Princess Dyadem wrote:
BSL....Breed Specific Legislation.
It sucks.
It sucks.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- I really love German Shepherds, but....
I really love German Shepherds, but....Follow
I don't see where that applies here. If it had been a police bloodhound mauled by a Afghan hound the results would be the same.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Princess Dyadem wrote:
BSL....Breed Specific Legislation.
It sucks.
It sucks.
I'm not sure that's true. The emotional response to the words "pit bull" these days puts any attack by them in a unique category, no matter how many chows, Rottweilers, etc. snap out and attack people or other animals.
The mental image of an Afghan hound attacking is pretty amusing, though.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Harming a police dog is a crime though. Not "harming a police dog via pit bull". I'd have to see a history of polie dogs killed by other breeds without reprisal before I accept that this has anything to do with anti-pit bull hysteria.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Harming a police dog is a crime though. Not "harming a police dog via pit bull". I'd have to see a history of polie dogs killed by other breeds without reprisal before I accept that this has anything to do with anti-pit bull hysteria.
Uh huh, I agree with that. I just don't see where that ties in to your quoting the squib about breed-specific legislation (which in turn referred back to banning pit bulls, not banning attacks on police dogs).
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Uh huh, I agree with that. I just don't see where that ties in to your quoting the squib about breed-specific legislation (which in turn referred back to banning pit bulls, not banning attacks on police dogs).
Quote:
BSL....Breed Specific Legislation.
It sucks.
It sucks.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Please post a link as soon as you can find one, I'm interested in reading the specifics of the case.
If they are pursuing this simply because the shepherd was a police dog, that's one thing. I know that they are protected in much the same way as any police officer and I can see why they would pursue manslaughter charges if that's the law. I don't personally agree with it, because in my mind, it's a dog not a person. (My animal-loving, shelter-volunteering, tree-hugging daughter loves it when I say that.)
If they are pursuing this because of the fact that the dog was a pit bull, I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with BSL. It's not the dog's fault, nor the breed. It's the owners. If they would crack down on people who raise viscous dogs, whether for dog-fighting or just because they can, it would do far more to help the breed than outlawing them.
If they are pursuing this simply because the shepherd was a police dog, that's one thing. I know that they are protected in much the same way as any police officer and I can see why they would pursue manslaughter charges if that's the law. I don't personally agree with it, because in my mind, it's a dog not a person. (My animal-loving, shelter-volunteering, tree-hugging daughter loves it when I say that.)
If they are pursuing this because of the fact that the dog was a pit bull, I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with BSL. It's not the dog's fault, nor the breed. It's the owners. If they would crack down on people who raise viscous dogs, whether for dog-fighting or just because they can, it would do far more to help the breed than outlawing them.
Jophiel wrote:
Lubriderm posted his tale about the guy whose pit bull killed a K9 dog. The result of which is the guy possibly facing man slaughter charges. It didn't mention banning pit bulls or really anything about pit bulls as a species. Dyadem posted next saying...
Quote:
BSL....Breed Specific Legislation.
It sucks.
My post was simply that, sucks or not, breed specific legislation isn't a factor in the case presented in the OP. Lubriderm could have replaced every instance of "pit bull" with simply "dog" and it'd be the same story.
Quote:
BSL....Breed Specific Legislation.
It sucks.
My post was simply that, sucks or not, breed specific legislation isn't a factor in the case presented in the OP. Lubriderm could have replaced every instance of "pit bull" with simply "dog" and it'd be the same story.
Oh yeah? Well.... fUCk you!
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
KassandrahKnight wrote:
If they are pursuing this because of the fact that the dog was a pit bull, I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with BSL. It's not the dog's fault, nor the breed. It's the owners. If they would crack down on people who raise viscous dogs, whether for dog-fighting or just because they can, it would do far more to help the breed than outlawing them.
This is contradictory, in my opinion.
You say they shouldn't pursue this simply because it's a pitt bull, yet you want owners of pitt bulls cracked down upon if they mistreat their dogs? Well, this dog attacked and killed a K-9 German Shepherd. Seems to me that might indicate that the owner didn't know what he/she was doing with the dog, no?
Are pit bulls known to be stickier than other dogs?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
KassandrahKnight wrote:
If they are pursuing this because of the fact that the dog was a pit bull, I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with BSL. It's not the dog's fault, nor the breed. It's the owners. If they would crack down on people who raise viscous dogs, whether for dog-fighting or just because they can, it would do far more to help the breed than outlawing them.
This is contradictory, in my opinion.
You say they shouldn't pursue this simply because it's a pitt bull, yet you want owners of pitt bulls cracked down upon if they mistreat their dogs? Well, this dog attacked and killed a K-9 German Shepherd. Seems to me that might indicate that the owner didn't know what he/she was doing with the dog, no?
I didn't say owners of pit bulls, I said owners of viscous dogs, which to you apparently equates to pit bulls. Almost any dog with aggressive tendencies can be vicious if they are not trained to be otherwise.
KassandrahKnight wrote:
I didn't say owners of pit bulls, I said owners of viscous dogs, which to you apparently equates to pit bulls. Almost any dog with aggressive tendencies can be vicious if they are not trained to be otherwise.
That was a mistake on my part, I'm sorry. Either way, my point still stands. It seems like a contradiction. If this dog attacked and killed another dog that was chained up, it seems vicious to me, and needs to be addressed, whether it was a pitt bull or any other kind of dog.
And for the record, no. I don't equate a pitt bull as being a vicious dog. Calm yourself, darlin'.
Edited, Nov 6th 2007 2:52pm by Belkira
Samira wrote:
Are pit bulls known to be stickier than other dogs?
Not if you bathe them regularly.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
KassandrahKnight wrote:
I didn't say owners of pit bulls, I said owners of viscous dogs, which to you apparently equates to pit bulls. Almost any dog with aggressive tendencies can be vicious if they are not trained to be otherwise.
That was a mistake on my part, I'm sorry. Either way, my point still stands. It seems like a contradiction. If this dog attacked and killed another dog that was chained up, it seems vicious to me, and needs to be addressed, whether it was a pitt bull or any other kind of dog.
And for the record, no. I don't equate a pitt bull as being a vicious dog. Calm yourself, darlin'.
Edited, Nov 6th 2007 2:52pm by Belkira
Don't worry, I don't get worked up over this stuff. ;)
I absolutely agree that the issue of a viscious dog needs to be addressed, which I think is what I said. What I don't agree with is outlawing pit bulls because they are the poster child for aggressive dogs, when they are not always aggressive.
KassandrahKnight wrote:
I absolutely agree that the issue of a viscious dog needs to be addressed, which I think is what I said. What I don't agree with is outlawing pit bulls because they are the poster child for aggressive dogs, when they are not always aggressive.
Ah, I understand now.
KassandrahKnight wrote:
What I don't agree with is outlawing pit bulls because they are the poster child for aggressive dogs, when they are not always aggressive.
But this is how American society works. If you can't address the invididual problem(s), throw a blanket over the whole damn issue.
To veer off-course, does an individual breed of domesticated animal have a "right" to exist as a breed? Most people would agree that individual domesticated animals dob't have a right to procreate (hence the spaying/neutering business) so, to apply it on a larger scale, is it wrong to decide that we're simply going to eliminate a breed?
Ignoring the pit bull angle, if the Powers That Be decided tomorrow that the existing generation of fox terriers could live out their doggie lives but they could not breed and, fifteen years from now, the breed would be gone, would that be morally wrong? And, if so, why?
Keep in mind that I'm speaking strictly about breeds of domesticated animals and not wild species.
Ignoring the pit bull angle, if the Powers That Be decided tomorrow that the existing generation of fox terriers could live out their doggie lives but they could not breed and, fifteen years from now, the breed would be gone, would that be morally wrong? And, if so, why?
Keep in mind that I'm speaking strictly about breeds of domesticated animals and not wild species.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
if the Powers That Be decided tomorrow that the existing generation of fox terriers could live out their doggie lives but they could not breed and, fifteen years from now, the breed would be gone, would that be morally wrong? And, if so, why?
Keep in mind that I'm speaking strictly about breeds of domesticated animals and not wild species.
Keep in mind that I'm speaking strictly about breeds of domesticated animals and not wild species.
Naturally speaking, it would be wrong. But it falls under the "I don't give a ****" umbrella because "domesticated" is really just a nice way of saying "you're here to serve us, no more", so people don't really consider the natural freedoms that should be granted to any species, which includes the freedom of procreation as a species.
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Naturally speaking, it would be wrong.
Edited, Nov 6th 2007 3:21pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Samira wrote:
Are pit bulls known to be stickier than other dogs?
Not if you bathe them regularly.
Meh. Just wondered, as they were being described as
Quote:
viscous dogs
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Samira wrote:
Are pit bulls known to be stickier than other dogs?
Not if you bathe them regularly.
Meh. Just wondered, as they were being described as
Quote:
viscous dogs
Jophiel wrote:
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Naturally speaking, it would be wrong.
That's absolutely correct. That's why I said...
Quote:
"domesticated" is really just a nice way of saying "you're here to serve us, no more"
We as humans have come to domesticate certain species because we can. That doesn't mean it's our right to do so. It's simply an exercise of power. The counter argument is to question what would happen if domestication did not exist, and we still had to hunt for all of our food, or earn the trust and devotion of our animal companions in the wild. Domestication is what it is... but it shouldn't be taken for granted as an absolute rule over any given species.
Samira wrote:
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Samira wrote:
Are pit bulls known to be stickier than other dogs?
Not if you bathe them regularly.
Meh. Just wondered, as they were being described as
Quote:
viscous dogs
Consider, for a moment, the possibility that my post may have been a continuation of your joke, and that you just ruined it.
Jophiel wrote:
To veer off-course, does an individual breed of domesticated animal have a "right" to exist as a breed? Most people would agree that individual domesticated animals dob't have a right to procreate (hence the spaying/neutering business) so, to apply it on a larger scale, is it wrong to decide that we're simply going to eliminate a breed?
Ignoring the pit bull angle, if the Powers That Be decided tomorrow that the existing generation of fox terriers could live out their doggie lives but they could not breed and, fifteen years from now, the breed would be gone, would that be morally wrong? And, if so, why?
Keep in mind that I'm speaking strictly about breeds of domesticated animals and not wild species.
Ignoring the pit bull angle, if the Powers That Be decided tomorrow that the existing generation of fox terriers could live out their doggie lives but they could not breed and, fifteen years from now, the breed would be gone, would that be morally wrong? And, if so, why?
Keep in mind that I'm speaking strictly about breeds of domesticated animals and not wild species.
Ya know, I'm not sure how to answer this. I feel that every animal has the right to live, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think there's anything wrong with killing them off either. I think where my problem lies is how does the government have a right to tell us what to do with our pets.
I think it's more about the government control of the situation rather than any natural or assumed rights. We do OWN our pets. In some cases we paid for them. It'd be along the same lines as any other government control of things we legally possess. IE, the trans fat arguments, smoking in/out of our homes, whatnot. You get my point. It's no longer an argument about the animals' rights, but the rights of an owner.
Or maybe I'm all wrong..
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
"domesticated" is really just a nice way of saying "you're here to serve us, no more"
How does a domesticated, pure breed cat "serve me" exactly?
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Naturally speaking, it would be wrong.
That's absolutely correct. That's why I said...
Quote:
"domesticated" is really just a nice way of saying "you're here to serve us, no more"
We as humans have come to domesticate certain species because we can. That doesn't mean it's our right to do so. It's simply an exercise of power. The counter argument is to question what would happen if domestication did not exist, and we still had to hunt for all of our food, or earn the trust and devotion of our animal companions in the wild. Domestication is what it is... but it shouldn't be taken for granted as an absolute rule over any given species.
Recent Visitors: 264
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (264)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- I really love German Shepherds, but....
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC