VOorheES-ToUcH
Feb 2004
Ita£ian0
|
Seriously im done, its too much. You come with these 4 word half thought replys. And think you have won the conversation, in a real debate you would have lost 4 posts ago.
The paedos are to the human as the bad dogs are to the pit breed. You dont jail/kill ppl that dont fuk kids just because there are some ppl that do fuk kids, and you dont kill the dogs that dont kill kids. Sure you can say that the paedos are to the humans as the pits are to the dog race. Which is what you are trying to say, this doesnt work because based on your logic the pit is the paedo of the dog world. The reason this doesnt work is because it goes back to the argument that a pit bull is any worse for the community than any other dog, as the paedo is worse than any other breed of sicko. To be able to say that you need factual evidence to prove the pit bull is any worse than any other breed. The reason why this doesnt work is because the facts do not point to this.
Dog involved in most fatal attacks since 1998: Rottweiler
Dog with one of the lowest temperament scores: Standard Schnauzer, 66.1% (compare that with the APBT 83.5% or the AST 83.3%)
Dogs most involved in attacks:Mutt
To make things worse the pit breed is comprised of 3 different sub-breeds, but when an attack takes place do you think it goes under staffordshire terrier? Or Amstaff terrier? No they are all lumped together in one category meaning that they should add up quicker. The more dogs in the category the bigger chance of having a mentally screwed up one(or one which was screwed by owner). Not to mention all the mutt bites that get classified as "Pit Bull" attack either by media hype (pit bull attacks sell) or misinformed idiots who think a dog is a pit because it has cropped ears, or a barral chest, or a big square head. That and the fact that a big factor in attack rate is the popularity of the dog. The more dogs of a particular breed in the community the higher chance that breed will be involved in an attack. You are not thinking about this thing all the way around, you are so worried about debunking any little detail from my posts as you can that you are not looking at the big picture, in other words your posts are not informed.
So why should the pit be the paedo of the dog world, and not any of the aforementioned breeds? Right. It makes more sense to judge the dog based on its personality and temparment rather than its breed.
All in all your wrong, both of you are wrong. You can come with your shitty kindergarten comebacks all day, anyone who really goes through this thread with an unbiased mind will be able to see that not only are you terribly wrong on all of your points, and i do mean all of them. But your debating skills are mediocre if not outright poor.
Back in your cage monkeys, i need some sleep. I will be back to own your ridiculous petty un-thought out replys tomorrow, as long as it doesnt get too ridiculous. Its as if im arguing with either a couple of early teenagers who do not know when they have lost, foreigners who lack the ability to comprehend basic logic in the english language, or a couple of tards that dont know tit from twat. Im betting on the latter...
::edit::
quote:
Originally posted by danimal39
statistics on breeds most likely to aim or kill http://dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks...6%20Clifton.pdf
The big problem with that is it says right at the top that unidentified breeds were not counted. In actuality mutts are on the top of the "most prone to bite" list and Rottweilers take the top of fatal attacks, and have since 1998. That and you can never tell if the numbers or even the analyses is correct. That whole thing was compiled by a single person (the editor of some animag). In any case i have never seen that one, so good find bro.
__________________
" Che di spada ferisce di spada perisce "
R.I.P
�_ Marlo McQuillar �_
�_ Petar "Decko" Ragus �_
Last edited by VOorheES-ToUcH on 08-01-2007 at 04:19 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
07-31-2007 02:53 PM
