Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 72966	2006-10-02 22:30:00	Pit Bull Dogs	Thomas01 (317)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
488727	2006-10-03 22:51:00	thankyou Thomas for being somebody who understands my point and does not take offence - i can agree to disagree with you. For those others (primarily Metla, Scouse and Netchicken) let me explain for the final time. This issue is about responsbility and your actions and the actions of those you are repsonsible for. If a dog is under control and somebody allows another to wander over and pester the dog to such an extent that the dog bites back I believe that (a) the dog owner should be repsonsbile and ask the other party to stop and also (B) that the other person repsonbile for that party should prevent the action happening in the first instance. WOuld you let somebody run across the motorway and then blame the driver of the car if they got hit ? I am not saying that there is no difference between dogs and humans, of course there is - I am saying that it is not the dog or their owners fault every single time as has been suggested during this debate. Hope this clarifies and pacifies - even though I am sure it won't. So if I happen to bump into a P-head on a bender and accidently annoy him, and he proceds to stab me to death, chops me into pieces and eats my eyeballs then its my fault for failing to show respect. [Edited]	Metla (12)
488728	2006-10-03 23:53:00	It seems to me there's a problem here with jonp talking about dogs in general, while others are thinking specifically of pit bulls - as the thread is named. But this is really to repeat that pit bulls exist simply because they were bred to be aggressive - to bite & then hold fast. Anyone who believes that the huge variety of breeds from Great Danes down to Dachshunds & Pekinese evolved by accident from a common wolflike ancester is being naive. Humans encouraged the canine characteristics they found useful for one reason or another. I didn't realise how successfuly certain attributes could be "bred in" until I gave a 3 month-old Border Collie pup (from a litter of heading dogs born off-farm) his very first view of sheep. The tiny pup took no time to realise he had something to do with these large white things. I was staggered to see him starting to point & creep up silently within minutes, all withot a word from me. Comparing that instinct with various options for how another breed of pup might react was an eye-opener. So I have no difficulty in believing that a pit bull could revert to inbred aggression - even after "being reared friendly." And I also believe they're not worth that risk.	Laura (43)
488729	2006-10-04 00:08:00	I	Laura (43)
488730	2006-10-04 00:21:00	Who said it was "every single time?" There are many things you can do that won't hurt others every single time you do it. Like driving too fast, like drinking and driving, etc. But that doesn't make any excuse to still do it. Just how many times can a child or even defenceless adult get justifiably attacked by a dog to make it acceptable for you? Maybe 1 in 10 attacks is the humans fault? Is that low enough odds for you? What if those 10 attacks still severely hurt people and maybe the 1 unjustifiable attack actually kills a person. Is that good enough odds for you to demand the right to keep a pit bull? If you keep a loaded gun in an unlocked cupboard and its found by your kid who proceeds to blow off a limb, is it your fault that he happened to find it and use it, or his fault because the gun didn't do it by itself? Your argument has no validity in this society. Its the mark of a severely self interested individual. I am not saying that there is no difference between dogs and humans, of course there is - I am saying that it is not the dog or their owners fault every single time as has been suggested during this debate. Hope this clarifies and pacifies - even though I am sure it won't.	netchicken (4843)
488731	2006-10-04 04:15:00	People cannot not just give opinions without including personal insults it seems . Thread closed .	Jen (38)
1 2 3 4 5