Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[SaltyDawg]

Well there you go. Black and white. Your opinion is it is a weapon. My opinion is it is not unless the dog gets in a fight, and even then it is highly suspect as a weapon, since by that definition the dog's food the day of the fight could be considered a weapon.

Fact is you cannot concretely say that cropped ears always fit the exact definition of a weapon. You can personally believe that they do, but your opinion does not make it fact. Plenty of others disagree, not with the definition of the word weapon necessarily but with the assumption that cropped ears fit that definition. If the dog never fights, then no the cropped ears are not a weapon since they would never have been used to win a fight. That fits the dictionary.con definition exactly.

If the dog never gets in a fight, then it had a weapon that it never used.

Either way, my point that got all of this started stands. Remember that? I said the cropped ears on the pit in that picture said a lot about the owners. That set you off on your ad hominem rampage, and all the losers looking for camaraderie decided to join in with you.

 

[LogGrad98]

If the dog never gets in a fight, then it had a weapon that it never used.

Either way, my point that got all of this started stands. Remember that? I said the cropped ears on the pit in that picture said a lot about the owners. That set you off on your ad hominem rampage, and all the losers looking for camaraderie decided to join in with you.

What ad hominem? I responded that the cropped ears cannot be used to judge the owners. There have been arguments all around this. You were the first one to start calling people idiots for not believing your interpretation of definitions. If all you saw in all of it was ad hominem that explains why you are so happy in your little world. Evidence contrary to salty's opinion = personal attack = automatically false. Makes sense, in a warped kind of way.

By the way this whole group ad hominem thing is pretty good straw man attempt when you have no good response for my last argument. Nice try. Concession acknowledged.

Have a nice day.

 

[NUMBERICA]

So are you clowns suggesting that if you give a pit bull a gun it will shoot another dog? Or if you give it a club it will use it to beat another dog?

Or is a club not a weapon to a pit bull, and instead they use other things as weapons, that humans probably don't use as weapons?

That just happened.

 

[freakazoid]

Let it go, and get back to the real issue. I think half a thread discussing the definition of weapon is a waste.

Repped. Some people should learn to use the phrase "agree to disagree" as a weapon.

 

[SaltyDawg]

What ad hominem? I responded that the cropped ears cannot be used to judge the owners. There have been arguments all around this. You were the first one to start calling people idiots for not believing your interpretation of definitions. If all you saw in all of it was ad hominem that explains why you are so happy in your little world. Evidence contrary to salty's opinion = personal attack = automatically false. Makes sense, in a warped kind of way.

By the way this whole group ad hominem thing is pretty good straw man attempt when you have no good response for my last argument. Nice try. Concession acknowledged.

Have a nice day.

I'm not going to go through all 19 pages, but a quick look turned up these gems. I don't see how you can claim this isn't ad hominem:

But I forget that many people sharing an opinion different than yours are all simply wrong, so you can go on living in your delusion that any and all pitbulls with cropped ears have it done solely so they dog can be a meaner fighter.

That makes it so hard not to just laugh at everything you post. You are obviously very narcissistic, very young or naive, or not very intelligent if you can't see that in life there is actually mostly gray area and not very much that is as black and white as you would have everyone believe. And your insistence on black and white in all arguments shows how desperate you are to win and represents absurdity at its finest.

I love how free you are with definitions just so you never have to admit you got it wrong. If you can freely redefine anything you can win any argument. Nice, if insane, tactic.

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

 

[One Brow]

That doesn't change the fact that weapon was defined the way I thought it was, and an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would fall under that definition.

Technically, by butchering the context of the definition in dictionary.com, it can be read the way you want it to read, and you want to read it so an invisibility cloak (or a MRE, for that matter) would qualify. In the two jobs I've had with the DoD, bunkers were not weapons (even though they let soldiers last longer in battle), the stealth materiel on the plane was not a weapon (even though the plane was a weapon, whose stealth capabilities let the plane do more damage), and invisibility cloaks would not have been weapons.

However, I know the futility of trying to convince you that you has misunderstood something, so I will say no more on htis subject in this thread.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not going to go through all 19 pages, but a quick look turned up these gems. I don't see how you can claim this isn't ad hominem:

An ad hominem is a logical fallacy that your argument is wrong because you are stupid, ugly, dishonest, etc. Not one of those quotes from LogGrad98 says the reason you argument is wrong is your putative stupidity, ugliness, dishonesty, etc.; they say the argument is so bad that it afects their opinion of you. You have the causal lines reversed from an ad hominem argument.

 

[Bronco70]

Okay, just to make sure I understand...

If I, knowing I am going to be involved in a tussle, preemptively cut off my own left leg, it's actually a weapon because now I've eliminated the possibility of a serious left ankle sprain, which may hinder my ability to fight?

Sweet. The interwebz rule.

 

[Scat]

okay, just to make sure i understand...

If i, knowing i am going to be involved in a tussle, preemptively cut off my own left leg, it's actually a weapon because now i've eliminated the possibility of a serious left ankle sprain, which may hinder my ability to fight?

Sweet. The interwebz rule.

lol +7

 

[bigb]

No, it is a weapon. Even if the owner stupidly gets it done for cosmetic purposes, if the dog gets in a fight it will still be used by the dog (the reason they were invented).

Helmets are not always used in fights. If a dog has cropped ears, they are always used in fights. So it's easy to see why a helmet might not always be a weapon while cropped ears are.

If you have a permanently mounted helmet that was made for battle, then that would probably be considered a weapon too.

Are you really this stupidly retarded? Or do you just like to pretend? If I wear a helmet 24/7 for my entire life, but never get in a fight, my helmet is not a weapon. It doesn't matter what the original intention of the helmet was. If a pit bull has cropped ears, but NEVER gets into a fight, IT IS NOT A WEAPON. It doesn't matter what the original intention of cropped ears was. Everybody understands this but you.

 

[kwb]

Let it burn.

-Usher

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Have people who speak English never used the term "use x as a weapon" before?

 

[Safetydan]

Have people who speak English never used the term "use x as a weapon" before?

Yes.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't see how an x can be a weapon. But according to dictionary.com, everything is a weapon, so I suppose now I have to be afraid of errant x's.

Oooh, I just scared myself.

 

[Safetydan]

i use something that isn't inherently a weapon "as a weapon". Otherwise a qualifying statement wouldn't be required.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Are you really this stupidly retarded? Or do you just like to pretend? If I wear a helmet 24/7 for my entire life, but never get in a fight, my helmet is not a weapon. It doesn't matter what the original intention of the helmet was. If a pit bull has cropped ears, but NEVER gets into a fight, IT IS NOT A WEAPON. It doesn't matter what the original intention of cropped ears was. Everybody understands this but you.

So if you have a gun but never shoot anyone, it's not a weapon then?

 

[LogGrad98]

Cropped ears are a closer comparison to a helmet than a gun.

 

[Safetydan]

Cropped ears are a closer comparison to a helmet than a gun.

well, if we're going on damage potential alone, lack of ears is much farther down the list of weapons than your average helmet.

 

[LogGrad98]

well, if we're going on damage potential alone, lack of ears is much farther down the list of weapons than your average helmet.

True. In fact from any standpoint ears are way below a helmet. A helmeted pitbull would be far more intimidating than one with small ears.

 

[TroutBum]

YB has a small helmet. I've seen it.