First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Pitbull mauls entire family because they tried to dress him in a sweater
11786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Ah yes, how dare that guy say that we should get rid of Shih Tzus, which you can clearly see him say... Nowhere. Exactly nowhere. It is not stated or implied in either runec or meaties' posts. But no, do go on about other people living in fantasy worlds while you up and imagine things for them to say. You should stick to your killer memes, because you suck with words.

Speaking of which, still waiting to hear from you which gene is supposedly making pitbulls more likely to attack.


What kind of question is this anyway? Why are you asking about genes?

What do you think the answer would even look like? Why in the world do you think I'd even know the answer? Is your point that if I don't know all the genes associated with aggressiveness?


My point is that your entire argument is rooted in Pitbulls being a breed that is inherently far more aggressive than every other type of dog. All I am asking you to do is to show me evidence in the form of the gene responsible for this. If it's something that so obviously affects only pitbulls then obviously the only explanation is a unique genetic trait. If you want to show conclusively that what you say is true, all you need to do is, nturally, to show the gene that's responsible for it.
Posted 1/9/17

Mishio1 wrote:

What I'm curious about is if the dog gave any sign of distress about the clothes before attacking. Most dog owners have the sense not to push if their dog doesn't seem to like it. Maybe this family didn't?


Pitbulls have a tendency to throw false tells. It's really hard to tell. The dog might have even been wagging it's tail and puppy bowing before attacking.
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Ah yes, how dare that guy say that we should get rid of Shih Tzus, which you can clearly see him say... Nowhere. Exactly nowhere. It is not stated or implied in either runec or meaties' posts. But no, do go on about other people living in fantasy worlds while you up and imagine things for them to say. You should stick to your killer memes, because you suck with words.

Speaking of which, still waiting to hear from you which gene is supposedly making pitbulls more likely to attack.


What kind of question is this anyway? Why are you asking about genes?

What do you think the answer would even look like? Why in the world do you think I'd even know the answer? Is your point that if I don't know all the genes associated with aggressiveness?


My point is that your entire argument is rooted in Pitbulls being a breed that is inherently far more aggressive than every other type of dog. All I am asking you to do is to show me evidence in the form of the gene responsible for this. If it's something that so obviously affects only pitbulls then obviously the only explanation is a unique genetic trait. If you want to show conclusively that what you say is true, all you need to do is, nturally, to show the gene that's responsible for it.


You are setting up a goal post in a game you clearly don't even understand or play. What's the point? It's an asinine question. We are talking about a dog breed. We already know there is certain genes in factor here. You don't need to produce the genes to prove a dog breed is violent. It's a breed. It's already known they share genes. And it's not one gene that would be responsible for this. There are literally thousands of genes for dogs and multiple that could factor in for the dog's aggressiveness.

Could it be the genes that causes them to throw false tells? The genes that cause them to be relentless when attacking? The genes that affect their behavior in their biting patterns?.

It's probably all those things. You don't see golden retrievers used for dog fights do you?
20891 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / SoFlo
Offline
Posted 1/9/17
Pit bulls are banned in Miami/Dade county. Dog fighting was a huge problem years ago with so many incidents and attacks. As a result they just out-right banned them. But in recent years attacks have gone down and there are now talks of changing the law.

I'm sure there's some sweet pit bulls that wouldn't harm a fly but I don't know the history of every animal or their owner. It sounds judgmental but even on a leash I would turn the other way and avoid a pit bull (or any other large breed that looked agresive) If saw one while walking with my daughter.

I've noticed some dogs go crazy when they see kids. We occasionally get the owner holding back a dog while the dog just wants to lunge at her. I assume they just want to play, but it's still scary. It's made her a little wary of dogs.
11786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:And it's not one gene that would be responsible for this. There are literally thousands of genes for dogs and multiple that could factor in for the dog's aggressiveness.


The question was never about a singular gene. My original post asked specifically for you to "name the gene or genes". I see that you have once again resorted to putting words in other people's mouths instead of actually trying to use logic to put up a real argument. It seems my initial assumption was correct and this whole "dangerous breed" shtick is indeed you talking out of your ass. Feels good to be right.
25589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Northern Ireland
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:You are setting up a goal post in a game you clearly don't even understand or play. What's the point? It's an asinine question. We are talking about a dog breed. We already know there is certain genes in factor here. You don't need to produce the genes to prove a dog breed is violent. It's a breed. It's already known they share genes. And it's not one gene that would be responsible for this. There are literally thousands of genes for dogs and multiple that could factor in for the dog's aggressiveness.

Could it be the genes that causes them to throw false tells? The genes that cause them to be relentless when attacking? The genes that affect their behavior in their biting patterns?.

It's probably all those things. You don't see golden retrievers used for dog fights do you?


So I ask, again, why weren't Pit Bulls at the top of the dog fatality list until the late 90s? If it really was the breed then why haven't they always been at the top of the list? Why was it other breeds before then? Did Pit Bulls just suddenly come into existence in 1996 for the sake of dog fighting and killing children and the elderly? Why have Bull Terriers not attacked anyone or any dogs at prestigious dog shows?

Is it because a lot of people who can't handle large, powerful dogs took a sudden fancy to Pit Bulls instead of Rottweilers? Do they not attack people and other dogs at dog shows because the breeders there know what the hell they are doing? Is it actually the owners and breeders and not an inherent fault with the breed at all?


Or you could just avoid the issue and reiterate "pit bulls are bad mkay" in different wording again.
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:And it's not one gene that would be responsible for this. There are literally thousands of genes for dogs and multiple that could factor in for the dog's aggressiveness.


The question was never about a singular gene. My original post asked specifically for you to "name the gene or genes". I see that you have once again resorted to putting words in other people's mouths instead of actually trying to use logic to put up a real argument. It seems my initial assumption was correct and this whole "dangerous breed" shtick is indeed you talking out of your ass. Feels good to be right.


I literally asked you questions and you answered NONE of them and declared yourself right.

What words did I even put in your mouth?

What are you even talking about?

You went and deleted most of my post in your quote, answered none of my post, and lied about asking about one gene when you clearly did multiple times.



Over and over again! You asked for one gene!

Let's try this again. Don't waste my time this time.


You are setting up a goal post in a game you clearly don't even understand or play. What's the point? It's an asinine question. We are talking about a dog breed. We already know there is certain genes in factor here. You don't need to produce the genes to prove a dog breed is violent. It's a breed. It's already known they share genes. And it's not one gene that would be responsible for this. There are literally thousands of genes for dogs and multiple that could factor in for the dog's aggressiveness.

Could it be the genes that causes them to throw false tells? The genes that cause them to be relentless when attacking? The genes that affect their behavior in their biting patterns?.

It's probably all those things. You don't see golden retrievers used for dog fights do you?
11786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:And it's not one gene that would be responsible for this. There are literally thousands of genes for dogs and multiple that could factor in for the dog's aggressiveness.


The question was never about a singular gene. My original post asked specifically for you to "name the gene or genes". I see that you have once again resorted to putting words in other people's mouths instead of actually trying to use logic to put up a real argument. It seems my initial assumption was correct and this whole "dangerous breed" shtick is indeed you talking out of your ass. Feels good to be right.


I literally asked you questions and you answered NONE of them and declared yourself right.

What words did I put in your mouth?

What are you even talking about?

Christ you are clueless.


If you still can't figure out what Im asking of you the fault lies with yourself, mate.
Posted 1/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:And it's not one gene that would be responsible for this. There are literally thousands of genes for dogs and multiple that could factor in for the dog's aggressiveness.


The question was never about a singular gene. My original post asked specifically for you to "name the gene or genes". I see that you have once again resorted to putting words in other people's mouths instead of actually trying to use logic to put up a real argument. It seems my initial assumption was correct and this whole "dangerous breed" shtick is indeed you talking out of your ass. Feels good to be right.


I literally asked you questions and you answered NONE of them and declared yourself right.

What words did I put in your mouth?

What are you even talking about?

Christ you are clueless.


If you still can't figure out what Im asking of you the fault lies with yourself, mate.





The question was never about a singular gene.


11786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
If you still can't figure out what Im asking of you the fault lies with yourself, mate.




The question was never about a singular gene.





octorockandroll wrote:

Alright, lad, I'm getting sick of your shit real quick here, so I'm going to give you the chance to back yourself up here or be a proven fucking liar. What is the gene or genes responsible for your random guess of pitbulls being a supposedly more aggressive breed? As someone who is relatively big into genetics myself I always find myself asking this question whenever someone asserts that pitbulls are genetically more predisposed to attacking than other dogs, yet I can seem to find no actual genetic evidence of this supposed genetic fact.

Interesting, isn't it?

Posted 1/9/17
Wow screenshots of posts now?
Posted 1/9/17
Maybe by "putting words in my mouth" he means he can't remember what he even wrote.
11786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:

Maybe by "putting words in my mouth" he means he can't remember what he even wrote.


So even after I make an entire post directly showing you the exact line where I ask for one or more genes specifically, you not only continue to dodge the question but you keep up this nareative of me only ever talking about a single gene in spite of the exact opposote having been shown to you? Why am I not surprised?
Posted 1/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:

Maybe by "putting words in my mouth" he means he can't remember what he even wrote.


So even after I make an entire post directly showing you the exact line where I ask for one or more genes specifically, you not only continue to dodge the question but you keep up this nareative of me only ever talking about a single gene in spite of the exact opposote having been shown to you? Why am I not surprised?


Maybe you aren't surprised because you keep editing your shitty posts.

You told me the question was never about a singular gene

That was FALSE

Regardless. I don't care. I didn't even see your original question. Which I thought would be clear by the fact that I never even responded to it.

I want you to address this entire post that you backpedaled on in the first place.


You are setting up a goal post in a game you clearly don't even understand or play. What's the point? It's an asinine question. We are talking about a dog breed. We already know there is certain genes in factor here. You don't need to produce the genes to prove a dog breed is violent. It's a breed. It's already known they share genes. And it's not one gene that would be responsible for this. There are literally thousands of genes for dogs and multiple that could factor in for the dog's aggressiveness.

Could it be the genes that causes them to throw false tells? The genes that cause them to be relentless when attacking? The genes that affect their behavior in their biting patterns?.

It's probably all those things. You don't see golden retrievers used for dog fights do you?


Why is your little goal post about me not being able to identify genes important to your point that I'm "talking out my ass"?

"aw shucks he doesn't know about the genes i guess pitbulls aren't violent"



You act like I'm the pioneer on this information that pitbulls are violent animals.
Posted 1/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:

Maybe by "putting words in my mouth" he means he can't remember what he even wrote.


So even after I make an entire post directly showing you the exact line where I ask for one or more genes specifically, you not only continue to dodge the question but you keep up this nareative of me only ever talking about a single gene in spite of the exact opposote having been shown to you? Why am I not surprised?


Still waiting for the words I put in your mouth btw.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.