Pit bulls - The Breed of Peace

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Quaid said:
If my neighbour can keep a Great Dane in his yard, why can’t I keep a donkey? A sheep? A llama?
Click to expand...

See, thats the problem with you. Stop fucking caring what someone is doing in their own fucking yard. If you want a donkey, more power to you.

As long as you take care of it and are cleaning up after it, go right ahead.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,782
8,267
khalid said:
See, thats the problem with you. Stop fucking caring what someone is doing in their own fucking yard. If you want a donkey, more power to you.

As long as you take care of it and are cleaning up after it, go right ahead.
Click to expand...

Donkeys aren’t legal to own outside of rural areas. Dogs are. Why is there a distinction?

I do not care what people do in their own yard. As I am repeatedly demonstrating, I care what externalities their behaviours cause for the others in their community. This is what our whole legal system is based on. Your argument makes little sense.

Can you legally light a tire-fire 'in your own back yard'?
 
Siliconemelons

Siliconemelons

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
11,839
17,788
Note: I would punch, kick, shoot, maim and kill ANY dog or other animal attacking my family or self - not just pits. I am equal opportunity.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Quaid said:
Donkeys aren’t legal to own outside of rural areas. Dogs are. Why is there a distinction?
Click to expand...

I agree, there should not be a distinction. If someone wants to have a donkey in their own yard and it has enough room and is taken care of, it should be allowed. If you want another answer, it is because the species of humans and dogs have existed together for millenium. For centuries, dogs have been selectively bred to be companion animals. This is not as true for donkey's. If you went with something like elephants, well, could you actually take care of it well in an urban environment? No.

Your example of a Great Dane is especially stupid btw and shows your lack of knowledge on dog breeds. Great Danes are remarkably docile and are great dogs. They are not particularly active and are almost an ideal dog in an urban setting.


Quaid said:
I do not care what people do in their own yard. As I am repeatedly demonstrating, I care what externalities their behaviours cause for the others in their community. This is what our whole legal system is based on. Your argument makes little sense.
Click to expand...

Your externalities are silly and unpersuasive as has been demonstrated multiple times.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,782
8,267

Oh yeah they’re definitely less persuasive than your argument:

‘I like big dogs'.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Quaid said:
Oh yeah they’re definitely less persuasive than your argument:

‘I like big dogs'.
Click to expand...

My argument is that by default, people should be able to do what they want. In particular to this case, people should be able to have the type of companions they want, as long as they are taking care of them and their dogs are not attacking people. This is based on a deep history in the US of personal liberty and the long history of humans and companion animals over centuries and millenium.

So yes, I think it is quite a bit more persuasive than "I find dogs disgusting", followed by dressing it up with complaints that a dog woke you up at night one time and that you have to pay 0.001% of your taxes to animal control.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,782
8,267
khalid said:
My argument is that by default, people should be able to do what they want. In particular to this case, people should be able to have the type of companions they want, as long as they are taking care of them and their dogs are not attacking people. This is based on a deep history in the US of personal liberty and the long history of humans and companion animals over centuries and millenium.

So yes, I think it is quite a bit more persuasive than "I find dogs disgusting", followed by dressing it up with complaints that a dog woke you up at night one time and that you have to pay 0.001% of your taxes to animal control.
Click to expand...

Brb gonna light a tire fire in my back yard. I’m monitoring it and I’m a good tire-fire owner and it’s on my property so fuck everybody else because freedom or something.

50. fucking. breeds.

Small Dogs Weighing Under 20 pounds
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Quaid said:
Brb gonna light a tire fire in my back yard. I’m monitoring it and I’m a good tire-fire owner and it’s on my property so fuck everybody else because freedom or something.
Click to expand...

Sure, go ahead and do that and someone will call the cops. That has a large externality.

The solution isn't to ban fucking tires you dumb fuck.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,782
8,267
khalid said:
Sure, go ahead and do that and someone will call the cops. That has a large externality.

The solution isn't to ban fucking tires you dumb fuck.
Click to expand...

>Calls me dumb
>Makes a false equivilence

Tire ownership legality has specific conditions!

A tire when used on a car = good!
A tire when used as fuel for a fire = bad!

A 20lbs+ dog in the country = good!
A 20lbs+ dog in the city = bad!

Conditions! See how that works? Dumb fuck indeed.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Quaid said:
>Calls me dumb
>Makes a false equivilency

Tire ownership legality has specific conditions!

A tire when used on a car = good!
A tire when used as fuel for a fire = bad!

A 20lbs+ dog in the country = good!
A 20lbs+ dog in the city = bad!

Conditions! See how that works? Dumb fuck indeed.
Click to expand...

A dog when not doing anything to you is fine.
A dog barking like mad or attacking someone is a problem.

Your solution? Ban dogs.


A tire on a car, fine.
A tire burning is a problem.

Your solution? Ban tires.


You basically came up with the perfect analogy on why your solution is absurd. Good job on that I guess, too bad you are too dumb to see it.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,782
8,267
khalid said:
A dog when not doing anything to you is fine.
A dog barking like mad or attacking someone is a problem.

Your solution? Ban dogs.


A tire on a car, fine.
A tire burning is a problem.

Your solution? Ban tires.


You basically came up with the perfect analogy on why your solution is absurd. Good job on that I guess, too bad you are too dumb to see it.
Click to expand...

Ah, another misrepresentation and continued ad homs! The tell-tale sign of a losing argument based on feels.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Quaid said:
Ah, another misrepresentation and continued ad homs! The tell-tale sign of a losing argument based on feels.
Click to expand...

Claiming I am misrepresenting you, after I take the very analogy you came up with and point out how silly it is. That is the tell-tale sign of you losing an argument because its based on your disgust of dogs and not rationality. I am laying out your case exactly using the analogy you came up with.

You want to ban dogs based on the externalities of bad dogs.

So in the case of not being allowed to burn a tire in your back yard, you surely would be interested in banning all tires and not simply fining the owner of said tire being misused.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,782
8,267
khalid said:
Claiming I am misrepresenting you, after I take the very analogy you came up with and point out how silly it is. That is the tell-tale sign of you losing an argument because its based on your disgust of dogs and not rationality. I am laying out your case exactly using the analogy you came up with.

You want to ban dogs based on the externalities of bad dogs.

So in the case of not being allowed to burn a tire in your back yard, you surely would be interested in banning all tires and not simply fining the owner of said tire being misused.
Click to expand...

Yes, you’ve just explained how you are misrepresenting my argument, but this time in more words. Neato.

My argument: I wish to ban large dog breeds in urban areas (or subject their owners to significant taxation or licensing fees) to mitigate the real world external costs their ownership (sanitation, police costs, health care, etc) imposes on other members of the community.

The analogy: I wish to ban the use of tires as a source of fuel for fires, to mitigate the real world external costs their burning imposes on members of the community.

I don’t wish to ban all dogs under all conditions, nor do I wish to ban all tires under all conditions.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Quaid said:
I wish to ban large dog breeds in urban areas (or subject their owners to significant taxation or licensing fees) to mitigate the real world external costs their ownership (sanitation, police costs, health care, etc) imposes on other members of the community.

The analogy: I wish to ban the use of tires as a source of fuel for fires, to mitigate the real world external costs their burning imposes on members of the community.
Click to expand...

These two things do not match. You go from wishing to ban large dogs in urban areas due to externalities of bad dogs, to wanting to ban the use of tires in urban areasas a fuel source for fires due to externalities of the bad use of tires. IE: Just for existing in an urban area, large dogs should be banned, but then you change it for tires.

They do match though, if I say you want to ban tires from being allowed in urban areas because they might be used badly. Which is why I think it matches exactly your analogy, which btw you brought into this. I know that admitting you are wrong on the internet is tough, but come on. It was a horrible analogy. Best just move on at this point.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,782
8,267
khalid said:
These two things do not match. You go from wishing to ban large dogs in urban areas due to externalities of bad dogs, to wanting to ban the use of tires in urban areasas a fuel source for fires due to externalities of the bad use of tires. IE: Just for existing in an urban area, large dogs should be banned, but then you change it for tires.

They do match though, if I say you want to ban tires from being allowed in urban areas because they might be used badly. Which is why I think it matches exactly your analogy, which btw you brought into this. I know that admitting you are wrong on the internet is tough, but come on. It was a horrible analogy. Best just move on at this point.
Click to expand...

Correct! Just by existing IN URBAN AREAS large dogs cause negative externalities, even if they have a 'good' owner.

Tires also have negative externalities just by existing WHILE BEING USED AS FUEL.

Conditions!

I’m bored now.
 
V

Volto!

Lord Nagafen Raider
412
333
I have a golden retriever. He weighs 75 pounds. He’s considered a large breed. He literally never barks, he greets everyone and everything he meets warmly, and I pick up all his poop when taking him on walks. What’s the problem here? Your issue is with shitty dog owners more than the dog itself it sounds like. You don’t like shitty people. But who does?
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Quaid said:
Correct! Just by existing IN URBAN AREAS large dogs cause negative externalities, even if they have a 'good' owner.
Click to expand...

No they do not. That is deeply disingenious to claim that, after coming up with a list that had nothing to do with good dogs and owners.


Quaid said:
How dangerous they are is only one factor. There’s all kinds of other externalities your neighbours bear because you (not necessarily YOU) own a large animal in an urban setting. From noise pollution to actual pollution in the form of uncollected feces, large dogs have no place in non-rural environments.

Part of my property taxes goes to paying to keep unwanted large animals in cages, and euthanize others. This is unacceptable. It’s a ridiculous cost we take on as a society because some people insist on having mans-best-friend feels.
Click to expand...

My dog does not create noise pollution simply for existing. I collect his feces. He doesn't attack anyone. His existence doesn't mean the county has to pay for other dogs to exist in cages. If he needs to be euthanized because he is sick, I will pay for it.

This is true for all good dog owners. So why must he be banned exactly? Just because you find large dogs disgusting does not mean we need a law. Legislation should not be made so you have a safe space against the very existence of large dogs.
 
Frenzied Wombat

Frenzied Wombat

Potato del Grande
14,730
31,803
Gavinmad said:
I hope some Mexicans move in next door to you with a rooster so you can get some perspective you whiny fuck.
Click to expand...

haha so ironic. I'm actually dealing with this RIGHT NOW. The neighbor across the alley behind me, who owns a tear-down junkyard home and at least has at least 5 messican residents, have TWO fucking roosters that wake up everybody within 1000ft at 4:30AM.

I went over with another neighbor and they basically told us to fuck off in broken Spanish. We're now waiting on 311 to fucking do something.

I didn't know Mexicans owning Roosters was a thing. Why the fuck would you want to own a Rooster??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.