And how, exactly, do you propose that the owner “prove” that the bitten person was at fault? Mind reading?
Owner: “He threw a rock at the dog.”
Bitten Person: “No I didn’t.”
Dog dies.
Problem solved?
The owner does need to be responsible, but this is not a fair way to do it.
Survival of the species?
Times today are different from when the survial of our species was at stake in everything an individual did.
So are you saying Cartooniverse is responsible for being bit because he walked into a business that was open to the public?
Are you? Yes or No?
That is the real life incident we are talking about here.
I went to the ATTB site and I have got to say that using that data to make decisions about a breed of dog based on the data there is a bad idea.
Here’s why.
The op used the data here to point that APBT had a better score than beagles. (Also implied that APBT were therefor safer than the other breeds with lessere scores)
However…
The number of dogs tested for each breed is different.
ABT 327
Beagle only 50 were tested. So if you think this is an apples to apples comparison forget it.
Also
These are not random dogs from the breed. Owners take these dogs in and pay 25 bucks to have the dog tested and get a certificate if their dog passes. The stongest reason for taking the test is to get the certificate. If you had an aggressive dog you probably wouldn’t take it in to be tested. Plus the type of owner who would be aware of the test, and take the time and effort to submit their dog to the test is probably the person who we would call a good owner.
Go and take a random sampling of APBTs and other breeds. Test the same number of dogs then you might have some stats to convince me.
Otherwise the ATTB is worthless for this discussion.
Oh yes, and don’t forget the skimpy halter top :rolleyes:
You implied facts or statistics were distorted. I ask for your evidence for this accusation upon a respected man of science.
Toon boy,
I demand you either apologise or show me exactly where I called you a liar. I did no shuch thing, not in that quote, and not in this thread. As a point of fact, I agree with Lemur’s post immediately prior to yours, a post, BTW, you seem to be ignoring completely.
This is borrowed from this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?action=newreply&postid=1113253
(for some reson I was thinking I was posting to the thread in the Pit rather than MPSIMS, so I’ll put it here too.)
**
Awww, he sounds like a good dog! Good thing he was friendly, otherwise he might have . . . oops.
Great. Now I have this image of Anthony Hopkins tromping over the Alps on an elephant, planning on eating Scipio’s liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti . . .
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Demise *
**
In almost every court case there are conflicting statements from witnesses. The judge or jury then decides who to believe.
The guy missing the hand or the guy with the big dog.
Okay. I apologize profusely to you. Saying that gave heresay ( hearsay ) evidence is different than saying they lied? Okay. You didn’t call me a liar in so many words. I’m so incredibly sorry.
You just used a more artful word to imply it.
Bottom line. A pit bull attacked without warning. Weirddave, you chose to call it “heresay” ( your sp.). But, you’re right, someone else here called me a liar.
*** Hearsay *. In law, any evidence not based upon the personal knowledge of the witness but known to him only through other persons. Such evidence is usually inadmissable as testemony. ( Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary).
So, you’re angry because you didn’t use the word liar, and think I owe you an apology, and yet…you say I’ve presented evidence of which I have no personal knowledge, as defined above. It’s SO interesting, why is it SO hard to admit that somebody who is a member here was actually attacked by a Pit Bull? It’s just fascinating. “Liar”. “Heresay”(your spelling).
Okay. I apologize. You’re right. You didn’t say the word “liar”. Thank god this the the first time anyone’s ever inferred one word based on the useage of another word on our Boards. You didn’t call me that. Okay?
Cartooniverse
To me, this doesn’t make a point that I consider to be invalid (ie: the argument that Cartooniverse bears no responsiblity for the attack he suffered) somehow valid.
And YOU were the one who brought up the hypothetical (the woman and the men) scenario, stepping out of the real life.
My point was, and is, that if we didn’t, as a species, have the ability to LEARN and ADAPT from past mishaps and therefore avoid or mitigate subsequent perilous situations, we would not have survived as a species. I would also like to point out that I don’t see the phrase “Times…an individual did.” I don’t think there has ever been a time when the survival of the species depended on the actions of an individual. So I don’t see any relevance to the topic in this piece of text.
Well, yes, in fact that is exactly what I’m saying.
Please consider the following:
(I will use several examples- during my times as a student and as a teacher, I have found that a person may not click on one example, but may immediately comprehend some other example illustrating the exact same principle)
Then,
Previous references to the law notwithstanding, C had been attacked twice before. He walked into yet another obviously dangerous situation, and was bitten yet again.
Now, are you going to say this attack was preceded by no warning? The whole situation was a warning- dogs going crazy on chains, (why were they on chains, I wonder? Suppose it must have been a sensitive owner, knowing it was gratifying to them, not because they were wont to attack, raised by an assholey owner…), yet another dog, chained again. An obvious asshole owner who had raised 3 dogs to be like this, imposing even more evidence that the situation was , perhaps, dangerous…
Bitten twice before, yet walks into this situation? Yeah, place was a public business, open for business. So what?
Lets step out of real life here for a sec-
Suppose, at the end of my street, there’s this crack house. And it’s run by the brother of a man I have previously turned into the cops for some reason or other. Or not even that, it just is frequented by crack heads, many of which are armed, and possibly of a different race than I am. (yah, I know, here I go being racist).
So, here’s this drug den, dealing a drug that really screws people up. Many of these people are full of paranoia, hate, muddled thinking. Mostly drug-induced. And I am different from them.
I decide to go down there. They have this one lawn ornament I want to see if I can buy off them. Or I decide to go there to get and try some of this crack stuff.
What’s likely to happen to me? Can you guess?
Now, is it their fault? yup. If they in any way cause me harm, they are responsible for their actions in this society.
Are they responsible for the fact that I, knowing what I was walking into, yet choosing to ignore the very distinct possiblity of harm to myself, of my own volition, entered their den?
C’mon. That’s my my my my my my fault, responsibility, display of astonishing stupidity.
Oh, yeh, and no, I did not, in this hypothetical visit, go after hours. They were open. So dang, I figured…
They killed me for my money anyway…
I used to be a printer. One night, two of my fingers got yanked off in the press. In that business, deadlines are everything. And houses that used to only do one thing, like a daily newspaper, have branched out to do commercial jobs, in order to increase revenue. This makes the job even more frenetic. I got out after the loss of the fingers.
But here’s the thing- in this situation, there are numerous safety procedures, as you might well imagine. In this situation, with the pressure to get jobs out, these procedures are, for the most part, ignored, in the interest of expediency.
And the official party line of the enterprise is “safety first”- and then they schedule enough jobs with not enough lead time that, were we to follow procedure, we would not be able to make deadlines. Consistently.
So, the company is being an asshole, and although they seem to get out of it legally, in principle they are still responsible for the consequences of their actions.
I worked there, and knew all the foregoing. I got my fingers yanked off. That is my responsibility for knowing I was in a less-than-safe situation, and not taking steps to get out of it.
Shared responsibility.
Pure and simple.
You go to a bar. Maybe you are gay, and the bar is a shitkickers bar- the patrons are all white supremecists, or some other type of intolerant crowd. They kick your ass very badly.
The bar is open for business when you go.
The patrons have responsiblity for what they did to you, the bar owner is responsible for not taking preventative steps before hand,
And You are responsible for making such a stupid move as to go to this place, open for business or not.
I am not down on Cartooniverse. I am saying he did something foolish, despite having been attacked twice before, he again placed himself in a place to be attacked again. I think He/She is ducking responsibility for his/her actions by trying to place all the blame elsewhere.
I have done this type of thing myself, and don’t think I know anybody who hasn’t, when in the right situation.
None of my examples were meant to be racist, sexist or anythingist. Caricatures of people and types of people and actually real people were used to make my point- which, one more time, is this:
Someone did something stupid. They got banged for it. They are claiming that they saw no indication that what they were doing was stupid, despite having been banged twice before.
They seem to be trying to say they have no responsiblity in said situation. Indeed, that another person, and a creature that lacks the first persons reasoning ability, are to blame.
I don’t buy it.
Apparently, you do.
Thank You
Oldscratch, let me say this in as plain a manner of English as is possible. Please read this very carefully.
Consider this my formal request that you not reply to me or address me in any way shape or form any further, either here or anywhere else on any message board anywhere on the internet or via email, snail mail or any other method of contact.
If you do not honor my request, I will consider any further comments by you directed to me, harrassment, and will report you to the administration and to your ISP.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Cartooniverse
OK, I KNOW I’m going to regret this, BUT . . .
Cartooniverse, you really need to sit back, relax, and quit jumping all over everything anyone says in relation to you. This board and the intent of people’s posts in general do not revolve around you, yet you have a real knack for making that happen. This general topic is about aggressive dogs and whether they should be banned. Oldscratch had a few words to say about the original post in GD. He uses a lot of name-calling in his arguments. You’ve remarked that others have resorted to such measures, but now you yourself have resorted to quoting the word “hearsay” from the dictionary and going on about what people mean when they’re saying something else. There have been a NUMBER of posts from people trying to explain what they meant about you not seeing the warning signs the dog gave, yet you still persist in making this all about you. It’s NOT! And now that people know they can get a rise out of you so easily, the insults and rebuttals will continue by people who also enjoy a good but pointless fight.
Give it a rest and either discuss the topic rationally and maturely (somewhat, anyway) or quit for a while. Stop putting yourself behind the eight-ball. It’s very dramatic for you, but frankly, it’s toture for the rest of us.
And please, please, PLEASE don’t tear this up into a million sentences to refute it. I’ve said what I meant to say and I’m sure you wholeheartedly disagree. I know it’s off topic, but I didn’t want to start a whole battle thread with you, I just wanted to get it off my chest. I don’t have any problems with you personally, it’s just that your raving is getting tiresome. Just think “Am I just trying to keep a personal argument going by posting this?” and if the answer is yes, just hold back on the old Submit button. Try to stop taking everything so personally and take people’s opinions for what they’re worth . . . opinions. Sometimes the best response is to just let something lie unanswered. (if you doo choose to chop this up into a million pieces, please do it somewhere else so everyone doesn’t have to wade through it to see what people think about the dog-banning thing. And I promise, I will not reply to any such thread, so it will be a waste of time.)
sorry for the hijack, back to wondering just where the hell oldscratch is now that he’s gotten this all stirred up again.
Aw, c’mon. . . won’t someone please threaten me with a harassment charge?? Pleeeeeeeeaae?? It’s been weeks.
With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back:
:rolleyes:
Someone didn’t take his meds this morning.
I’m still working on a longer response, sidetracking and everything. As for why I called Cartoonivers a liar. I’m not sure if he’s lying about the dog attack. He very well might be. He is a complete loon.
Notice this thread. Whre he accused Anthractite of attacking him and omni-not of threatening him. His confusion and misrepresentation of simple facts that are documented in text from a few hours or days previously leaves no doubt in my mind that he could do the same for actions that happend god knows how long ago.
Personally, I think he needs to calm down. Maybe take a break from posting. But I’d never tell him that because he asked me to not address him.
Actually, I thought he drove through in a van with Mr. T., after blowing up that tunnel. 
We do seem to be straying a little OT here and getting into personal issues.
I’m going to throw a curved ball in here because I genuinely believe that there is a great deal of agreement here about a lot of the issues.
If I modify the question to “are pitbulls/rottweilers/German shepherds etc more likely than other breeds to be owned by people seeking aggressive dogs” do we start to get closer to the heart of this issue?
In my neighbourhood, the answer is a resounding “yes”, well over 50% of the dogs in my area belonging to these breeds are owned by males who have deliberately sought to make these dogs aggressive. These dogs are no more typical of their breeds than their owners are of humanity in general. Some of these dogs should very definitely be put down, no question about it, but it is on the basis of their behaviour that they should be destroyed, not their breed.
Temperament testing is not irrelevant, but I do agree that it is responsible dog owners and breeders who will have their dog’s temperament tested. That well-bred, well-trained PBs, rotties, GSDs etc consistently score highly on temperament tests does however mitigate against the assertion that these breeds are more genetically disposed towards aggressive temperaments than other breeds.
I would not have walked into the situation Cartooniverse did, but the responsibility for ensuring people entering those premises were safe rested firmly with the owner. I pretty much remain alert on the streets for signs that dogs may attack too, and I will go out of my way to avoid a confrontation with a dog showing signs of aggressiveness (this is just common sense, if I avoid putting myself in the situation, I’m less likely to suffer injury than if I don’t), but the ultimate responsibility still belongs to the owner of that dog.
A snarling, straining dog presents a very real threat of imminent attack; if the owner doesn’t have enough control to stop the dog snarling and straining, it is highly unlikely that owner has enough control to stop the dog biting. Whether it’s the dog’s fault becomes irrelevant in that situation and sometimes the only way to avoid being bitten will be to back off slowly (no, you shouldn’t have to, but avoiding being bitten in that moment is more important than being in the right).
I want to reiterate yet again that the “doggy people” here keep saying that vicious dogs should be reported - loudly, often, and to as many authorities as possible. We are not saying that you should tolerate vicious dogs in your neighbourhood and live in fear of them. We believe, as you do, that those dogs have no place in your community. The point on which we disagree is the extent to which that behaviour is breed-specific vs owner-created.
So is there a possibility that we can start brain-storming some creative solutions?
Aw, c’mon. . . won’t someone please threaten me with a harassment charge?? Pleeeeeeeeaae?? It’s been weeks.
Stop harrasing me about it!!! It’s always me, me, me with you isn’t it? Well what about me? I have feelings to you know!
::Slams door on the way out::
Don’t mean to hijack this- but an 'arguement from authority" is entirely legit, and is an accepted way of giving cites & stuff. An “arguement from authority” is only a logical “fallacy” if we are doing a purely logical arguement- such as “Is there Evil?”. We have here a debate in which facts are important- not just logical rhetoric & reasoning- thus quoting an “authority” is perfectly legit. You might be able to make a point if the 'authority" was quoted on his opinion on the OP- which is “should dangerous dog breeds be destroyed”- however, in this case, the authority is on whether or not PB’s are dangerous- not the OP.
Note, that especially here, on the SDMB- a simple “Cecil said it” is the unlimate in argueing from authority- and not only acceptable- but encouraged.
End of hijack- carry on.
Did anyone ever answer my query as to what were the normal attack warning signs of Pit Bulls?
Some of them are.
Think about it: Cretins who want vicious dogs will seek whichever dog is labeled most agressive. According to the media, this would be pit bulls. So you have all these people getting pit bulls and raising them to attack anyone they can get their teeth on, which reinforces the reputation pit bulls have as being dangerous, which causes them to be even more popular among cretins who want vicious dogs…
It’s a tragic cycle.