Dog Rips Child From Mother's Arms

[Ranger]

Originally Posted by mpgt

Depends on where you apply it. Wherever the "mob rule" mentality prevails, only one opinion is allowed.

Mob rule is definitely NOT synonymous with reason or logic.

[RioBravoReptiles]

Originally Posted by Jem_Scout

Gus- Why are u dredging up old articles from 2004?

.
Oh I see what you're saying.. the date I saw was the most recent comment the story is a couple of years old.
.
Dredging? Exactly when does a story of a chld being eaten by a dog or other pet r animal become 'old'?
.
Let me know, I'm sure there are some that will pass your time-test.
.
Thanks.

[Jem_Scout]

I guess My Edit of my thread went in too late...
I said: I must be coming into a discusion from another thread....Sorry.

[mpgt]

Originally Posted by Ranger

Mob rule is definitely NOT synonymous with reason or logic.

I have a feeling anything that doesn't agree with your opinion won't meet your logic test. You see, it's never enough to post one of these threads every now and then, with a few editorial proclamations added. No, we have to throw the story out there as bait, hoping someone from the other side will dare to "defend the dog" or dare to say the accused madman who owned the beast might not be guilty of a crime. Nobody can have or express an opinion unless they are willing to fight to the death over it. Rarely can we ever agree to disagree.

[John_White]

How do you think this problem can best be resolved?

[gruvinbass]

In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
.

from the study riobravoreptiles just cited

Procedure—Data for human DBRF identified previously
for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined
with human DBRF newly identified for 1997
and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching
news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of
the United States’ registry databank.

The same reports are still being quoted as before.....and my response is still the same, find a study that doesn't rely on news reports for data.

[Ranger]

Originally Posted by mpgt

I have a feeling anything that doesn't agree with your opinion won't meet your logic test. You see, it's never enough to post one of these threads every now and then, with a few editorial proclamations added. No, we have to throw the story out there as bait, hoping someone from the other side will dare to "defend the dog" or dare to say the accused madman who owned the beast might not be guilty of a crime. Nobody can have or express an opinion unless they are willing to fight to the death over it. Rarely can we ever agree to disagree.

I agree to disagree. In fact, in this case, I insist on it. What we call tolerance, used to be called moral equivilism.
Not all points of view are substantially equal. I'll fight for your right to hold your opinions (I've twice sworn an oath to fight and die to defend the rights of all Americans), but I won't play the BS "everyone's opinions are equally valid" game.

If you stand for nothing you fall for anything.