not only can they take your home, but now..

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:15 am

I presume that Blackwood, ChrisA and everyone who's so shocked at Gonzo's "suggestion" is vegetarian, right? Living, breathing, feeling creatures, and all that?

ChrisA wrote:You sir, are a vile and disgusting individual with whom I am ashamed to be sharing this board. ... like the scum that you truly are.

Next time, why not just take a walk before you post personal insults of this sort, and come back when you've calmed down?

susnfx · Post by **susnfx** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:19 am

I don't think it's the same thing, Bloo - most animals raised and slaughtered for consumption aren't tortured to death.

ChrisA · Post by **ChrisA** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:22 am

missy wrote:so are these laws talking about American Stratfordshire Terriers or just what?

According to the article that launched this thread, they are talking about any dog that -looks like- a pit bull, regardless of temperment.

Regarding gonzo's protestations, you are supporting the slaughter of hundreds of living beings that have not done and never would have done any harm to any one, loving friendly creatures, on the theory that one among hundreds of them might hurt someone some day. I suspect your 'family of trash druggers' would simply get a german shephard, and chain it out in the yard. They used to be the 'guard dog' of choice, after all, and viewed with similar fear. And -any- dog neglected, possibly abused, and left chained in the yard all day will become violently aggressive. Dogs are pack animals and it breaks their sanity to leave them chained out alone (not so much if chained or kenneled out in pairs or more).

The American Staffordshire Terrier, by the by, has an substantially higher than average temperament rating. Meaning that, barring abuse to -make- them aggressive, they are more friendly than the average dog, and less likely to harm anyone.

And no, it is not hypocritical to oppose the destruction of innocent animals in order to prevent the possible harm to human being. I don't support the imprisonment of abused children because they're more likely to become abusers either.

And no, it is not the same as dangerous animal ordinances preventing the keeping of wild animals. Wildcats are -wild-. They can be left in the wild, or if bred in captivity, they can be given to a zoo or reintroced to their natural habitat. These kinds of ordinances both protect animals from being taken out of their natural habitats and protect the community. (Although in many areas, there aren't actually any ordinances - there are many places where you -can- keep a tiger as a pet if you wish to. Generally not in the city, though.) There is no 'natural habitat' other than human homes for domestic dogs. And 30 days is notice is not 'plenty of time' to relocate one's family or relocate any dog that is considered a 'pit bull' type.

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:22 am

susnfx wrote:I don't think it's the same thing, Bloo - most animals raised and slaughtered for consumption aren't tortured to death.

While I tend to agree with Susan, I'm asking everyone, PLEASE do not post examples for us of how animals are led to slaughter, etc. This is not what this thread was supposed to be about.

The original topic was someone expressing their displeasure over a law concerning one breed of dog.

We don't need anymore of what has been going on here, and we don't need anyone to enlighten us about the meat packing industry.

Thanks, Tom

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:28 am

TomB wrote:We don't need anymore of what has been going on here, and we don't need anyone to enlighten us about the meat packing industry.

Thanks, Tom

Okay, okay.

You knew where I was going go go. (And yes modern industrial meat production is very close to torturing the animals to death.)

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:28 am

I highly doubt that this law will bring a long term reprieve from deadly dog attacks. Once the "pit bull" type breeds are done away with, the people that owned those dogs for the reason that they have a mean reputation will simply switch to another breed, German Sheppherds or Rottweilers for example, neither of which deserve their mean reputations either.
Once those owners replace their dogs, we can apply what I will refer as Holmes' Theory of Canine Behavior...
"A dog reflects the family life. Whoever saw a frisky dog in a gloomy family, or a sad dog in a happy one? Snarling people have snarling dogs, dangerous people have dangerous ones,...their passing moods may reflect the passing moods of others." (Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Creeping Man)

Which breed will they want to exterminate next, in say fifteen or twenty years?

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:29 am

Bloomfield wrote:
TomB wrote:We don't need anymore of what has been going on here, and we don't need anyone to enlighten us about the meat packing industry.

Thanks, Tom
Okay, okay. You knew where I was going go go. (And yes modern industrial meat production is very close to torturing the animals to death.)

Thanks Bloom. Yeah, I figured you might go there.

All the Best, Tom

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:31 am

Chris A, until you walk in Gonzo's shoes you really can't judge him. Besides he said he didn't do it. If I had a dog living next door to me like that - terrorizing my family - and the authorities wouldn't do anything about the situation you can bet that dog would meet its end, buddy. Not with sponges, mind you. :roll: These ordinances are getting passed because people are sick of living in fear of these dogs. Do you live in a city that has a lot of these animals? I do. Like I said in my last post we're sick of 'em. Yeah,yeah they are living beings but you know what? We're sick of hearing on one hand what nice family pets they are and then on the next about somebody being eaten by one. Eaten by a dog! Sorry, dude. They have no sympathy from me.

Best,
Paul

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:33 am

Paul wrote:Chris A, until you walk in Gonzo's shoes you really can't judge him. Besides he said he didn't do it. If I had a dog living next door to me like that - terrorizing my family - and the authorities wouldn't do anything about the situation you can bet that dog would meet its end, buddy. Not with sponges, mind you. :roll: These ordinances are getting passed because people are sick of living in fear of these dogs. Do you live in a city that has a lot of these animals? I do. Like I said in my last post we're sick of 'em. Yeah,yeah they are living beings but you know what? We're sick of hearing on one hand what nice family pets they are and then on the next about somebody being eaten by one. Eaten by a dog! Sorry, dude. They have no sympathy from me.

Best,
Paul

Can we make the law similarly applicable to humans then?

ChrisA · Post by **ChrisA** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:34 am

Bloomfield wrote:I presume that Blackwood, ChrisA and everyone who's so shocked at Gonzo's "suggestion" is vegetarian, right? Living, breathing, feeling creatures, and all that?

ChrisA wrote:You sir, are a vile and disgusting individual with whom I am ashamed to be sharing this board. ... like the scum that you truly are.
Next time, why not just take a walk before you post personal insults of this sort, and come back when you've calmed down?

Yes, I am a vegetarian.

And I did calm down and rewrite my post. You would not like to see the original draft, I'm sure.

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:34 am

Tyler Morris wrote:
Paul wrote:Chris A, until you walk in Gonzo's shoes you really can't judge him. Besides he said he didn't do it. If I had a dog living next door to me like that - terrorizing my family - and the authorities wouldn't do anything about the situation you can bet that dog would meet its end, buddy. Not with sponges, mind you. :roll: These ordinances are getting passed because people are sick of living in fear of these dogs. Do you live in a city that has a lot of these animals? I do. Like I said in my last post we're sick of 'em. Yeah,yeah they are living beings but you know what? We're sick of hearing on one hand what nice family pets they are and then on the next about somebody being eaten by one. Eaten by a dog! Sorry, dude. They have no sympathy from me.

Best,
Paul
Can we make the law similarly applicable to humans then?

Tyler- I think it's already illegal to eat humans.

Tom

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:35 am

ChrisA wrote:
Bloomfield wrote:I presume that Blackwood, ChrisA and everyone who's so shocked at Gonzo's "suggestion" is vegetarian, right? Living, breathing, feeling creatures, and all that?

ChrisA wrote:You sir, are a vile and disgusting individual with whom I am ashamed to be sharing this board. ... like the scum that you truly are.
Next time, why not just take a walk before you post personal insults of this sort, and come back when you've calmed down?
Yes, I am a vegetarian.

And I did calm down and rewrite my post. You would not like to see the original draft, I'm sure.

But resorting to name calling is inappropriate

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:36 am

Tyler Morris wrote:

Can we make the law similarly applicable to humans then?[/quote]

No. Human beings are different than dogs.

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:37 am

Paul wrote:
Tyler Morris wrote:

Can we make the law similarly applicable to humans then?
No. Human beings are different than dogs.

Human beings kill humans more frequently than all breeds of dogs combined....

missy · Post by **missy** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:37 am

Tyler wrote:
"A dog reflects the family life........."

Now - WAIT a minute! I make jokes about Wyley and Buster sharing one brain cell between them! Are you saying I have one brain cell????

Seriously - again - I'm all for vicious dog bans. I am totally against specific breed bans - it just causes a false sense of wellbeing.
But the main thing is ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books (and this goes for everything, not just dogs). If that means building more jails, then DO so. Stop passing "feel good" legislature that has absolutely no impact on the day to day nature of crime. When judges have to make a "choice" on who goes to jail - not based on their crime and the punishment dictated by law, but on the numbers of beds left in the county jail - there is something WRONG.

And Bloomie - I love my dogs - but they ARE dogs. I had one come down with cancer, I did NOT choose to do chemo. I've also grown up with and been around responsible hunters, etc. Heck - I seriously wanted to be a vet at one time. One can "love" animals and still not be a vegetarian.