American's would save the life of their own dog over the life of a human being

It isn't equal. It's less valuable. Humans suck. They're duplicitous, malicious, and annoying. Dogs are friendly and innocent.

You're what the French call "les incompetents"

I'd wouldn't let you sleep in my room if you were growing on my ass

Yes, I'm stupid because I have a different opinion than you. It's judgmental people like you that make me hate humans. Dogs don't give a shit about my position on gay marriage, or the war in Afghanistan, or universal healthcare; they treat me the same regardless.

if you save a person they owe you a life debt, so that's one reason to pick the human

uggghhhhh

read "Breed differences in canine aggression, 2008" for example. not just the abstract. read the whole thing. pit bulls are genetically one of the most aggressive dogs, especially in aggression towards other dogs.

combined with the fact that they were bred specifically as fighting dogs, they're certainly a dangerous breed of dog.

there's a reason they're banned in many places around the world.

but there's no reasoning with animal lovers. common sense is lacking.

this thread certainly proves it when animal lovers say they'd rather save a dog than a human.

This thread is fucked up.

LOL this guy

He just used the Hitler card, meaning his argument is no longer valid if it ever was. Remember that not every person is like Hitler, similar to how every pitbull will not rip a baby apart. It's all about the training. If you train it to kill, or neglect to train it at all it will be dangerous. I would be willing to bet that a Doberman, a German Shepherds, or a Rotweiler would exhibit the same behaviour.

If your dog dies you can go out and buy another one and teach it all the same tricks as the dead one. Humans are a little more complicated than that.

If your child dies you can just adopt one and teach it all your new tricks just like nothing ever happened

.

I hope you find yourself stuck in this hypothetical situation with me as your savior, so you can watch me smile and wave while petting my dog just before the bus hits.

It was a joke. It was meant to say that you can't just say buy a new dog after you watch yours die knowing that you could have saved it.

one time i got fuckin hammered and put a ice cream sammich in my fish tank before i went to bed.
it killed all my fish.
every last one.

I'll give it a read, props for supporting your argument.

http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

Check out this link, look at the percentage of APBTs that passed. It's higher than Airedales, Collies, etc. Some interesting statistics if nothing else.

In grade 4, I had to do a science experiment where I had to take care of mealworms all the way to their adulthood as beetle-like things. A few weeks in, I gave them cheerios since they ran out of food. All of them died. The teacher gave me replacements because I had no way of knowing that I would murder them by giving them cereal.

guys guys, would you save Airbud or his owner?


Obviously Airbud! This dog has serious skills! that kid (do you even know his name!?) would have NEVER even won the championship without buddy!!

Seriously who gives a fuck about this all denim lookin motherfucker? Here's buddy making sure his stupid ass doesn't fall off a bench.


Dogs ftw you guys duh

except the difference between the chihuahuas who failed to pit bulls is that the pit bull is going to rip your face off while the chihuahua is just going to yap and be annoying as fuck.

bottom line: pit bulls are too dangerous of a pet and should not be allowed.

turns out a lot of governments agree with me and pit bulls are banned or have restrictions in many places for good reason.

I asked a girl who I worked with and was a big pet person if she would save her dog or a stranger if both fell out of a boat and only one could be saved. Without any hesitation she said her dog. I just shook my head. I mean how sick do you have to be to put an animal over human life...obviously not very. It pisses me off.

Even if there was no dog, I don't think anybody would choose to save you.

You're an idiot. I don't feel the need to explain myself, I think you have done just that by your posts in this thread.

I hope the friendly and innocent dog eats your fucking dick off one day.

I'll take that as a compliment. You liked my insult so much you used it yourself.

It is. You're a level-headed, rational individual who doesn't fall victim to logical fallacies or make unfounded claims. I wish I could be you.

You are fucking brutal!

Just to clarify, I quoted this post of yours at random, I don't have an issue with someone saving a person over an animal, you're just an insufferable twat.

Why thank you kind sir.

tell me, which part of my posts were idiotic?

-Me saying that pit bulls are violent dogs. (they are)
-Me saying pit bulls should be banned because of their violent nature. (many places do ban them)
-Me saying human beings who would save a dog over a human are retards. (this isn't even arguable)
-Me saying dog breeders are not dog lovers for breeding purebreds into the same bloodline. (this is straight up fact. breeders do this. there's no argument here. whether they're still dog lovers or not is the only argument.)


I fail to see which statement is wrong or dumb.



Gad damn people on NS consistently blow my mind with their ignoramus attitudes and their total opposition to whatever doesn't fit the status quo. I guess that comes with 90% of the website being upper middle class white kids from the suburbs still regurgitating their dads views he says over dinner.

seriously though, 1 person has actually put forth any sort of argument against only one of those points (the first). The rest is just name calling. It's sad. It's entirely "you're an idiot, but I can't tell you why you're an idiot".

Someone present me a logical argument against those 4 points. The first you don;t need to, someone already has.

I don't need to write an essay to "prove" you're a fucking idiot. I've read enough of your ridiculous posts to know what a piece of shit you are. You're the kind of guy who posts relentlessly about Toronto or Montreal being the best sport's city...really all the argument necessary. I'm sorry man, you just suck, and no one likes you. It'll be ok.

Your state of enlightenment is impressive. The fact is that you haven't shown any information on any of the statements that are shown above.

oh man. so much palm to face action going on here.

right. my arguing that Toronto is just as much a good sports team as Boston to prove the point that Boston isn't the best sports team in the world if Toronto can match them means everything else I post is idiotic.

good on ya. you're a bright one.

I also seem to be the only person to put forth a peer reviewed article to support the first point.

The second goes with the first. Do you not believe that many governments have banned or put restrictions on pit bulls?


The 3rd is common sense here. No fact is needed.


4th is damn easy to find. quick google search and right away you'll find that inbreeding is quite common in dogs

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dog+inbreeding

Actually pretty much all that "information" is nothing more than poorly worded inflated stereotypes that have noting to do with anything factual at all.

Ok then my argument is this
1st there is an article disputing
2nd is common sense. Governments ban lots of things that we disapprove of.
3rd is common sense.
4th is a quick google search.

See? Point proven. Rather than proving that dog breeders don't inbreed (good like proving that btw), you're going for the personal insults. It's pretty entertaining, but I far more enjoy a good counter argument than someone trying to discredit the opponent through personal insults.

The fact you're going to all this trouble to write all sorts of insulting things kinda makes it seem like you're the one getting pissed and kinda makes it seem like you're stupid and childish.



Now, you keep saying my information is wrong, but you still have not even said what IS wrong.


this should be fast, just do a yes or no answer

Tell me:

1- do dog breeders inbreed?
2- are pit bulls violent?
3- is a human being dumb to save a dog over another human?
4- should pit bulls be banned?


the last 2 are opinion though. So answering the first 2 is all that's really needed.


I thoroughly enjoy a good debate. I laugh at those who debate through e-bullying. It's quite sad that you care enough to actually write out insults.

1). Ok, if you mean it in the sense of "has it happened at the hands of dog abusers and the scum of the earth?" then yes I'm sure it has happened. If you mean it in the sense of "this is the norm for a regular breeder to breed within the same bloodline, next generation, all the time" then hell no man. I know this not because I read it on the internet, but because I used to be involved in both the breeding and showing of purebred dogs. Direct experience with good people who love and care for dogs and RESPONSIBLY advance the breed has shown me more than you could ever read in a poorly written and quickly-linked article. THAT is why I roll my eyes when you regurgitate bullshit you read somewhere, while I know and have seen otherwise with my own eyes. The practice you speak of is deplorable and not at all supported by any dog community.

great post. this is what I like.


I'm not sure if you care for any debate, but I'm going to throw a few counter arguments your way anyways.


1- Despite my initial 'mother to son' statement, which certainly has happened, I'm not just talking direct family breeding.

What's damaging to purebred dog lines is that humans have created artificial bottlenecks in their populations, ultimately shrinking the 'gene pool' to small sizes where there really is not much genetic variation within the populations of that breed.

This is why you get breeds with predispositions to certain ailments. I was talking with a vet not too long ago who was giving some great examples, where (I don't remember the breeds she was using as examples) some breeds would have upwards of a 2/3rds rate of some airway problem or hip problem. There was even one type of dog breed where the gene pool has gotten so narrowed that there was a specific infant related illness that had a crazy expression rate of 1/4 or something that would result in death at birth. This breed itself she was saying has been subject to cross breeding with other breeds recently to get more genetic variation to avoid these expressions related to very small gene pools.

So it's not necessarily that the breeders will breed mother to son, although this vet was telling me this is still surprisingly common in purebred breeds when you're selecting for specific traits, but that even the breeding of distantly related dogs causes problems because their genetic makeup is so similar to begin with.

And this problem was more or less brought on by the breeders who would 'create' (further) the breeds, where is was typical to take the dog in the litter that most expresses the desired traits and then crossbreed back with the parents/grandparents so the offspring will have a higher expression of those traits.

This is what you do in any lab when you're breeding rats or mice or plants or what have you to express certain genes. The same has been done with dogs.




2/4- Pit bulls are indeed animals. Animals have instincts that are incredibly hard to breed out of them. Now there are many people who keep large cats as pets, like tigers and such, and no matter how well they raise them at some point that cat might just follow its instincts and eat its owner. It happens a lot with these exotic large cats. The same can happen with dogs.

So when you get a dog who does have a predisposition to aggression (there are many peer reviewed articles showing that pit bulls are indeed one of the more aggressive dog breeds) and combine it with the fighting traits that have been selected for in this breed, it doesn't matter how well you train it. It can all of a sudden just have an instinctual bout where it grabs the throat of some child and kills it. It happens. Much more than most other breeds.

Is this because pit bull owners happen to more often be bad dog owners? Or is it because a pit bull is a dangerous breed where when one does attack the fatality rate is far higher than other breeds.

This, in the opinion of many, is grounds to put restrictions on pit bulls (such as mandatory muzzles in public) simply because of their physical traits and their slightly higher predisposition towards violence than other breeds. And it happens. Pit bulls are even outright banned many places.

What about collies, airedales, etc.? Those are pretty big dogs. They failed more often than pit bulls, and no ones complaining about them. How about other aggressive dog breeds? Rottweilers, dobermans, etc. Should we ban them too?

Bottom line nothing. Experienced dog owners and trainers are more than capable of owning a pit bull and teaching it to act in a respectable manner. Should they be denied this privilege because of a few idiot owners and the supposed inheritance of aggression within the breed? They should not be outright banned or "killed off". Maybe some restrictions should be implemented, possibly a separate dog license for owning a pit bull that requires higher levels of ability in raising/training a dog. But not what you are suggesting.

Also, the fact that other governments agree with you means little. Tons of governments ban conversion from Islam to Christianity, should I use this to support my argument for abolition of freedom of religion? Russia bans publicly promoting gay activities, as we've been made aware of numerous times on this site. Should I use this in support of my argument against gay rights?

First off, pit bulls are being talked about since that was the one breed that was brought up. I think the same way about rottweilers and to a lesser extent german shepherds.

I honestly don't see how you can deny that some breeds are more aggressive by nature than others. There's a reason police use german shepherds over retrievers. retrievers are far more intelligent and can do everything a german shepherd can do better except fighting. Since the german shepherd is a more powerful and more aggressive breed of dog.

Pit bulls are not just dangerous because they're aggressive, they're also bred to be optimal for fighting. They're 'designed' to kill, not to run after sheep.

The high aggression, their capability to kill, and their relatively low intelligence as far as dogs go is not a good combination.


Sure a great owner could have a fabulous pit bull that'll never harm an ant, but the same great owner could have a fabulous pit bull that out of nowhere will maim a child, where most other breeds just wouldn't do that.



So weigh the sides here. Is a persons want for a pit bull more important than the dozens of pit bull related deaths each decade? Or should these dog owners settle for a different breed of dog to save the lives of many innocent people?



And your admission that there should maybe be restrictions certainly concedes that you do in fact believe pit bulls are an inherently dangerous animal.



My honest opinion is that pet owners should be able to own pit bulls if they so choose, but with many restrictions. They should have to take mandatory dog handling/training classes. They should be muzzled 100% of the time in public. They should not be able to run loose on the property unless it's enclosed. etc etc.

Its because some peoples pets are part of their family and people are attached to them. A family member comes before other people unless they are complete assholes and deserve some shit. If the dog was a random dog or even my friends dog I would try and save the person first easily and hope the dog is quick enough to get to safety.

See, was that so hard, man? If you have something to say, articulate it. Don't write down a one-sentence blanket statement that does any points you may have a disservice and just insults peoples' intelligence, because all you're going to get back is hate and fuck yous.

and if I had done that, no debate would have happened. not nearly as fun. welcome to the internet, where to start an off-topic debate one needs to say an exaggerated and sometimes absurd one sentence statement.

it's basically saying the life of a family member over the life of a random.