Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[TheDude]

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.

I think you and Uni Brow should get together. You both argue ridiculous points to no end.

 

[moevillini]

Oh, I just put on my socks, which are my favorite weapon. They defend the cold with a great deal of tenacity.

Don't you mean they attack the cold? Not to split hairs here or anything...

Why would you want to defend the cold? That just doesn't make sense.




(by the way, I used two spaces after each of those question marks - force of habit I guess)

 

[LogGrad98]

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.

Does the same apply to cropped ears? That they are a weapon depending on how they are used? Or are they a weapon all the time no matter what?

 

[TheDude]

Does the same apply to cropped ears? That they are a weapon depending on how they are used? Or are they a weapon all the time no matter what?

My new weapon! Beware!!!

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Don't you mean they attack the cold? Not to split hairs here or anything...

Why would you want to defend the cold? That just doesn't make sense.


(by the way, I used two spaces after each of those question marks - force of habit I guess)

Right, I would have thought it would be to defend against the cold, but that's not how it showed up at dictionary.com.

Sorry, but they are always right.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

My new weapon! Beware!!!

Is that Jim Carrey? By the way, I am more afraid of your new weapon than that sword.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Does the same apply to cropped ears? That they are a weapon depending on how they are used? Or are they a weapon all the time no matter what?

No, cropped ears are a weapon (at least on pit bulls). They were "invented" for the purpose of being an instrument to win fights.

Some morons might not understand this, and get them for "cosmetic" reasons only. But it doesn't change the fact that it helps the dog win fights, regardless of the owner's intentions.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I was wearing my hat today while mowing my lawn. Good thing no one ****ed with me because I was armed and dangerous. With my hat.

 

[LogGrad98]

No, cropped ears are a weapon (at least on pit bulls). They were "invented" for the purpose of being an instrument to win fights.

Some morons might not understand this, and get them for "cosmetic" reasons only. But it doesn't change the fact that it helps the dog win fights, regardless of the owner's intentions.

So how is a helmet used that would be considered a weapon? How are cropped ears used that would be considered a weapon? What is the exact method of weaponization of each?

 

[SaltyDawg]

So how is a helmet used that would be considered a weapon? How are cropped ears used that would be considered a weapon? What is the exact method of weaponization of each?

Cropped ears prevent damage and blood loss, helping to maintain consciousness. It's a tool used to help win a fight, so it's a weapon.

Kind of the same thing with a helmet. It prevents damage/injury, therefore allowing you to inflict more damage/injury. Not always a weapon, but certainly can be used as a weapon.

 

[moevillini]

I think sleep will be my weapon of choice. Can't do much of anything when you're dog-tired.

 

[One Brow]

... so we can stop the "only use them when they agree with you" nonsense.

Actually, my comment was about ranking the dictionaries, not using the dictionaries. I have no trouble believing you prefer dictionary.com (my preference is to start at OneLook and procede to the American Heritage). I firmly believe that when you see a definition you like, you will pick the dictionary that uses that definition and rank it as the mnost reliable for that discussion, feeling no need to be consistent from discussion to discussion, based on your history.

However, if you say that you always think dictionary.com is the best resource, I'll take your word for it.

Merriam-Webster may be the standard for print dictionaries, but dictionary.com is the standard for online.

Does the meaning of words change between being in print and being on-line? This ranks right up there with the stupidest things people have said on this forum. Taking your word for something only goes until you contradict your own position in the same post.

Personally, I like Merriam-Webster for inclusive English, Oxford for British English, and the aforementioned American Heritage for American English.

 

[LogGrad98]

Cropped ears prevent damage and blood loss, helping to maintain consciousness. It's a tool used to help win a fight, so it's a weapon.

Kind of the same thing with a helmet. It prevents damage/injury, therefore allowing you to inflict more damage/injury. Not always a weapon, but certainly can be used as a weapon.

But you could argue that a helmet offers better protection than cropped ears, since it covers the ears and more of the head, but it is not always a weapon. But cropped ears actually leave more of the inner ear exposed, not to mention the rest of the head, so it is obviously less protection than a helmet, but it is still always a weapon? Interesting logic you got there.

Still comes down to your standard: If it agrees with Salty's opinion it is true, otherwise it is false. You need to change your name to SpeciousDawg.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Does the meaning of words change between being in print and being on-line? This ranks right up there with the stupidest things people have said on this forum. Taking your word for something only goes until you contradict your own position in the same post.

Personally, I like Merriam-Webster for inclusive English, Oxford for British English, and the aforementioned American Heritage for American English.

No, the meaning of words don't change if it's posted online, lol. I'm pretty sure Merriam-Webster doesn't put much focus into their online business. For example, of the 2 print dictionaries I looked up "weapon" one was a Merriam-Webster, and the definition was not the same as the one on their website.

The website is actually different than the print dictionary (at least different than the one I checked). Dictionary.com doesn't even make a print dictionary anyway, at least not one that I'm aware of.

When I was saying it's the "standard" I mostly just meant it's the most widely used. Dictionary.com is the most widely used online, Merriam-Webster is the most used print.

 

[TheDude]

Someone should start a new thread... Best Dictionary.

I like the urban slang version.

 

[Scat]

But you could argue that a helmet offers better protection than cropped ears, since it covers the ears and more of the head, but it is not always a weapon. But cropped ears actually leave more of the inner ear exposed, not to mention the rest of the head, so it is obviously less protection than a helmet, but it is still always a weapon? Interesting logic you got there.

Still comes down to your standard: If it agrees with Salty's opinion it is true, otherwise it is false. Youneed to change your name to SpeciousDawg.

Damn, you're brilliant! Helmets and shields for pitbulls!! Talk about rocking the fighting pit.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Damn, your brilliant! Helmets and shields for pitbulls!! Talk about rocking the fighting pit.

Especially if they've had a good 8 hours of sleep before the fight.

 

[SaltyDawg]

But you could argue that a helmet offers better protection than cropped ears, since it covers the ears and more of the head, but it is not always a weapon. But cropped ears actually leave more of the inner ear exposed, not to mention the rest of the head, so it is obviously less protection than a helmet, but it is still always a weapon? Interesting logic you got there.

Still comes down to your standard: If it agrees with Salty's opinion it is true, otherwise it is false. You need to change your name to SpeciousDawg.

Yes, you could argue that a helmet does all of that. And you could also consider a helmet to be a weapon if you're using it to win a fight. A helmet wasn't "invented" as a tool for a fight though, unlike the cropped ears.

It's not a matter of agreeing with my opinion or not. It's just my opinion happens to agree with the definitions. You guys apparently thought a weapon was only for attacking. Plenty of definitions have it defined as something you use in a fight (without specifying attack or defense), and others actually say attack or defense.

Let me ask you this:
Do you consider Patriot missiles a weapon? Do you consider the missile defense (whatever they call that system that shoots down intercontinental missiles) a weapon? What about a suit of armor?

 

[LogGrad98]

Yes, you could argue that a helmet does all of that. And you could also consider a helmet to be a weapon if you're using it to win a fight. A helmet wasn't "invented" as a tool for a fight though, unlike the cropped ears.

It's not a matter of agreeing with my opinion or not. It's just my opinion happens to agree with the definitions. You guys apparently thought a weapon was only for attacking. Plenty of definitions have it defined as something you use in a fight (without specifying attack or defense), and others actually say attack or defense.

Let me ask you this:
Do you consider Patriot missiles a weapon? Do you consider the missile defense (whatever they call that system that shoots down intercontinental missiles) a weapon? What about a suit of armor?

Are you now an expert on helmets? If not invented for battle, then why were they invented?

So by your own definition (highlighted) cropped ears cannot be weapons. How are they used? They just sit there. The dog does nothing with them. He does not use them.

It is still a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that cropped ears fit the definition of a weapon. It is the opinion of many on this board that they do NOT. Since I found a definition that specifies causing harm as the purpose of a weapon, I cannot understand why you would disagree with the definition, since it is so clear. Obviously you need to take it up with the authorities who wrote the definition, since obviously cropped ears are not used to cause harm in and of themselves so they cannot be construed to be weapons.

 

[kwb]

If anything, cropped ears were to benefit the dog in a fight. Anyone notice how floppy pit bull ears are when they are not cut? I see why they did it so the other dog didn't have something to get a hold of. Also, we all know how sensitive dogs ears are. My buddy use to wrestle with his lab and he would barely bite his dogs ear without hardly any pressure and his dog would yelp. Now imagine a pit bull grabbing onto it. Would make the dog run and quit I suppose. I don't see how they were used as a weapon. I don't see another dog thinking, "Hey! That guys ears are weird! I'm going to be scared now!" They wouldn't have time, their too busy sniffing each others butts.

I now realize that maybe all this was already brought up but I'm not about to read through every post.