[Modding]
Dutchman, telling another poster to go fuck himself is a violation of the Pit language rules outlined here. Please avoid such usages in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Modding]
Incidentally, Jesus Fucking Christ, did I use the Idiot-Size tags for no reason? In post 91, I quote MYSELF discussing the psychosis in the Idiot-Size tags, and you STILL missed it, thinking I was trying to distance myself from that!
FWIW, I now think that “psychosis” is a poor choice of words, ONLY because it’s a medical term with a medical meaning, and I was using it loosely to refer to a set of extreme, horrifying, inherited behavioral traits. I cannot prove, nor do I especially believe, that a dog’s hotness is based on a disconnect from reality (one could make such a case, based on the dog’s willingness to continue fighting long after death is very likely for the dog, but I won’t make that case). “Insanity” might be a better word to choose.
I consider this a side issue, however, since I don’t think anyone ever attacked my argument based on the medical meaning of the term: everyone seemed to understand what I meant by the word “psychosis.” It was all the other words that confused them.
Then just quote me one fucking time saying it [edit: “it” being the things I’ve denied saying, not the psychosis business which I quoted myself saying here], instead of linking to tons of other posts in which I said, y’know, other things. The home audience can certainly see that I’m not saying what you think I’m saying (right, home audience?) It’s only you who can’t see that.
No. The worst thing is that somehow you’re allowed to use a computer, despite having the reading comprehension of a box turtle.
Heh.
Thanks for the callout, but rigor indeed has now truly set in, and I find my typing fingers incapable of continuing to engage that thread any further. It’s an effort wasted on her, although some lurkers might have their ignorance fought.
I have no problem using dogs to help hunt feral pigs, an invasive, destructive, and potentially-dangerous species. The dogs have fun and most of them learn how to not get killed while you get close enough to the melee to put a round or three into the boar.
I should say something here:
I withdraw, tentatively, my previous objection to hunting hogs with dogs. I withdraw it because, on reading further on the subject, it sounds as if it’s the most effective way to hunt hogs. My initial objection was based on a belief that (to quote myself) “historically, boar hunting with dogs may have been the best choice…I do not believe that’s the case today; today I believe it is a blood sport, and not moral.” Consider my ignorance fought on this subject, and I apologize to Naja therefore.
The withdrawal (and subsequent apology) is tentative because my further reading is from Naja, who I believe to be a consummately unreliable source of information. Stipulating that she’s right in this case, the apology is there.
Noted.
A careful reading of the rule suggests that I can tell Bricker to go fornicate or copulate himself. Have I got that right ?
Ah. So “psychosis” is not the right word because it’s a human clinical term, but “insanity” is right in. 
How about you just go ahead and plug the term “insanity” into this post, it reads exactly the same.
You are something extra-special. Do you want links to the discussions where you pitched on in to yammer about how “game” pit dogs are substantially more likely to attack, and to attack fatally, small children? 'Cause that’s no problem, punkin.
Here, for example, when pressed for clarification on the topic, you did not dispute the stance, but cited a shystery fucking dog bite attorney trolling for plaintiffs, as “evidence” to support your “claim”. When you got the smackdown there… no more LHOD. Big surprise!
Answer the friggin question.
You and I know why you are dodging it. I want everyone else to know as well.
At least you are still trying to stay in this fight. Bricker would have just pretended he didn’t hear a difficult challenge.
I believe I already did that;
No you didn’t Bubba
Again… seriously? Do you really need me to explain to you why this line of argument is just as categorically asinine as the rest of your “animal rights”, ad hominem, and “appeal to emotion” bullshit? Are you disputing that feral hogs are dangerous, or do you just somehow believe that if more people are killed by dogs than hogs, that this has anything whatsoever to do with the discussion about whether or not it’s necessary to kill feral hogs?
The answer is, we don’t know for sure how many deaths are caused by wild hogs, that number isn’t accounted for in any recent survey, specifically. You could find out by doing an in-depth search of the CDC’s death reports database.
But… uh, why does it matter? Does the number of people killed or maimed by feral hogs have some connection with the discussion over whether or not it’s morally justifiable to kill them? Can you leetle pea brain conceive of no other reasons why it might be necessary? None at all?
Let me ask you something, sparky. what do you hope to prove, here? What, precisely is the position you’re hoping to gain support for? That killing hogs is ethically wrong?
You’re an idiot.
Get one and then you can come back. Stupid, stupid remark.
Explain to me, exactly, what you didn’t understand about that, please.
Sigh. Whether or not my question is of any use to you is not the issue. I want to know how many people are killed each year by these “dangerous” hogs.
So much stupid, so little time…
Wow. You say all of this and then go on to post absurd nonsense. Before we get to that, regarding the above - the United Kennel Club and whatever clubs govern the American Pit Bull Terrier have been empowered to say precisely what is meant by the term when speaking of their breed. Yet, as I think you are trying to point out, the masses-which-are-asses have taken the term “pit bull” and applied it to not only APBTs but many other breeds as well as mixed breed, you then go on to say…
Say what? Calling any dog that the public is afraid of a “pit bull” is consistent??
No, they are (usually) talking about a dog with some mix of bull and terrier in it, either recently or generations ago when the breed it is was created. Not a mastiff. However, there have also been times when the media has identified dogs that look nothing like a mastiff, bulldog or terrier as a “pit bull”.
You mean, like this dog?
No, there isn’t. Just as humans have different levels of likelihood to maim and kill, so do dogs. It is generally referred to as bite inhibition - I’ve had dogs with broken bones that didn’t try to bite, and others that would bite if I was just cutting their nails.
I don’t usually bother with this but - cite? I’ve know a lot of people who have been bitten by a dog, and none of them have ever gone into shock.
Well, at least you are sort of right about that…
I am neither stupid nor a liar.
Sorry, didn’t mean for you to get your panties all in a wad.
ValleyoftheDolls stands by her assertion that Whole Bean is a fear-mongering fool who perpetuates falsehoods and stereotypes for no other reason than sheer ignorance.
So, now we can add sanctimonious prick to your incredibly long list of negative attributes?
Yes, much better to attack me than to shore up your woefully insufficient argument.
As I mentioned in my post above, I have no stake in this, one way or another. I don’t hunt hogs, don’t own pitbulls, mastiffs, or indeed any dogs, and hadn’t really thought much about the implications of the use of dogs to hunt hogs until this thread caught my eye. I didn’t participate in prior threads on the subject.
So my reaction to the issue is based on what was said in this thread, and the GD thread that was mentioned at the beginning. (I’ll acknowledge that I haven’t read the ATMB thread that was later mentioned). Based on that, I saw one person offering what appeared to be reasonable argument and reasonable cites, and his attackers relying on personal invective and appeals to emotion. That’s what I said.
And your response is to attack me.
That offers some good insight into what your tactical problems might have been in the GD thread. And I’ll observe again that it’s really funny that, confronted with the stark observation that you haven’t offered compelling arguments, your go-to response is to devote your awesome brainpower to the question of how to tell me to go fuck myself while remaining within the letter of the law here.
Perhaps turning a bit of that keen intellect of yours to the problem of fashioning a persuasive, logical argument would bear dividends. Just a thought.
Right. Do an in-depth search of the CDC death records database, and let us know, would you?
In the meantime, what does the number of hog-related fatalities have to do with this discussion? Is it your contention that a wild boar is not a dangerous animal? Or is your argument that the only morally justifiable reason to kill something is if it kills you first?