Cecil's comment on Pit Bulls

[NajaNivea]

@mangeorge

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?

Yes, mangeorge, and I was not making any arguments against you.

Perhaps my post was unclear. Perhaps I should have said:

“Conspiracy isn’t the right word to describe what is happening with the media bias surrounding pit bulls.”

In other words, I was trying to tell you that to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no organized conspiracy to commit a smear attack against pit bulls. You seemed to then misconstrue my statement, and I tried to correct you. I apologize if you feel my responses to you have been “arguments”. The line you quoted was intended to express that I was unclear what your posts meant, what you were trying to say. You seemed to be arguing that there was a conspiracy by challenging the definition of the word conspiracy, saying that I was wrong to deny its use in this case…? Or saying that I was saying there was an organized conspiracy…? I was unclear, hence my comment.

I have been doing my best to answer your questions as thoughtfully and as articulately as possible. If that seems like “argument” to you, then… well, I don’t know what else to tell you. You refuse to take the time to read what I’ve written. You frequently make sideways comments that appear to be anti-pit-bull in nature (ie stating you believe them to be more dangerous, due to media reports, alluding to the idea that the breed of your daughter’s dog makes it challenge directives) or appear to be ad hoc attacks on me (“ranting”, “unreasonable”).

If I explain myself carefully and thoroughly than I’m ranting. If I refuse to change my point of view in the face of… no appreciable evidence to the contrary, well, I guess I’m going to have to accept your assessment of me as “unreasonable” on the topic. Count me in, guilty of that charge. I’m a “true believer” in gravity, too.

[mercedes1]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

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.

Let me first express my gratitude for your opposition to BSL … good to at least find common ground on one thing.

But if you’re open to any constructive suggestions, I’d encourage you to explore your position on the inherent danger of pits bulls a little more fully. As Naja points out, some of your statements about psychosis, genetic coding, threat levels to children, etc. are inconsistent with the research, personal experiences, and conclusions of many experts in the dog world, and in fact don’t reconcile very well with your own opposition to BSL. They are not inconsistent, however, with views held by many well-meaning protective parents or the mildly interested public at large … Understandable, I suppose, on the surface, but REALLY problematic when those concerns result in government sponsored genocide of entire breeds of dogs.

Your characterization of Naja & me as extremists and implication that our positions are not “based on research” is simply unfair & unfounded. I have no problem with people who believe caution around dogs is wise, and contrary to what you might think, I don’t want my friends & family harmed by dogs either. But I have a BIG problem with unfairly singling out a breed without regard for truth, perspective, expert advice, and a host of other non-breed specific factors. My position on pit bulls is not extreme, but my commitment to defending them is.

[NajaNivea]

@mangeorge

VOD didn’t say “user error”, he/she said “too lazy”. There’s no error. All you have to do is say "get down, Cleo (that’s the pooch’s name) and she does. It’s just if you push her, she stiffens her legs and presses the side of her head (dog hugs) you. Say “get down” and she does. Cleo is very well obedience trained.

Okay, mangeorge is ignoring me, and I know this is kinda beating a dead pit bull, but it did make me laugh reading back over it.

It appears–and keep in mind that I have not met his dog, and that his description of the two events changed from the first post to this one–if we assume that this post is an accurate description of the dog’s behavior, what he is telling us is this:
-That the dog is responsive and obedient the first time she is told.
-That if he pushes on the dog, the dog demonstrates a reflex of dogs and horses, most domestic animals, actually, called an opposition reflex.

…if you pull the dog, the dog reacts by pulling back. If you were to push the dog, they would push back.

-If he repeats the command, the dog is responsive.
-He asserts she is well-trained.

…If his first description is accurate, and daughter’s dog is challenging him with direct eye contact and slow response to commands when told to relinquish resources or territory, then I back my and VOTD’s comments fully. His daughter needs to put more time and effort into training and managing her dog, no matter what the breed.

[mercedes1]

**ManGeorge **-

There appears at least 3 of us on this board who think your posts are either odd, bizarre, or strangley confrontational. There appears no one who refutes that. How many times are you going to fall back on the “I’m just asking questions here” defense? Your questions have been answered, but you don’t seem to like the answers. The only quasi-constructive issue you appear to be exploring is whether there is bias in the media against pit bulls, and you’re leaning towards “No”.

So let’s have it … For, Against, or Undecided on BSL? with explanation please.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@NajaNivea

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.

First, your cite, taken as you intend it to be taken, contradicts the first sentence. Those stats suggest that, for example, Basenji dogs are considerably less safe than pit bulls.

However, those stats are irrelevant. Read on how the stats are gathered. First, they’re gathered on the request of the dog owner. Since I distinguish between owners of Pit bulls who are responsible (and own dogs for whom the hotness has been bred out of them) and those who are irresponsible (and who own hot dogs), this right here invalidates the test. Presumably the only dogs being tested are the ones with responsible owners, skewing the stats fatally for my purposes.

Second, nothing in the test description tests the dog’s reaction to children.

Finally, the idea that “every dog is equally unsafe” is absurd. This is the kind of thing that makes it very hard to take your posts seriously.

mercedes, due respect, your perceived inconsistency in my statements is due to your continued insistence on reading me as an extremist, not paying attention to the distinctions I’m drawing. There’s nothing inconsistent about my statements; they’re consistent with CDC and AVMA documents. I did my original research in this matter when I formulated lesson plans for children on dog safety, and I designed them in accordance with nationally-recognized experts. Of course no dog is 100% safe–but some genetic lines of dogs present a greater danger than other genetic lines.

[NajaNivea]

@LHOD

There’s nothing inconsistent about my statements; they’re consistent with CDC and AVMA documents. I did my original research in this matter when I formulated lesson plans for children on dog safety, and I designed them in accordance with nationally-recognized experts. Of course no dog is 100% safe–but some genetic lines of dogs present a greater danger than other genetic lines.

(emphasis mine)

…Except for the troubling detail that you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever that these assertions are true.
I find this argument troubling because it concerns me that some parents might get the idea that they don’t need to keep as close an eye on their children in the presence of dogs that “look safe” by virtue of their popularly attractive appearance.

If you want to relax your attention around your child in the presence of a cattle drover or toy breed, that is certainly your right as a parent. I, personally, prefer my children not get bitten in the face by any breed, and will be equally cautious around all dogs of all phenotypes and all breeding backgrounds.

[NajaNivea]

…Wait a minute.

LHOD, I specifically asked you for proof of these assertions. You declined, saying that it was an unfair characterization of your beliefs about pit bulls:

@NajaNivea

What I will need from you, and what I have been asking for from the beginning of my involvement in this thread is some proof that:

-a genetic background of selective breeding for dog-aggression and tenacity is linked to human-aggressive traits or an increased rate of dog-bite incidents (bonus points for demonstrating any remotely plausible reason that they are particularly more dangerous than any given breed selectively pressured for human-aggressive traits, or, for that matter, any given breed selectively bred for the killing of any other species of animal).

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Naja, you’re asking me for proof for things I’ve not only not said, but specifically repudiated a couple of weeks ago.

You declined to provide any support for the contention that pit-bred dogs are more dangerous to children than any other breed.

Then you continue to repeat your assertion that pit-bred dogs are more dangerous to children than any other breed.

So which is it?

And why?

[mercedes1]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

mercedes, due respect, your perceived inconsistency in my statements is due to your continued insistence on reading me as an extremist, not paying attention to the distinctions I’m drawing. There’s nothing inconsistent about my statements; they’re consistent with CDC and AVMA documents. I did my original research in this matter when I formulated lesson plans for children on dog safety, and I designed them in accordance with nationally-recognized experts. Of course no dog is 100% safe–but some genetic lines of dogs present a greater danger than other genetic lines.

Please show me where I’ve painted you as an extremist … extremist what? If anything, I find you painfully middle ground, caught somewhere between scared as hell and wanting to sound well-informed. Whether you’ve been inconsistent or not is really not even debatable anymore … **Nava **pointed out the examples and I see no need to bring them again. At some point you need to lose the “You guys just don’t understand me” defense.

I’m really interested to know what you taught those school kids about pit bulls (i.e. what parts of the CDC and AVMA you put in and what parts you left out) … care to share?

[mangeorge]

@mercedes1

**ManGeorge **-

There appears at least 3 of us on this board who think your posts are either odd, bizarre, or strangley confrontational. There appears no one who refutes that. How many times are you going to fall back on the “I’m just asking questions here” defense? Your questions have been answered, but you don’t seem to like the answers. The only quasi-constructive issue you appear to be exploring is whether there is bias in the media against pit bulls, and you’re leaning towards “No”.

So let’s have it … For, Against, or Undecided on BSL? with explanation please.

I had to look up BSL. I thought from Cecil’s article that this thread was about how dangerous pit bulls are, and media coverage of that danger. Guess it took a turn somewhere.
But I am against BSL, but not because of anything said here. I’m against any intrusive legislation unless an exceptional case can be made for that intrusion. This includes guns, marijuana use, gay marriage, and others.
Now I’m off to find “at least” two others who say they my posts meet one or more of those three criteria.
Bizarre? Wow! And imagine me being thought of as confrontational in this company.
Now quit distracting me from my quest for the truth.

[mangeorge]

Here’s all I have so far, unedited. It’s copy protected.

[valleyofthedolls]

@mangeorge

Now I’m off to find “at least” two others who say they my posts meet one or more of those three criteria.

This is going way off-topic but I am one of those people.

Filed under odd and bizarre.

You asked if (post 127):
“the media conspiring to shine an unfair and untrue light on innocent dogs?”

And NajaNivea replied (post 128):
“Conspiring” isn’t the right word, but sensationalism sells, and “Killer Pit Bull Horror Show: Baby Shredded” makes a better story than “Neglected Boxer-mix
Left Chained in Yard Bites Unsupervised Toddler”.

And you replied to her post with (post 129):
Wrong, NajaNivea, “conspiring is exactly the right word.
From m-w:
Quote:
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end
Sensationalism can be an element of conspiracy, but not all (by a long shot) news reports of pitbull-type dog attacks are sensationalized.”

First off: you cherry picked the definition you wanted. M-W’s entry for “conspire” is
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of
conspiring to overthrow the government> b : scheme
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts.>

The first defintion is the one most people use and is what NajaNivea was using when she answered your post. That said, use of the 2nd definition does not prove that the “media was conspiring to shine an unfair and untrue light on innocent dogs.”

To make it clearer to you, the media did not act in harmony to shine an unfair and untrue light on innocent dogs (common end). The media does not act in harmony together. They operate as individual entities and have no common end other than a similar goal of turning as large a profit, for their individual entity, as possible.

And NajaNivea did not conflate sensationalism with conspiracy. You did that. Nor did she say every newspaper article written about pit bulls sensationalized the details which is what I think you’re implying. She did, however, make an excellent argument for a media bias or trend of sensationalizing pit bulls

You can have a media bias on a given subject without a conspiracy behind it. Are you implying otherwise? And yes, reports of pit bull attacks are often sensationalized by the media. It sells.

Filed under strangely confrontational and odd and bizarre.

NajaNivea replied to your post 129 with post 130. You answered with this gem (post 131):
“To begin with, you need to get over the idea that my question was directed at you. It wasn’t. If it was, I’d have quoted you as I am right now. I’m not sly. Maybe you skimmed my post and missed something. I don’t know. But I “claimed” nothing, I asked a question, And it wasn’t limited to “all” media.”

NajaNivea answered your inquiries with two very thoughtful and rational posts (posts 128 and 130) and you slammed her, for no good reason. If you disagreed with something she said or took offense to something she said, explain yourself rather than be insulting.

Filed under strangely confrontational and odd and bizarre (you hit the trifecta twice, go you).

Then there is this (post 174):
NajaNivea is a True Believer. That doesn’t mean she’s bad, it only means she’s unreasonable.

By the definitions you used from M-W (in post 196), there’s nothing wrong (which you imply) with being “a person who professes absolute belief in something” or a “zealous supporter of a particular cause.”

What’s wrong with an absolute belief in something or being a zealous supporter of a cause? I’m pretty sure Martin Luther King Jr. absolutely believed in civil rights equality for African-Americans. He was also pretty zealous about said cause. Did that make him unreasonable? If you’re using the term “true believer” in the perjorative sense, which I believe you are, then you are confusing “true believer” with “true believer syndrome.” The two are very different.

You also said in response to post 194 (post 196):
“Unreasonable are her attacks on my gentle inquiries and replies.”

Are you referring to this (post 181)?:
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.

In which case, you deserved it. You labeled her posts “rants” and called her a "true believer (meant in a perjorative sense) and “unreasonable.” Who wouldn’t take offense at remarks like this particularly when said posts have been extraordinarily restained, well-argued and completely rational.

If you’re referring to any other “attacks,” would you please quote from them or list the post number because I just don’t see it.

Filed under odd and bizarre.

Your post in response to post 191(post 193):
“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.”

Post 130 seemed to really set you off in some strangely confrontation and odd and bizarre manner (posts 131, 193, 197 and 199).

This is NajaNivea’spost 130 in its entirety:
“Use of that word implies that all “media” got together and decided to act collectively in concert.
That is absolutely not what I am suggesting, implying, or claiming is occurring. When I said it was the wrong word, that’s what I meant. There is no organized conspiracy at work here. What you are claiming, I’m not entirely sure.”

What do you find offensive about this post at least according to your replies in 131, 193, 197 and 199?

Now I know you’ve got your own personal definition of what conspiring means (post 137):
I’ll have to go back and read my odd reaction. My question is genuine. The meaning of “conspiracy” has wandered from the strict dictionary entry.
Conservatives started it with claiming “Liberal mass media agenda” and the “Gay agenda” conspiracies, and others. Direct co-operative planning is no longer required."

But that doesn’t mean everyone uses your definition. I’m not going to get into the difference between an angenda and a conspiracy but I will say what I said
before: There is a huge difference between a media bias or trend and a conspiracy.

You asked NajaNivea if there was a conspiracy. She said no, there was no conspiracy but there was a media bias towards sensationalizing pit bull attacks.

How is this a straw man?

Using your beloved Merriam-Webster dictionary, a straw man is defined as:

Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
Date: 1886
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

A straw man works (according to Wikipedia) like this:

Person A has position X

You didn’t have a position. You had a question, remember?
"Is the media conspiring to shine an unfair and untrue light on innocent dogs?

Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y.

Where did NajaNivea disregard key points of your question? And where did she present superficially-similar Y? If you think it is because she used a different definition than the one you and only you use than you’re wrong. She answered you directly. She disagreed with you. She refused to conflate sensationalism with conspiracy (rightly so). And she didn’t use the narrow parameters you set on the word “conspiring.” This does not make a straw man.

I know I am going to come across as rude (even though that’s not my intention) but you remind me of people who learned English as 2nd language. You miss a
lot of nuances people born in the United States or Canada dont miss, your phrasing and cadence is off and you don’t seem to understand the imagery your
writing conveys (particularly in posts 147 and 154).

In any event, I’ve entered the twilight zone with this post. That’s enough from me other than to say pit bulls rock.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@NajaNivea

…Wait a minute.

LHOD, I specifically asked you for proof of these assertions. You declined, saying that it was an unfair characterization of your beliefs about pit bulls:

You declined to provide any support for the contention that pit-bred dogs are more dangerous to children than any other breed.

Then you continue to repeat your assertion that pit-bred dogs are more dangerous to children than any other breed.

So which is it?

And why?

OKay, I confess I may have misread you before. Remember how I said earlier brevity is the soul of wit? I stand by that.

What you’re asking for is damned near impossible. There’s clearly a correlation between dogs being bred for dog-aggression and attacks on humans: pit bulls account for a high level of attacks on humans. What sort of double-blind randomized study are you theoretically proposing that could establish a causal link between the two?

[NajaNivea]

Wait… you’re using a link to a website run by a shystery dog-bite attorney outfit to “prove” your point? In direct opposition to the CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association?

…you’re going to have to do better than that.

I’ll tell you what. I won’t even ask for “proof”, since none exists. Why don’t you just give me some remotely plausible explanation for why a thirty five pound dog bred to fight other dogs is more appropriately de facto “vicious” than any number of 80-100lb+ breeds bred to fight and/or kill human beings? Or, for that matter, any number of breeds bred to fight and kill other species of animals?

Just… some remotely plausible theory we can discuss. Something. Why would the drive to fight and kill other dogs translate to “murdering babies” in a way that, say, the drive to fight and kill raccoons, badgers, foxes, wild boar, or human beings would not?

We’ve already rejected the “psychosis” theory, but if there was anything unclear about my explanation there I’ll be happy to revisit it for you.
PS: ye gods, VOTD, thanks

[mercedes1]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

OKay, I confess I may have misread you before. Remember how I said earlier brevity is the soul of wit? I stand by that.

What you’re asking for is damned near impossible. There’s clearly a correlation between dogs being bred for dog-aggression and attacks on humans: pit bulls account for a high level of attacks on humans. What sort of double-blind randomized study are you theoretically proposing that could establish a causal link between the two?

LHOD, in your thorough exploration of the shyster’s website, perhaps you overlooked this little tid bit from the Ohio Supreme Court (2006).

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a “well-known fact” that pit bulls are “unpredictable,” “vicious” creatures owned only by “drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members,” or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] … As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on “common knowledge” and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving “vicious dog” laws, especially from the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. … The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

If the high court of Ohio finds it necesary to reconsider issues and base decisions on actual evidence, maybe you can to.

[mercedes1]

@mangeorge

I had to look up BSL. [removed text] But I am against BSL, but not because of anything said here. I’m against any intrusive legislation unless an exceptional case can be made for that intrusion.

Mangeorge, maybe this linkwill enhance your understanding of BSL … warning graphic images … but apparently this aspect of BSL is not what bothers you. Perhaps some images of Denver Animal Control entering people’s houses to seize these animals for no reason other than their breed/appearance might resonate a little better for you.

Admittedly I’m relying on the Westword reporters as to the veracity of these photos, but more than one source I’ve read say they were taken by a Denver shelter employee and that these dogs were specifically part of the Denver “round-up”.

[NajaNivea]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

There’s clearly a correlation between dogs being bred for dog-aggression and attacks on humans: pit bulls account for a high level of attacks on humans.

…and just on the off chance that any more commentary on the absurdity of this “evidence” is needed, the shyster spends a good portion of his (and nearly all of his breed-specific) time referencing the Clifton report which was debunked all the way back on page one of this thread.

Furthermore, toward the end there Mr. Shyster directly refutes your assertion that your vigilance toward your child should be relaxed in the company of familiar dogs, with statistics that apparently come from the CDC and which are generally supported on page 1741 of the AVMA report:

Studies of dog bite injuries have reported that:

* The median age of patients bitten was 15 years, with children, especially boys aged 5 to 9 years, having the highest incidence rate
* The odds that a bite victim will be a child are 3.2 to 1. (CDC.)
* Children seen in emergency departments were more likely than older persons to be bitten on the face, neck, and head. 77% of injuries to children under 10 years old are facial.
* Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age.
* The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place. 
* The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend. 
* When a child less than 4 years old is the victim, the family dog was the attacker half the time (47%), and the attack almost always happened in the family home (90%). 

My WA-but-reasonably-educated guess on why this is so? Because people tend to relax their vigilance around dogs they perceive as “safe”. They stop paying attention, their five-year-old tries to shove something into Spot’s ear, and Spot snaps at cheeks, lips, chins, and necks, because that’s how dogs tell other dogs they are hurting them and to stop their behavior.

No dog is 100% safe. Any dog can bite. Every breed can kill. Even the cute and familiar ones.
You know, LHOD, I’m not trying to pick on you or anything, and maybe I really shouldn’t care what erroneous stereotypes you walk around with in your mind, but it seems to me that every time you look askance at, or tighten your grip on your child around some random person’s pet that you perceive as “pit bull type”, you are reinforcing the myth, the urban legend, in the minds of everyone around you. You are demonstrating belief in, and support for the idea that "those dogs can’t be trusted, and especially not with children".

You are also simultaneously expressing belief in and support for the idea that dogs of other breeds can be especially trusted with children, a dangerous notion that leads to hundreds of thousands of physically and emotionally scarred children.

I love dogs, I love dogs of all sizes, shapes, colors, and background. I’ve devoted both my personal and professional lives to working with them. I also know that animals are not people and that they cannot communicate in the same ways that we do. Their actions and reactions are nearly always predictable, instinctual, and circumstance-driven. You cannot blame a dog for being a dog or for reacting as a dog does*, but you can, as a parent, be carefully vigilant over your child in the company of any animal, to see that your child always interacts with the animal safely and respectfully, to see that the dog is instructed on his or her own proper deportment around children, and so that you can be on hand to read the dog’s body language because to your child, a nervous, fear-biting Dalmatian looks an awful lot like a poor scared doggie that needs a hug.
I am not trying to hound you. If you have theories to support your beliefs, I would love to explore them. I am simply trying to show you that the views you are clinging to are views to which most dog bites are directly attributable. Nearly all dog bites are preventable. Most of them are preventable simply by remaining vigilant and supervisory over your children’s interactions with any dog.

*My favorite soundbite on this comes from my husband, who said a couple days ago as we were discussing this: “All dogs bite. Dogs bite. Dogs are dogs, and people are stupid.”

That pretty much sums it up.

[NajaNivea]

…a dangerous notion that leads to hundreds of thousands of physically and emotionally scarred children.

Not to mention, dead dogs.

I hope people don’t think I’m trying to tell people to be afraid of all dogs, or keep their kids away from dogs. Like I said, I love dogs, and I think this world would be a better place if our dogs were still as much a part of our general everyday lives as they used to be. I do think, though, that a lot of people have forgotten that dogs are dogs: socially hierarchical, pack-oriented carnivores with their own thought and behavior patterns. They’ve come a long way phenotypically from wolves, but not so far genotypically.

[mangeorge]

@mercedes1

Mangeorge, maybe this linkwill enhance your understanding of BSL … warning graphic images … but apparently this aspect of BSL is not what bothers you. Perhaps some images of Denver Animal Control entering people’s houses to seize these animals for no reason other than their breed/appearance might resonate a little better for you.

Admittedly I’m relying on the Westword reporters as to the veracity of these photos, but more than one source I’ve read say they were taken by a Denver shelter employee and that these dogs were specifically part of the Denver “round-up”.

There you go again. I didn’t say abuse of these animals and their owner didn’t bother me. I knew of these practices. I didn’t know what “BSL” stood for. We don’t have those laws here. When I say I’m against intrusive legislation, that certainly doesn’t exclude BSL. Does my opposition have to be based posts on this thread?

[mangeorge]

What NajaNivea said that I called a “straw man” was"

What you are claiming, I’m not entirely sure.

“Claiming” seems like an imaginary adversary, similar to my arguement (actually, question). I may well be unsure what the term means, but my meaning is clear, in that I claimed nothing.
And I read over my posts, and read the one of your’s I’m responding to, and found nothing “bizzare”. “Odd”? Could be, but that’s a long way from bizarre.
Is this post “bizarre”?

[NajaNivea]

Would someone please do me the kindness of copying post #201 to him, explaining eighteen posts ago that I made the comment because I had no idea what the holy living hell he was going on about?