Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[Scat]

I actually posted a link (which is common knowledge anyway, but still posted proof) showing that pit bulls ears were originally clipped so they didn't get hurt during fights. If someone is clipping them to conform to a standard, this is the standard they are trying to meet. Whether they intend to fight the dog, or they just want it to look like a fighter, the cropped ears were originally meant to make the dog a better fighter.

Try reading a little before you go off on your rants. When you say I haven't posted any facts you are either flat out lying, or you haven't read everything.

I read your original post regarding clipping ears and docking tails and I agree 100% that it was originally done for reasons that involved fighting the dogs. Where you go south is claiming only those that fight dogs now have the proceduers performed and that the procedure in and of itself will make the dog aggressive. That's where you turn into crazy conspiracy dude.

Over time, a standard is set. That standard is carried through regardless of why a person obtained the dog. Look at Cocker Spaniels. Their tails were originally docked to prevent burrs getting caught in their tails while flushing game. When is the last time you heard of anyone using a Cocker to flush game? Yet nearly every Cocker sold comes with a docked tail because that is the standard. The original intent no longer matters. It simply is now the standard.

It would be interesting to see stats on how many pitbull attacks are carried out by clipped/docked dogs vs. not clipped/docked. I bet there is no difference.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Until guns get banned, I cannot remotely fathom how this is even a topic of discussion.

And before someone flies off the handle, I'm not necessarily saying guns should be banned.

 

[Scat]

Until guns get banned, I cannot remotely fathom how this is even a topic of discussion.

And before someone flies off the handle, I'm not necessarily saying guns should be banned.

This has already been discussed. Apples and oranges. A gun does not climb the fence and attack on it's own. A gun needs direct human use.

 

[LogGrad98]

I read your original post regarding clipping ears and docking tails and I agree 100% that it was originally done for reasons that involved fighting the dogs. Where you go south is claiming only those that fight dogs now have the proceduers performed and that the procedure in and of itself will make the dog aggressive. That's where you turn into crazy conspiracy dude.

Over time, a standard is set. That standard is carried through regardless of why a person obtained the dog. Look at Cocker Spaniels. Their tails were originally docked to prevent burrs getting caught in their tails while flushing game. When is the last time you heard of anyone using a Cocker to flush game? Yet nearly every Cocker sold comes with a docked tail because that is the standard. The original intent no longer matters. It simply is now the standard.

It would be interesting to see stats on how many pitbull attacks are carried out by clipped/docked dogs vs. not clipped/docked. I bet there is no difference.

This. In spades.

And there is no evidence at all that cropping a dogs ears will make it more aggressive in and of itself.

 

[NUMBERICA]

This has already been discussed. Apples and oranges. A gun does not climb the fence and attack on it's own. A gun needs direct human use.

Then the Pit issue is an orange the size of a golfball and the gun issue is the size of the ****ing moon. Seems reasonable.

It's not like humans can just up and shoot up an area or anything either.

 

[NUMBERICA]

A gun doesn't shoot itself, therefore they are less dangerous than pit bulls. Brilliant.

 

[Gameface]

A gun doesn't shoot itself, therefore they are less dangerous than pit bulls. Brilliant.

When a dog attacks someone we can only hold the owners accountable, even though they may have done everything they knew how to do to raise a responsible dog. When a person shoots someone it is obvious that they are responsible and can be held accountable.

If you took away all the guns people would still hurt one another because they want to. The gun did not make them want to hurt someone. Owning a pitbull is not like owning a gun, it's like owning a time bomb that might go off at any moment or might never go off. Who is hurt is completely unpredictable.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I read your original post regarding clipping ears and docking tails and I agree 100% that it was originally done for reasons that involved fighting the dogs. Where you go south is claiming only those that fight dogs now have the proceduers performed and that the procedure in and of itself will make the dog aggressive. That's where you turn into crazy conspiracy dude.

Over time, a standard is set. That standard is carried through regardless of why a person obtained the dog. Look at Cocker Spaniels. Their tails were originally docked to prevent burrs getting caught in their tails while flushing game. When is the last time you heard of anyone using a Cocker to flush game? Yet nearly every Cocker sold comes with a docked tail because that is the standard. The original intent no longer matters. It simply is now the standard.

It would be interesting to see stats on how many pitbull attacks are carried out by clipped/docked dogs vs. not clipped/docked. I bet there is no difference.

I never claimed only those that fight dogs now have the procedures performed. But yes, I think if you go out of your way to make a dog a better fighter, even if you only do it because you think it makes him look cool, then you shouldn't blame it on his breed if he attacks someone.

I would love to see stats on cropped vs not cropped attacks. I don't think stats like that are kept, but I'd bet cropped pit bulls attack at a much higher rate.

This has nothing to do with Cockers either. It doesn't matter that people don't intend to fight the pit. If they are going out of their way to make it tougher (even if they don't realize that is what they're doing) then they can't turn around and blame it on the breed when the dog attacks.

And at no point did I say this was the only reason pit bulls ever attack. I just said it says a lot about the owner (either current or past) of a pit that has his ears cropped.

There are plenty of ways owners can be irresponsible, cropping the ears is one of them.

Cropped ears are like a weapon to a pit bull. They are there to make the dog a better fighter. If you give someone a weapon at a young age (and they keep it for their entire life), and their natural instinct is to use that weapon, don't be surprised if they eventually try to use that weapon.

 

[LogGrad98]

You seriously think cropping the ears makes the puppy suddenly aware of its violent nature, like it is some psychic connection or something? Really? Do you realize how nuts that sounds? So if I give my infant son a tattoo of some esoteric gang symbol then he will of his own accord start a gang or something? Again, nuts.

How do you explain the articles I posted of bulls with uncropped ears attacking people, especially the one where the family was shocked the dog would attack anyone?

 

[Scat]

Cropped ears are like a weapon to a pit bull. They are there to make the dog a better fighter. If you give someone a weapon at a young age (and they keep it for their entire life), and their natural instinct is to use that weapon, don't be surprised if they eventually try to use that weapon.

LOL Cropped ears are not a weapon. They are a defensive alteration that was originally started to help prevent their ears from getting grabbed by other dogs when fighting. You make it sound like a secret switch blade tucked in the waistband. You also make it sound like the dog is smart enough to realize that its cropped ears make it a better fighter.

"Hey, Hector. Are you looking at me funny?"

"Um, no way Felix. You have cropped ears. I would never mess with you!"

LOL

 

[SaltyDawg]

You seriously think cropping the ears makes the puppy suddenly aware of its violent nature, like it is some psychic connection or something? Really? Do you realize how nuts that sounds? So if I give my infant son a tattoo of some esoteric gang symbol then he will of his own accord start a gang or something? Again, nuts.

How do you explain the articles I posted of bulls with uncropped ears attacking people, especially the one where the family was shocked the dog would attack anyone?

I don't know that cropped ears "suddenly" make the dog aware of its violent nature. But I do know they certainly don't help the dog "forget" about its violent nature.

I explain the non cropped pit attacks you posted the same way I explain the lab attack I posted: all breeds are predators that will attack sometimes.

I wouldn't say getting your son a gang tattoo would make him start a gang. But if you permanently attach brass knuckles to his hands, he'll probably use them at some point.

 

[SaltyDawg]

LOL Cropped ears are not a weapon. They are a defensive alteration that was originally started to help prevent their ears from getting grabbed by other dogs when fighting.

So they're not a weapon, they're a tool to help them win a fight (aka a weapon). Got it.

 

[Scat]

So they're not a weapon, they're a tool to help them win a fight (aka a weapon). Got it.

No. More of a tool to help them not lose an ear.

 

[LogGrad98]

And why do they clip the ears and tails?

It absolutely is telling if the ears/tail are clipped. Even if they were done by a previous owner, they have still probably been taught to be mean at some point.

So they're not a weapon, they're a tool to help them win a fight (aka a weapon). Got it.

Huh? Is headgear used in martial arts tournaments a weapon then? So anything used to help win a fight is a weapon? If you use a map to plan an attack then the map is a weapon? Body armor would be a weapon? Goggles are a weapon? Really? 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.

 

[SaltyDawg]

No. More of a tool to help them not lose an ear.

For what purpose? To help them win a fight. In other words, a weapon.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Huh? Is headgear used in martial arts tournaments a weapon then? So anything used to help win a fight is a weapon? If you use a map to plan an attack then the map is a weapon? Body armor would be a weapon? Goggles are a weapon? Really? 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.

Headgear, goggles, and body armor can certainly be considered weapons. If you are using them to win a fight, then yes, it's a weapon.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't know that cropped ears "suddenly" make the dog aware of its violent nature. But I do know they certainly don't help the dog "forget" about its violent nature.

I explain the non cropped pit attacks you posted the same way I explain the lab attack I posted: all breeds are predators that will attack sometimes.

I wouldn't say getting your son a gang tattoo would make him start a gang. But if you permanently attach brass knuckles to his hands, he'll probably use them at some point.

That still makes no sense. If you have a dog that is violent by nature, due to breeding, then mutilation of any kind, other than neutering which actually affects the chemical makeup of the animal, would have no effect on that inborn trait. If it is inborn to fight, leaving its ears alone does nothing to make it "forget" its instincts. Cropping the ears does nothing to make it "aware" of its instincts. Instincts are inborn, they are there no matter what. So by that logic, if you have a pitbull that is born with a deformity of not having any ears at all, or having great big floppy ears, then that will effectively suppress the aggressive instincts? That is simply ludicrous.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't know that cropped ears "suddenly" make the dog aware of its violent nature. But I do know they certainly don't help the dog "forget" about its violent nature.

I explain the non cropped pit attacks you posted the same way I explain the lab attack I posted: all breeds are predators that will attack sometimes.

I wouldn't say getting your son a gang tattoo would make him start a gang. But if you permanently attach brass knuckles to his hands, he'll probably use them at some point.

That still makes no sense. If you have a dog that is violent by nature, due to breeding specifically for fighting as you have pointed out, then mutilation of any kind, other than neutering which actually affects the chemical makeup of the animal, would have no effect on that inborn trait. If it is inborn to fight, leaving its ears alone does nothing to make it "forget" its instincts. Cropping the ears does nothing to make it "aware" of its instincts. Instincts are inborn, they are there no matter what. So by that logic, if you have a pitbull that is born with a deformity of not having any ears at all, or having great big floppy ears, then that will effectively suppress the aggressive instincts? That is simply ludicrous.

Also, cropped ears are hardly comparable to brass knuckles. It is far closer to a tattoo than brass knuckles. How many fights did a dog ever win by smacking the other dog with its ears?

 

[SaltyDawg]

That still makes no sense. If you have a dog that is violent by nature, due to breeding, then mutilation of any kind, other than neutering which actually affects the chemical makeup of the animal, would have no effect on that inborn trait. If it is inborn to fight, leaving its ears alone does nothing to make it "forget" its instincts. Cropping the ears does nothing to make it "aware" of its instincts. Instincts are inborn, they are there no matter what. So by that logic, if you have a pitbull that is born with a deformity of not having any ears at all, or having great big floppy ears, then that will effectively suppress the aggressive instincts? That is simply ludicrous.

No, what is ludicrous is someone who thinks making a dog as ferocious a fighter as possible, because it makes him look cool, has no effect on the dog's personality or actions.

 

[LogGrad98]

No, what is ludicrous is someone who thinks making a dog as ferocious a fighter as possible, because it makes him look cool, has no effect on the dog's personality or actions.

You have yet to prove that cropping the ears in and of itself makes the dog a more ferocious fighter. It makes it harder to damage the ears, but does nothing to affect the temperament of the dog. Your attempt to claim as fact what you have failed to prove or support is laughable.