Old Time American Pit Bull Terriers

[Hulkotron]

As game and clean bred a little bitch as any man owns.

[Ted SuperSet]

As game and clean bred a little bitch as any man owns.

got to love ancient marketing 

[oldgolds]

not michael vick

he would drown or electrocute dogs that didn't want to fight, and he used small dogs like beagles as "sparring partners" for his fighting dogs

E

Well, Michael Vick was a complete degenerate and should have received the same treatment he gave his dogs....There is no excuse for mistreating a dog.
I have never fought a dog but think that if 2 pits who are trained and wanting to fight and if the handlers are next to them not allowing them to get seriously injured I might allow a scrap. I don't condone these dumbass, streetcorner ghetto types fighting dogs with no concern for the dogs wellbeing. The oldtime 'conventions were  regulated and attracted a better class of people.  Then the breed was 'discovered' by the lowest types in our society and chaos ensued.

[Agnostic007]

Pit Bulls have been in the Unites States since the Mid 1800's.  Why was there no hysteria about them back in 1890?  


Colbys Twister 1903



John Colby is the first breeder to sell Pitbulls to the general public.  The blood of Colby dogs is in almost every pure breed Pitbull today.

If you are serious, I will offer a possibility. The lack of social media, internet, etc. What happened back in the day, was limited to local news

[Agnostic007]

Nobody would fight a Pit Bull that doesn't want to fight.  It's called a gameness contest for a reason.  The height of the pit is only two feet high, so if a dog doesn't want to fight it simply jumps out of the pit and looses the fight.  Or it makes a turn, which is when one of the dogs turns his head and shoulders away from his opponent.  If a turn is called, the dogs are separated and sent to their corners.  The dog that the turn was called on has less than thirty seconds to cross to the middle of the pit towards the opposing dog or it looses the fight.  So, the object of the fight is to allow the dog as many opportunities to stop fighting if it so chooses.  

 

Holy Shit you're ignorant.

[Agnostic007]

I've never been to a dog fight and don't have any desire to go to one.  I'm not into fighting of any kind like boxing, ultimate fighting, karate.  None of it interests me.  However, I don't have any problem with dog fighting and I like most Pit Bulls.

My neighbor has a Labrador he takes duck hunting.  when he comes home the dog has a duck in it's mouth.  The same instinct that lab has to retrieve a ducks is the same instinct a Pit Bull has to fight.  Yet nobody faults the Lab for holding a  dead duck in it's mouth.

  

 

[Parker]

Well, Michael Vick was a complete degenerate and should have received the same treatment he gave his dogs....There is no excuse for mistreating a dog.
I have never fought a dog but think that if 2 pits who are trained and wanting to fight and if the handlers are next to them not allowing them to get seriously injured I might allow a scrap. I don't condone these dumbass, streetcorner ghetto types fighting dogs with no concern for the dogs wellbeing. The oldtime 'conventions were  regulated and attracted a better class of people.  Then the breed was 'discovered' by the lowest types in our society and chaos ensued.

And then you have this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_Fighting_Dog

Don't kid yourself on the old types being a better class of people. Even in the UK where they had bear baiting and dog fights, it was known to be popular among the degenerates and low classes.
And even Jack London's "White Fang" published in 1906 had a dog fighter by the name of Beauty Smith, who was portrayed as mean and of low class.

[oldgolds]

Lol....Never heard of that breed...I'm talking about the pit bull in the US and the organized dog fighting game from about 1900 to present
The dogs are in a small  pit grappling, with each handler and a referee standing next to them. If a dog "turns" (tries to quit), the match is stopped. If the handler thinks his dog is taking too much punishment he can stop the fight.
And these dogs are NOT trained to fight by using beagles or cats or any other type of dog because other breeds are a complete mismatch.
Those are lies spread by humane society types.
Would Mike Tyson spar with a some guy from the street corner...It's laughable...
I'm not saying I condone all of this but the lies bother me.

[Meta-physical]

Mr 'I Kant tell a lie':

I have never fought a dog

I was once at a dogmans house in Ramona looking at a litter of Tater/Faith pups (Patrick), I put down a deposit and later changed my mind and bought a grandson of 'Going Light Barney' that turned out to be a  dud.

[Palumboism]

And then you have this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_Fighting_Dog

The Dogo Argentino is directly derived from this breed and it's appearance alone shows much of it's DNA comes from the American Pit Bull Terrier. 

Mixing no other breed of dog with the Pit Bull produces a better fighting dog.  In addition, no other breed of dog has been able to win against the Pit Bull.  They have fought 150 pound Tosa's in Japan against 50 pound Pit Bulls.  The results are always the same.

[ratherbebig]

why are you so fascinating with dogs fighting? how about dogs that save lives? how come you have no interest in that?

[Parker]

The Dogo Argentino is directly derived from this breed and it's appearance alone shows much of it's DNA comes from the American Pit Bull Terrier.  

Mixing no other breed of dog with the Pit Bull produces a better fighting dog.  In addition, no other breed of dog has been able to win against the Pit Bull.  They have fought 150 pound Tosa's in Japan against 50 pound Pit Bulls.  The results are always the same.

take a look at other dogs on that list (below in the Wikipedia link), and you will see that there is a certain phenotype that is adhered to.
From the Bully Kutta of India to the semi-feral Cimarron Uruguayo. And then there is the newer pocket pit bulls. Which look weird, due to the wide front and foreshortened snout, and they have breathing problems because of that.

[Earl1972]

A Pit Bull fighting a beagle as a sparring partner is the dog equivalent of Kramer fighting children.  It makes absolutely no sense.

he used the beagles to teach his pit bulls to attack other dogs on sight, the beagle obviously wouldn't put up a fight so it was perfect to not risk injuring his potentially prize winning pit bull

E

[Earl1972]

I have never fought a dog but think that if 2 pits who are trained and wanting to fight and if the handlers are next to them not allowing them to get seriously injured I might allow a scrap.

LOL are you serious?

the dogs fight to the death it's not some "scrap", that's all they know there is no fighting for recreation or fun like a human boxer or mma fighter

any dog owner that would allow this would not be concerned about them getting "seriously injured" the dogs in their eyes are just used for their own sadistic pleasure or for gambling

E

[oldgolds]

LOL are you serious?

the dogs fight to the death it's not some "scrap", that's all they know there is no fighting for recreation or fun like a human boxer or mma fighter

any dog owner that would allow this would not be concerned about them getting "seriously injured" the dogs in their eyes are just used for their own sadistic pleasure or for gambling

E

Honestly dude....You don't know what you are talking about...
Read some books, get some true facts.

[OlympiaGym]

Strong logic, you pieces of shit. Prostitution (when it's not coerced) and steroid usage are activities that supporters most often defend as individual freedoms which deserve to be recognised as specifically self-regarding acts. (*These were the three examples you gave before deleting them, Palumboism.) One might argue that criminalising these acts on the basis of various prejudices, utilitarian appeals to social morality, or religious passages is an unjustifiable abridgement of individual liberty. Attempting to subsume dog fighting into this category, however, demonstrates not only your incredible stupidity, but your utter depravity too. Subjecting sentient, intelligent animals to abuse and torture in the name of entertainment is about as justifiable as child abuse, and it's no coincidence that those who participate in that attempt to justify it by appealing to consent as well. So, Oldgolds, you can take your ridiculous comparison to MMA and your claims of them 'enjoying' being torn apart, and shove it up your decrepit old ass, you fucking spastic. I refuse to even post on the same forum as you.

They're animals you idiot.

[Meta-physical]

They're animals you idiot.

So is your mum, you fat bastard. But I'm sure you'd sobbing all over your tits if I threw the bitch into a pit with another pig and made them both bite chunks out of each other.

Given that the last time we interacted on here, you attempted to argue against the benefits of spinal surgery while presenting two research papers which hilariously contradicted your own opinion ( http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=626384.msg8724076#msg8724076), it's safe to assume that you're not likely to be making any logical arguments in this instance, either. You've began by exclaiming that 'they're [dogs] animals'. Congratulations on managing such an astute observation. Are we to take it from this statement that you're making some Malebranchean claim that animals are mere non-sentient automata? That you believe human beings, despite being mammals which evolved like every other creature, are somehow distinct from all other species on Earth in that they alone have the capacity to experience pain and fear? Frankly, it wouldn't exactly be surprising if you are. If I managed to skewer myself on a stake of scientific ignorance in the manner that you did when previously discussing surgery, I'd be rather reluctant to engage with science again too. Perhaps you think it might be easier to concur with Palumboism: that the 'nanny state' (those damn communists!) has no business interfering with an individual's right to kill or inflict pain on an animal for their own entertainment, despite its capacity to suffer? You just go ahead and see if you can make a coherent argument based on rights or ethics without contradicting yourself in some manner, and I'll be here to remind you once more that you're literally one of the stupidest individuals on this forum.

[Earl1972]

Honestly dude....You don't know what you are talking about...
Read some books, get some true facts.

i don't read fiction

E

[Palumboism]

What about ratting?  In my view this is much curler to animals.  The poor rats are squealing in pain an want none of this.    

[OlympiaGym]

So is your mum, you fat bastard. But I'm sure you'd sobbing all over your tits if I threw the bitch into a pit with another pig and made them both bite chunks out of each other.

Given that the last time we interacted on here, you attempted to argue against the benefits of spinal surgery while presenting two research papers which hilariously contradicted your own opinion ( http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=626384.msg8724076#msg8724076), it's safe to assume that you're not likely to be making any logical arguments in this instance, either. You've began by exclaiming that 'they're [dogs] animals'. Congratulations on managing such an astute observation. Are we to take it from this statement that you're making some Malebranchean claim that animals are mere non-sentient automata? That you believe human beings, despite being mammals which evolved like every other creature, are somehow distinct from all other species on Earth in that they alone have the capacity to experience pain and fear? Frankly, it wouldn't exactly be surprising if you are. If I managed to skewer myself on a stake of scientific ignorance in the manner that you did when previously discussing surgery, I'd be rather reluctant to engage with science again too. Perhaps you think it might be easier to concur with Palumboism: that the 'nanny state' (those damn communists!) has no business interfering with an individual's right to kill or inflict pain on an animal for their own entertainment, despite its capacity to suffer? You just go ahead and see if you can make a coherent argument based on rights or ethics without contradicting yourself in some manner, and I'll be here to remind you once more that you're literally one of the stupidest individuals on this forum.

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[SF1900]

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Lol at trying to prove an argument using the bible haha

[Meta-physical]

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

It's hardly surprising that a man stupid enough to cite studies which destroy his own arguments would also attempt to hide behind vague religious passages rather than deal with any logic. Biblical injunctions are neither legally binding, nor are they ever consistently morally binding, given that you selectively choose which ones to follow. The fact therefore remains that dog fighting is illegal, and you do not live in a theocracy where laws are made by interpreting scripture or appealing to deities. Nonetheless, let's take a closer look at your pathetic excuse for an argument. Exactly what part of God's order that man shall have 'dominion' over animals do you think justifies torturing them for sport? If I have dominion over something - meaning control - is that licence to assert my control in any manner I choose regardless of whether or not that violates any religious or humanist concepts of compassion?

In order to address Palumboism's question too, let me be clear on what we are talking about. We are not debating the morality of killing animals as a matter of necessity in some cases, or the potential justifications for eating meat in modern industrial societies. We are talking about the specific act of subjecting animals to pain and death purely for entertainment. If you condone that, then not only do you potentially weaken any rights protecting you from similar treatment on the basis of your capacity to suffer, but you arbitrarily deny animals any moral status at all, purely as a matter of prejudice. It is quite amazing that the illogical nature of this line of reasoning was highlighted as far back as 1789, yet on Getbig we still find morons willing to make such vacuous appeals. Seeing as a significant portion of this forum are timid introverts masquerading as uncompromising strongman-types, it is likely that they would dismiss this topic in order to avoid being branded a 'liberal' or some other nonsensical, meaningless pejorative. You may then wish to study the issue from the perspective of the Christian right - where the conservative Republican Matthew Scully has wrote extensively on the subject of animal welfare in general. He's not somebody that I would usually turn to, but presuming you've managed to improve your critical reading skills since the last time you made yourself look like a colossal penis, you may just learn something.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/10/pro-life-pro-animal-matthew-scully/

[Meta-physical]

I'm wasting far too much time on here talking to legit retards. SF, Kahn, The Ugly, Grape and many others that I respect and have enjoyed chatting with - take care! I'm flushing myself.

[chaos]

I'm wasting far too much time on here talking to legit retards. SF, Kahn, The Ugly, Grape and many others that I respect and have enjoyed chatting with - take care! I'm flushing myself.

Quitter. You'll be back.

[oldgolds]

I'm wasting far too much time on here talking to legit retards. SF, Kahn, The Ugly, Grape and many others that I respect and have enjoyed chatting with - take care! I'm flushing myself.

Raw emotion and very little logic from people who know very little about what they are talking about.....
The dogs are not fought to the death. Usually a guy picks up his dog when the dog has lost or if a dog shows he wants to quit the referee stops the contest and the dog has to show he wants to continue. These dogs love to fight, they are not forced. Anyone who has been around competition bred pits knows this is true. So much ignorance from people who blindly accept information from the media or the humane society....Do you really want the truth or do you just want to believe the bullshit that's in your mind?