DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Amianthus on February 13, 2008, 02:31:58 PM
-
I was just reading "Mock the Stupid" and this one guy was talking about something that happened when he was voting yesterday. Apparently someone tried to bring his dog into the polling area and was told that he couldn't. He left yelling about how his vote was being denied.
<sigh>
-
re:"Apparently someone tried to bring his dog into the polling area and was told that he couldn't"
dogs have replaced children in white society
whites dont have kids any more
so they buy dogs
not just one dog anymore
they buy 2, 3, or 4 dogs or maybe mix it up with 2 dogs/2 cats
then they divert all that natural love/attention they used to give children and/or lots of grandchildren to dogs/cats
they even allow their dogs to sleep in their beds and under the covers!
we should have bought stock in Petsmart to take advantage of this mental illness
you see news stories of some whack job holed up in their house with 50-100 dogs
i see loonies all the time trying to take their dogs into malls/stores/even restuarants
Lowes Hardware allows this crap
But they will halt the non-sense after a big dog fight happens
and they get sued because someone gets injured
so it doesn't surprise me that some loonie tried to vote with one
i bet it was a democrat
(http://www.heatherspetcare.com/images/Heather_walking_Dogs.gif)
-
The dog was yelling this? Pretty good grammar for a dog.
-
Likely another example of how a voter was supposedly "disenfranchised"
-
Let's just hope the dogs owner wasn't Black.
-
Lowes Hardware allows this crap
But they will halt the non-sense after a big dog fight happens
and they get sued because someone gets injured
so it doesn't surprise me that some loonie tried to vote with one
i bet it was a democrat
==================================================================
I find it amusing that you think that people who think of their dogs are somehow Democrats, because you are less a doglover.
I think research might show that Republicans tend to have more Dobermans, German and Belgian Shepards, Mastiffs, Pitbulls and other large breeds, while Democrats prefer Jack Russell Terriers, Chihuahuas, Peekapoos, Poodles and small anklebiters.
I have no scientific research on this, but my daughter has a dog-walking business in Atlanta, and we have discussed the issue of who has what sort of dog at length. Hardly anyone with a large SUV like a Suburban, a Durango, Expedition or Hummer owns a small dog. People who like large guzzler SUVs like huge dogs, at least in Atlanta.
I think you would find that cat lovers are probably equally spread over all political spectrums.
Pets are substitutes for children to many, many Americans. I don't think this is an illness at all. I do own a cat, but I never take her out for any reason other than to see the vet. She hates to travel. She's not fond of the vet, either. There are too many big dogs in his office.
-
Let's just hope the dogs owner wasn't Black.
===================================================
Perhaps the dog was black, though.
There seems to be almost no discrimination based on color against pets.
My cat is a Sylvester-style black and white kitty, and yet she gets along with ginger cats, black cats and even pale white cats, who seems to be deaf. No one seems to dislike my cat because of her color. There are some who dislike her for being feline, though.
-
>I think research might show that Republicans tend to have more Dobermans, German and Belgian Shepards, Mastiffs, Pitbulls and other large breeds, while Democrats prefer Jack Russell Terriers, Chihuahuas, Peekapoos, Poodles and small anklebiters.<<
Another myth BO found rattling around in his head.
I think research might show .... :D .... to much.
-
And yet YOU thinking that people who dote on their pets must be Democrats is perfectly normal.
I suggest you observe the pets you see in traffic. Large dogs seem to predominate in large vehicles. Some of which have bumperstickers.
People with large dogs tend to be motivated more by fear. Large dogs have the purpose of defense, while no burglar would be deterred too long by a Peekapoo.
-
Hardly anyone with a large SUV like a Suburban, a Durango, Expedition or Hummer owns a small dog. People who like large guzzler SUVs like huge dogs, at least in Atlanta.
And, of course, you now assume that anyone who owns an SUV is a Republican.
As I told Brass a few times, most of the SUVs around here had Kerry stickers on 'em last election cycle.
-
>>And yet YOU thinking that people who dote on their pets must be Democrats is perfectly normal.<<
Another myth heard from. Or perhaps this is just an outright lie (paranoid delusons?).
Sirs really has you pegged.
-
I am simply making conversation here.
People often buy huge SUV's because they feel safer. People seem to like Dobermans and other guard dogs for the same reason. People who like one sort of big things often like other big things.
Perhaps what I have observed in Miami and my daughter has observed in Atlanta does not apply elsewhere.
I am simply commenting on what I have observed.
Richie seems to enjoy naysaying more than discussion. He probably thinks the words are pronounced tomato, potato and either as well. (Fill in the 'other' pronunciation).
I suggest that nothing one might say about people's preference for cars or dogs could be subject to paranoid delusions.
I don't think that an opinion can be a lie, either.
-
Here's my totally unsubstantiated theory of dog ownership:
1. Academics and innalekshuals tend to own cats and not dogs;
2. Childless couples, dogs (more fun to be with, more romping outdoors)
3. Fascists and militarists, powerful, menacing dogs: Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers. These are physically or mentally insecure people who identify vicariously with the power of a military force and rely upon that identification to assuage their true inner feelings of insignificance and powerlessness. The dog, on a much lesser scale, serves the same psychological purpose as the military.
5. Democrats: Democrats are more imaginative and creative than Republicans, so they tend to be all over the map in dog ownership - - those with "Lord of the Manor" fantasies can get Old English Sheepdogs or Airedales, or they can go for cute, small and practical in homage to their working-class backgrounds, working dogs like Jack Russell Terriers, kids' dogs (cocker spaniels, dachshunds,) trademark dogs (the Haig & Haig Scotch terriers) - - except for the scary guard dogs, all kinds of dogs - - particularly mutts - - can be found in Democratic households.
6. Women, traditional: smaller dogs, "cute" dogs; or cats.
7. Women, feminist, "liberated:" same dogs as "men," i.e., as fascist and militarist men, simply to prove a point; or if they are beyond proving points, then cats, smaller dogs, cuter dogs.
-
I find it amusing that you think that people who think of their dogs are somehow Democrats
uh? where did I say that?
i jokingly stated that someone that attempts to bring a dog into vote with them must be a democrat
because you are less a doglover.
x i in fact love dogs
i just think alot of people seem to be becoming obsessed with dogs
i think it is further evidence of people becoming loners
a dog won't divorce you
a dog won't lie to you
a dog won't tell you to go to hell
instead of dealing with reality, dealing with people
dogs/cats are therapy
people talk to them just like they are other humans
a release
but honestly i see many becoming compulsive/obsessive
"honey, I want to get another new puppy, it doesn't matter we already have 3 dogs"
yeah a new puppy is like a shot of morphine
my best friend now has 4 dogs and 3 cats, and yes they all live in the house
and the house smells like shit
my best friend's wife calls her dad every single day with a "doggie report"
she tells the dog's "grandpa" a full report on what they have eaten for the day
how many bowl movements they have had
that they have had their daily bath
these friends decided they dont want kids
hey, it's their life
but that doesn't mean i must refrain from realizing her pet complusive insanity
as a society, lets abort the babies and replace them with dogs
great idea
::)
-
You forgot #4.
Regardless, larger dogs are friendly than smaller dogs. My GSD would immobilize people who came into the yard by rolling over onto their feet and beg for a tummy rub. It's only insecure people who think that "big" must be "mean."
-
Regardless, larger dogs are friendly than smaller dogs. My GSD would immobilize people who came into the yard by rolling over onto their feet and beg for a tummy rub. It's only insecure people who think that "big" must be "mean."
===================================================================
Toy and miniature dogs are less friendly than big dogs, but smaller dogs like cockers and terriers and beagles can be just as friendly as large dogs.
Some large dogs are very friendly, but others are not. I tend to think that I would not wish to open the gate to go to the door of a person who had invited me over if the yard was full of Rotts and Dobers.
Training has a lot to do with the temperment of any dog, maybe as much as the breed. I tend to agree with most of that Tee said regarding dogs.
-
I renumbered a few times and no. 4 got lost in the shuffle.
Big dogs are OK if they're labs or . . . labs.
But I don't think I referred to big dogs - - it was powerful, menacing dogs. As in German Shepherds, Rottweilers and dobes. You gotta watch them more than a cocker spaniel.
-
But I don't think I referred to big dogs - - it was powerful, menacing dogs. As in German Shepherds, Rottweilers and dobes. You gotta watch them more than a cocker spaniel.
And yet, more people go to the emergency room because they got attacked by a cocker than by a GSD, Rottie, or Dobie.
-
<<And yet, more people go to the emergency room because they got attacked by a cocker than by a GSD, Rottie, or Dobie.>>
Even if that's true - - and I find it very hard to believe - - I think most people with really serious dog-bite injuries and most dog-bite fatalities are from German Shepherds, Rottweilers and dobes (AND pit bulls)
-
ahhh, the famous "even if..." tactic, where even if Tee is wrong, he's really right, because he just is. The arrogance is beyond exponential
-
I didn't know that sirs was such a foe of the "even if" argument. "Even if Bush made mistakes in the war, Gore would have done worse." "Even if the U.S. isn't perfect, other countries are worse." "Even if American medicine leaves some people uncovered, socialized medicine is worse."
I thought sirs liked the "even if" argument. I wasn't aware that in the "sirs Handbook to the Rules of Debate" the "even-if" arguments had been declared illegitimate. I'll try to remember next time.
-
I didn't know that sirs was such a foe of the "even if" argument. "Even if Bush made mistakes in the war, Gore would have done worse." "Even if the U.S. isn't perfect, other countries are worse." "Even if American medicine leaves some people uncovered, socialized medicine is worse." I thought sirs liked the "even if" argument.
Well, when you can present such examples of where I claimed that even if I'm wrong, I'm right, vs your twisted perceptions of what you think I think, you might actually have a leg to stand on
-
(http://kirktoons.com/october_2004/images/Catsanddogs.jpg)
http://kirktoons.com/
-
funny.
-
<<Well, when you can present such examples of where I claimed that even if I'm wrong, I'm right, vs your twisted perceptions of what you think I think, you might actually have a leg to stand on>>
Actually I think it's up to you to show one example where I claimed that even if I'm wrong I'm right. Clue: the example you started off with doesn't even come close.
-
>>ahhh, the famous "even if..." tactic, where even if Tee is wrong, he's really right, because he just is. The arrogance is beyond exponential<<
The fact is, Plane is right about which dogs do the most biting. I've seen the stats. But hey, how could Uncle Mike be wrong?
(http://jeannieshouse.com/kennel/chihuahua/chihuahua_w.jpg)
VICIOUS!
-
<<The fact is, Plane is right about which dogs do the most biting. I've seen the stats. But hey, how could Uncle Mike be wrong?>>
Doing the most biting isn't inflicting the most damage. My recollection of news reports is that the real serious injuries and the fatalities are almost always from big dogs. I've read of more people fucked up by pit bulls and Rottweilers than by cocker spaniels and Scotch terriers. Probably since ankle bites don't make the late night final. But hey, that's just me - - what's my knowledge up against that of the Dynamic Duo?
-
<<The fact is, Plane is right about which dogs do the most biting. I've seen the stats. But hey, how could Uncle Mike be wrong?>>
Doing the most biting isn't inflicting the most damage. My recollection of news reports is that the real serious injuries and the fatalities are almost always from big dogs. I've read of more people fucked up by pit bulls and Rottweilers than by cocker spaniels and Scotch terriers. Probably since ankle bites don't make the late night final. But hey, that's just me - - what's my knowledge up against that of the Dynamic Duo?
I am being misattributed. I actually think that ncreaseing the size and strength of the Dog increases the responsibility and liability of the Dogs master, no one should own a big powerfull dog unless they are wlling and able to spend the time it takes to make the creature controllable , and no one should own any dog that they can't care for.
-
>>Doing the most biting isn't inflicting the most damage.<<
See, this is what I mean. You'll make any stupid argument you can think of to support any stupid premise you can think of. Then you'll write 1000 words supporting your lunatic delusion and it always ends in George Bush is the devil and Amerikkka is full of fascists.
Seriously, have you been diagnosed as manic depressive? Because you sure act like one.
Get your mother to find some numbers on dog bites, dog fatalities, the weight and breed of said dogs, then get back to us, you raving fucking maniac.
-
<<Well, when you can present such examples of where I claimed that even if I'm wrong, I'm right, vs your twisted perceptions of what you think I think, you might actually have a leg to stand on>>
Actually I think it's up to you to show one example where I claimed that even if I'm wrong I'm right. Clue: the example you started off with doesn't even come close.
Actually, it does.
-
There are dogs that can hurt you and dogs that really can't hurt you much.
Thereare dogs that are ready to hurt you and dogs that would rather be peacefull.
When you find a dog that combines the power required to do serious damage with a bad attitude , you nine of ten times find a humnan with a bad attitude too.
-
<<Actually, it does.>>
Proving yet again significant deficits in the Reading for Comprehension sector. No surprises there.
OK, sirs, I'm not your remedial English teacher. My posts say what they say. By sheer coincidence, maybe one in ten of them may also say what you say it says, but I've decided that's not my problem.
Read the post again or not - - your choice. Interpret it any way you like. I'm done with it.
-
<<When you find a dog that combines the power required to do serious damage with a bad attitude , you nine of ten times find a humnan with a bad attitude too.>>
What about dogs that are bred to fight? Even with a good owner, won't these be bad dogs?
-
<<Actually, it does.>>
Read the post again or not - - your choice. Interpret it any way you like. I'm done with it.
You were done (in) with your 1st effort. Congrats on the consistency
-
What about dogs that are bred to fight? Even with a good owner, won't these be bad dogs?
The Jack Russell Terrier was bred for fighting. It was bred to hunt and kill rats.
A dog (any dog) is as good or bad as it's owner.
My wife worked for an animal hospital for several years. They had several pit bulls that she said "might lick you to death." Most of the chow-chows were like my GSD - they would pin you to one spot by rolling over onto your feet and beg for tummy rubs.
-
<<My wife worked for an animal hospital for several years. They had several pit bulls that she said "might lick you to death." >>
And did she ever encounter any other pit bulls who might prefer a different way of doing you in?
-
And did she ever encounter any other pit bulls who might prefer a different way of doing you in?
No; they wouldn't all "lick you to death" but they were fairly calm dogs. She said the Border Collies all seemed to be "insane" (her description). But in general, in her experience, the smaller the dog, the more likely to be mean and snap at you.
I know that pit bulls, especially in an urban settings, have a reputation for being mean, but that's because they've been trained that way. You can make a lab act that way with the same training.
-
<<but that's because they've been trained that way. >>
No doubt they have been, but at this point, haven't they also been bred for that as well?
-
No doubt they have been, but at this point, haven't they also been bred for that as well?
They've been bred with desirable features for a fighting dog.
Then again, so have Jack Russell Terriers, and no one seems to be afraid of them.
Dogs are friendly, unless they feel a member of their "pack" is threatened. That's their basic instinct. Aggressiveness is trained into them. No dog is aggressive because of their breeding, unless the breeder is careless and breeds animals that are too close genetically - and then you have a dog that is just generally unfit, usually because of a slight retardation, but this can manifest as aggressive tendencies.
-
Would you prefer a nip from a Chihuahua or a real bite from a pitbull or a bulldogs, that refuses to let go?
-
Would you prefer a nip from a Chihuahua or a real bite from a pitbull or a bulldogs, that refuses to let go?
Don't know. I've never been bitten by a chihuahua, but my ankles are real sensitive. I've only been bitten twice, once by a labrador, and once by an airedale. Another time a bulldog was aggressive towards me, but I stared him down until he gave up. Even though I've spent a lot of time with animals, I've had very few problems.
-
I have a Saint (St. Bernard). I don't know who posted it, but whoever posted that about the bigger the dog, the more liable the owner is and the greater need for responsibility is dead on. A Saint isn't a chihuahua, even if it is far more friendly. I'm 5'7 and 200 lbs, and when Cassius jumps on me he'll knock me down. Imagine what that would do to a 5 year old or 70 year old. So I'm very careful about socializing him and always have him leashed in public, not because he's mean, but because his friendliness paradoxically is dangerous. I think that people whose dogs bite someone else should be prosecuted fully, there is no reason for this, and the "accidents happen" thing is too little, too late. While an attack from my dog may prove fatal, I have been bitten far more by small, yappy furballs than by any larger dog. Most attacks probably come from smaller dogs, most fatalities probably by larger ones.
As to people taking their dogs with them, I'll take Cassius to PetSmart or PetCo and let him go inside. Often I'll take him in the pickup when I'm just going to the store or a short trip. Taking him to a restaurant or voting might have logistical problems. Most of the people I see taking their dogs into grocery stores, restaurants etc., are either very young women or very old women. I've never asked their political persuasion. I don't like a dog hanging over the meat counter, it just seems wrong to me.
-
You know, Ami, you keep coming back to Jack Russell terriers. I know the breed, and I know what they're bred for. But honestly, breeding a dog to fight vermin in the house is also breeding a house dog and the aggression they breed for is probably confined to anti-rat or maybe anti-rodent (which could include rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, etc.) aggression, but any animal which showed a predisposition to attack other canines or humans would certainly be removed from the breeding stock, I would think.
A pit bull OTOH would be valued for its readiness to attack other dogs. Breeding guard dogs would be even trickier - - the aggression desired should be against all humans but one, but released only on command. How do you breed out teh ones that don't want to wait for the command? I think a lot of mistakes are made in that area.
-
A pit bull OTOH would be valued for its readiness to attack other dogs. Breeding guard dogs would be even trickier - - the aggression desired should be against all humans but one, but released only on command. How do you breed out teh ones that don't want to wait for the command? I think a lot of mistakes are made in that area.
The aggressiveness is trained into the dog. There is no gene for "aggressiveness" - if there is, then humans would also have a gene for "aggressiveness." What you're seeing as aggressiveness is actually a dog's natural instinct for "pack" protection that is enhanced with training.
As I said, dogs are bred for "features" that would make them good at some task.
And, actually, your argument goes AGAINST your argument that GSDs are aggressive dogs. The GSD was specifically bred to REMOVE features that had been selectively bred for in dogs for generations. It was an attempt to go back to the original dogs that were our companions in pre-history, a dog that would work for it's living. The original strain was developed by cross-breeding a large number of different breeds to remove the recessive dominance that various breeding programs had highlighted.
-
Dog Bite Statistics:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf)
-
<<There is no gene for "aggressiveness" - if there is, then humans would also have a gene for "aggressiveness." >>
But I'm sure that there are human genetic factors for aggression. Hostility. Some has to be environmental, sure, but I would think that natural selection would have (up to a point) favoured aggresiveness. Then in civilized times, it might have become a disadvantageous trait, but civilized time on an evolutionary scale must be very short compared to the uncivilized time when nature favoured aggression.
<<What you're seeing as aggressiveness is actually a dog's natural instinct for "pack" protection that is enhanced with training.>>
Well training's obviously important, but among well-trained dogs there must be some that turn on their masters more frequently than others do, and that difference - - if it exists - - could certainly be explained by hereditary factors.
-
Well training's obviously important, but among well-trained dogs there must be some that turn on their masters more frequently than others do, and that difference - - if it exists - - could certainly be explained by hereditary factors.
A dog only turns on it's owner if it's abused, or has a disease like rabies.
-
<<When you find a dog that combines the power required to do serious damage with a bad attitude , you nine of ten times find a humnan with a bad attitude too.>>
What about dogs that are bred to fight? Even with a good owner, won't these be bad dogs?
Like English Bulldogs?
Dogs are very adaptable , very sensitive to the people around them , it is comon for a dog to have a nervous nature that makes him hard to handle , but not more often for fighting breeds.
I once had to have a dog put down that was biteing the neighborhood children , it was a mix of Lab and Chow. I really hated to loose her but she was impossible to controll . she was sweet with my own kids , but on impulse would attack other kids.
I see your point because I have had that experience , but I don't blame the breed .