Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[suebee]

I don't have to worry about who to vote for, being Canadian. But I agree with some here that NOT voting for Obama is the equivalent to voting Republican. THEY certainly are not working toward many causes I believe in.


As for animals, it's been expressed much better than I ever could:

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

"To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being."

Mahatma Ghandi

An animal is not a human child, therefore it's life is worth less? Human arrogance. Look around and see what THAT'S done to our planet.

Vick - I have no use for him. He tortured, killed and ruined the lives of a great many of our fellow creatures. Fucker!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by suebee

An animal is not a human child, therefore it's life is worth less? Human arrogance. Look around and see what THAT'S done to our planet.

Actually, as a matter of reality, we DO have a hierarchy whether we like it or not. Like June, if my house caught fire and I could ONLY save either my granddaughter or my dog, I would save my granddaughter. Anyone who says otherwise is almost certainly lying and if they aren't, then they may need a reset of their moral compass. If it were a question of my family starving or eating the neighbor's chickens (with his permission, of course, otherwise it would be theft) then I feel like chicken tonight! Am I valuing the life of my granddaughter over that of my dog? Yes. Does that mean I don't *really* love my dog? no.

As far as 'what that has done to our planet', you mean what has been done that hasn't been topped by, say, very large rocks periodically striking the planet at several multiples of the speed of sound? Are we doing damage? Yes. Should we stop? Yes. But are we really on course to do worse than, say, the K-T extinction where a rock the size of Manhattan struck the Earth at around 30K mph and killed off half of all sea life and about 70% of all land life? No. That doesn’t mean that we should be sanguine about the extinction of tigers (and it is, at this point, almost certainly a fait accompli that tigers are going extinct) but it does mean that some perspective is in order. Human beings have been hunting, killing and eating animals since before we were Homo sapiens. We've been at it since *at least* the time of Australopithecus. Those canines you have in your mouth aren't there for decoration and they aren't vestigial like the wisdom teeth. In fact, our transition away from a plant-based diet to a mixed plant-meat based diet is written all over our bodies. Wisdom teeth used to be useful when we ate more plants, they were a third set of molars for grinding up plant material. Our brain size is ENTIRELY explained by meat-eating (your brain is very energy hungry and the only diet that would support the explosion of our brain size in the ancestral environment was a protein-heavy (therefore meat-based) one). Our eye-hand coordination was adaptive for hunting.

We are, whether we like it or not, apex predators. Again, that doesn't mean that animal cruelty is acceptable but it *does* mean that this idea that we have, at any point in our evolutionary history, lived in peace and harmony with other animals is a fallacy. The last time anything in our evolutionary ancestry remotely lived a life resembling that myth was when we were prey animals and the last time THAT circumstance obtained was more than 15 million years ago. This idea that we are the only animals that do violence for anything other than sustenance is also not true. Again, NONE of this is a defense of Mr. Vick or an argument in favor of animal cruelty. It is simply to say that somehow, we are supposed to be something more than the large-brained primate that we are is to argue for a fantasy and an inconsistent one at that. If you argue that we should know better than other animals then you are elevating us above the rest of the animal kingdom. If you argue that other animals aren't cruel or are only violent in pursuit of food you are falling into the Disney-fication of Nature (chimps, just to name one species amongst many, fight and kill over territory, mates, and because of rivalry and they do it in coalitions just like we do).

The truth is, suebee, that chances are you value the life of any random human being more than you value the life of any random species of rodent. That doesn't mean that one cares nothing at all for rodents (or any other phyla) but it does mean that, truth be told, if you could only save the life of a baby or a cat and you HAD to choose because the house is burning down, you'd pick the child. That isn't license for animal cruelty but it is a recognition of the reality of our moral instincts (and our morals, despite religious claims to the contrary, are instincts).

Vick - I have no use for him. He tortured, killed and ruined the lives of a great many of our fellow creatures. Fucker!

Can we take this to mean that you don't believe in redemption? One strike and you're out? I was not a fan of Mr. Vick before his conviction and I'm not a fan of Mr. Vick after his conviction. I am, however, a believer in redemption. Mr. Vick was arrested, tried, convicted and did time for his crime. His sentence was up and he was released and now he is trying to get his life back. Now, to some here, perhaps he should pay for the rest of his days. Perhaps some think he shouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL but I wonder if there is ANY job they would think he should be allowed to do. I doubt that there is.

You may have no use for him but Mr. Vick is still a human being, he still needs to eat, and he still deserves to be able to make some kind of a decent living doing something he is, I presume, competent at.

Cheers
Aj

[suebee]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually, as a matter of reality, we DO have a hierarchy whether we like it or not. Like June, if my house caught fire and I could ONLY save either my granddaughter or my dog, I would save my granddaughter. Anyone who says otherwise is almost certainly lying and if they aren't, then they may need a reset of their moral compass. If it were a question of my family starving or eating the neighbor's chickens (with his permission, of course, otherwise it would be theft) then I feel like chicken tonight! Am I valuing the life of my granddaughter over that of my dog? Yes. Does that mean I don't *really* love my dog? no.

As far as 'what that has done to our planet', you mean what has been done that hasn't been topped by, say, very large rocks periodically striking the planet at several multiples of the speed of sound? Are we doing damage? Yes. Should we stop? Yes. But are we really on course to do worse than, say, the K-T extinction where a rock the size of Manhattan struck the Earth at around 30K mph and killed off half of all sea life and about 70% of all land life? No. That doesn’t mean that we should be sanguine about the extinction of tigers (and it is, at this point, almost certainly a fait accompli that tigers are going extinct) but it does mean that some perspective is in order. Human beings have been hunting, killing and eating animals since before we were Homo sapiens. We've been at it since *at least* the time of Australopithecus. Those canines you have in your mouth aren't there for decoration and they aren't vestigial like the wisdom teeth. In fact, our transition away from a plant-based diet to a mixed plant-meat based diet is written all over our bodies. Wisdom teeth used to be useful when we ate more plants, they were a third set of molars for grinding up plant material. Our brain size is ENTIRELY explained by meat-eating (your brain is very energy hungry and the only diet that would support the explosion of our brain size in the ancestral environment was a protein-heavy (therefore meat-based) one). Our eye-hand coordination was adaptive for hunting.

We are, whether we like it or not, apex predators. Again, that doesn't mean that animal cruelty is acceptable but it *does* mean that this idea that we have, at any point in our evolutionary history, lived in peace and harmony with other animals is a fallacy. The last time anything in our evolutionary ancestry remotely lived a life resembling that myth was when we were pray animals and the last time THAT circumstance obtained was more than 15 million years ago. This idea that we are the only animals that do violence for anything other than sustenance is also not true. Again, NONE of this is a defense of Mr. Vick or an argument in favor of animal cruelty. It is simply to say that somehow, we are supposed to be something more than the large-brained primate that we are is to argue for a fantasy and an inconsistent one at that. If you argue that we should know better than other animals then you are elevating us above the rest of the animal kingdom. If you argue that other animals aren't cruel or are only violent in pursuit of food you are falling into the Disney-fication of Nature (chimps, just to name one species amongst many, fight and kill over territory, mates, and because of rivalry and they do it in coalitions just like we do).

The truth is, suebee, that chances are you value the life of any random human being more than you value the life of any random species of rodent. That doesn't mean that one cares nothing at all for rodents (or any other phyla) but it does mean that, truth be told, if you could only save the life of a baby or a cat and you HAD to choose because the house is burning down, you'd pick the child. That isn't license for animal cruelty but it is a recognition of the reality of our moral instincts (and our morals, despite religious claims to the contrary, are instincts).



Can we take this to mean that you don't believe in redemption? One strike and you're out? I was not a fan of Mr. Vick before his conviction and I'm not a fan of Mr. Vick after his conviction. I am, however, a believer in redemption. Mr. Vick was arrested, tried, convicted and did time for his crime. His sentence was up and he was released and now he is trying to get his life back. Now, to some here, perhaps he should pay for the rest of his days. Perhaps some think he shouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL but I wonder if there is ANY job they would think he should be allowed to do. I doubt that there is.

You may have no use for him but Mr. Vick is still a human being, he still needs to eat, and he still deserves to be able to make some kind of a decent living doing something he is, I presume, competent at.

Cheers
Aj

lol I don't think we as a species are responsible for everything. No. There is a hierarchy - obviously. There is also the very natural instinct to preserve your own species first. NONE of that Aj, absolves of of responsibility for what we have done AND I might add - for what we have not done. This entire planet is made up of interdependant life forms. Many believe that animals are here to serve us. That view point is not only arrogant, but incredibly short-sighted. All creatures have to do what they have to do to survive. Unfortunately humans excell at cruelty just for the fun of it.

I think Vick is a fucker. That's my opinion. It's got nothing to do with redemption (which I don't happen to believe he has achieved, btw). It's got more to do with what he actually did. His self-serving statement a few weeks ago saying that he'd like to have another dog - and I'm paraphrasing here - so that people could see that he's changed - didn't impress me at all. He said it was hard to explain to his child why they couldn't have a dog. He said he misses having a dog. He didn't say anything to make me believe he's learned anything about the value of another creature's life.

[dreadgeek]

I'm curious, is there anything he could have said that would convince you that he was truly repentant? if so, what?

Originally Posted by suebee

lol I don't think we as a species are responsible for everything. No. There is a hierarchy - obviously. There is also the very natural instinct to preserve your own species first. NONE of that Aj, absolves of of responsibility for what we have done AND I might add - for what we have not done. This entire planet is made up of interdependant life forms. Many believe that animals are here to serve us. That view point is not only arrogant, but incredibly short-sighted. All creatures have to do what they have to do to survive. Unfortunately humans excell at cruelty just for the fun of it.

I think Vick is a fucker. That's my opinion. It's got nothing to do with redemption (which I don't happen to believe he has achieved, btw). It's got more to do with what he actually did. His self-serving statement a few weeks ago saying that he'd like to have another dog - and I'm paraphrasing here - so that people could see that he's changed - didn't impress me at all. He said it was hard to explain to his child why they couldn't have a dog. He said he misses having a dog. He didn't say anything to make me believe he's learned anything about the value of another creature's life.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I'm curious, is there anything he could have said that would convince you that he was truly repentant? if so, what?

First off, I want to note that "repentant" is your word, not mine. If you're asking for specific words - I don't purport to know how another human being will express himself. As I said above, what I heard in his statement online didn't address whether or not he has learned that another creature's life has intrinsic value.

[BullDog]

I don't condone what Michael Vick has done, but I do find it interesting what people choose to focus on. I don't see a lot of protest over Ben Roethlisberger who was suspended by the NFL. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence against him. I don't know. He is of course a white quarterback.

Here's a list of players who have been suspended by the NFL since 2006. Many of them have to do with domestic violence. Again, I don't hear a lot of hue and cry about them. If you were to go back earlier than 2006 you will find even more news stories about football players assaulting and beating up women- wives, girl friends, women met in bars, etc.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121614

NFL Conduct Violation Suspensions

The 16 players suspended under the personal conduct policy by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell since he took office in 2006:

• Rocky Bernard (assault, 1 game)

• Michael Boley (domestic abuse, 1 game)

• Fred Evans (fight with police, 2 games)

• Chris Henry (various arrests, 8 games)

• Larry Johnson (simple assault, 1 game)

• Tank Johnson (2-month jail term, 8 games)

• Pacman Jones (various arrests, 16 games, 6 games)

• Marshawn Lynch (weapons violation, 3 games)

• Ricky Manning (felony assault, 1 game)

• Brandon Marshall (various, including assaulting girlfriend, 1 game)

• Bryant McKinnie (street fight, 4 games)

• Rob Reynolds (domestic disturbance, 16 games)

• Ben Roethlisberger (misconduct-no charges/arrests, 6 games)

• Donte' Stallworth (DUI-vehicular homicide, 16 games)

• Fabian Washington (domestic violence, 1 game)

• Michael Vick (dogfighting, 2 games)

[Tucker]

I say give the man a nice cat.

[Waldo]

Aj,

(forgive me my soapbox, this may have been best as a completely new thread)

It is so very rare that I find myself in near complete disagreement with you, but I have to say that I find this argument of yours weak. Painfully so.

The burning building argument is so far to the extreme that it annoys me it was pulled out in this discussion, and worse yet that it's now being perpetuated. Yes, in an extreme circumstance I'll help my fellow humans, but I would also do everything in my power to save *every living thing* in such a case.

Yes, there is a hierarchy, and based on Genesis 1:26 "Man has dominion over the inferior creatures". What's not clear is if dominion means that we're free to eat and force into labor at our hands or if we bear a higher responsibility to care for them. In various translations it's stated as "rule the" or "rule over"... but is that in the way a Sovereign would rule a Kingdom? Does that give the Sovereign the right to enslave it's people and put them to death? If they have that right, is it ok just because it's the way it's always been done?

No, we've never lived wholly at peace with animals, it's only been in the last 30 years that we've breed, excuse me, produced animals in the way that we are now and in the numbers that we do now - specifically for slaughter.

Only now do we pump them so full of growth hormones to get them to mature faster to elevate profits. So fast do broiler chickens grow now that they often cannot support their own weight.

Only now do we pump their feed full of antibiotics in an effort to "minimize loss", that we're seeing 80% of US antibiotic usage on animals. The long term human health effects of which have long been a concern for doctors.

So cramped are their cages that they cannot turn around or stretch their wings. In many cases their beaks are cut and cauterized so they don't peck other chickens to death out of boredom and frustration.

Now, due to specialization between broilers and layers... all male chicks born as layers are "disposed of" because they are economically worthless.

And that's just what happens to chickens. I could go on about pigs and cows and turkeys, not to mention sheep and other farmed animals.

All in, according to a UN study in 2006 it was found that Factory Farming/Animal Agriculture contributes more to global warming than driving. As a matter of fact 296 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2. Factory Farming is also a major cause of land and water degradation.

And why is this all the case? We, particularly those of us in the US, consume more meat than ever. Meat, once a luxury item at the market, is now common place. Meat prices have not kept pace with inflation and demand has skyrocketed. Our appetite for fast food burgers, chicken and pork is out of control and factory farming has risen to the challenge of meeting this every increasing desire.

With practices that any rational human being can agree are inhumane, this nation turns a blind eye to the suffering animals endure in order to "feed the world". But it's not just feeding humans that causes such suffering.

Clothing and other products rely heavily on animal products. Leather is everywhere. If you are not already Vegan, I dare you to consider your closet or your home and think of just how many products you use each day which are animal based. It's staggering.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwJgGEqa2xI"]YouTube - Earthlings 5 of 9 (dolphins, clothing industry, india cows, leather, fur farms)[/nomedia] (warning: Graphic. May be unsuitable for some viewers, Forward to 3:35 for information about the Indian Leather Trade). Hindus revere cows. Yet poor Indian families are routinely lied to in order to buy their cows. Those cows are then transported to an area where they can legally be slaughtered. Their handling during this transport is nothing short of nightmarish.

I could go on, but I just wanted to point out the vast difference between a rock falling to earth destroying half of all life and the systematic cruelty which we, humans, subject the animal life we've been entrusted with. We have control over one - not the other. It reads, to me, as an astonishing amount of arrogance to suggest otherwise.

Just because we've been at something for eons, surely you're not arguing we should continue a practice? I don't think I need to go into the parallels between sexism, racism, DADT, slavery, a woman's right to vote, marriage freedom and so on and the eating of animals, do I?

Many vegans and vegetarians believe that if we had to kill the animals we eat, we'd all be vegetarians. I don't believe that for a minute, but I do believe our ranks would swell. I know if I'd been forced to do so I would have become vegan as a child. Having become vegan at 40 I feel guilty for the years where I lived disconnected from my compassion for companion animals and the systemic cruelty suffered by food and service animals.

In closing, I encourage anyone who has interest in learning more about these issues to watch, in it's entirety, the documentary film, Earthlings. It is available on YouTube, in multiple parts. [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7TiSkBLoPM&feature=BF&list=PLEC5CD974D672 9FC1&index=1"]YouTube - Earthlings 1 of 9 (CC Subtitled)[/nomedia]. It is also available (in it's entirety) on Netflix.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually, as a matter of reality, we DO have a hierarchy whether we like it or not. Like June, if my house caught fire and I could ONLY save either my granddaughter or my dog, I would save my granddaughter. Anyone who says otherwise is almost certainly lying and if they aren't, then they may need a reset of their moral compass. If it were a question of my family starving or eating the neighbor's chickens (with his permission, of course, otherwise it would be theft) then I feel like chicken tonight! Am I valuing the life of my granddaughter over that of my dog? Yes. Does that mean I don't *really* love my dog? no.

As far as 'what that has done to our planet', you mean what has been done that hasn't been topped by, say, very large rocks periodically striking the planet at several multiples of the speed of sound? Are we doing damage? Yes. Should we stop? Yes. But are we really on course to do worse than, say, the K-T extinction where a rock the size of Manhattan struck the Earth at around 30K mph and killed off half of all sea life and about 70% of all land life? No. That doesn’t mean that we should be sanguine about the extinction of tigers (and it is, at this point, almost certainly a fait accompli that tigers are going extinct) but it does mean that some perspective is in order. Human beings have been hunting, killing and eating animals since before we were Homo sapiens. We've been at it since *at least* the time of Australopithecus. Those canines you have in your mouth aren't there for decoration and they aren't vestigial like the wisdom teeth. In fact, our transition away from a plant-based diet to a mixed plant-meat based diet is written all over our bodies. Wisdom teeth used to be useful when we ate more plants, they were a third set of molars for grinding up plant material. Our brain size is ENTIRELY explained by meat-eating (your brain is very energy hungry and the only diet that would support the explosion of our brain size in the ancestral environment was a protein-heavy (therefore meat-based) one). Our eye-hand coordination was adaptive for hunting.

We are, whether we like it or not, apex predators. Again, that doesn't mean that animal cruelty is acceptable but it *does* mean that this idea that we have, at any point in our evolutionary history, lived in peace and harmony with other animals is a fallacy. The last time anything in our evolutionary ancestry remotely lived a life resembling that myth was when we were prey animals and the last time THAT circumstance obtained was more than 15 million years ago. This idea that we are the only animals that do violence for anything other than sustenance is also not true. Again, NONE of this is a defense of Mr. Vick or an argument in favor of animal cruelty. It is simply to say that somehow, we are supposed to be something more than the large-brained primate that we are is to argue for a fantasy and an inconsistent one at that. If you argue that we should know better than other animals then you are elevating us above the rest of the animal kingdom. If you argue that other animals aren't cruel or are only violent in pursuit of food you are falling into the Disney-fication of Nature (chimps, just to name one species amongst many, fight and kill over territory, mates, and because of rivalry and they do it in coalitions just like we do).

The truth is, suebee, that chances are you value the life of any random human being more than you value the life of any random species of rodent. That doesn't mean that one cares nothing at all for rodents (or any other phyla) but it does mean that, truth be told, if you could only save the life of a baby or a cat and you HAD to choose because the house is burning down, you'd pick the child. That isn't license for animal cruelty but it is a recognition of the reality of our moral instincts (and our morals, despite religious claims to the contrary, are instincts).

[SnackTime]

Originally Posted by suebee

Pit bulls are lovely creatures. Yet many municipalities have banned them. At a great many shelters pitties are euthanized simply for being pitties. Why? Because the dog fighting industry has tainted the reputation of the breed to the extent that it's considered poisonous to insurance companies, landlords, peace officers, and many "shelters".

Sue

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by SnackTime

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

I was waiting for something like this. This is precisely the sort of prejudiced, ill-informed comment that perpetuates ignorant stereotypes and promotes mass hysteria. There are also numerous stories of how these loyal and brave dogs have saved lives and prevented harm.

Bite stories and statistics rarely report whether a bite or "attack" was provoked or not. Any dog can bite, obviously a larger dog's bite is going to do more damage, and so more caution needs to be - but often enough is not - exercised. I know more people who have been bitten, and rather ferociously, by small dogs (talk to vet techs and groomers and ask them which dogs are most likely to bite them). There is nothing in the breeding of a pit bull type dog that will give it a greater to propensity to "random" attacks/bites. They are a terrier breed, though, and tenacity is a breed characteristic. They are also extremely strong, as are rottweilers, dobermans, German shepherds and a multitude of other breeds, from whom even an accidental bite can be very damaging. Dog attacks occur as a result of negligent dog owners who ignore warning signs, don't train their pets, don't socialize them, or even abuse them. A majority of dog attacks are completely preventable.

Unfortunately, a lot of these dogs are also victims of abuse, such as the Bad Newz Kennel dogs, or from other rescue situations. The enormous popularity of pit bull type dogs has led to a large number of them ending up in shelter situations, which creates a plethora of difficulties for any dog, which few people are really equipped to deal with.

Bull and terrier types (American Staffordshires, English Bull Terrriers, etc) are unique dogs with a distinct breeding history, which does NOT include aggression toward humans. That part, sadly, is solely the province of irresponsible and ignorant humans.

Some people shouldn't own pit bulls, just as some people can't drive muscle, or other high performance cars. It's the same way with horses, pick a breed and individual suited to you.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Sigh

I love a thick steak, rare.

Abuse is abuse, I hope I really do he learned his lesson. If Vick was not a commodity to the team or owners he'd be another one of our black men in jail, pfft we wouldn't even know who Vick was if that was the case.

[dixie]

As for what Vick did, yes, I think it was totally heinous and can only hope that he truly is reformed (even if I personally don't think he is). As for Obama, I see nothing wrong with what he did and do not feel that it should bias election opinions solely based on this act. Everyone's using examples so I'll throw in my own. Would we be having this conversation if Obama was showing support to another "reformed" person? For example, if he went into an inner city youth program being ran by a former gang member who is now "reformed" and showed his support would there be an issue? Or perhaps to an ex-prostitute who is now helping get others off the street? To me, it's all the same in my mind. If someone truly is "reformed" and goes back to being a normal citizen and even a productive member of the community, should we NOT support them? And no, this is not just a defense for Vick because I could care less one way or the other for the man, and do think his penalties should have been more severe to begin with (especially since I am a hardcore animal lover). But also, I think other athletes and celebrities should have to face the same consequences for their crimes as "civilian" citizens. They get off far too easily in most cases, but that's another rant all together...

As for the animals, I agree with Bent. I grew up in an area where dog and cock fighting were rampant, and still goes on today. I had an in-law who raised fighting pits. I have seen those fighting animals as completely aggressive towards other animals yet gentle with humans, so there goes most folks preconceived notions about that. (And no, I do NOT condone ANY animal cruelty in any form, and was very happy when this person's ring got shut down.) I myself have had these animals for pets, and know from experience that it is not necessarily a "genetic" trait or preconceived behavioral pattern for these animals. Did you know that in the 40s and 50s pitbulls were the number 1 family dog in America? Did you know that you have a higher chance of being attacked by a German Shepherd or Dalmation than you do of a pit? Or that aggression issues are more prevelant in smaller breeds? Up until a few years ago, the cocker spaniel was the number one most aggressive dog in breed studies and pits didn't even make that list. It has become highly sensationalized and "popluar" to blame/shame pits after the major publicizing of dog fighting ring crackdowns in the last 10 or so years. It does not matter if you raise a pit or a poodle or a chihuahua from birth, or whether you have known bloodlines. ANY animal has the capacity and capability to attack or become vicious. Unfortunately for pits, they seem to be the only ones that ever make headlines...

[suebee]

Originally Posted by SnackTime

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

I see Mr. Bent has addressed the pit bull issue. So I'll just say that pit bull or poodle - NONE of those animals deserved to be abused, tortured and (some) killed! I don't see how this is even disputable. Perhaps that's why the breed is being put into question. I don't think those dogs cared what breed they were when they were suffering at the hands of those idiots.

[Corkey]

The only time I've ever been bit was by a Scottie, the poor thing was in his death throes, but still. I have been around pitties for a long time, various partners and landlords, not once have I ever even had the thought that a pitt would become aggressive with me or anyone I was with.
It isn't the breed, it's the incompetent, ignorant owner.
ALL dogs can bite, all humans should be aware of their own behavior.

[SnackTime]

Originally Posted by suebee

I see Mr. Bent has addressed the pit bull issue. So I'll just say that pit bull or poodle - NONE of those animals deserved to be abused, tortured and (some) killed! I don't see how this is even disputable. Perhaps that's why the breed is being put into question. I don't think those dogs cared what breed they were when they were suffering at the hands of those idiots.

I never stated in my post that any animal deserves to be abused or tortured.

[betenoire]

I think that dogs, in general, have an undeserved poor reputation. I have grown up with dogs. All my life until I moved out of my parents house I have lived with at least 2 dogs at all times. Rotties, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Dalmations, Labs, and even a Pitbull. My parents like their dogs big, so do I.

I have never been bitten by a dog.

Now, ask me how many times I've had to go to the hospital because I was attacked by a cat.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by suebee

I see Mr. Bent has addressed the pit bull issue. So I'll just say that pit bull or poodle - NONE of those animals deserved to be abused, tortured and (some) killed! I don't see how this is even disputable. Perhaps that's why the breed is being put into question. I don't think those dogs cared what breed they were when they were suffering at the hands of those idiots.

Originally Posted by SnackTime

I never stated in my post that any animal deserves to be abused or tortured.

To clarify: I said Mr. Bent had addressed the pit bull issue. I simply continuted with the conversation.

[dixie]

Originally Posted by SnackTime

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

My best friend since kindergarten had her face completely ripped off, along with the fingers on one hand. She had to have multiple reconstructive surgeries. Was it a pitbull? Nope. It was a schnauzer. PUBLICITY means everything. If folks only realized how many serious and fatal dog attacks were NOT committed by pits, they would probably think twice about the kind of pets they owned...

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by SnackTime

I disagree with a lot of your post but this paragraph stuck in my head. I do not believe that the breed has gotten a bad rap because of the dog fighting industry. I have seen several reports on the news where the family pet (pit bull) attacked a family member and the animal had to be put down. I have been seeing these reports long before the dog fighting rings were being talked about in the media.

I know a lady whose granddaughter had to have 26 surgeries because the family pet attacked her (her and the dog grew up together). The doctors told them that if the dogs jaws would have been locked on the child for a minute longer she would not have survived.

And in report after report dogs are mistakenly labeled pit bulls.

Can you find the pitbull?

In 2008 pitbulls ranked 8th overall for aggressive behavior, and that includes lumping all pits together (there are three distinct "flavors" of pitbull type dogs). Dachshunds ranked first at 1 out of 5 observed dogs trying to bite a human. That's 20%. Pitbulls ranked 7%. Pitbulls and Akitas, which both have "bad boy" reputations ranked high due to their observed aggression toward other dogs, not for aggression toward humans.

Further, it's noted in the study that larger breed dog bites are likely over represented in dog bite statistics because bites from larger dogs are more likely to cause bite victims to seek medical attention and therefore report the bite incident.

Now, damage done by a large dog, particularly one with the physical stature of a Pit or a Rottie, is another thing altogether. The likelihood of a fatal attack coming from a small breed dog is very slim so when one hears of a particularly vicious dog bite/attack it's usually from a large breed such as a Pit or a Rottie. And that propagates the notion that most bites stem from such dogs.

It's really important to understand the difference.

And finally, even with Breed Specific Legislation in locations such as Denver, which bans all Pit Bulls - and put to death hundreds of the dogs, dog bite statistics declined in accordance with dog bite statistics in other cities without BSL. See here for a discussion on the effects of Denver's BSL versus a city such as Oregon, which instituted a "Potentially Dangerous Dog Ordinance" instead. Which do you think has had a dog attack fatality since introducing their legislation?

Pit Bulls are NOT the problem. Irresponsible owners are the problem.

[dixie]

Originally Posted by Waldo

And in report after report dogs are mistakenly labeled pit bulls.

Can you find the pitbull?

I bet it really throws folks off to know the cutest little cuddly looking dog on that list is the pit... Most who haven't had experience with them would asume they were one of the more "vicious" looking breeds on there. Sad