What's new
By:

Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

Safetydan said:
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 according to Wikipedia :


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.
Click to expand...
I'm not grasping at anything. I posted that they are a weapon, a couple of people disagreed, so I posted the first definition I looked up (which is probably the #1 source for online dictionary).

Incidentally, as something made and used specifically for a more efficient fight, your definition doesn't exactly contradict it either.

Like I said, I didn't write the definition. If you have a problem with the definition, take it up with the dictionary. Don't blame me when a word isn't defined exactly the way you thought it was.
 
TroutBum said:
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?)
Click to expand...

I think you can address the problem in other ways besides banning them outright, much of which has been talked about in this thread. I would probably support restrictions that regulate breeding and owning multiple dogs, for example. I also think mandatory spay/neutering is reasonable for anyone not licensed as a breeder. And like I've said before, harsher penalties for people with problem dogs.
 
SaltyDawg said:
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.
Click to expand...

SaltyDawg said:
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.
...
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.
Click to expand...

SaltyDawg said:
I'm not grasping at anything. I posted that they are a weapon, a couple of people disagreed, so I posted the first definition I looked up (which is probably the #1 source for online dictionary).
...
Like I said, I didn't write the definition. If you have a problem with the definition, take it up with the dictionary. Don't blame me when a word isn't defined exactly the way you thought it was.
Click to expand...

So will you give me a name of even one of these experts you know? Credentials? For all we know it's some company in India.
A phone number would be good. I would rather not use email.
TIA
 
SaltyDawg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Personally, if you must rank authorities, Merriam-Webster outranks dictionary.com.

Unless dictionary.com agrees with SaltyDawg and Merriam-Webster does not, of course.
 
I just want to point out once again that i've eaten dog on at least 4 different occasions (and counting) and also add that im sure at least one may have been a pitbull. I, therefore, consider myself an expert on the matter. I can tell you by taste alone that pit bulls are at least 37% more viscious than the nearest breed (±5). Im currently in Korea and am boound to eat more dog soup. When this occurs, I will then post my updated results pending peer review.
 
Safetydan said:
I just want to point out once again that i've eaten dog on at least 4 different occasions (and counting) and also add that im sure at least one may have been a pitbull. I, therefore, consider myself an expert on the matter. I can tell you by taste alone that pit bulls are at least 37% more viscious than the nearest breed (±5). Im currently in Korea and am boound to eat more dog soup. When this occurs, I will then post my updated results pending peer review.
Click to expand...

A perfect occasion for one of my less PC opinions. I, also, have lived in Asia, and I'm sure it really wasn't "filet mignon" I ate in some of their upscale restaurants. Imported beef is something a lot of good Asian chefs can do without.

One day touring the hinterlands, I saw a man walking along the road stark naked, with a dead dog slung over his shoulder. He wore a big smile, and waved, thumbs up, crying "Hey Joe!". I knew his wife and kids would be luvvin their tummies before long.

In this country, the League of Blue-Haired Ladies, aka The Humane Society, has successfully lobbied to keep their death camps busy and a lot of Asians hungry. If I was dogcatcher, I'd be getting an export license and sending all our unwanted mutts where they can do some good.

Maybe I should write a letter to Thomas Monson explaining the real meaning of Mormon scripture about how we shouldn't kill animals except when we need something to eat, and lobby all our Mormon legislators here in Utah. I know I'll get the Vietnamese, Polynesian, Filipino,Thai, Cambodian Chinese, Indian, Korean, and Japanese vote. I'll have to polish up my Spanish and ask my neighbors over for supper soon, too. Mmmmm. . . . Aso!
 
JazzSpazz said:
So will you give me a name of even one of these experts you know? Credentials? For all we know it's some company in India.
A phone number would be good. I would rather not use email.
TIA
Click to expand...

One Brow said:
Personally, if you must rank authorities, Merriam-Webster outranks dictionary.com.

Unless dictionary.com agrees with SaltyDawg and Merriam-Webster does not, of course.
Click to expand...

Credentials:
https://content.dictionary.com/?__u...cct=/showthread.php&__utmv=-&__utmk=158676154

"the world’s largest and most authoritative free online dictionary and mobile reference resource." "Dictionary.com was launched in 1995, under the name of Lexico Publishing, LLC and was acquired by IAC in 2008. Today, it is the most-visited, most trusted, online dictionary. Located in Oakland, CA"

Contact info:
https://content.dictionary.com/about/contact


You may agree or disagree that this is the absolute highest authority on the English language. But what isn't really debatable is they are a legit dictionary. They also claim to be the #1 most used (and I know it's the only online dictionary I ever use, and the only one I ever see linked to) so we can stop the "only use them when they agree with you" nonsense. I used the word the way I thought it was defined, when a couple people disagreed the first place I looked had it defined the way I always thought it was defined. And a case could be made that all of the other posted definitions are similar enough to be used that way too. It's not cherry picking definitions. It's more like I had the correct definition in the first place.

Merriam-Webster may be the standard for print dictionaries, but dictionary.com is the standard for online. Incidentally, I checked two separate print dictionaries and neither one of them said a weapon was only for offensive purposes. Both basically said "an instrument for use in a fight." So even under those definitions, cropping a dog's ears so they don't get damaged in a fight could be considered a weapon.

If you have an instance of me saying I disagreed with dictionary.com, please post it. If you have an instance of me posting some other dictionary site's definition instead of dictionary.com's, post it. Otherwise, stop this nonsense of saying I cherry picked the definition and only consider them a high authority because they agreed with me this one time.
 
catratcho said:
I realize this is going way back in the thread, but I have something to say about this.


As far as your relation to labs: Like I said earlier, I currently have two labs. I bought both of them at 5 weeks of age. The first time I ever sat down with them at home they would retrieve things and bring them right back to me. Granted, it wasn't picture perfect and exactly as it should have been, but they brought it to me. At 5-6 weeks old. With no "training". It's bred into them. That's what they do.
In general, I agree with your statement about Pit Bulls. I've seen and dealt with sweet and nice pit bulls. But that doesn't change the fact that they are a dangerous breed.
Click to expand...

Like you, with my first pup which was an American Bulldog, he fetched right away and had not one bit of lab in him. Like yours, it wasn't pretty but he knew.
 
kwb said:
Like you, with my first pup which was an American Bulldog, he fetched right away and had not one bit of lab in him. Like yours, it wasn't pretty but he knew.
Click to expand...

Well, eventually they were bred to hunt feral hogs in the south so chasing after things is not a stretch. Just don't rub bacon grease on your nads and expect them to stick with licking.
 
Scat said:
Well, eventually they were bred to hunt feral hogs in the south so chasing after things is not a stretch. Just don't rub bacon grease on your nads and expect them to stick with licking.
Click to expand...

Yeah because any other dog would just lick. You seriously need to wake up.

Wrong again. They were originally bred to be catch dogs and then along the lines they started to breed them to fight.

The dog was bred first to bait bulls and bears.[3] When baiting bulls was deemed inhumane, ratting (a sport where a number of rats were placed in a pit for a specified time with the dog) and dog fighting became more popular. The APBT was used in both sports, and its prevalence in being put in pits with rats led to "pit" being added to its name.[4] With time, the dogs became more commonly domesticated due to their loyalty, loving and gentle nature with their owners.[5] In America, farmers and ranchers used their APBTs for protection, as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, and to drive livestock.[6] The dog was used during World War I and World War II as a way of delivering messages on the battlefield.[5]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier
 
SaltyDawg said:
Credentials:
https://content.dictionary.com/?__u...cct=/showthread.php&__utmv=-&__utmk=158676154

"the world’s largest and most authoritative free online dictionary and mobile reference resource." "Dictionary.com was launched in 1995, under the name of Lexico Publishing, LLC and was acquired by IAC in 2008. Today, it is the most-visited, most trusted, online dictionary. Located in Oakland, CA"

Contact info:
https://content.dictionary.com/about/contact


You may agree or disagree that this is the absolute highest authority on the English language. But what isn't really debatable is they are a legit dictionary. They also claim to be the #1 most used (and I know it's the only online dictionary I ever use, and the only one I ever see linked to) so we can stop the "only use them when they agree with you" nonsense. I used the word the way I thought it was defined, when a couple people disagreed the first place I looked had it defined the way I always thought it was defined. And a case could be made that all of the other posted definitions are similar enough to be used that way too. It's not cherry picking definitions. It's more like I had the correct definition in the first place.

Merriam-Webster may be the standard for print dictionaries, but dictionary.com is the standard for online. Incidentally, I checked two separate print dictionaries and neither one of them said a weapon was only for offensive purposes. Both basically said "an instrument for use in a fight." So even under those definitions, cropping a dog's ears so they don't get damaged in a fight could be considered a weapon.

If you have an instance of me saying I disagreed with dictionary.com, please post it. If you have an instance of me posting some other dictionary site's definition instead of dictionary.com's, post it. Otherwise, stop this nonsense of saying I cherry picked the definition and only consider them a high authority because they agreed with me this one time.
Click to expand...

team_blue.jpg

Which one do I ask for using that generic email? I just don't know which one is the expert you recommend most.

Oh, I just put on my socks, which are my favorite weapon. They defend the cold with a great deal of tenacity.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I am shocked, not one definition mentioned a helmet being a weapon. Weird, since it has been proven so thoroughly that a helmet is indeed nothing but a weapon.

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

Same here. Very strange that this refernce would get it right with one definition then contradict itself with another.

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shield
Click to expand...
So? What does this have to do with cropping a dog's ears? And I never said a helmet was "nothing but a weapon" either. I said it could be used as a weapon, or considered a weapon depending on how it was used. The NFL agrees, by the way.
 
JazzSpazz said:
View attachment 372

Which one do I ask for using that generic email? I just don't know which one is the expert you recommend most.

Oh, I just put on my socks, which are my favorite weapon. They defend the cold with a great deal of tenacity.
Click to expand...
You can email whoever the heck you want. What are you asking me for? I don't work there. If you want info about that company, contact that company and ask them. I'm not your secretary and not a representative of that company.
 
SaltyDawg said:
You can email whoever the heck you want. What are you asking me for? I don't work there. If you want info about that company, contact that company and ask them. I'm not your secretary and not a representative of that company.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. I thought you were.
 
Trout, if you ask me, there are far more important things that need to be banned. For example, skinny jeans and Justin Bieber haircuts. Any community would benefit from not having those two things around. I know what I ask of you is much but do your best. Thanks.
 
kwb said:
Trout, if you ask me, there are far more important things that need to be banned. For example, skinny jeans and Justin Bieber haircuts. Any community would benefit from not having those two things around. I know what I ask of you is much but do your best. Thanks.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about! If I win, you can count on that being brought up at the next meeting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top