Right. Well, your continued insistence on referring to me with snide, negative remarks demonstrates that you’re not in here just to read, discuss, and learn.
I’m a “true believer” in the sense that facts and experience are on my side, thus I feel strongly and will argue my case effectively. I’m not a “true believer” in the sense that I am unreasonable and blind to argument, as my most recent response to hamhawk surely demonstrates.
If you dispute something I have said, then make it clear. Stop making offhand remarks about my personality and character in place of topical discussion.
Sure, you do the math. three-quarters of a million dollars per municipal or county region, per year. How many areas in the US alone? All of Australia? The UK? Much of western Europe? Definitely not hyperbole.
And besides, what’s with the dollar count nitpicking? One dollar is too much to spend killing innocent dogs over an urban legend much less at the very least many, *many *millions… without a single demonstrable benefit to public safety, whatsoever.
…then why don’t you knock it off with the personal character assessments and address the content of my posts? When you accuse me of “ranting” and being a “true believer” and “unreasonable” without any supporting evidence for these opinions, that is offensive and uncalled for.
Disagreeing with the content of my argument is one thing. Snarky personal comments are uncalled for. I am treating you with respect and answering your questions as thoroughly and as accurately as I can on an important and complex topic. I expect the same regard from you.
It’s a shame that Naja, who by any stretch has the experience, passion, and credibility to be here, has to waste her breath on folks like HamHawk and Mangeorge.
It’s not that their points differ from hers, it’s that they seemingly have no valid points at all. By valid, I mean something other than shallow ‘bar room’ opinions, nitpicking, stereotyping, childish defiance (e.g. “I’m right and you’re wrong”, “I’m going to ignore you”), contradictory logic, made up statistics, selective responses, underdeveloped premises, fear-driven paranoia and well flat-out fibbing.
To get us back on topic and cut to the chase, perhaps HamHawk, Mangeorge, LHOD, and others who have anti-pit bull leanings could tell us where they stand on the BSL issue and why: **For it, Against it, or Undecided? ** … because frankly I don’t care if you want to go thru life with delusional pit bull notions, I only care if you want to kill mine and thousands of other innocent pets (or should I say endorse laws that do).
mercedes, I’ve already answered your question, I believe. If I haven’t, the fact that I argued in favor of our animal shelter adopting out pit bulls ought to indicate my stand on BSL. In short: I oppose it, for much the same reasons you do.
The problem is, I think, that you and Naja seem to categorize all views of dogs at one extreme or the other, with no room for nuance. Mine is not extreme: mine is based on research and personal experience, and it is that pit bull-type dogs are more likely than, say, Golden Retrievers to present a threat to children, and if I don’t know the dog or owner personally, I will be more on alert around a pit-bull-type dog than around a Golden Retriever. That’s it. That’s what I stated before.
If in your world that constitutes a delusion, well, somehow I think I’ll be able to sleep at night.
I’m pretty sure that says “seems”. Which, to me, leads directly to the next sentence, then to the question.
And here’s NajaNivea’s reply:
But “conspiracy” was exactly what I as asking about, so I explained that:
Note that I haven’t “claimed” anything, then read her reply in #130, I think it was.
A straw man if ever I saw one.
I’m not anti pitbull at all, which is obvious in my other replies.
What evidence do you have that she’s a “true believer” and is "unreasonable?
Her posts are extraordinarily well-written and argued and underwritten by legitimate source material. That you don’t like what she has to say doesn’t mean it is not true. And ad hoc arguments certainly undermine any shred of credibility to your (and others) arguments. If you disagree with what she has to say, then prove your argument. Don’t make ad hoc attacks, cherry pick facts and play weird semantics games. Otherwise, you become the true believer.
Up to this point I’d made absolutely no claims for her to argue against. I’ve only asked a question, then explained that question. Do I have the wrong idea what a straw man is?
So somebody who has a wealth of knowledge of the subject they are speaking, with well articulated arguments, research and science on their side, who has linked to many subject matter experts that happen to support their position is unreasonable.
Mean while the guy who doesn’t care to research or even read Naja’s whole post and is running off of gut feeling is being reasonable.
It frustrates me that so many really know the meaning of common words. Those qualities you mention have nothing to do with reasonableness. The use of straw man arguement, as mentioned above and exampled in the now famous post #130 is unreasonable. Or is it.
Who is “Jerry”? Nevermind, I’ll google it.
Well, fine, LHOD… peachy keen and dandy. As mercedes1 said, so long as you are not voting to enact legislation that affects other dog owners, you are free to believe whatever you like, no matter how erroneous.
I hope the commentary above means that you are 100%, completely glue-eyed vigilant around dogs of all breeds, and that you are extra-super-mathematically-impossible-percentage vigilant around dogs you perceive as “pit type”.
If you have learned nothing else in this thread, the one fact you should have gleaned is that every dog is equally unsafe. Your child is statistically no safer with a Golden Retriever, a Dachshund, or a Dalmatian than with an American Pit Bull Terrier.
By all means, I am not urging you to be less vigilant around pit bulls, I am urging you to be equally–completely–vigilant with any dog of any breed. The cute, little, fluffy cocker spaniels and “pit bull types” alike.
