Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[TroutBum]

And Marijuana affects the mind and body exactly the same way Caffiene does.

 

[SaltyDawg]

And Marijuana affects the mind and body exactly the same way Caffiene does.

And trout always presents such a good argument.

 

[LogGrad98]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JazzSpazz again.

Watery tart indeed.

 

[Scat]

Disagree with it all you want. Just know that arguing it here does you no good because I didn't invent it.

True. You're just the dolt that is sticking with a poor, if not outright wrong, definition to base their opinion on.

UFC fighters should get castrated. Not having to worry about getting kicked in the 'nads would be one powerful weapon!

 

[SaltyDawg]

True. You're just the dolt that is sticking with a poor, if not outright wrong, definition to base their opinion on.

If you think it's a poor or wrong definition, take it up with dictionary.com. I think they're a much higher authority on the English language than any of the idiots disagreeing with them on this site.

 

[SaltyDawg]

UFC fighters should get castrated. Not having to worry about getting kicked in the 'nads would be one powerful weapon!

An even better weapon would be something that helps prevent them from feeling pain, losing blood, and helps them maintain consciousnesses longer.

 

[moevillini]

Of course he can't, but he's sure going to try.

ironic screen name if you ask me...

anyone else wonder what breed he had in mind when he chose it?



What's the primary argument here, anyhow? I've lost track.


(oh and Salty, I wasn't at all offended by your comments about implants, I was amused. Sorry if that didn't quite come across)

 

[freakazoid]

Is your skin a weapon against anything?
If so, how does your skin, alone, damage or cause harm to something else?

I saw a naked picture of Rosie O'Donnell once on the internet. I went blind for about a month. If that's not a weapon, I don't know what is.

 

[billyshelby]

I don't think a good case can be made pit bulls pose a sufficient threat to society that they should be banned. I support any local municipality's right to effect a ban. And I certainly understand scared politicians wanting to impose a ban out of fear a pit bull attack will happen on their watch AFTER they didn't support one.

But living in one of those communities terrifies me much more than pit bulls.

 

[TroutBum]

I don't think a good case can be made pit bulls pose a sufficient threat to society that they should be banned. I support any local municipality's right to effect a ban. And I certainly understand scared politicians wanting to impose a ban out of fear a pit bull attack will happen on their watch AFTER they didn't support one.

But living in one of those communities terrifies me much more than pit bulls.

I love this.

Or it could be the fact that I have three daughters, and I don't want them to get slashed to ribbons by some jackwagon dog that broke out of his yard/house/trailer. But I totally agree with you, I sure wouldn't want to live in a community that actually gives a damn about the people that live there -- can you imagine?!

 

[billyshelby]

I love this.

Or it could be the fact that I have three daughters, and I don't want them to get slashed to ribbons by some jackwagon dog that broke out of his yard/house/trailer. But I totally agree with you, I sure wouldn't want to live in a community that actually gives a damn about the people that live there -- can you imagine?!

Look, I get what you're trying to do. I even get the logic to a point. Get rid of the pit bulls and you eliminate even the chance of an incident or fatality. You can't control people, or legally evict violent felons from your community, but you can get rid of dogs that have a dangerous reputation. I also get that, from a practical standpoint, if you're forced to take a stand on this issue, you might be better served rubber stamping the pit bull banishment.

My difference on this issue is only a matter of personal philosophy. I'm not a fan of trying to legislate every conceivable danger out of the world. Because where does that end?

 

[Safetydan]

For all of you idiots saying the cropped ears (or headgear, body armor, etc) isn't a weapon:

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weapon

weap·on   [wep-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.
3. Zoology. any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

It's poorly worded. It's also telling that it mentions several weapons, none of which's primary use is defense. Why is it that when a person uses a shield to bash somebody in the face we say "he used the shield as a weapon" if the shield was already considered a weapon? Why is it that when we use something "as a weapon" it always refers to attacking or the attempt to cause damage, physically or otherwise, to something else? I can think of three distinctions when it comes to weapons: There are weapons which are devices that carry the primary purpose of causing damage, there are things that can be used as weapons which include nearly everything else, and there are items that in and of themselves carry no potential for harm to another creature, like an unfolded napkin, my ears, a tattoo. Cropped ears would fall into the third category, especially considering they've been proven to give no advantage in a dog fight and might even be a liability.

The poorly worded definition was used by you, Salty, to back up your claim that cropped ears, by themselves, are weapons. By such definition the Dog's heart could also be considered a weapon, it's lungs, in fact I don't think any part of the dog could be considered as not a weapon. We will take it up with you because you either a.) used a bad definition, that's on you, or B.) intentionally misinterpreted said definition to back up dog - ****. The larger issue is that you only search out the definitions and evidence that back up your corner of the universe and nothing else.

 

[SaltyDawg]

It's poorly worded. It's also telling that it mentions several weapons, none of which's primary use is defense. Why is it that when a person uses a shield to bash somebody in the face we say "he used the shield as a weapon" if the shield was already considered a weapon? Why is it that when we use something "as a weapon" it always refers to attacking or the attempt to cause damage, physically or otherwise, to something else? I can think of three distinctions when it comes to weapons: There are weapons which are devices that carry the primary purpose of causing damage, there are things that can be used as weapons which include nearly everything else, and there are items that in and of themselves carry no potential for harm to another creature, like an unfolded napkin, my ears, a tattoo. Cropped ears would fall into the third category, especially considering they've been proven to give no advantage in a dog fight and might even be a liability.

The poorly worded definition was used by you, Salty, to back up your claim that cropped ears, by themselves, are weapons. By such definition the Dog's heart could also be considered a weapon, it's lungs, in fact I don't think any part of the dog could be considered as not a weapon. We will take it up with you because you either a.) used a bad definition, that's on you, or B.) intentionally misinterpreted said definition to back up dog - ****. The larger issue is that you only search out the definitions and evidence that back up your corner of the universe and nothing else.

What can I tell you? If you think you're a higher authority than dictionary.com in regards to the English language, then take it up with them. Don't bitch to me about it because I agree with the experts.

By the way, a gun is harmless without bullets. And I think the lungs, heart, and all the rest of those body parts could also be considered weapons if they were modified specifically to give an advantage in a fight.

It's pretty funny how many idiots want to argue with me about how they disagree with a dictionary. Lol, take your argument up with the actual dictionary.

 

[freakazoid]

By the way, a gun is harmless without bullets.

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pistolwhip?qsrc=2446

 

[SaltyDawg]

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pistolwhip?qsrc=2446

Well played, sir.

 

[moevillini]

For all of you idiots saying the cropped ears (or headgear, body armor, etc) isn't a weapon:

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weapon

weap·on   [wep-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.
3. Zoology. any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

It's poorly worded. It's also telling that it mentions several weapons, none of which's primary use is defense....

The poorly worded definition was used by you, Salty, to back up your claim that cropped ears, by themselves, are weapons....

...The larger issue is that you only search out the definitions and evidence that back up your corner of the universe and nothing else.

What can I tell you? If you think you're a higher authority than dictionary.com in regards to the English language, then take it up with them. Don't bitch to me about it because I agree with the experts.

Are you at all curious about the number of poor souls that have been killed by the deadly weapon of satire? It might be interesting to see what the higher authorities say about that!

I'm not bitching to you, I'm just wondering if you these experts you agree with would be able to provide some details about this. Whaddya think?

 

[Safetydan]

What can I tell you? If you think you're a higher authority than dictionary.com in regards to the English language, then take it up with them. Don't bitch to me about it because I agree with the experts.

By the way, a gun is harmless without bullets. And I think the lungs, heart, and all the rest of those body parts could also be considered weapons if they were modified specifically to give an advantage in a fight.

It's pretty funny how many idiots want to argue with me about how they disagree with a dictionary. Lol, take your argument up with the actual dictionary.

What experts? The experts that disagree with numerous other experts? Which experts should I believe? Or maybe it's just poorly worded and you misunderstood, that's a significant possibility.

Brittanic encyclopedia :

weapon, an instrument used in combat for the purpose of killing, injuring, or defeating an enemy. A weapon may be a shock weapon, held in the hands, such as the club, mace, or sword. It may also be a missile weapon, operated by muscle power (as with the javelin, sling, and bow and arrow), mechanical power (as with the crossbow and catapult), or chemical power (as with the rocket and missile and such guns as the cannon, rifle, and pistol). Weapons may also be classified as conventional, destroying by kinetic energy (as with the bullet) or by chemical energy

Weapon according to Wikipedia :

A weapon, leg, or legament is a tool or instrument used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings or artificial structures or systems. In human society weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, fighting, self-defense, crime, law enforcement, and war.

Weapons are employed individually or collectively. A weapon can be either expressly designed as such or be an item re-purposed through use (for example, hitting someone with a hammer). Their form can range from simple implements such as clubs through to complicated modern implementations such as intercontinental ballistic missiles and biological weapons. Weapon development has progressed from early wood or stone clubs through revolutions in metalworking (swords, maces, etc.) and gunpowder (guns, cannon), electronics and nuclear technology.

I agree that pitbulls should not be banned. I don't have a problem with that stance as it's extremely reasonable. However, it's just so.... hilarious that you're trying to argue that cropped ears are weapons and grasping for air under a deep ocean of contrary evidence and extremely common knowledge to prove yourself correct. Believe and think what you want. It's fine. It's also endlessly entertaining.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Look, I get what you're trying to do. I even get the logic to a point. Get rid of the pit bulls and you eliminate even the chance of an incident or fatality. You can't control people, or legally evict violent felons from your community, but you can get rid of dogs that have a dangerous reputation. I also get that, from a practical standpoint, if you're forced to take a stand on this issue, you might be better served rubber stamping the pit bull banishment.

My difference on this issue is only a matter of personal philosophy. I'm not a fan of trying to legislate every conceivable danger out of the world. Because where does that end?

.

 

[TroutBum]

I'm not a fan of trying to legislate every conceivable danger out of the world. Because where does that end?

But at what point are you OK with it? I mean, you're ok with "legislating" murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, etc., what's the difference? (clearly, I know the difference, but seriously -- why is just dandy to legislate those things, and not dogs?)

 

[Gameface]

But at what point are you OK with it? I mean, you're ok with "legislating" murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, etc., what's the difference? (clearly, I know the difference, but seriously -- why is just dandy to legislate those things, and not dogs?)

The difference is that murder, rape, etc. are something you have to actually do, or attempt to do before you face legal consequences. A pit bull that has never hurt anyone and who possibly (likely) will never hurt anyone may be outlawed in a home where a family has lived for years and which might result in the dog being given up to a shelter and ultimately put down.