|
|
|
|
Swingman wrote:
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:
"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
Greetings and Salutations....
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:18:37 -0500, "Swingman"wrote:
*snip*
I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but
to
me
there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
weapons,
and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one,
except
for the owner.
I have to take some issue with this, as it is exactly like
saying all African-Americans are shiftless, promiscuous drug dealers.
Tsk tsk ... next we're going to advocate civil rights to animals?
No, actually he's pointing up the irrationality of your position.
You certainly CAN make that generalization about ANY animal that was
_specifically_ bred to attack and kill ... just as you can safely say
that
any dog running loose in an urban setting is NOT receiving the proper
attention. Put the two together, particularly with an American Pit Bull,
and
you're asking for trouble.
AAMOF, if you have a dog you love, _you_ damn well better make that
generalization the next time you see a pit bull running loose close by.
Here is a fairly good look at the breed and its characteristics
I grew up with one. I've no doubt there are many that are lovable
creatures
in the breed (we owned a Staffordshire Terrier - given to my Dad as a
gift
by the CEO of Chevron Oil Company of those days - which was basically
the
same breed as American Pit Bull at the time, and while well trained and
lovable to humans and children, would attack and kill another dog in a
heartbeat, and did on more than occasion).
In other words the person wouldn't know a pit bull if he saw one. A Staffy
is
NOT a pit bull and the differences are pretty obvious if you do know.
Now it is true that Staffys were also fighting dogs and one time and have
the
terrier aggressiveness. What your story proves is that the owner didn't
take the
time to properly socialize the dog so that it would not attack other dogs.
That
can be a problem with any breed and its especially likely to be a problem
with
terriers. Even very small terriers are notorious for picking fights with
other
dogs.
THe bottom line for me is that it is a bad thing to
label ANY breed of dog as "evil". The behavior of ANY dog
completely depends on the training and level of attention
that the owner gives to the dog.
Sounds good ... but I still have the scars on my hand to prove,
inarguably,
that this is not correct. The pit bull that got me years later, and the
little boy, was a well trained family pet that was following his
inherent
instinct to attack and kill the other dog.
You have the scars on your hand to prove you got in the middle of a dog
fight --
albeit for good reasons -- and you got bit. This somehow makes the dog
that bit
you unusually vicious?
Swing, I've got news for you. If a dog -- any dog -- is out to hurt you,
you
don't just get bit on the hand.
I've been around dogs all my life and have never seen another domestic
animal with the instincts of the pit bull.
Then you simply haven't been paying attention.
Look, I'm sorry you got bit. I'm even sorrier the dog that bit you was a
pit
bull. (If in fact it was. There's a tendency to claim any medium-size
short-muzzled dog that bites someone is a pit bull. A lot of people can't
even
recognize them.)
But your position is something like claiming that all African-Americans
are
dangerous criminals because you were once mugged by an Africian American.
Rick, your a TOTAL dork! ... go **** yourself!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
In other words, you have nothing whatsoever to support your position with. The
best you can come up with is a nasty personal experience that happened to
involve a pit bull (and could just as easily have happened with another dog)
and a story about a different breed of dog altogether.
--RC
.
|