Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 25, 2014, 09:40:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Today I learned what name the victorians had for pitbulls  (Read 9149 times)
illwill
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 590

I'm not a playa. I'm just in them guts a lot


« Reply #125 on: April 14, 2013, 01:27:10 PM »

You are quite the Nutter aren't you.  I have read her retarded rebuttal and her hypocritical claims accusing others of the very things she does herself.  Just as I would spend little time rebutting the arguments of a paedophile who wanted to molest boys and justify it, I spend just as much time listening or responding to the rambling of a Pitbull obsessed Nutter.  I have already wasted enough time even talking about Karen, she is irrelevant in the issue except to the hardcore pitbull Nutter, and they aren't taken very seriously, their perverse Bias is all too obvious.

And as for your other question.  The study merely points out that when conducting studies such as they have done, their are variables that can't be accounted for, in this case there is a small percentage of attacks whereby the breed can't be verified.  They didn't say this could invalidate the study, only compromise it.  It is just as likely with a complete picture of the dog breeds implicated it could further incriminate Pitbulls.  This issue was also dealt with during the deposition of Dr Alan Beck, who explained quite precisely how during these studies their has to be a certain percentage of data for a study to be considered representative, as it is almost always impossible to get complete data.  Both the CDC study and the Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs 2011 study had enough data to be considered representative.

Like I said, arguing if Pitbulls are dangerous is disingenuous, it truly is like arguing with an idiot if ice is cold.  It is just a tactic used by Pitbull Nutters to prevent rational discussion on what should be done about the epidemic of serious dog attacks. mainly because a solution could be serious restrictions or even breed bans. An option that frightens the average Pitbull addict.  Imagine taking away a drug addicts stash and their reaction and you have a visual for the way Pitbull nutters react to potential solutions to the issue.  I am well beyond arguing if pit-bulls are dangerous, my concern is "What to do about it".  Unfortunately the solution offered up by Nutters, which is to do nothing will never be acceptable to a decent citizen. You seem to want information, so I provided you with some links.  Enjoy.

To be fair, I have dealt with pitbull Nutters on a daily basis for years now, I know your shtick and it isn't to view the problem impartially, your agenda is to promote the right to own fighting breeds of dog.  The main difference between you and I, one child being mauled to death is one child too many, as i have no interest in Pitbulls and they aren't a human need requirement, it wouldn't matter to me to see them criminalised.  But for you, their isn't a limit to the amount of deaths caused by Pitbulls that would be a problem for you.  Because, essentially, the question is, How many Pitbull fatalities is enough before Dog owners will make a relatively modest change in behavior? Unfortunately for the rest of us, a Pitbull Nutter doesn't have a limit to the amount of carnage Pitbulls inflict, like a drug, they just have to have one and they don't care if it will potentially kill them or someone else.  Such is the nature of addiction!

You can read Dr Alan Becks deposition here: http://legal.pblnn.com/images/Denverpleadings/alanbeckdepo.pdf

You can read the study Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs 2011 here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSba3p4NW5CT09ZX0E/edit?usp=sharing

You can download the Interview with Gary Wilkes an experienced pitbull Trainer here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbdzhIVTdwUVFkUFk/edit?usp=sharing

You can read the study "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998" here https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbU1JHWGZPWHZ3a0E/edit?usp=sharing

You can read Adam Greenbaum, Pkastic Surgeon Interview in relation to Pitbull Injuries here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbMUR0YzZvbHFnNWc/edit?usp=sharing

You can read the study "Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada September 1982 to December 26, 2011" here https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbRDFTTmtyWEFiWTQ/edit?usp=sharing

You can read the study "Aggressive Behavior in Adopted Dogs (Canis Familiaris) that Passed a Temperament Test" here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbNnpieXl4Qmotd1E/edit?usp=sharing


Ekul, I thank you for the links and I will read them impartially.  

I also thank you for:

the name calling you directed at me (ad hominem)
the pedophile and drug addict references (red herring)

and all the other remaining fallacies you subscribe to in your long windedness.  Impressive.

You say I'm a "Nutter" when I've already stated "I have no dog in this fight".   I'm merely a citizen who looks for fairness on all subjects, including this one.  I wish you too could be fair but since you have been maimed I can appreciate your, dare I say, "pit bull-ness" to spread anti propaganda.


Ekul, you asked me earlier about where in the Texas study "Youtube.com" is cited as a reference...  By your own link, a quick search of the study in question has 3 references to youtube.com.

Have you read the the good doctors published reply to Ms. Delise's published rebuttal?  

If so, you should link that for all to see Wink

Anyhow, I have to take my child to the circus. Enjoy your day sir.
Report to moderator   Logged
Nomad
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3374



« Reply #126 on: April 14, 2013, 06:01:10 PM »

What a hypocrite, you don't even read what I post.  hardly makes you qualified to comment on it.  And how is people regularly being maimed, mauled and killed by Pitbulls my point of view.  These are simple facts.  What you mean is, I should re-evaluate my opinion more towards yours, because you like your opinion, you don't even care if the facts validate it, it suits your needs and desires and that's all that matters.  If you wish to give me an argument to help me re-evaluate my opinion more towards yours, please feel free.  I suspect it will be in the realm of "i fucken luv Pitbulls, they're a grate dog ya know, a NANNY DOG in fact.  I fuckin love em.  They're tough eh.  I fucken love my Pitbull and anyone who disagrees is a fucking idiot anyways.  Fuck dose haters.  It's how ya raise em anyway, it doesn't matter that for over a century they have been bred to be game and fight to death in the pits, a little bit of luvin is all they need".  feel free to prove me wrong and offer up even a modicum of an argument. 

And suggesting that I don't take other people point of view into account is bullshit.  It's just that I find their point of view false, offensive, dangerous, biased and self serving,.   Their points of view lacks any community minded spirit, it is narcissistic and often it is laced with threats, aggression and violence. I have studied the issue relentlessly for years, and once you wade through all the propaganda and lies, the argument of the Pitbull Nutter is "We want a fucking pitbull, and anyone who doesn't like it can go fuck themselves."  Hardly an opinion that one should consider. 


Thanks for proving my exact point.


Quote
  Please tell me, do you take the following point of view seriously, put forward by  North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors.  They want to fuck boys legally and they even have studies to verify their claims that it is all good and no-one gets harmed.  Or do you simply dismiss them for the freaks they are. 

I see Pitbull Advocates the same way, self seeking weirdos who put their own interest above children's and societies.

How is this relevant? Logically this has nothing to do with your argument.

Report to moderator   Logged

all drugs - TPPIIP
doison
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3015


Rum Ham


« Reply #127 on: April 14, 2013, 06:03:10 PM »

Dogs are so scary and some are mean. 
Report to moderator   Logged

TigerStripes
Getbig III
***
Posts: 460



« Reply #128 on: April 14, 2013, 06:08:29 PM »

Fuck pit bulls.

I don't care what you dog lovers say, pit bulls are dangerous. They have a tendency to snap. I've seen pit bulls raised by nice people snap. I got attacked by one once too but luckily didnt get hurt.

Its not just pits raised by assholes who turn out bad. The nicest and sweetest pit can just suddenly turn into a monster.

The truth.
Report to moderator   Logged
doison
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3015


Rum Ham


« Reply #129 on: April 14, 2013, 06:21:00 PM »

Fuck pit bulls.

I don't care what you dog lovers say, pit bulls are dangerous. They have a tendency to snap. I've seen pit bulls raised by nice people snap. I got attacked by one once too but luckily didnt get hurt.

Its not just pits raised by assholes who turn out bad. The nicest and sweetest pit can just suddenly turn into a monster.

The truth.

Yeah!  Plus when other dogs act like dogs, they're not pitbulls!  My neighbor has a dachshund that bites my fucking ankles every time I go near it.  Imagine if it were a pitbull!??  You can't tell me that it wouldn't bite at me if it were a pitbull! 
Report to moderator   Logged

Chacka
Getbig III
***
Posts: 458

Time out


« Reply #130 on: April 14, 2013, 06:44:27 PM »

 Huh


* exhuberence.jpg (153.36 KB, 1536x1152 - viewed 119 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7003


RED


« Reply #131 on: April 14, 2013, 09:35:56 PM »

No, the retard statement is pretty accurate. I work with the group that rescued all the vick dogs.  Pits are amazing animals, and when raised by normal people, are normal dogs. 

before the 80's, they were never involved in attacks.  Since the explosion of rap culture, influx of immigration, and glamorization of thug life, the dogs have been abused, exploited, and their PR has been ruined.  but this is a cyclical process, and it has happened before with numerous other breeds, like the blood hound, the german shep, dobermans, rotts...whatever the fad dog is that retards have, they turn into monsters.

here comes "e-kul" to call me a "pidiot," and talk about what horrific creatures they are.

Racist post reported. White exploitation is what destroyed the reputation of the breed.
Report to moderator   Logged
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #132 on: April 14, 2013, 10:28:54 PM »


Thanks for proving my exact point.
So your point of view is that: false, offensive, dangerous, biased and self serving points of view should be taken into consideration when deciding health & safety policy for civilised society.  That certainly is an interesting point of view.  I will take that into consideration.
Quote
How is this relevant? Logically this has nothing to do with your argument.
And the connection between pedo's wanting to legalise child molestation and Pitbull advocacy is both parties only take their own self interest into account, the needs of the children that will be inevitably be harmed due to their lobbying and legislation  is never considered.  This has everything to do with my argument, what I am suggesting is that their will always be perverse minorities who wish to push their strange ideology and agenda on other people even though they know people will be harmed, sometimes killed.  Just because people want to fuck boys or people want to own fighting breeds of dog, doesn't mean it is a good thing (of course unless you like fucking boys of possessing fighting dogs)  or that such a thing should be legal.
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #133 on: April 14, 2013, 10:50:53 PM »


Ekul, I thank you for the links and I will read them impartially.  

I also thank you for:

the name calling you directed at me (ad hominem)
the pedophile and drug addict references (red herring)

and all the other remaining fallacies you subscribe to in your long windedness.  Impressive.

You say I'm a "Nutter" when I've already stated "I have no dog in this fight".   I'm merely a citizen who looks for fairness on all subjects, including this one.  I wish you too could be fair but since you have been maimed I can appreciate your, dare I say, "pit bull-ness" to spread anti propaganda.


Ekul, you asked me earlier about where in the Texas study "Youtube.com" is cited as a reference...  By your own link, a quick search of the study in question has 3 references to youtube.com.

Have you read the the good doctors published reply to Ms. Delise's published rebuttal?  

If so, you should link that for all to see Wink

Anyhow, I have to take my child to the circus. Enjoy your day sir.

The youtube references are just video representation of already referenced website material.  Here is one of them, it gives the names and details of some of the many victims whose lives were lost in one of the time periods stipulated in the study:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8nVTctxUDE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8nVTctxUDE</a>
Report to moderator   Logged

V
illwill
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 590

I'm not a playa. I'm just in them guts a lot


« Reply #134 on: April 15, 2013, 07:29:59 AM »

The youtube references are just video representation of already referenced website material.  Here is one of them, it gives the names and details of some of the many victims whose lives were lost in one of the time periods stipulated in the study:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8nVTctxUDE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8nVTctxUDE</a>


Nice song.   My original point remains:  Youtube is hardly a reputable source of reliable information for a scientific study.  

Similarly, the website, "Dogsbite.org" which is referenced as well.  Dr. Bini states, “Over a recent 3-year period from January 2006 to March 30, 2009, a total of 98 dog bite fatalities involving 179 dogs occurred…A total of 113 pit bulls were involved in these deaths, and they accounted for 63% of the dogs involved in fatal attacks (Table 2).”

Source? Dogsbite.org     What's next? Wikipedia.com?

Here's a couple of links for the readers here to see the OTHER side of the story.. I would share Ms. Delise's rebuttal to the Texas "study" but I must ask her permission before doing so. I should also post the surgeon's pathetic reply to HER (they did not address one issue she brought up) but I should probably ask their permission as well..

http://legal.pblnn.com/9-uncategorised/121-why-the-texas-study-on-mortality-mauling-a-maiming-by-vicious-dogs-is-scientifically-unreliable

http://www.examiner.com/article/pit-bull-perspectives-interview-with-karen-delise-part-1



Off to work now...
Report to moderator   Logged
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #135 on: April 15, 2013, 02:53:32 PM »


Nice song.   My original point remains:  Youtube is hardly a reputable source of reliable information for a scientific study.  

Similarly, the website, "Dogsbite.org" which is referenced as well.  Dr. Bini states, “Over a recent 3-year period from January 2006 to March 30, 2009, a total of 98 dog bite fatalities involving 179 dogs occurred…A total of 113 pit bulls were involved in these deaths, and they accounted for 63% of the dogs involved in fatal attacks (Table 2).”

Source? Dogsbite.org     What's next? Wikipedia.com?

Here's a couple of links for the readers here to see the OTHER side of the story.. I would share Ms. Delise's rebuttal to the Texas "study" but I must ask her permission before doing so. I should also post the surgeon's pathetic reply to HER (they did not address one issue she brought up) but I should probably ask their permission as well..

http://legal.pblnn.com/9-uncategorised/121-why-the-texas-study-on-mortality-mauling-a-maiming-by-vicious-dogs-is-scientifically-unreliable

http://www.examiner.com/article/pit-bull-perspectives-interview-with-karen-delise-part-1



Off to work now...

The youtube reference is a visual representation of already referenced material, it is an EXTRA reference, so as to provide the researcher with multiple ways of viewing a sourced reference material.  It is in no way shady.  And I knew your were a full blown Nutter, the link you provided trying to discredit a peer reviewed study published in the Annals of Surgery actually highlights how desperate and pathetic the pro pitbull crowd is.  They reference one of the most brutal Pitbull attacks on a man called James Chapple, and then they challenge that he didn't die from dog attack.  This poor man simply got of the bus when set upon by two large pitbulls.  The attack was so savage, his left arm had to be amputated below the elbow, and doctors weren't sure if he would ever regain full use of his right arm.  The victim spent the remaining few months in and out of hospital, but never fully recovered and died.  They then go on to say cause of death was hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.  Something that was exacerbated by having limbs amputated and his many other serious injuries.  

It's the same thing as if someone punches someone else in the head and the victim has an aneurysm burst and they argue he didn't die from the punch, it was his aneurysm.   It really is disgusting how they grasp at straws, the man who tried to save him during the attack visited him regularly over the following months, but eventually got the call telling him that the victim had succumbed to his injuries, and yet the Pitbull Nutters make outlandish claims that the victim fully recovered from losing one limb and the use of the other.  For me this highlights how disturbingly sick the pro pitbull people are.  The way they treat victims is sociopathic, to even suggest that a Pitbull attack of the magnitude that James Chapelle endured had nothing to do with his early demise is disgusting.

And then once they have finished denigrating yet another victim, they use the old, identifying a Pitbull is impossible, an issue that has been dealt with time and time again, and yet they love this propaganda.  Fancy believing that of the over 400 breeds of dog available, that identifying a breed of dog is impossible.  They actually believe this.  How anybody can not see through this is ridiculous.  It never occurs to them that if a non-pitbull can be confused as a Pitbull, then a Pitbull could surely be identified as a non-pitbull,  So for every non-Pitbull wrongly mis-identified as a Pitbull their could be a Pitbull wrongly identified as a non-Pitbull.  But going by their ridiculous argument only Pitbulls can be misidentified, every other breed is easily recognised.  Their logic beggars belief.  They have been trying this nonsense for years, even in the courts.  here's what the courts had to say about their ridiculousness

"The Court concludes that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction; also, the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers to help determine whether a dog is described by any one of them. While it may be true that some definitions contain descriptions which lack "mathematical certainty," such precision and definiteness is not essential to constitutionality."

Thank God the legal system doesn't take these Nutters seriously.  They truly are sociopaths.  Please feel free to take those links you posted seriously, I think anybody who could believe any of that information has some serious issues or the more than likely case of extreme bias based on an obsession with Pitbulls.
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Nomad
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3374



« Reply #136 on: April 16, 2013, 08:00:20 AM »

So your point of view is that: false, offensive, dangerous, biased and self serving points of view should be taken into consideration when deciding health & safety policy for civilised society.  That certainly is an interesting point of view. 

Nope. Now you are just inserting words into my mouth.


And the connection between pedo's wanting to legalise child molestation and Pitbull advocacy is both parties only take their own self interest into account, the needs of the children that will be inevitably be harmed due to their lobbying and legislation  is never considered.  This has everything to do with my argument, what I am suggesting is that their will always be perverse minorities who wish to push their strange ideology and agenda on other people even though they know people will be harmed, sometimes killed.  Just because people want to fuck boys or people want to own fighting breeds of dog, doesn't mean it is a good thing (of course unless you like fucking boys of possessing fighting dogs)  or that such a thing should be legal.

And now you've basically lost the argument by tying the illegal behaviour of pedophiles to the legal right to own pitbulls. The only relationship between the two is in your head and its not logical. You clearly have mental issues, I suggest you should go see a mental health professional immediately.
Report to moderator   Logged

all drugs - TPPIIP
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #137 on: April 16, 2013, 08:28:39 AM »

Nope. Now you are just inserting words into my mouth.


And now you've basically lost the argument by tying the illegal behaviour of pedophiles to the legal right to own pitbulls. The only relationship between the two is in your head and its not logical. You clearly have mental issues, I suggest you should go see a mental health professional immediately.
And now you just showed what a knobhead you are, tying legality with morality.  So if paedophilia is legal, which is what the NAMBLA group are lobbying for, will you consider it something you would participate in.  And for your information, their are some states and countries were Pitbull ownership isn't a legal right. And I actually place paedophiles above Pitbull Owners and advocates.  Pitbull Nutters cause far more children to suffer. 
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Nomad
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3374



« Reply #138 on: April 16, 2013, 10:37:48 AM »

And now you just showed what a knobhead you are, tying legality with morality.  So if paedophilia is legal, which is what the NAMBLA group are lobbying for, will you consider it something you would participate in.  And for your information, their are some states and countries were Pitbull ownership isn't a legal right. And I actually place paedophiles above Pitbull Owners and advocates.  Pitbull Nutters cause far more children to suffer. 

Once again you have no argument. What you think is your argument is actually just a jumbled collection of your opinions/morals and trying to justify forcing others to live by your moral code.

Everytime you tried to put forward a logically sound argument you were shutdown by facts and numbers that state that the situation is contrary to your opinion. Therefore you resort to personal insults, ad hominems and red herring tactics such as trying to link pedophilia and pitbulls.
Report to moderator   Logged

all drugs - TPPIIP
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #139 on: April 16, 2013, 10:55:36 AM »

Are you fucking kidding me?, I just went through the whole thread and you haven't even presented ONE argument not even ONE, all you have done is pretend I have been shut down, this is your wishful thinking, any reasonable person would see that you are just severely butthurt because you can't get others to buy your nonsense about Pitbulls. The following is what you have offered so far in this thread

Everyone who doesn't share your point of you is some sort of nutter. I believe it would be logical to conclude that actually it is you who is a nutcase, not everyone else.

I think you are fat pansy girl in real life who only pick on "bullies" who are smaller and weaker then you.

The problem with mentally deranged people like E-kul is that they never bother to properly reevaualte their own opinion or consider other peoples, especially ones with conflicting points of view into account. Every time E-kul is challenged on some matter he just makes a point to copy paste more drivel he found on the web in an attempt to continuously hammer his point of view onto anyone who opposes him.

Once again you have no argument. What you think is your argument is actually just a jumbled collection of your opinions/morals and trying to justify forcing others to live by your moral code.

Everytime you tried to put forward a logically sound argument you were shutdown by facts and numbers that state that the situation is contrary to your opinion. Therefore you resort to personal insults, ad hominems and red herring tactics such as trying to link pedophilia and pitbulls.



You have just projected everything you have done in this thread onto me.  Go back through this thread and see the arguments I have put forward.  I have cited a recent study, done by PhD's, Academics and medical professionals, Highly qualified people who have their study published in a peer reviewed journal. I have provided links to other relevant studies, links to depositions DURING BSL hearings, links to a highly qualified dog trainer with decades of experience working with pitbulls.  And none of them you have read.  You are the only one here making ad hominem arguments, at least I acknowledge my dislike for the advocates while offering up information that discredits them,  You just sing the same old ad hominem tune over and over again.

I have addressed every argument put forward to me, and what have you done other than express how much you love to swing from the nutsack of a Pitbull because it enhances your diminished sense of masculinity.  While you continue to delude yourself about your so called non existent argument you put forward, Pitbulls continue to kill someone every few weeks.  That's not my opinion, that is a FACT.  Please refer me to these facts and numbers you are referring to, please enlighten us all with your statistics proving Pitbulls are a suitable breed of dog for a civilised society.  I look forward to it.  Just to make it easier for your Pitiot brain, I will post some nice meme's to make it easier for you to understand.  I literally have hundreds of these, i can post them all day every day.  I have dealt with Nutters like you on a daily basis for years.  Do you really think your hostile stance and "I wanna fucking own a Pitbull and fuck everyone else" argument is new to me?








Report to moderator   Logged

V
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #140 on: April 16, 2013, 11:01:59 AM »

Report to moderator   Logged

V
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #141 on: April 16, 2013, 11:10:57 AM »

Report to moderator   Logged

V
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #142 on: April 16, 2013, 11:13:05 AM »

Report to moderator   Logged

V
Nomad
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3374



« Reply #143 on: April 16, 2013, 12:00:03 PM »

And now E-kul tries to burry me with a copy-pasta jumble of stuff he found on google as well as personal attacks directed at me. May I remind you E-Kul, the last time I challenged you to a fight if you ever show
up in the USA your promptly backed down once you realized I was serious?


BTW, I do not need to present a counter argument to point out flaws in your 'argument' of which there are many. Basically you fucked up.
Report to moderator   Logged

all drugs - TPPIIP
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #144 on: April 16, 2013, 12:13:24 PM »

And now E-kul tries to burry me with a copy-pasta jumble of stuff he found on google as well as personal attacks directed at me. May I remind you E-Kul, the last time I challenged you to a fight if you ever show
up in the USA your promptly backed down once you realized I was serious?


BTW, I do not need to present a counter argument to point out flaws in your 'argument' of which there are many. Basically you fucked up.
I deal  with Pit Nutters on a regular basis, I have seen and heard it all.  I have received more threats from Pitbull Nutters than I can count.  And do you think you are the first tough guy to threaten me, I find your threats laughable but not surprising considering you have ZERO argument. I will add that to the long list of threats I have received.  After tangling with a couple of real life Pitbulls, I find the weaklings attracted to them about as intimidating as a class of kindergarten children.
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Nomad
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3374



« Reply #145 on: April 16, 2013, 02:28:38 PM »

I will add that to your list of zero arguments put forward in this thread.  I didn't find that stuff on the Internet, they are created by me.  I don't know if you realise, but I spend my spare time advocating and lobbying for serious legislation regarding dangerous dogs.  Like I said, I deal  with Pit Nutters on a daily basis, I have seen and heard it all.  I have received more death threats from Pitbull Nutters than I can count.  And do you think you are the first tough guy to threaten me, I find your threats laughable but not surprising considering you have ZERO argument. I will add that to the long list of threats I have received.  After tangling with a couple of real life Pitbulls, I find the weaklings attracted to them about as intimidating as a class of kindergarten children.

What threat? I challenged you to throw some hands since you are always bragging about how you beat up bullies and how much of a real man you are. I am not forcing you to meet me and I am not trying to hunt you down. Once again you keep putting words into my mouth or twisting the meaning of what I wrote.


Report to moderator   Logged

all drugs - TPPIIP
illwill
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 590

I'm not a playa. I'm just in them guts a lot


« Reply #146 on: April 16, 2013, 07:27:04 PM »

This e-kul is friggin' nuts. lol     

Every thread I go to he's being a nut. 
Report to moderator   Logged
illwill
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 590

I'm not a playa. I'm just in them guts a lot


« Reply #147 on: April 16, 2013, 08:32:20 PM »

I have cited a recent study, done by PhD's, Academics and medical professionals, Highly qualified people who have their study published in a peer reviewed journal.

E-kul, this study was done by non-animal behaviorists.  Hardly "highly qualified".


Let me pull an E-kul move here and post a wall of text and then sit back and await his meltdown.

Here is the rebuttal letter to the study you have such a hard on for. Sent to the editor of the peer reviewed journal you mention above:


Imprudent use of Unreliable Dog Bite Tabulations and Unpublished Sources

To the Editor:

"That will be the argument that a lot of people have, that it’s not the dog. It’s the owner. But I think you really have to throw the emotion out. Yeah, it’s emotional. But throw it away and let’s look at our data."
Dr John Bini, quoted in the Houston Chronicle, “Doctors Bare Grim Pit Bull Data,” May 8, 2011

When we write on a subject, emotional or otherwise, a decent respect for all concerned obligates us to make careful and judicious use of sources, and, as we would in any scientific endeavor, to be conservative in our pronouncements.

This has been my aim during the 20 years that I have researched and written about dog bite related fatalities. I have published 2 books on the subject: Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics1 and The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression. (2)

On the basis of my experience with this issue, I am dismayed by the erroneous data, the use of questionable sources, and the lack of fact checking that characterizes Dr Bini’s article. (3)

Case Presentation. In the first line, Dr Bini writes, “An 11-month-old boy arrived at our level 1 trauma center after being mauled by 2 pit bulls.

There is no documented evidence from any authority that either dog involved in this incident were “pit bulls.” To determine whether the breed attributed to these dogs could be visually substantiated by a recognized expert, I submitted photographs of both dogs to Dr Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB.∗ Dr Marder reported the breed(s) of dog could not be reasonably determined by visual identification.

Introduction. “Pit bull” is not a recognized breed of dog. Dr Bini seems not to have appreciated that he and one of the sources for his statistical characterizations do not include the same breeds of dogs under the term “pit bull.” Dr Bini et al cite the 1982 Pediatrics study “Traumatic deaths from dog attacks in the United States” by L. E. Pinckney and L. A. Kennedy, when they write, “Between 1966 and 1980 . . . although 16 deaths were attributable to German Shepherd Dogs and only 6 were attributable to pit bulls, there were 74,723 registered German Shepherd Dogs and only 929 registered pit bulls.

Dr Pinckney based his “pit bull” population number and the resulting “rate” or “highest number of deaths” on the total of 1976 American Kennel Club (AKC) registrations of “Bullterriers” (n = 929). By contrast, Dr Bini defines “pit bull” as American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. He does not include Bull Terriers.

Table 2: This table evidences an extremely problematic use of sources. I shall limit this discussion to the most grievous errors:

The authors fail to inform us where the data in column 1 (Breed) and column 2 (No. of dogs) originated. The authors describe Table 2 as “Adapted from Reference 14.” Reference 14 is an article in the periodical Municipal Lawyer. That article contains no tabular in-formation of any kind or nature.

On page 795, we find the following: “Over a recent 3-year period from January 2006 to March 30, 2009, a total of 98 dog bite fatalities involving 179 dogs occurred . . . A total of 113 pit bulls were involved in these deaths, and they accounted for 63% of the dogs involved in fatal attacks (Table 2).

Bini’s source used media accounts for the breed descriptions found in Table 2. Queries of the CDC database and state vital statistics reveal that from January 2006 to March 30, 2009, there were 101 dog bite related fatalities, involving at least 187 dogs. My findings, based on interviews with veterinarians, animal control, and police investigators, reveal that most of these dogs, however they may have been described in the media, were dogs of unknown pedigree. Only 24 of the 187 dogs can be described as purebred dogs, either on the basis of documented pedigree or other reasonable evidence. In light of a recent published study, (4) breed identifications of mixed breed dogs of unknown origin cannot be considered reliable, whoever made the identifications.

Table 2, Column 3:  

Dr Bini et al have not totaled the registered dogs that satisfy their definition of “pit bull.”

The first breed listed in Table 2 is “pit bull,” with a total of 2239 registrations for 2007. The authors footnote that “the term pit
bull refers to dogs from the following breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.”

The authors also footnote that “data presented only for dog breeds for which registration information is available from the American Kennel Club (AKC).”

Even as the authors use breed club registrations as a tool to analyze the US dog population—a practice with which most animal experts disagree—Dr Bini et al seem unaware that the most popular of the 3 breeds they define as “pit bull” (ie, American Pit Bull Terrier) is not recognized by the AKC.

American Pit Bull Terriers are registered by the United Kennel Club (UKC) or the American Dog Breeders Association. The UKC is the second largest breed registry in the United States, with 250,000 registrations annually. The American Pit Bull Terrier ranked as the second most registered breed with the UKC from 2005 through 2010.

Selective Use of Published and Unpublished Sources. There are approximately 25 to 30 dog bite related fatalities per year in the United States. With such a small sample, any errors made in the collection or reporting of such incidents is significant.

There are numerous errors in the source material used by Dr Bini concerning dog bite related fatalities. I list only a few. Additional case examples are available on request.

In addition to relying exclusively on news stories, Dr Bini’s source chose selectively among conflicting media accounts to extract “data.” Dr Bini’s source counts the following as “pit bull fatalities”:

1. Cause of death was not a result of dog bites: On February 9, 2007, James Chapple was attacked by 2 dogs identified by the me- dia as “pit bulls.” Mr Chapple received severe injuries but fully recovered and was discharged from the hospital. On May 17, 2007, Chapple was found dead in his bed. The Shelby County Medical Examiner (Case nos. 2007–1177) listed the cause of death as hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dog bites were neither the cause nor a contributing factor in the death of Mr Chapple.

2. Unresolvable disagreement as to breed descriptor: On October 5, 2008, a 2 month old boy was killed by a dog. One media source reported the dog to be a “pit bull” on the basis that “neighbors believe the dog to be a pit bull.” Other news stories quoted the Hawaiian Humane Society, which had custody of the dog, which officially reported that the dog “was not a pit bull.” Honolulu Police Investigators list the dog as a “Sharpei mix” on their incident report. (Voith)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Annals of Surgery r Volume 255, Number 5, May 2012
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
www.annalsofsurgery.com | e11
Letter to the Editor

Annals of Surgery r Volume 255, Number 5, May 2012

The conclusions reported in a peer reviewed medical journal should rest on a foundation of valid data. It is imperative that authors consider all sources carefully and judiciously. Dr Bini and his colleagues would have been well advised to consult animal professionals on subject matter that was clearly outside their area of expertise.

Karen Delise, LVT
National Canine Research Council New Market, Maryland

REFERENCE
1. Delise K. Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Be- hind the Statistics. Manorville, NY: Anubis; 2002.

2. Delise K. The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression. Manorville, NY: Anubis; 2007.

3. Bini JK, Cohn SM, Acosta SM, et al. for the TRISAT Clinical Trials Group. Mortality, Maul- ing, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs. Ann Surg. 2011;253:791–797.

4. VoithVL,IngramE,MitsourasK,etal.Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2009;12:253–262.


∗Dr Marder is a graduate of the University of Penn- sylvania’s School of Veterinary Medicine, and she completed the University’s first behavior residency. She currently serves as Director of the Center for Shelter Dogs at the Animal Rescue League of Boston. She is also a dog fancier, who showed Australian terriers.
Disclosure: The author declares no conflicts of interest. Copyright ⃝C 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins ISSN: 0003-4932/12/25505-e11
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318250c8f9

Report to moderator   Logged
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #148 on: April 16, 2013, 09:13:55 PM »

May I remind you E-Kul, the last time I challenged you to a fight if you ever show up in the USA your promptly backed down once you realized I was serious?
 
What threat? I challenged you to throw some hands since you are always bragging about how you beat up bullies and how much of a real man you are. I am not forcing you to meet me and I am not trying to hunt you down. Once again you keep putting words into my mouth or twisting the meaning of what I wrote.

Nobody is twisting your words dickhead.  You live in another country and you are challenging people to throw hands/  Are you 12 years old.  And thanks for not forcing me to meet you, like you have the ability to do that.  I imagine you have trouble forcing your cock to go hard.
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Radical Plato
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10558


Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.


« Reply #149 on: April 16, 2013, 10:30:22 PM »

E-kul, this study was done by non-animal behaviorists.  Hardly "highly qualified".


Let me pull an E-kul move here and post a wall of text and then sit back and await his meltdown.

Here is the rebuttal letter to the study you have such a hard on for. Sent to the editor of the peer reviewed journal you mention above:


Imprudent use of Unreliable Dog Bite Tabulations and Unpublished Sources

To the Editor:

"That will be the argument that a lot of people have, that it’s not the dog. It’s the owner. But I think you really have to throw the emotion out. Yeah, it’s emotional. But throw it away and let’s look at our data."
Dr John Bini, quoted in the Houston Chronicle, “Doctors Bare Grim Pit Bull Data,” May 8, 2011

When we write on a subject, emotional or otherwise, a decent respect for all concerned obligates us to make careful and judicious use of sources, and, as we would in any scientific endeavor, to be conservative in our pronouncements.

This has been my aim during the 20 years that I have researched and written about dog bite related fatalities. I have published 2 books on the subject: Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics1 and The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression. (2)

On the basis of my experience with this issue, I am dismayed by the erroneous data, the use of questionable sources, and the lack of fact checking that characterizes Dr Bini’s article. (3)

Case Presentation. In the first line, Dr Bini writes, “An 11-month-old boy arrived at our level 1 trauma center after being mauled by 2 pit bulls.

There is no documented evidence from any authority that either dog involved in this incident were “pit bulls.” To determine whether the breed attributed to these dogs could be visually substantiated by a recognized expert, I submitted photographs of both dogs to Dr Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB.∗ Dr Marder reported the breed(s) of dog could not be reasonably determined by visual identification.

Introduction. “Pit bull” is not a recognized breed of dog. Dr Bini seems not to have appreciated that he and one of the sources for his statistical characterizations do not include the same breeds of dogs under the term “pit bull.” Dr Bini et al cite the 1982 Pediatrics study “Traumatic deaths from dog attacks in the United States” by L. E. Pinckney and L. A. Kennedy, when they write, “Between 1966 and 1980 . . . although 16 deaths were attributable to German Shepherd Dogs and only 6 were attributable to pit bulls, there were 74,723 registered German Shepherd Dogs and only 929 registered pit bulls.

Dr Pinckney based his “pit bull” population number and the resulting “rate” or “highest number of deaths” on the total of 1976 American Kennel Club (AKC) registrations of “Bullterriers” (n = 929). By contrast, Dr Bini defines “pit bull” as American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. He does not include Bull Terriers.

Table 2: This table evidences an extremely problematic use of sources. I shall limit this discussion to the most grievous errors:

The authors fail to inform us where the data in column 1 (Breed) and column 2 (No. of dogs) originated. The authors describe Table 2 as “Adapted from Reference 14.” Reference 14 is an article in the periodical Municipal Lawyer. That article contains no tabular in-formation of any kind or nature.

On page 795, we find the following: “Over a recent 3-year period from January 2006 to March 30, 2009, a total of 98 dog bite fatalities involving 179 dogs occurred . . . A total of 113 pit bulls were involved in these deaths, and they accounted for 63% of the dogs involved in fatal attacks (Table 2).

Bini’s source used media accounts for the breed descriptions found in Table 2. Queries of the CDC database and state vital statistics reveal that from January 2006 to March 30, 2009, there were 101 dog bite related fatalities, involving at least 187 dogs. My findings, based on interviews with veterinarians, animal control, and police investigators, reveal that most of these dogs, however they may have been described in the media, were dogs of unknown pedigree. Only 24 of the 187 dogs can be described as purebred dogs, either on the basis of documented pedigree or other reasonable evidence. In light of a recent published study, (4) breed identifications of mixed breed dogs of unknown origin cannot be considered reliable, whoever made the identifications.

Table 2, Column 3:  

Dr Bini et al have not totaled the registered dogs that satisfy their definition of “pit bull.”

The first breed listed in Table 2 is “pit bull,” with a total of 2239 registrations for 2007. The authors footnote that “the term pit
bull refers to dogs from the following breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.”

The authors also footnote that “data presented only for dog breeds for which registration information is available from the American Kennel Club (AKC).”

Even as the authors use breed club registrations as a tool to analyze the US dog population—a practice with which most animal experts disagree—Dr Bini et al seem unaware that the most popular of the 3 breeds they define as “pit bull” (ie, American Pit Bull Terrier) is not recognized by the AKC.

American Pit Bull Terriers are registered by the United Kennel Club (UKC) or the American Dog Breeders Association. The UKC is the second largest breed registry in the United States, with 250,000 registrations annually. The American Pit Bull Terrier ranked as the second most registered breed with the UKC from 2005 through 2010.

Selective Use of Published and Unpublished Sources. There are approximately 25 to 30 dog bite related fatalities per year in the United States. With such a small sample, any errors made in the collection or reporting of such incidents is significant.

There are numerous errors in the source material used by Dr Bini concerning dog bite related fatalities. I list only a few. Additional case examples are available on request.

In addition to relying exclusively on news stories, Dr Bini’s source chose selectively among conflicting media accounts to extract “data.” Dr Bini’s source counts the following as “pit bull fatalities”:

1. Cause of death was not a result of dog bites: On February 9, 2007, James Chapple was attacked by 2 dogs identified by the me- dia as “pit bulls.” Mr Chapple received severe injuries but fully recovered and was discharged from the hospital. On May 17, 2007, Chapple was found dead in his bed. The Shelby County Medical Examiner (Case nos. 2007–1177) listed the cause of death as hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dog bites were neither the cause nor a contributing factor in the death of Mr Chapple.

2. Unresolvable disagreement as to breed descriptor: On October 5, 2008, a 2 month old boy was killed by a dog. One media source reported the dog to be a “pit bull” on the basis that “neighbors believe the dog to be a pit bull.” Other news stories quoted the Hawaiian Humane Society, which had custody of the dog, which officially reported that the dog “was not a pit bull.” Honolulu Police Investigators list the dog as a “Sharpei mix” on their incident report. (Voith)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Annals of Surgery r Volume 255, Number 5, May 2012
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
www.annalsofsurgery.com | e11
Letter to the Editor

Annals of Surgery r Volume 255, Number 5, May 2012

The conclusions reported in a peer reviewed medical journal should rest on a foundation of valid data. It is imperative that authors consider all sources carefully and judiciously. Dr Bini and his colleagues would have been well advised to consult animal professionals on subject matter that was clearly outside their area of expertise.

Karen Delise, LVT
National Canine Research Council New Market, Maryland

REFERENCE
1. Delise K. Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Be- hind the Statistics. Manorville, NY: Anubis; 2002.

2. Delise K. The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression. Manorville, NY: Anubis; 2007.

3. Bini JK, Cohn SM, Acosta SM, et al. for the TRISAT Clinical Trials Group. Mortality, Maul- ing, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs. Ann Surg. 2011;253:791–797.

4. VoithVL,IngramE,MitsourasK,etal.Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2009;12:253–262.


∗Dr Marder is a graduate of the University of Penn- sylvania’s School of Veterinary Medicine, and she completed the University’s first behavior residency. She currently serves as Director of the Center for Shelter Dogs at the Animal Rescue League of Boston. She is also a dog fancier, who showed Australian terriers.
Disclosure: The author declares no conflicts of interest. Copyright ⃝C 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins ISSN: 0003-4932/12/25505-e11
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318250c8f9


Karen's argument in her rebuttal is this:

1) Mis-identification of breed.
2) Incorrect Pitbull Population
3) The media as a source of information is problematic

1) The first argument regarding mis-indentification of the Pitbull Breed has been argued and lost in every Courtroom across America including the Supreme Court.  Fancy believing that of the over 400 breeds of dog available, that identifying a breed of dog is impossible. They actually believe this.  How anybody can not see through this is ridiculous.  It never occurs to them that if a non-pitbull can be confused as a Pitbull, then a Pitbull could surely be identified as a non-pitbull,  So for every non-Pitbull wrongly mis-identified as a Pitbull there could be a Pitbull wrongly identified as a non-Pitbull.  So by using their very own argument, there could in fact be more Pitbull attacks than cited due to the many Pitbull attacks where the Pitbull was mis-identified and blamed on a non-Pitbull breed. And this is probably more than likely, because due to many localities having strict legislation regarding Pitbulls, many Pitbull Owners claim their Pitbull is in fact a non-pitbull.  So the misidentification argument could be used to offer even more damning evidence against Pitbulls.  It is more than likely Pitbulls are being misidentified as a non-pitbull breed rather than the other way around.  But going by their ridiculous argument only Pitbulls can be misidentified, every other breed is easily recognised.  Their logic beggars belief.  They have been trying this nonsense for years.  Here's what the courts had to say about their ridiculousness:

"The Court concludes that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction; also, the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers to help determine whether a dog is described by any one of them. While it may be true that some definitions contain descriptions which lack "mathematical certainty," such precision and definiteness is not essential to constitutionality."

2) Her argument regarding pitbull population is another desperate attempt, as it stands it is widely accepted that about 5% of the dog population are Pitbulls and that over 50% of the fatalities are from pitbull attack.  Karen's desperate wish is that she can somehow close that extreme gap by somehow prooving that their are a lot more Pitbulls not yet accounted for in population statistics.  Ohter studies have used different methodology than relying on Kennel Club registrations, such as frequent surveys of regionally balanced samples of classified ads of dogs for sale, and they have also come up with the figure of 5%.  If KAREN has a more reliable way to do a census on Pitbulls, she should simply put that forward.  (Surely she doesn't think she is going to show that 50% of the fatalities is because 1 in every two dogs is a pitbull but then again, maybe she does, Karen is a true Nutter).

Karen also tries to cleverly deceive by suggesting their are unaccounted for 'Pitbulls' because the AKC doesn't acknowledge the breed.  What she fails to point out, that the UKC certainly recognises the breed and that the American Pit Bull Terrier can be dual registered with both the UKC & the AKC.  Whereas the UKC registers them as an American Pit Bull Terrier the AKC registers them as an American Staffordshire Terrier.  So the supposedly missing pitbulls are accounted for by including the AKC's registrations of the  American Staffordshire Terrier under the umbrella of Pitbulls.  This is not uncommon knowledge, and all fanciers acknowledge that the American Pit Bull Terrier & The American Staffordshire are virtually the same breed and are aware of the ability to dual register their dog.


3)  Her accusation that media is a problematic source is ridiculous, where does she want the data to come from. This is a persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocates that the use of media accounts as a data source is somehow suspect. In reality it is a very thorough source,  media coverage incorporates information from police reports, animal control reports, witness accounts, victim accounts in many instances, and hospital reports. Media coverage is, in short, multi-sourced, unlike reports from any single source.

4) The few examples she does give are quite disturbing in themselves, the case of James Chapelle, who endured the most brutal of Pitbull attacks and died a few months later and then they challenge that he didn't die from dog attack.  This poor man simply got of the bus when set upon by two large pitbulls.  The attack was so savage, his left arm had to be amputated below the elbow, and doctors weren't sure if he would ever regain full use of his right arm.  The victim spent the remaining few months in and out of hospital, but never fully recovered and died.  They then go on to say cause of death has been misattributed as the cause of death was listed as hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.  Something that was exacerbated by having limbs amputated and his many other serious injuries. Having a pre existing condition does not let an attacker of the hook, to suggest that a victim was going to die shortly anyway of their other complications is another insight into the sociopathic mind of the Pitbull Nutter.  For Karen to even use this as an example of how Pitbulls are not a problem really does boggle the mind, and give you an idea of how desperate they are.

Another case from the study she cites is is actually the case of 7 month old Izaiah Gregory Cox. (The study claimed the boy was 11 months old, but this was a mistake) It is the case of a young boy  brutally killed by his grandparents Pitbulls.  Once again Karen claims the dogs weren't Pitbulls, yet every eyewitness to the attack, including the neighbours called the dogs Pitbulls, Animal CONTROL, The Police and The LAW called them Pitbulls, but KAREN has some deluded belief that only she can identify Pitbulls. Karen sincerely believes there are only a handful of qualified people who can identify a Pitbull.  As I showed earlier, this claim has been dealt with by every Court in America, all dismissing it as nonsense, and not only that, suggesting that not only is an expert NOT required to identify a pitbull, any laymen can do it with the right information.

Even if there are a few mistakes in relation to the studies data, the overall data is so overwhelming, so incriminating, that the conclusion is obvious to any reasonable person.  The persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocates that pit bulls are overrepresented because of misidentification or because “pit bull” is, according to them, a generic term covering several similar types of dog. However, the frequency of pit bull attacks among these worst-in-10,000 cases is so disproportionate that even if half of the attacks in the pit bull category were misattributed, or even if the pit bull category was split three ways, attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other breed.

I will finish with this sentiment expressed in the study "Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada September 1982 to December 22, 2009

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."

Karen Delise simply doesn't have the data or the evidence that she claims she does, if she did she would simply put it forward or produce a study of her own.  Karen makes a lot of claims with no verifiable data, and ironically, that is what she accuses others of.  I don't suspect you will read my post, but I do this for those who actually want credible information, and not the biased self serving opinion of Pitbull Advocates sponsored by dog fighters.  And to suggest that Surgeons are not qualified to comment on serious injuries and yet an animal behaviourist is, smacks of the arrogance that Karen is renowned for.  Not only is she a self proclaimed 'Pitbull expert' she challenges surgeons and suggests she is better equipped to analyse injuries than they are.  All from photographs I might add.  Nobody really takes Karen seriously for these type of reasons.  Who do you think is qualified to talk about the injuries and fatalities caused by Dogs, if not the medical professionals who treat the victims, then who?  The implication is absurd to put it mildly.

Once again, for those interested in the subject, here are some links to relevant reading material on the matter.

You can read Dr Alan Becks deposition here: http://legal.pblnn.com/images/Denverpleadings/alanbeckdepo.pdf

You can read the study Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs 2011 here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSba3p4NW5CT09ZX0E/edit?usp=sharing

You can download the Interview with Gary Wilkes an experienced pitbull Trainer here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbdzhIVTdwUVFkUFk/edit?usp=sharing

You can read the study "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998" here https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbU1JHWGZPWHZ3a0E/edit?usp=sharing

You can read Adam Greenbaum, Pkastic Surgeon Interview in relation to Pitbull Injuries here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbMUR0YzZvbHFnNWc/edit?usp=sharing

You can read the study "Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada September 1982 to December 26, 2011" here https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbRDFTTmtyWEFiWTQ/edit?usp=sharing

You can read the study "Aggressive Behavior in Adopted Dogs (Canis Familiaris) that Passed a Temperament Test" here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbNnpieXl4Qmotd1E/edit?usp=sharing
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!