Thursday, August 09, 2007

Pit Bull Denialism Denialism

I know you all are wanting a resolution to Luskins post, but Im not interested in IDs attack Chinese Crested tonight. Once again, I have to defend pits from fear mongerers.

This attack came from an unexpected source-- A contributor on a ScienceBlog. ScienceBlogs has taken a rational stance on pits in the past, with wonderful posts by both Kevin Beck and Chad Orzel (I almost gave Chad a heart attack with my sarcasm, and I still feel bad about it).

Im disappointed Keven turned around and made the decision to call my dog a 'fucker' in the above referenced post. I didnt see it at first, but I caught it just as Arnie was begging for a cherry PopTart.

Kevins co-blogger, Jim, doesnt seem to think Vicks actions were all bad. Pit bulls are evil, vicious dogs, and there is nothing their owners can do about it.

It would be naive to assume that a dog's behavior (or that of pretty much any animal) is entirely or even largely dependent on training and environment. To discount inherent biological factors is specious. The reality is that pit bulls have the "biological equipment" to inflict damage that other breeds, say basset hounds, do not. This statement simply reflects the obvious facts of biology; and it does not condemn all members of any given breed to a given behavior.
Jim is an expert on dog breeds (much better qualified than the AKC, which opposes BSL), being a "dog lover" who not only doesnt own a dog, but has evidently never owned a bull breed, or evidently met one (though he assures us that he doesnt want his first pit meeting to be on a country road. No problems with meeting rabid beagles on country roads, though.) And he clearly knows more than silly people like me and my rescue friends who rescue and rehabilitate abused and neglected bull breeds into wonderful family members-- Our opinions dont count, because its, um, um... He doesnt say why our opinions dont count.

He also doesnt give all the 'details' of the CDCs dog bite/mortality stats.

He also doesnt say what his Final Solution is for pit bulls.

Best I dont know.

Add 'Dr. Joan' to the list of SciBlogs I will never read again.

18 comments:

kemibe said...

ERV wrote: "Kevin is an expert on dog breeds (much better qualified than the AKC, which opposes BSL), being a "dog lover" who not only doesnt own a dog, but has evidently never owned a bull breed, or evidently met one..."

Whoa! I assume this was a slip of the fingers and not a genuine misunderstanding, but that stuff you quoted wasn't mine.

I wrote (in a comment to Jim's post): "When I meet a pit bull, the only thing I know for sure is that it hasn't gone after anyone yet, because otherwise it wouldn't be alive. If I'm alone I will sometimes pet them, but if I have my dog I won't go within range of the fuckers."

ERV wrote: "Im disappointed Keven turned around and made the decision to call my dog a 'fucker' in the above referenced post."

Well, that's a bit of a stretch. I meant Annie no ill will. But when I am walking with Komen (no fighter) and a dog unfamiliar to me and belonging to a notoriously strong and unpredictable breed approaches (I don't single out pits), I make no apologies for being careful.

You may be rightly confident in your dog's temperament, but having dealt with dumbfuck dog owners and their "won't bite" dogs that have proceeded to bite mine in the face and head, I cannot take chances. Not every dog owner has worked as a vet tech and gives a crap. It's just basic prudence. I don't scowl and say "Keep yer fucker away from me!"

I understand your frustration about dogs getting a bad rap thanks in large part to hype and distortion, but understand that people like me are, whether our reasons are well-founded or not, only trying to protect ourselves and our pets. There's no downside to mere avoidance, and I've never agitated for having pits "banned," nor do I feel anything but horror and disgust when *any* dog comes to a violent or tragic end.

Anyway, I hope you really haven't picked up your toys and left for good.

RBH said...

Kemibe wrote But when I am walking with Komen (no fighter) and a dog unfamiliar to me and belonging to a notoriously strong and unpredictable breed approaches (I don't single out pits), I make no apologies for being careful.

But that's the smart thing to do regardless of the breed of the strange dog. I have a Doberman/Rottweiler cross who is the gentlest dog I've ever had (and we had goldens when I was growing up). He looks like the Hound of the Baskervilles. I don't blame people for being cautious around him, but they should be equally cautious of any strange dog. My dog is always controlled, never off-leash unless in his 4,000 square foot run, is socialized with other dogs via obedience classes, and a damned good watchdog, which is what he's hired on for. Anyone who gets in trouble with him has asked for it, and I have little sympathy for them.

ERV said...

Kevin-- I corrected that-- it was Jims comment.

"...dog unfamiliar to me and belonging to a notoriously strong and unpredictable breed approaches..."

"...having dealt with dumbfuck dog owners and their "won't bite" dogs that have proceeded to bite mine in the face and head, I cannot take chances..."

The unfamiliarity of the owner should be the target of youre ire, then. Rehabilitating abused dogs and training owners should be the target of your energy.

Id like to be able to walk Arnie without other dogs snarling at him too, you know. Id like the fat, lazy people in my neighborhood to walk their dogs instead of throwing them into the neighborhood to run off-leash. Ive had to throw Arnie over my shoulder (he 75 lbs) to keep him away from loose, aggressive dogs. Because if anything ever happens, even though it would not be Arnies fault(as he is NEVER off leash), Arnies going to be the dog killed. Hes the black man of the dog world.

I dont blame the dogs for this. Theyre just DOGS. Its the owners that should have some sense.


RBH-- Sensible dog ownership. Whodathunk it. *sigh*

kemibe said...

RBH & ERV --

I completely agree with you here. The discussion per se has been focused on pit bulls thanks to the original post on our blog, but it's a given that I both hold owners ultimately accountable and don't unfairly discriminate against certain breeds.

See, it doesn't matter that violent dogs are primarily the by-product of nurture vs. nature; all that matters to me is that I don't want my ass bitten. If I'm dead or in tatters, I can take little solace in knowing it was the owner's fault and not the dog's nature. Until stupid people are eliminated, I can't take chances. I'm interested in safety, not assigning blame, and am not out to use the government to control Arnie (sorry for calling him Annie!) or other dogs. Make sense?

I'm actually less likely to approach, say, a Lhasa Apso or some other rat-canine hybrid because these dogs are simply not likely to enjoy a larger dog's company in the way Komen expects. But I'm not afraid in these cases because I'm not likely to get my ass kicked by a ratlike dog.

If you knew me and had heard my own tirades over the years about dumbasses who own dogs (to include people who buy Labs thinking "So cute!" only to find that it's actually work and give them up to shelters) you would know that it's the owners that are the target of my ire, as ERV put it, and furthermore that I like dogs better than I do people (make of *that* what you will).

We're on the same page in every meaningful way, folkers.

ERV said...

The conversation is centered around pit bulls because the 'Pit Bull Denial' post is founded on two denialist tactics, classics in the HIV Denier/Creationist play book:

1. Posted behind the back of target (Scorp1101) in a way they cannot respond (see Luskins post about me on EN&V)
2. Experts cannot have an opinion (Pit owners are biased, HIV researchers are biased, Biologists are biased, etc)

Jim then piles it on with prize-pig arguments like:
1. "Channel 8 says pit bulls are mean, therefore pit bulls are mean."
2. Cherry picking CDC statistics-- see my BSL post
3. Fear based 'logic'-- Just how many pits have you come across, running? Ive seen two in the past 8 months, also running with their owners, and they were fine. I can only speak for Arnie, but hes terrible at running. 5-6 miles, and hes done. Sure he can get in a good sprint for 15-30 seconds fresh, but he sucks. A serious runner saying "Im afraid Im gonna be run down by a pit!" is well past retarded.

If were going to play the 'Im just protecting myself' card, unlike your pit-while-running fear, my raped-and-or-attacked-while-running fear is actually real. I cant say I give a shit if grown men running on a trail are afraid of me as I run by.

This bullshit is offensive on so many levels, and I have no idea how to get my point of view into your head. I dont know how you all dont see how absurd your position is on your own. I cant even type in proper sentences Im so angry.

kemibe said...

The conversation is centered around pit bulls because the 'Pit Bull Denial' post is founded on two denialist tactics, classics in the HIV Denier/Creationist play book:

1. Posted behind the back of target (Scorp1101) in a way they cannot respond (see Luskins post about me on EN&V)
2. Experts cannot have an opinion (Pit owners are biased, HIV researchers are biased, Biologists are biased, etc)


I hope you're not perceiving that may opinions and statements mimic Jim's, and that you're mostly venting in my direction since I'm here and -- at least on some nominal level -- am serving as Jim's rhetorical proxy since I'm his co-blogger.

I understand that you didn't like the idea I had indirectly called Arnie a "fucker" and admitted that I won't gaily march my own dog into situations that could be hazardous to his health. And I was specifically giving a nod to your expertise when I wrote "You may be rightly confident in your dog's temperament ... Not every dog owner has worked as a vet tech and gives a crap."

BTW, Luskin's mentioned me before, not only quote-mining but getting the meaning of what he did quote accurately completely backward. I derided him for it, but by then he'd moved on to lying about something else. He's a dinkshit whose "science" can't be taken seriously by scientists, but it's still unfortunate (and telling) that he won't engage in direct discussion.

Jim then piles it on with prize-pig arguments like:
1. "Channel 8 says pit bulls are mean, therefore pit bulls are mean."
2. Cherry picking CDC statistics-- see my BSL post
3. Fear based 'logic'-- Just how many pits have you come across, running? Ive seen two in the past 8 months, also running with their owners, and they were fine. I can only speak for Arnie, but hes terrible at running. 5-6 miles, and hes done. Sure he can get in a good sprint for 15-30 seconds fresh, but he sucks. A serious runner saying "Im afraid Im gonna be run down by a pit!" is well past retarded.

If were going to play the 'Im just protecting myself' card, unlike your pit-while-running fear, my raped-and-or-attacked-while-running fear is actually real. I cant say I give a shit if grown men running on a trail are afraid of me as I run by.


Again, I don't believe in either Channel 8 or the CDC, so you're yelling at the wrong guy. I also said nothing about being afraid of pits (or nuclear warheads, for that matter) while running. But with respect to your #3, a tacit admission that even the fastest human distance runner can be outrun by most dogs if not given a good head start, let me say I agree. Runners who see large, unfamiliar dogs barking and heading their way are not thinking, "Well, if he paces himself I can drop him within the next 5-6 miles." They're wondering if they can get away if they have to.

Your well-grounded prudence and defensiveness when it comes to encountering unfamiliar men out there in your travels is independent of what other people's dogs are up to and doesn't "trump" their defensiveness in the sense that you think they aren't ertitled to it.

Here are the facts, ERV. Dogs do bite people. Most don't, but many do. I'm sure you know this. You can put 100% of the blame on the owners, but that's not the point. I've been lucky, and am so rarely afraid of dogs I see (and generally stop to pet them if they wander my way), but if I had to -- and only if I had to and believed I was in real danger -- I'd brain one of them with a stick, rock or anything I could find. I'd err on the side of caution (and have in the past) but my life is more importanmt than a dog's, or so my instincts declare.

Before you get pissy, remember two things -- your dog isn't ever going to be in such a situation, and you can't expect people facing a rip-roaring, foaming-at-the-mouth 100-pound hound to be mind-readers.

This bullshit is offensive on so many levels, and I have no idea how to get my point of view into your head. I dont know how you all dont see how absurd your position is on your own. I cant even type in proper sentences Im so angry.

I don't think my position is at all absurd. I think you're mostly pissed at the idea of agitating for selective breeding restrictions, not at the idea someone might simply have reservations about approaching an unfamiliar animal. I will allow (as I already have) that if the ownership of certain kids of dogs becomes limited or impossible as a result of sheer hysteria, that would be a shame. It would smack precisely of the puritanical Jesus-mongers who want certain consensual sex practices, films and toys outlawed because their guy tells them these are so wrong that no one should have access. It's meddling.

But you seem to be taking it a step further and judging "grown men" on the basis of their reactions. I hope not, because that, I'm afraid, would be "beyond retarded."

I really have no clue why you're so enraged, at least at me. You have no reason to think I represent any of the positions you've expressly railed against.

Jim said...

"Kevins co-blogger, Jim, doesnt seem to think Vicks actions were all bad."

Don't be a pinhead. I think what Vick did was an outrage. I only hope that this is not an example of the sort of "logic" that you use on a regular basis.

Further, as you don't know me or anything about my situation, it is crass of you to second guess my current lack of dog ownership.

Ultimately, I find myself in full agreement with Kevin: "I understand your frustration about dogs getting a bad rap thanks in large part to hype and distortion, but understand that people like me are, whether our reasons are well-founded or not, only trying to protect ourselves and our pets. There's no downside to mere avoidance, and I've never agitated for having pits "banned," nor do I feel anything but horror and disgust when *any* dog comes to a violent or tragic end."

ERV said...

So whats the point of the 'pit bull denial' post, then? Sane persons agree that we should be wary of unfamiliar dogs and to educate owners. But that was never said in the post, and was specifically denied by your co-blogger.

Then, any one who owns a pit bull was called a 'denier' for holding the sane persons stance, an attitude SUPPORTED by yourself and other once-reasonable commenters.

Add in about fifty coats of "PIT BULLS IS GONNA EAT MEEEEEE!" when in reality 3, Ill give you 5 people a year, are killed by pits, but nevermind looking at how the CDC collects their data, as I pointed out in my BSL post.

What the hell is the point of that post?

"...whether our reasons are well-founded or not..."
And Im the 'Denier' for rescuing Pits. Caesar Milan is a 'Denier' for rehabilitating abused pits. Countless success-story families are 'Deniers' because 3 people are killed.

What the fuck was the point of that post, other than a fear-feeding-frenzy at the expense of pits?

386sx said...

Everybody I know thinks that pit bulls have "locking jaws".

quantok said...

The last dog attack picked up on by the UK media involved... a pit bull. Obviously, there's no reason to think this was the only dog biting event of the summer, but pits are the 'vicious' dog of choice for the press. It's not 'locking jaws' so much as 'exceptional bite pressure' and 'tenacity in attack' that are the buzzwords.

Another reason this story made the news - the owner. Local drug dealer. Pit bulls are like a fashion accessory for druggies and thuggies in this country. And you know they aren't being raised as family pets.

So, there's a lot of work to be done to overturn the Demon Dog image and one biting incident a year is more than enough to outweigh a thousand anecdotes about pits and PopTarts.

Just one thought though: what were you trying to say by calling your pooch 'Arnold Schwarzeneggar'? Maybe a rethink is in order: how about Cary Grant?

Jim said...

ERV said: "What the fuck was the point of that post, other than a fear-feeding-frenzy at the expense of pits?"

Maybe you should re-read the post. It was not a "fear-feeding-frenzy". It dealt with the characteristics of a comment thread. There were two things that I was trying to get across. The first was the fact that it took until the second page of comments before someone brought up the child who had been killed in the attack. That is, an owner of a particular breed (and others) was more interested in defending his pet (or perhaps his decision to buy that pet) than showing any sort of concern for the child or family, or any interest in what had prompted said attack. I think that speaks for itself and thus I offered no further commentary.

The second item dealt with the logical fallacy presented as a prime argument, mainly "My dog is a pussy-cat, therefore, there cannot be any problem". I do not know this dog but it may very well be that his dog IS extremely mild-tempered, but it is a terrible argument. To that end, I brought up the two reports. Now, the use of the word "denier" comes in because it appears that the commenter(s) refuse to acknowledge anything short of environmental factors. That is, they completely discount brain and biology and are making a "blank slate" argument. Excuse the pun, but I find that dogmatic.

Please note that I did NOT state that I felt the problem was ENTIRELY due to biology. In fact, I took great pains to make that point:
We can make a parallel argument regarding humans using even smaller distinctions. For example, it is extremely unlikely that Mary Lou Retton could have become a basketball star. Similarly, it is extremely unlikely that Wilt Chamberlain could have become a world class jockey. These may be obvious, but it is also true that just because someone is very tall they will not necessarily become a great basketball player. That is, while much goes into the final outcome, we cannot simply discount gross biology. To claim that Mr. Chamberlain's success was due to his mental training alone is ignoring the 800 pound gorilla (or 7'1" center) in the room.

Now, if you feel that I'm evil for suggesting that it might be a combination of both biological and environmental factors, so be it. But if you're going to stick with a blank slate argument, can I assume that you will be consistent and state that the same must also be true for humans, let's say that homosexually is entirely environmental, i.e., a choice?

ERV said...

Jim-- You said a lot of nothing in that wonderful post. I would suggest you cut your losses and just stop it.

Oh golly gee, you were just saying environment and biology make a 'mean dog'? So when you said, "It would be naive to assume that a dog's behavior (or that of pretty much any animal) is entirely or even largely dependent on training and environment." you didnt really mean exactly what you said?

To go on, "To discount inherent biological factors is specious." yet you ignore the fact that pit breeds (ALL pit breeds, Staffies, AmStafs, APBT) score higher on standardized temperament tests than Golden Retrievers.

Cut your losses. Stop.

kemibe said...

"you ignore the fact that pit breeds (ALL pit breeds, Staffies, AmStafs, APBT) score higher on standardized temperament tests than Golden Retrievers."

Yeah, and that Cho guy from Virginia Tech may have scored higher on one of those online "Are you a nice guy?" tests than the Dalai Lama. Who cares? Who has done more measurable damage?

If you're not getting the analogy, try this: Which breed can and does do more harm to human beings and other dogs -- Pit bulls or golden retrievers? Got any figures for that one? If not, why are you ignoring them?

Do you realize how deeply irrational you've become as this mosntrosity has unfolded? You're not content to talk about how sweet and well-trained your dog is (we get that). You continue to complain that pits' rep for being vicious is overstated and unfair to some immeasurable extent (yeah, we get that, too). You grumble about the mishaps fundamentally being dog owners' fault and not that of the dogs themselves (guess what? We understand that as well). None of these things have a damned thing to do with Jim's post or any of his -- or anyone's -- subsequent comments. If you believe otherwise, go back and read them. The words on the screen, that is, not the ones that follow in your mind.

You have unapologetically put words in others' mouths, ranted and raved about how retarded it is for grown men to be afraid of unfamilar dogs belonging to breeds -- and not just pit varieties -- with an established ability to ruin or even end people's lives (and please knock off the bullshit about how rare dog attacks are; practically every runner I know has been bittenin the street, including me).

Here's what gets me: Almost chillingly, you reduce an extant threat to an unwarrantred cry of "PIT BULLS IS GONNA EAT MEEEEEE!" on the part of parodically terrified joggers and others rather than deal in the real world. I was as on your side as I could possibly be earlier, but if you want to call be a retard or a pussy because I've been beset to many times to count by country dogs all all types with mean streaks, then piss on you. I even have to wonder if you ought to be in charge of any dog allowed in public any bigger than a thimble, given that attitude.

Since you're far smarter than the reactionaries and creationists you debate so passionately and effectively, I highly suggest that you cut your losses and quit acting like those people. I can assure you that even your warmest allies would tell you privately that your emotions have crippled your thinking on this one. That's a charge I always hate to throw out there, but it's inescapable in this case.

But I reckon you'll just fume and steam and say "Fuck 'em, none of them get it and never will because those ignorant assholes don't have pits themselves." In the end that's fine, because no one's coming for your dog or aiming to sic the feds on your right to have him. But when you're talking to people who have been bitten or seen their kids bitten in scenarios you flippantly laugh off, you might want to curb the talk about rightfully fearful people being retards and crybabies who don't properly hate the CDC's research.

ERV said...

Pit bulls or golden retrievers? Got any figures for that one? If not, why are you ignoring them?
Did you read my BSL post? Probably source #3293564876 of my frustration right now, because if I link to something in my post, I assume commenters have read it. I already addressed this.

Do you realize how deeply irrational you've become as this mosntrosity has unfolded?
Wrong 'i' word. Im infuriated. Sweet dogs being killed because of an irrational fear of their breed? Not because they are hopelessly dog or human aggressive, but because of how their head looks? If I had called a shelter on Arnie instead of taking him in, he would be dead. If I had caved into the fear youre operating off of, a one year old healthy, intelligent, happy puppy would have been euthenized. The only thought that pains me more than thinking of Arnies previous life (because you didnt read the BSL post, Ill fill you in- Arnie was being fought. Nine months later, hes still covered in scars) is imagining a different deminsion where I wasnt there to save him. My pup being killed on a cold stainless steel examining room table, like so many unlucky pups.

I just spent a month of ripping my heart out trying to find two sweethearts a home. I had more than a dozen people want them, only to find out pits were banned in their suburb.

And that dumbass post is just another brick in the wall. And you dont care. Youre afraid the 'fuckers' will get you when youre running. Youve waffled to 'dangerous dogs' and 'country dogs' now, but you said it about PITS.
"Shoddy thinkers are annoying in any case, but when potential destruction of others at issue, as with pit bulls, I get really pissed off."
"I think that if anything, it's a liability that a pit bull can go for years without showing a single destructive tendency, only to turn around and kill a child in its own household."
"When I meet a pit bull, the only thing I know for sure is that it hasn't gone afteranyone yet, because otherwise it wouldn't be alive."

Why the hell am I needing to quote to you what you wrote??

MarkH (whom Im also pissed at, just so you know you have company) chose to compare PITS to chihuahuas-- not Danes, not German Shepherd, not mastiffs, not St. Bernard's, not collies, pyrenese, PITS.

No one wanted to say what their Final Solution was for pits on your thread or mine. So what is it?


In the end that's fine, because no one's coming for your dog or aiming to sic the feds on your right to have him.
Actually, ignorant assholes ARE trying to get my dog taken away from me because of the fear that you and your worthless co-blogger feed. Google "BSL" and "Oklahoma".

Luckily my parents are Deniers too, so Arnies not going to be killed if it ever passes. I can get my dog out of the state. How many people wont have that option? How many family pets are going to be killed for your irrational fears? Oh but YOU arent pushing BSL... Only the stereotypes and cliche BS that feeds fear of pits and inevitably BSL.

And you wonder why I take your bullshit personally?

You two havent given one damn statistic to support your "EVIL PITS OMG OMG OMG IZ THER BIOLOGY!" 'hypothesis'. You just keep waffling and pretending you didnt say things you said and pretending you said things you didnt.

But remember, Im the Denier.

Jim said...

"So when you said, It would be naive to assume that a dog's behavior (or that of pretty much any animal) is entirely or even largely dependent on training and environment. you didnt really mean exactly what you said?"

I thought I was clear on this but it occurred to me that what I said could be taken in a way I didn't intend, and for that I apologize. My aim was that I don't believe one can simply discount biology, but I see that the "largely" is ambiguous. For example, if I said that I get 1/3rd of my calories by eating almonds, someone could rightfully argue that almonds constitute a large portion of my diet. But that's not the way I meant the term. To state it in reverse, I do not subscribe to the notion that biology plays no role or just a very, very small secondary role. I don't think this is something that can be quantified with great accuracy, but I'm not saying it has to be 50/50 either. 60/40 or 40/60? Sure. 100/0 either way? I doubt it about as much as creationism. 95/5? Extremely skeptical. Given all I have experienced and read, blank slate arguments just don't seem to fly.

I hope that clarifies my position, but if there was no misunderstanding and you really do wish to make a blank slate argument, then I will happily take my place on your "hate list".

ERV said...

Jim-- I hope that clarifies my position, but if there was no misunderstanding and you really do wish to make a blank slate argument, then I will happily take my place on your "hate list".

Well, Im glad to see you didnt read the BSL post either. Fantastic.

If 'blank slate' were true, Arnie would be a very, very valuable pit dog right now. He is beautiful, he is massive for the breed, and someone tried to train him to fight.

Yet even with that *training*, Arnie has zero dog aggression. Zero. You know, its funny you and Ingrid brought up Chihuahuas. See, when I first found Arnie I didnt know any vets in town, so I just took him to a local PetSmart vet. Figured a chain would be somewhat reliable. Anyway, I take him to get fixed, no big whoop. When I come to pick him up that evening, the vet had a HILARIOUS story to tell me: one of the nurses has a Chihuahua they let run loose in the clinic. This Chihuahua attacked Arnie. Arnie just sat there with the usual big grin on his face and took it. Chihuahua attacking a Pit HAHAHAHAHA. Isnt that funny? HAHAHAHA.

*blink*

My dog, just came off the street, clearly trained to fight, just got out of surgery having his balls cut off, and this vet let another dog attack him. Arnie had every reason in the world to retaliate. If he had, Im sure I would have heard a made up story about how 'ARNIE JUMPED OFF THE TABLE AND BRUTALLY ATTACKED MY CHIHUAHUA!' and I would have put him down, thinking he was biologically a mean dog.

Turns out, hes biologically a great dog.

And he has a good vet now.

Anyway, I dont hate you. I just expected more from your blog, and I now think that you and Kevin are Chicken-Little fear mongerers with the critical thinking skills of a hamster.

kemibe said...

What's funny is that you keep insisting that Jim and I haven't read your BSL post. I did. Maybe you should employ those well-honed critical-thinking skills of yours so you can understand something: None of what you wrote there matters, at least not in terms of what I have been trying to ram through the granite barrier between your outer ear and your auditory cortex. (Besides, I know better than to think I'm going so see anything besides borderline hysterics when you're writing about your own dog.)

I keep telling you I take no hard line against pits and would not agitate for their being banned. Over and over again. I keep telling you I believe that caution on the part of people who are confronted with dogs that even look dangerous is warranted and at times inescapable (and by that I don't mean they should be able to opoen fire). Over and over again. Your defensiveness has swung your mind so far to the extreme that you criticize anyone for having the temerity to even be instinctively fearful when a big-ass dog comes loping toward them. What if they had a lifelong fear of being bitten thanks to being attacked by a dog (any breed) at age three, asshole?

Meanwhile, you misquote and misrepresent what I say, even after being corrected and having my unedited words available to you. I might as well be writing in Sanskrit, for all your acknowledgment. To put a cherry on top, you come back and pretend everyone else is a big dumby with there blindars on whoo cant think.

Here's the extent of your indictment of what I wrote:

1. I referred to an entire group of dogs roundly and offhandedly as "fuckers." You replied with "Keven [sic] turned around and made the decision to call my dog a 'fucker'." Can you spot the problem with your "critical thinking" here?

2. I wrote "when I am walking with Komen (no fighter) and a dog unfamiliar to me and belonging to a notoriously strong and unpredictable breed approaches (I don't single out pits), I make no apologies for being careful." You come back with "Youre afraid the 'fuckers' will get you when youre running. Youre afriad the 'fuckers' Youve waffled to 'dangerous dogs' and 'country dogs' now, but you said it about PITS." Can you spot the problem with your "critical thinking" here?

3. As Jim re-emphasized here, his original post wasn't so much about pit bulls as it was about denialism. Being a non-hysterical non-Staffordshire-mix-rescuer, I saw it that way from the start. The original poster on the Utica board was employing a couple of classic logical fallacies, as, uh, "Komen" pointed out over there with analogies to obesity-related illnesses and so on. You also complain that Jim "Posted behind the back of target (Scorp1101) in a way they cannot respond." That's funny, because I always thought the Internet was freely navigable and that if Scorp1101 knew about Jim's comment he could have answered quite easily, and if he didn't he could hardly be construed to be some kind of victim of maligning or misrepresentation.

However, you, apparently convinced that National Guard members are following you from place to place so they can capture or maybe just shoot Arnie on sight, failed to see what Jim intended as his point (which you demanded he provide) even after Jim pointed it out. You instead said he was waffling. Can you spot the problem with your "critical thinking" here?

On its face the story of your saving Arnie remains heartwarming and the undercurrents as complex and difficult as your other post highlights. I wouldn't change my mind about that. But here, toward me, you look like a high-octane idiot and I'm really sorry someone pointed you toward Jim's post solely to get your blood boiling. Even were you right and Jim and I had basically done nothing but call for the mass extermination of pits, there would have been little reason for you to see it, given your emotional investment. I can handle being called a "Chicken-Little fear mongerer with the critical thinking skills of a hamster," but it would make more sense if the accuser had a point.

kemibe said...

One last thing. You really did so a great job of exploding some myths about put bulls and approaching that aspect scientifically. But you also let your emotions steer you right over and around what other people wrote, stuff that had nothing at all to do with your source of anger.