information and to enhance audibility.

Bloodied with wounds that would later require hospitalization, she fired a gun at the dogs -- missing -- and took shelter in a car parked in her Gig Harbor driveway to wait for rescue, police said.

That attack came less than 48 hours after a Seattle patrol officer fired on another pit bull when it charged him after a routine stop.

The incident ended with the dog dead and its owner, a federal fugitive, in jail on a counterfeiting warrant.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/328568_pitbulls22.html

TORRANCE, Calif.—A 60-year-old mail carrier needed reconstructive facial surgery after he was attacked by a pit bull as he walked his route, officials said.
"He was mauled very badly on the right side of his face," said Postal Service spokesman Rich Maher. Maher said the carrier was in stable but serious condition in intensive care and needed a tube in his throat to breathe.

Postal officials did not identify the carrier, but customers on his route told the Daily Breeze the man is Moon Choi of Cerritos.

Cameron Brown, who lives with the dog's owners, said he was watering the lawn when the carrier walked past the home Monday and said "No mail for you today."

The 100-pound pit bull began barking, leaped over a nearly 4-foot iron fence and bit the carrier on the head.

"His lips, face and eye—basically the whole right side of his face was torn up," said Adam Teller, 31, a former paramedic who lives on the street and helped Brown tend to the carrier.

The dog, named Chucky, is one of three owned by Carly Bennett, 20, and her boyfriend, Ryan Brennan.

"I guess Chucky just got spooked, just didn't recognize him and jumped over and bit him," Bennett said by telephone from an animal shelter where she was visiting the quarantined dog.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6689090

With no provocation or warning, the family's 5-year-old pit bull, Molly, suddenly lunged across the room and grabbed Taylor's head in its jaws and began shaking the boy like a rag doll.

"The dog just snapped; it changed from a protective, loving dog to a beast within a second," Jennifer said of the March 31 attack

When Jennifer first found out she was pregnant with Taylor, her parents tried to convince her that she and her fiance should get rid of Molly, she said. But because Reynolds had raised the dog since she was 8 weeks old and she had never showed any signs of aggressive behavior, they decided not to heed her parents' advice.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/news/californian/23_29_184_10_04.txt

There are two sides to every story. If you feel ok with this kind of dog around your kids, more power to ya.

Your research, and mine, is biased toward what we want to see.

[Limey]

I reject categorically that I'm the arbiter of what's evil. I also reject categorically that it's entirely subjective.

You are applying your moral standards to other people.  They couldn't give a fuck what you think about morality in the same way that you don't give a fuck about their morality.  You think they're fucked because they don't think like you do.

If it's entirely subjective, then this whole thread was meaningless before it ever got to this point, because there was nothing absolutely wrong with Michael Vick electrocuting dogs to death.

Some people think it's not a problem.  I disagree and think that's mental, but that's just my opinion.  Some other people think it's only one step down from deer hunting or raising cattle for slaughter.  The difference in Vick's case is that what he did is against the law.  Law and morality rarely mix.  Case in point, only two of the Ten Commandments are actually illegal in the U.S.

[Limey]

Doesn't that assume it CAN be fixed?

Nope.  The only way to stop the insanity is to fix the root cause.  If it can't be fixed, the insanity will continue.

[Limey]

And my point is that the numbers clearly indicate that more than just 1% of them think it's OK.

But that was a qualified ok, without the need to specify what the qualification was.

ETA:  If a dog was attacking me, Mrs Limey or even Mrs Limey's dog, I doubt I'd have any hesitation before beating the thing to death.  It's the same thing that Michael Vick did, but with different motivations.

[Arky Vaughan]

You are applying your moral standards to other people.  They couldn't give a fuck what you think about morality in the same way that you don't give a fuck about their morality.  You think they're fucked because they don't think like you do.

Some people think it's not a problem.  I disagree and think that's mental, but that's just my opinion.  Some other people think it's only one step down from deer hunting or raising cattle for slaughter.  The difference in Vick's case is that what he did is against the law.  Law and morality rarely mix.  Case in point, only two of the Ten Commandments are actually illegal in the U.S.

Your reasoning leads to the conclusion that the only thing wrong with 9/11 is that the hijackers broke our laws. They don't care about our laws, either, and why should they? Following the law is a moral choice just like any other. So aren't we just being self-righteous moral prigs for criticizing Michael Vick?

[tophfar]

There are two sides to every story. If you feel ok with this kind of dog around your kids, more power to ya.

Your research, and mine, is biased toward what we want to see.

you dont find research to support an already pre-formed opinion.  you review information and then draw a conclusion from it. 

your piss poor research is biased towards what YOU want to see.  the conclusion from the report you "quoted" states

Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises con-
stitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practi-
cal alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites.

emphasis mine.  this actually proves the exact OPPOSITE of what you are saying.

hell that report even goes so far to question it's own methodology in regards to relying on published media reports to establish the breed of the dog involved in the attack, as well as other issues with it's study.

First, the human DBRF reported here are like-
ly underestimated; prior work suggests the approach
we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.
Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more news-
worthy than those by other breeds, our methods may
have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities
by breed.
Third, because identification of a dog’s breed
may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the
breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially
ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression.
Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by cross-
bred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed
involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred
dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to
be counted more than once.

[Limey]

Your reasoning leads to the conclusion that the only thing wrong with 9/11 is that the hijackers broke our laws. They don't care about our laws, either, and why should they? Following the law is a moral choice just like any other. So aren't we just being self-righteous moral prigs for criticizing Michael Vick?

There you go again.  It's not about me, or you.  9/11 was disgusting and cowardly, IMHO.  To those who support the al Qaeda cause, it was glorious and heroic.

And, yes, we are being self-righteous moral prigs for criticising Vick.  However, he's American, and in America what he did is illegal.

Another example: the only reason Barry Bonds gets vilified for using steroids is because (a) they're illegal and (b) we think it's cheating.  In baseball.  In the WWE, it's far less damning.

[Arky Vaughan]

There you go again.  It's not about me, or you.  9/11 was disgusting and cowardly, IMHO.  To those who support the al Qaeda cause, it was glorious and heroic.

The difference is that I happen to believe those who support the al Qaeda cause are wrong in that conviction. You appear to believe that they're just different, like choosing a different flavor of ice cream.

And, yes, we are being self-righteous moral prigs for criticising Vick.  However, he's American, and in America what he did is illegal.

If it weren't illegal, there are still many people who would justifiably find it disgusting. The thought of electrocuting a dog to death doesn't turn my stomach simply because it's illegal.

Another example: the only reason Barry Bonds gets vilified for using steroids is because (a) they're illegal and (b) we think it's cheating.  In baseball.  In the WWE, it's far less damning.

Using a corked bat is also against the rules and cheating, but I don't think most people view that in quite the same light as what Bonds has done.

[Jose Cruz III]

no your piss poor research is biased towards what YOU want to see.  the conclusion from the report you "quoted" states

emphasis mine.  this actually proves the exact OPPOSITE of what you are saying.

What am I saying in your mind? I am saying they are dangerous. Whether thats what you want to hear or not. Just because other types of dogs bite and kill people too does not make a pit bull any less dangerous. You don't want to see what I am saying. You just want to go on a rant and blame everybody but the dog when it kills someone. Thats fine. Do what you want. But forgive me if I don't take a dog owner's word when they say their dog is harmless. Tried that against my gut instinct once. Cost a family member half their ear. But I guess that was because the owner wasn't nice to it.

[tophfar]

What am I saying in your mind? I am saying they are dangerous. Whether thats what you want to hear or not. Just because other types of dogs bite and kill people too does not make a pit bull any less dangerous.

no, what it says is that dog bites are not a BREED SPECIFIC PROBLEM.

your words

Myself, personally, I think the breed of dog Vick was using, along with a few others, should be illegal to own.

So what you were saying is that specific BREEDS are dangerous.  the report you attempt to cite, concludes the EXACT OPPOSITE. 

and in fact also concludes that legislation to do so would not be a good idea. 

so It. Proves. The. Exact. Opposite. Of. What. You. Were. Saying.

do you need that in smaller words?

you SAYING they are dangeours, and them actually BEING dangerous are too different things.  there is a great amount of information the refutes that claim.  some of it is here, but plenty more exists out there for you to find if you are so inclined.

but, you as others, are not ineterested in the truth.

[tophfar]

If it weren't illegal, there are still many people who would justifiably find it disgusting. The thought of electrocuting a dog to death doesn't turn my stomach simply because it's illegal.

and the rolling of the dogs.  puppies. nothing but puppies.  they hung them.  beat them.

i dont think we are self-rightous moral pigs for chasing vick, thats a disgusting action to take against a helpless being, animal or human. 

[Arky Vaughan]

and the rolling of the dogs.  puppies. nothing but puppies.  they hung them.  beat them.

i dont think we are self-rightous moral pigs for chasing vick, thats a disgusting action to take against a helpless being, animal or human.

Nah, it's just a matter of what moral code you choose, kind of like trying on blue jeans.

[Limey]

Nah, it's just a matter of what moral code you choose, kind of like trying on blue jeans.

It's not a question of being right or wrong.  It's the realization that they disagree with us, and no amount of killing them will make them change their minds.  Just the same as no amount of them killing us will make us change ours.

[Jose Cruz III]

no, what it says is that dog bites are not a BREED SPECIFIC PROBLEM.

your words

So what you were saying is that specific BREEDS are dangerous.  the report you attempt to cite, concludes the EXACT OPPOSITE. 

and in fact also concludes that legislation to do so would not be a good idea. 

so It. Proves. The. Exact. Opposite. Of. What. You. Were. Saying.

do you need that in smaller words?

you SAYING they are dangeours, and them actually BEING dangerous are too different things.  there is a great amount of information the refutes that claim.  some of it is here, but plenty more exists out there for you to find if you are so inclined.

but, you as others, are not ineterested in the truth.

I have never said dog bites are a breed specific problem. All dogs will bite. But there are breeds that are big enough and strong enough that when they attack folks get seriously hurt and killed. Pit Bulls fall in that category. There are others. Poodles can't hardly take you down and rip your throat out. But dog lovers will continue to try and spin it no matter what damage any or every breed of dog may inflict.

[tophfar]

And we have reached step 13 of the troll manifesto.

"Oh that wasnt what i was saying at all."

Can you at least try to not to contradict yourself within the same post?  At least wait until three or four posts later.

I have never said ... a breed specific problem. But there are breeds...

Yeah, yeah you did say it.  the first time in the very first post i responded too, then again RIGHT AFTER YOU FINISHED SAYING YOU HAD NEVER SAID IT.

the Standard Poodle comes in sizes up to over 15 inches at the shoulder and weighing 40 - 70 lbs.  A 40 - 70lb dog could very easily take you down with no problems whatsoever.  If it were so inclined, but you would never be afraid of it, because  you have not been conditioned to fear it.

Once again, you are all about the BREED.

but that would allow the "facts" to continue to get in the way, which is something you have been adamant about avoiding, so why start now?

[Houston]

Law and morality rarely mix. 

That is absolutely false. Every law is someone's morality. I think what you mean is laws and religious codes rarely mix.

[loganck]

That is absolutely false. Every law is someone's morality. I think what you mean is laws and religious codes rarely mix.

except when it comes to buying beer before noon on Sunday.  or alcohol all day.

[94CougarGrad]

Any dog, Dachsund or Doberman, has the potential to be a sweet, loving family pet. That same weenie dog or dobie also has the potential to become violent and dangerous. Why? Call it animal instinct. They're all animals and are subject to the same instincts as wild animals, despite the breeding or training or tender loving care.

You're entitled to keep pit bulls away from your family because you don't trust the breed, just as I'm entitled to keep a Rottweiler around my family. But if you're going to argue that some breeds have instincts more often than others, you need to carry the argument as far as it'll go. Animals are animals, and any animal has the potential to be lovable or dangerous.

[Arky Vaughan]

It's not a question of being right or wrong.  It's the realization that they disagree with us, and no amount of killing them will make them change their minds.

But is changing their minds the primary objective? It would certainly be preferable to having to fight them if it were possible, but as you point out, it's not.

In any event, I don't think Roosevelt and Churchill had changing the minds of the Germans and Japanese high on their list, other than convincing them to surrender unconditionally. Were they thus wrong to keep fighting?

[Arky Vaughan]

Animals are animals, and any animal has the potential to be lovable or dangerous.

Does this mean that you'd feel as comfortable having your kids play with a polar bear as with a bunny rabbit?

[Gizzmonic]

Not the half of it.  If we had any sense we'd be in mind numbing terror of getting what we deserve.

Sinners before an angry Spack?

[kevinG]

Does this mean that you'd feel as comfortable having your kids play with a polar bear as with a bunny rabbit?

Just a disappointing rook's two cents (and I know I'm late to the party) but I'm thinking that, no matter how well all dogs have historically been bred, there have been instances of previously nice dogs snapping and attacking people. It may matter breed-by-breed how often this happens and it may not, I certainly don't know. But it makes a world of difference whether it's a Rottweiler or a Chihuahua when this happens.

[94CougarGrad]

Does this mean that you'd feel as comfortable having your kids play with a polar bear as with a bunny rabbit?

Wrong argument. Polar bears and rabbits may both be animals, but they're not the same animals of differing breeds. Polar bear isn't to bunny rabbit as pit bull is to chihuahua.

I agree, it's ridiculous, just as the "some breeds are more inherently ill-tempered than other breeds, so those breeds should be illegal to own" argument. It's a question of where the line gets drawn. Pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermans are seen as potentially dangerous dogs. Someday, some freak occurrences of Dalmatian attacks will hit the news wires, and they'll be next, followed by Labradors, Pekinese, and fox terriers.

My dog is a member of my family, but she's not equal to my children and my husband. If she attacked a person, I would not hesitate to put her down. I just don't choose to live in fear of certain breeds of dogs.

[das]

And the of above does not even include the denial represented by this:

Do You Believe Groups of Arabs Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks?

Answered No
------------------
United States  28%
France         46%
Germany        44%
Spain          35%
Great Britain  56%
Nigeria        47%
Jordan         53%
Egypt          59%
Turkey         59%
Indonesia      65%
Pakistan       41%

This has nothing to do with whether every Muslim is a terrorist or whether every Muslim is responsible for the violence or support for violence among his coreligionists. Especially given that speaking out in a traditionally unself-critical culture can be extremely dangerous thanks to the threats of a radical few. But there is nothing in the data to support the notion that it's 1% of Muslims in favor of violence, 99% against.

You have to actually read the words to understand the data being presented.  Arabs does not equal Muslims and vice versa.

[Fredia]

dont know if this is a cabera or what but i was listenting to the news on the radio and they told his 53 dogs that had been siezed would be put down unless someone claims them. the death of 53 animals to be pilled on top of everytihng else. 53 animls gone because of vicks need to fight dogs.

[Limey]

But is changing their minds the primary objective? It would certainly be preferable to having to fight them if it were possible, but as you point out, it's not.

In any event, I don't think Roosevelt and Churchill had changing the minds of the Germans and Japanese high on their list, other than convincing them to surrender unconditionally. Were they thus wrong to keep fighting?

Very bad analogy.  The intent of WW2 was to defeat aggressor nations.  The intent behind the War on Terror is to defeat individual idealists.

[Houston]

Very bad analogy.  The intent of WW2 was to defeat aggressor nations.  The intent behind the War on Terror is to defeat individual idealists.

Where the Germans direct aggressors to Roosevelt or where they idealists to him?

[Jacksonian]

Very bad analogy.  The intent of WW2 was to defeat aggressor nations.  The intent behind the War on Terror is to defeat individual idealists.

The intent behind the War on Terror is to defeat power hungry sociopaths from destroying everything the sociopaths believe are keeping them from the power they want.

[JimR]

Very bad analogy.  The intent of WW2 was to defeat aggressor nations.  The intent behind the War on Terror is to defeat individual idealists.

please stop.

[Noe]

I have a dachshund, his name is "Slinky", but we do a Milo on him and call him "Slink".  I often call him "Weiner" out of affection and not malice.  He likes me most when no one else is around, else I'm his least favorite person.  We take walks at night.  Well he doesn't really walk as much as sniff the ground a lot and stop to doodle or pee.  I think they call it marking his territory or just plain going crap.  He is may favorite dog namely because he's the only one I have.  He never gets angry unless you try to take his food away, then he'll bite you.  Actually, he only will bite me if I try to take his food away, anybody else is okay.  He barks really loud, like he's a big dog.  I think that is because his type of dog is a badger hound and that means he can go into a badger hole and bark really loud to let his master know he's found a badger.  That is also why he is so long, so he can burrow into a badger hole and pull him out if he has too.

[MusicMan]

Many posts in this thread.
Zero GZ threads last two nights.
One crappy season.

[Spack McGrimm]

Noe talking about his "weiner" does it.  This thread is over!