Understood.
What I am unclear on, is, is it possible for an argument to be stupid and / or to have reading comprehension problems, as noted in post 809 above.? Aren’t those attributes that can only be insulting to the poster they were direct to?
“Reading comprehension” is borderline and can get Modded both ways depending on context and presentation.
An argument may be stupid without actually claiming that the person presenting it is stupid.
Galileo tried to present the stupid argument that the tides were governed by the rotation of the earth around its axis in conjunction with the earth’s annual circuit around the sun, but he was hardly stupid.
Per Wikipedia,
Stupid : a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or sense.
Corvettes possess neither intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or sense.
Stupid Galileo parked his Corvette in the fire lane.
-not-
Galileo parked his stupid Corvette in the fire lane.
Unless, Galileo had reading comprehension skills, of course.
Stupid:
“stupidity has taken place along with “fool,” “idiot,” “dumb,” “moron,” and related concepts as a pejorative appellation for human misdeeds, whether purposeful or accidental, due to absence of mental capacity.”
The first generation Corvette was introduced late in the 1953 model year. Galileo died January 8, 1642.
Dragon Ash requested LD to provide evidence that fatal attacks attributed to pit bulls, were actually not pit bulls.
LD accuses DA of making stupid posts, and of having reading comprehension problems, claiming he has done so, when in fact, his cite to the 2011 NCRC study, does NOT prove they were breeds other than pit bulls - the NCRC says in 3 cases they could obtain no new evidence, and therefore could not render a decision either way (pit or no pit), or in 15 cases where they did obtain either photos or documents (that the NCRC failed to present in their report) - in these 15 cases with new evidence - the NCRC states again that they could not decide either way (pit or no pit).
Isn’t it as deceiving of LD to make this claim, as it is for DA to have reading comprehension skills?
LD incorrectly states " Here is the actual 2011 report, as published. It demonstrates that a total of 3 deaths from that year actually were the result of the 2 breeds referred to as pit bulls"
That NCRC report does in no way prove only 3 fatal’s in 2011 were by pit bulls. It reports that the NCRC could not decide either way if they were pits or NOT, in each instance. It is also incorrect to state that 2 breeds are referred to as pit bulls.
Both statements are deceptive, and I have proven it with cites, including LD own 2011 NCRC cite.
I insist that Dragon Ash’s repeated request for evidence of fatal pit bull attacks, that were later ruled to not be pit bulls, is not a stupid post, nor does DA have reading comprehension skills for failing to comprehend that the conclusion from the NCRC 2011 study proves they were not pit bulls.
Maybe I was referring to Sir Gallileo, of Montclair, NJ, alive in 2013 (run a peekyou on the name and state)…rumored to be doing time for spying on his neighbors wife in the shower with his Celestron telescope with infrared night vision
Dude drove a Hyundai though. :dubious:
This is beyond ridiculous. DragonAsh hasn’t even commented on the NCRC study, so why would his reading comprehension skills have been called into question for failing to understand it? You do realize that makes absolutely no sense?
Aside from spamming this thread and stalking me for the past 12 hours, do you have anything more to add?
Who’s stalking who.
You may want to go back and review your posts 771, 709, 728, 667, 672 and my favorite
693 “Oh look, another wall of shit from coug.”
All of these posts were derogatory and directed to me, and they were made after posts made by myself to other SDMB posters, not you.
This is a debate forum. I do not stalk, I am an equal opportunity debater of those who of are in denial of the dangers of pit bulls.
complaining to the SDMB mod’s of trivial shit, while forgetting of your own posts, is a trademark sign of a pit bull denier caught red handed in facts.
If you can’t win a debate, get the other member banned.
Anyone following my posts knows that I do not give a rats ass about any one members posts - I annihilate every members post with facts when I call them out.
Seriously, go back and review your own posts 771, 709, 728, 667, 672 and my favorite 693 “Oh look, another wall of shit from coug.”, and let me know who you think is stalking who.
No one is stalking anyone. Its a debate forum.
Confucius say: “Man who do not like panties in knots, should avoid putting panties in blender”
But per your request, this will be the last reply to any post made by you in any SDMB forum. You however, have my permission to stalk, err, reply, to my comments, just try not to be as rude as you were in your posts 771, 709, 728, 667, 672 and my favorite 693 “Oh look, another wall of shit from coug.” Or not, as I really care not.
Labrador Deceiver cannot get you banned. You, however, will make that happen if you keep doing this like this. Both of you need to stop making this a personal fight instead of a discussion.
It’s impossible to discuss. He has done little more than post wall after wall of virtually incomprehensible text, which has essentially stifled any kind of discussion anyone would like to have within the thread. I haven’t made it personal, at all.
OK
Lets start back with these posts, to restart this debate:
687 “It is not my obligation to prove they are wrong, it is their obligation to provide evidence for their claims. The burden of proof is on them.”
722 “Bullshit. They need to back up their assertions. They don’t get to claim anything they want without supporting evidence. “
Yet this same poster, cite the NCRC study, despite the fact the the NCRC study does not provide their evidence (newly obtained photos, and/or documents"
Lets use that same poster logic:
“Bullshit. They need to back up their assertions. They don’t get to claim anything they want without supporting evidence. it is their obligation to provide evidence for their claims. The burden of proof is on them.”
So where are the photos and documents the NCRC claims they have, in their report.
Good for goose; good for gander.
While we’re waiting, lets looking into the National Canine Research Council (NCRC), and its founder, Karen Delise, Licensed Vet Tech (LVT), whose book, “the Pit Bull Placebo” was dedicated to her own pit bull in the preface:
Karen Delise wrote a letter to the editor of the Annals of Surgery with her thoughts on the April 2011 publication of, Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs by Doctors Bini, Cohen et al.
Full disclosure by Ms. Delise would have shown that the National Canine Research Council, LLC is owned by the same individual that owns Animal Farm Foundation whose mission statement is: “Securing equal treatment and opportunity for ‘Pit Bull’ dogs.”
Ms. Delise discusses the death of James Chapple Jr. Chapple, 59-years old, had just gotten off the bus and was walking home when two dogs ran out from an auto repair shop and attacked him. The pit bulls ripped off his entire left hand and badly mauled his right arm. The injuries Chapple sustained required the amputation of his lower left arm. She states that “Mr. Chapple received severe injuries but fully recovered and was discharged from the hospital.” Mr. Chapple’s left arm was amputated, his right arm was badly mauled. A full recovery is impossible in this circumstance. Mr. Chapple’s injuries were so severe that a bill changing Tennessee law regarding vicious dogs was introduced. Video equipment was set up in Mr. Chapple’s hospital room so he could testify to legislators. Mr. Chapple lived long enough to see the bill signed into law. There are several reasons for discharge from the hospital, one is recovery, and another is that there is no further treatment that can be offered to the patient, they are discharged home with family care and Home Health nursing care. The listing of cardiovascular complications on the death certificate would not be unexpected. As a Cardiac Rehab nurse noted, one would expect cardiovascular deterioration in a newly disabled person with underlying coronary artery disease.
Another area of discrepancy is Ms. Delise’s “Unresolvable disagreement as to breed descriptor.” That case involved a two month old infant residing in Waianae, Hawaii, killed in the family home by a dog that Ms. Delise claims was a “Sharpei mix” and “not a pit bull.” A review of police records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows the Honolulu Police Department Scientific Investigation Section report of a buccal swab sample “recovered from the mouth of a “pit-bull/shar-pei mixed dog.” The location named in the report was the Honolulu City and County Morgue. Page 5 of 6 of the Police Incident report names the dog as a “Sharpei/pitbull mix” as does a Follow Up report dated 10-5-08, and the CID Closing report dated 1/05/09, page 3 of 4. In the complete police report the dog is never identified as simply a “Sharpei mix.”
The point is, the NCRC was unable to verify any of the breeds listed in the media reports. The burden of proof is on those who claim the breed statistics, and they have failed to prove anything. Try again.
a two month old infant residing in Waianae, Hawaii, killed in the family home by a dog that Ms. Delise / NCRC claims was a “Sharpei mix” and “not a pit bull.” A review of police records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows the Honolulu Police Department Scientific Investigation Section report of a buccal swab sample “recovered from the mouth of a “pit-bull/shar-pei mixed dog.” The location named in the report was the Honolulu City and County Morgue. Page 5 of 6 of the Police Incident report names the dog as a “Sharpei/pitbull mix” as does a Follow Up report dated 10-5-08, and the CID Closing report dated 1/05/09, page 3 of 4. In the complete police report the dog is never identified as simply a “Sharpei mix.”
The burden of proof is on the NCRC.
Honolulu Police used a buccal swab sample to make their claim, and I have listed where it can be found
Nope, burden of proof is on those making the claim. That would include the original report.
Missed edit:
They are claiming a put bull mix is not a pit bull, which is what the evidence supports.
Has cougar yet managed to locate any scientific evidence showing that pitbull’s are fundamentally different than other dogs? Not more statistics, actual scientific studies of the breed itself?
Yeah I didn’t think so.
Yawn.
If any such scientific studies demonstrating that pit bulls are in some fundamental way neurologically different from other dogs, So that, unlike all other dogs, they are Unpredictably aggressive towards humans, be sure to share.
It seems hardly a stretch, given that it is extraordinary obvious that different breeds of dog DO have behavioural differences.