[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif Neither you nor EyeamEye (what are you still doing here?) have given any good reason to own a pitbull over another breed. Give me a reason. Going on ten pages now.

I'm here because I find this thread quite amusing. Seeing people tow the media line like robots is always fascinating.

I have given you my reason, if you don't accept that, that's your problem, not mine. Bear in mind nobody needs to give you a reason in the first place. If they want one, they want one.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm here because I find this thread quite amusing. Seeing people tow the media line like robots is always fascinating. I have given you my reason, if you don't accept that, that's your problem, not mine. Bear in mind nobody needs to give you a reason in the first place. If they want one, they want one.

Those who act without thinking of the rest of us? Yes, I guess that IS my problem.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those who act without thinking of the rest of us? Yes, I guess that IS my problem.

It is my right to own any dog I wish. If someone else abuses that right and creates a killing machine, they should be prosecuted. My right should not be revoked because of some idiot, or you, because you don't like pit bulls. Go fight for tougher dog owning laws, and I'll be right there with you, but don't argue to eliminate a breed because of "statistics" and an obvious bias.

You don't punish the innocent with the guilty, and no number on a piece of paper can conclusively prove the breed is irreversibly violent, so you take from the statistic what you will, I will take from it what I will. That is, quite simply, that the dog is being sold to a vast majority of scum and criminals. No one with a criminal record of any kind should be allowed to own a pit bull. Put that law in place, and your statistic would largely disappear.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is my right to own any dog I wish. If someone else abuses that right and creates a killing machine, they should be prosecuted. My right should not be revoked because of some idiot, or you, because you don't like pit bulls. Go fight for tougher dog owning laws, and I'll be right there with you, but don't argue to eliminate a breed because of "statistics" and an obvious bias. You don't punish the innocent with the guilty, and no number on a piece of paper can conclusively prove the breed is irreversibly violent, so you take from the statistic what you will, I will take from it what I will. That is, quite simply, that the dog is being sold to a vast majority of scum and criminals. No one with a criminal record of any kind should be allowed to own a pit bull. Put that law in place, and your statistic would largely disappear.

I already made that point, even suggesting lisense and punishment rules. But you just want to believe all I want to do is "ban" them. Also, you misrepresent my argument by saying the dogs are guilty.

I am tired of explaining this to you so read and understand this.

Quote:

Description of Straw Man The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

You come back with another strawman argument do not mistake my not replying for conceding.

 

[EyeAmEye]

I found a good method of keeping you quiet, then

It takes a Strawman to know a Strawman, might want to look over some of your own responses...

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif I found a good method of keeping you quiet, then It takes a Strawman to know a Strawman, might want to look over some of your own responses...

You know you love it.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is like those who think handgun control means banning all guns. Another strawman argument, and in most cases these folks are just asking for the laws on the books to be enforced.

Comparing the pit bull restrictions you're proposing to handgun control is not flattering to your arguments. If pit bull legislation really were following the gun control model, then it would be correct to worry about full breed bans.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Comparing the pit bull restrictions you're proposing to handgun control is not flattering to your arguments. If pit bull legislation really were following the gun control model, then it would be correct to worry about full breed bans. Digression on the nature of the gun control movement in the United States. Handgun control groups, and the handgun control legislation they push, exist to ban all guns. Almost every single gun control group (VPC formerly Handgun Control, Inc., Second Amendment Research Center, Handgun Free America, CeaseFire Inc, American Hunting and Shooting Association, etc) are small front organizations set up and almost completely funded by larger groups like the Joyce Foundation and Soros Foundation. They're utilized in a divide and conquer strategy and designed to peel off core support by targeting firearms with smaller owner bases. The bans on "saturday night specials", the bans on "streetsweepers", the bans on "assault weapons", the bans on "high capacity magazines", the bans on .50 BMG rifles, etc. are all tightly targeted bans done with the goal of eventually banning all guns. There's also been attempts to ban all pistols, but they've failed miserably. Of course, bans aren't the only tool. Registration with subsequent confiscation works almost as well for them. See California and their "assault weapons" registration lists. Once they've achieved their goal or, conversely, failed to register any impact on the political landscape, they're repurposed or reabsorbed/remade. The assertion that these folks are just around to call for enforcement of existing laws is absurd since they're the driving force behind all gun control legislation and a lot of it shows up in Congress every session.

You missed the point. I was not comparing Pits to guns. I was using the typical strawman argument the NRA perpetuates: that if you are not pro-gun you want to ban all firearms. This is a textbook strawman argument.

Also, you are going to get this thread closed if you keep talking about gun control.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif You know you love it.

I do (no point in having a debate with someone who agrees with you, now is there?), and I knew it wouldn't shut you up

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif You missed the point. I was not comparing Pits to guns. I was using the typical strawman argument the NRA perpetuates: that if you are not pro-gun you want to ban all firearms. This is a textbook strawman argument. Also, you are going to get this thread closed if you keep talking about gun control.

Fair enough. Bulk of comment has been removed.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fair enough. Bulk of comment has been removed.

Thanks.