"Envious" Pit Bull called Nazi attacks - owner left in a pool of blood

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

When I first bought my Pit Bull, from a policeman, the woman neighbourish got off her ass and went to complain to my MiL about buying it. She was scared and didn't want it around due to phobia. My MiL wouldn't get involved. 

I've had this Pit Bull 7+ years. In that time it has never chased a motorbike, chased a running child, never barks at people, never bit anyone etc etc. But in that time the cow that went to my MiL's dog has done all the previous. She doesn't look after her dog and allows it to attack anyone passing without fear of punishment. But for her to go past my house it's a no no.

She’s obviously a half-wit... 

 

Now, imagine she has a Pit-Bill.....    

 

We know your dogs are lovely, we know they are well trained, as are the PittBulls of the responsible owners that have contributed to this thread.

 

But, when talking about ‘Pitbulls’ we are not talking about YOUR Pitbulls, we are talking about Pitbulls in general, those owned all around Thailand, owned by the person down the street who leaves the gate open,  owned by the nutty woman in the condo with 7 Pitbulls who doesn’t take them out....  

 

These people should not be permitted to have dogs fullstop...   there really needs to be something in the way of preventing these people from owning dogs which are considered dangerous.

 

*and as to whether its accurate that these dogs can be considered dangerous - I think thats a given which is why they need such specific and dedicated ownership and training, for when they don’t receive that, they are a threat.

 

[Orinoco]

Just don't get that warm fuzzy feeling for some reason. 

Nice Pit bull,  would you like a biscuit or one more child to maul.

 

 

 

 

[Fairynuff]

10 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Schoolyard response.

Fits you perfectly then

[billd766]

6 hours ago, jollyhangmon said:

... and? Since when exactly does anybody care here, 'legally' ...

 

Usually when you are looking for a vet to put the dog down legally.

 

Drom what I understand is that most Thai vets refuse to do it.

[JonnyF]

5 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You are saying that you dog hasn't attacked anyone yet because its kept in a secure location and where no one can enter , that doesn't detract from the fact that you keep a potentially killer dog on your property .

   You dog is trained to attack any intruders and may even kill them . 

   If for some reason there's a stranger kid on your property and you dog kills that kid , you would be at fault for having a killer dog on your property . 

No my dog is not trained to attack or kill intruders. Thats all in your head. Most dogs protect their territory. It is instinct. So do mine. Not only the pitbull, all of them.

 

Using your logic... Humans kill. In fact they kill way more humans every year than dogs do. You haven't killed 'yet'. But you are a potential killer human. An accident waiting to happen. How long before someone flips YOUR switch? Shall we put you down? Or how about we do the stats on which 'race/breed' kills the most people and wipe THEM out? Sounds legit... Nature > Nurture and all that...

 

1940's style. Sieg Heil. Wipe out 'zee pitbull'. ????

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No my dog is not trained to attack or kill intruders. Thats all in your head. Most dogs protect their territory. It is instinct. So do mine. Not only the pitbull, all of them.

 

OK fair enough, your dog isn't trained to attack and kill intruders, it does that naturally , no need to train it .

[Thingamabob]

If properly cared for Pit Bulls are loyal, friendly and a lot of fun. No amount of adverse comment by ignorami will change that. 

[jacko45k]

13 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

If properly cared for Pit Bulls are loyal, friendly and a lot of fun. No amount of adverse comment by ignorami will change that. 

And no amount of sanctimonious garbage will override the fact that they are temperamentally flawed, prone to jealousy and  are a physically very strong and capable breed. If you want a companion that brings back sticks or slippers, look elsewhere. I would suggest if you have small children, you do not consider them. 

They are a working dog, not a pet. 

  

[IvorBiggun2]

32 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

They are a working dog, not a pet. 

  

I totally disagree. Definition of a pet please? You've obviously never owned one. But you've read a lot of misinformation. So there you go.   

 

 

Quote

 

Which animal is a pet?

 

 

 

What animals are considered pets? Dogs, cats, birds, and some other animals are kept as household pets. Reptiles and amphibians, when kept as pets, are kept in special glass enclosures. Many people keep fish as aquarium pets.

 

https://www.britannica.com/animal/pit-bull

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

I totally disagree. Definition of a pet please? You've obviously never owned one. But you've read a lot of misinformation. So there you go.   

 

 

https://www.britannica.com/animal/pit-bull

Easy.....One that doesn't eat children!

No never had one, I have more sense. Some breeds were not banned for no reason whatsoever. 

[Thingamabob]

39 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

And no amount of sanctimonious garbage will override the fact that they are temperamentally flawed, prone to jealousy and  are a physically very strong and capable breed. If you want a companion that brings back sticks or slippers, look elsewhere. I would suggest if you have small children, you do not consider them. 

They are a working dog, not a pet. 

  

Your suggestion and your reference to sanctimonious garbage noted. For your information I have two children and four grandchildren, all adults now, They have never had any problems with pit bulls, nor any other breed for that matter, during their lifetime to date.

[jacko45k]

3 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Your suggestion and your reference to sanctimonious garbage noted. For your information I have two children and four grandchildren, all adults now, They have never had any problems with pit bulls, nor any other breed for that matter, during their lifetime to date.

Yet... ....

I am surprised you put them at risk if you did indeed own pit-bulls when they were young.

Note the very first word of this thread's title. . 

[jollyhangmon]

12 hours ago, billd766 said:

Usually when you are looking for a vet to put the dog down legally.

 

Drom what I understand is that most Thai vets refuse to do it.

... yes, you're right of course/unfortunately, I forgot that slightly twisted 'logic' ... just hit the ground back from Eurotrip recently, obviously need to readjust, 5555 ... 

 

[billd766]

13 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No my dog is not trained to attack or kill intruders. Thats all in your head. Most dogs protect their territory. It is instinct. So do mine. Not only the pitbull, all of them.

 

Using your logic... Humans kill. In fact they kill way more humans every year than dogs do. You haven't killed 'yet'. But you are a potential killer human. An accident waiting to happen. How long before someone flips YOUR switch? Shall we put you down? Or how about we do the stats on which 'race/breed' kills the most people and wipe THEM out? Sounds legit... Nature > Nurture and all that...

 

1940's style. Sieg Heil. Wipe out 'zee pitbull'. ????

Well after 25 years in the military, 58 years of legal driving and 78 years of age, I haven't killed anybody yet.

 

I suspect that you are trying to make a joke, and failing miserably.

[josephbloggs]

4 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Your suggestion and your reference to sanctimonious garbage noted. For your information I have two children and four grandchildren, all adults now, They have never had any problems with pit bulls, nor any other breed for that matter, during their lifetime to date.

These are arguments are like people saying "I never wear my seatbelt - we didn't even have them when I was young and it never did me any harm."   Yeah, never did you any harm, but what all the kids who are dead after being thrown through the windscreen?

Same thing.  "Pitbulls are fine because mine hasn't killed anyone" is a flawed argument because pitbulls have killed many other people.

[Thingamabob]

3 hours ago, jollyhangmon said:

... yes, you're right of course/unfortunately, I forgot that slightly twisted 'logic' ... just hit the ground back from Eurotrip recently, obviously need to readjust, 5555 ... 

 

There is a decree sponsored by a revered figure in Thailand, and referred  to several times already in these postings. The decree prevents any form of cruelty being inflicted upon dogs in Thailand. It appears to be widely observed, by both the veterinary services and by the public generally.

[richard_smith237]

16 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No my dog is not trained to attack or kill intruders. Thats all in your head. Most dogs protect their territory. It is instinct. So do mine. Not only the pitbull, all of them.

Agreed... Most dogs would be territorial and protect their territory - the differences are that ‘most dogs’ have not evolved through a line of breading targeting their power and aggression. 

PitBulls were originally bred for Bull Baiting and Dog fighting - Attack and aggression is in their DNA, its not in a Golden retriever. 

 

16 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Using your logic... Humans kill. In fact they kill way more humans every year than dogs do. You haven't killed 'yet'. But you are a potential killer human.

Fundamentally flawed straw-man fallacy again....    comparing humans to dogs is ridiculous. 

Why do you not compare ‘rabbits to dogs’ instead, or kittens ?

 

Similar arguments to the ‘anti-PitBull' can be said of ’savannah cats’ - they’re dangerous. 

 

16 hours ago, JonnyF said:

An accident waiting to happen. How long before someone flips YOUR switch? Shall we put you down? Or how about we do the stats on which 'race/breed' kills the most people and wipe THEM out? Sounds legit... Nature > Nurture and all that...

This line of argument comparing dogs to humans is desperate and pathetic.

Dogs are not self aware, sentient or self-conscious in the manner humans are.

 

 

16 hours ago, JonnyF said:

1940's style. Sieg Heil. Wipe out 'zee pitbull'. ????

Comparison of licensing and controlling Dangerous Dog breeds to the Holocaust is a wholly distasteful and extremely desperate argument highlighting that really do not have a valid argument. 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

Well after 25 years in the military, 58 years of legal driving and 78 years of age, I haven't killed anybody yet.

 

I suspect that you are trying to make a joke, and failing miserably.

I don’t think he’s making a joke. I think he’s desperately trying to come up with arguments to justify his position that PitBull are ok...  

 

This discussion is like the discussions with people who are pro-guns, the same straw-man arguments and flawed logic being applied to justify their position. 

 

In both cases the only recognisable arguments is “because I want one”....   

 

People may be attracted to the Pitbull breed because of is power and reputation, they like knowing that their ‘beast’ is under their control and loyal....   thats fine in isolation, but we don’t live in isolation, we live in a world where people are careless and these dogs have statistically been proven to be more dangerous than any other ‘common breed’...    there is no denying the facts.

 

[richard_smith237]

6 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

I totally disagree. Definition of a pet please? You've obviously never owned one. But you've read a lot of misinformation. So there you go.   

Definition of a pet ???..... 

 

A good start would be: An animal that doesn’t bite the faces of children off at a far greater rate of incidence than any other household pet. 

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed... Most dogs would be territorial and protect their territory - the differences are that ‘most dogs’ have not evolved through a line of breading targeting their power and aggression. 

PitBulls were originally bred for Bull Baiting and Dog fighting - Attack and aggression is in their DNA, its not in a Golden retriever. 

 

Fundamentally flawed straw-man fallacy again....    comparing humans to dogs is ridiculous. 

Why do you not compare ‘rabbits to dogs’ instead, or kittens ?

 

Similar arguments to the ‘anti-PitBull' can be said of ’savannah cats’ - they’re dangerous. 

 

This line of argument comparing dogs to humans is desperate and pathetic.

Dogs are not self aware, sentient or self-conscious in the manner humans are.

 

 

Comparison of licensing and controlling Dangerous Dog breeds to the Holocaust is a wholly distasteful and extremely desperate argument highlighting that really do not have a valid argument. 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, the ancestors of PitBulls were bred for aggression towards dogs and bulls, not people. Aggression towards humans was an undesirable trait since in the days of dog fighting and bull baiting the dogs lived with the family of the owner, often in cramped conditions. Similarly, they had to be handled by humans during the fight and the handlers did not want to be turned on. Such dogs that showed human aggression were not considered ideal for breeding, so aggression towards humans is NOT in their DNA, unlike other breeds of dog that were bred to control human beings.   

 

As for humans being self aware, sentient and self conscious you may want to look at the atrocities being committed in the world right now, and over the past 100 years before you start bigging up the humans. They've done far more damage to each other and other animals than dogs could/would ever do. That is not my opinion, it is a simple fact. If in doubt, you could start by looking at the genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda, then draw a comparison to dog bites.

 

As for my comments regarding the holocaust, your faux outrage is wasted on me. There are clear ideological (allow me to repeat for clarity, ideological) similarities between the Nazis wanting to wipe out a specific race of people and ignoramuses on here wishing to wipe out specific breeds of dog. If I suggested wiping out the black population in the USA because they commit more crimes per capita than other ethnic groups you would be horrified and rightly so, yet you advocate the same thing based on the same flawed logic for a breed of dog that you dislike.

[richard_smith237]

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Actually, the ancestors of PitBulls were bred for aggression towards dogs and bulls, not people.

Nevertheless - statistic and frequent news stories highlight this trait (in some of them).

 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Aggression towards humans was an undesirable trait since in the days of dog fighting and bull baiting the dogs lived with the family of the owner, often in cramped conditions.

Ah.. so you agree, it is a trait of these dogs. 

 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Similarly, they had to be handled by humans during the fight and the handlers did not want to be turned on. Such dogs that showed human aggression were not considered ideal for breeding, so aggression towards humans is NOT in their DNA, unlike other breeds of dog that were bred to control human beings.   

It clearly is in their DNA, more so than any other ‘household canine’ as highlighted by the statistics (dog attacks and deaths caused by dog attack).

 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

As for humans being self aware, sentient and self conscious you may want to look at the atrocities being committed in the world right now, and over the past 100 years before you start bigging up the humans. They've done far more damage to each other and other animals than dogs could/would ever do. That is not my opinion, it is a simple fact. If in doubt, you could start by looking at the genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda, then draw a comparison to dog bites.

I agree, humans have caused some horrific atrocities - but PitBulls are still attacking people, disproportionately more so than any other canine. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

As for my comments regarding the holocaust, your faux outrage is wasted on me.

Comparing dog attacks to holocaust was distasteful - it was a desperate but flawed ploy to bolster your position that ‘humans are terrible beings so PitBull attacks are not that serious’....

 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

There are clear ideological (allow me to repeat for clarity, ideological) similarities between the Nazis wanting to wipe out a specific race of people and ignoramuses on here wishing to wipe out specific breeds of dog.

No there are not... Humans are not the same as dogs. There is no ‘idealogical’ similarity between the Holocaust, Ethnic Clensing and getting rid of a breed of dogs considered dangerous - no similarity whatsoever. 

 

For the record - I believe ownership of PitBulls (and any other breed considered dangerous) should be stringently controlled through licensing and after the potential owner has received training and can prove they have the means and space to look after such animals - owners should be legally responsible and accountable for any actions / incident their ‘pet’ is involved in. 

IMO - every dog should be licenced by a responsible owner. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

If I suggested wiping out the black population in the USA because they commit more crimes per capita than other ethnic groups you would be horrified and rightly so, yet you advocate the same thing based on the same flawed logic for a breed of dog that you dislike.

The worse straw-man fallicy I’ve witnessed on this forum - Comparing Pitbulls to Black People. 

 

I don’t dislike Pitbulls, friends have them, I think they are a lovely animal when brought up well. 

But I also see the statistic and read the news - they are dangerous when people are careless, there are too many careless people who can easily become owners of these animals, consequences are tragic.

 

Its the same as guns, I like guns, I thoroughly enjoy firing them, handguns, shotguns, automatic rifles - I get it, I understand why people like them. But I do not believe the public should have access to them for obvious reasons (discussed in other debates). 

 

Its the same for dangerous dogs - there are too many people who let the side down such that I believe Pitbulls (and a couple of other breeds) should be stringently controlled and if thats not possible, then banned all-together. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IvorBiggun2]

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Its the same for dangerous dogs - there are too many people who let the side down such that I believe Pitbulls (and a couple of other breeds) should be stringently controlled and if thats not possible, then banned all-together. 

 

 

On par with Thai drivers Pit Bulls are insignificant with regards to being a danger to others. Do we ban all Thais off of the roads because of statistics? Of course not. We implement a stricter training regime where by Thais hopefully conform. The same could apply to dogs that fall into a danger category. My belief it'll be easier to get the Pit Bulls to conform.    

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Its the same for dangerous dogs - there are too many people who let the side down such that I believe Pitbulls (and a couple of other breeds) should be stringently controlled and if thats not possible, then banned all-together. 

 

 

Expand  

On par with Thai drivers Pit Bulls are insignificant with regards to being a danger to others. Do we ban all Thais off of the roads because of statistics? Of course not. We implement a stricter training regime where by Thais hopefully conform. The same could apply to dogs that fall into a danger category. My belief it'll be easier to get the Pit Bulls to conform.    

I've mentioned it many times on this thread alone - licensing and training.

 

But look at where we are... A ban is just easier. 

 

The comparison between dogs and traffic and anything else other than other pets is ridiculous - there is no valid comparison with anything else. Just because Thai’s kills each other in cars does not lessen the risk these animals pose... Thai drivers do not lessen stats of Pitbull attacks in the rest of the world.

 

The comparison is quite frankly stupid and highlights one again, owners of dangerous breeds clutch at straws to justify their choice.

 

It would be better if you just said you have Pitbulls because you like them and want one and trusted you could train and look after it. 

But, that does not diminish the risk of someone who cannot look after such animals properly when they like them and want one. 

 

I have friends who had a dog and they treated it terribly - they loved it, it lived in the house, but it never received enough exercise and it wasn’t trained, it bit everyone in the house at time (minor bites but enough to draw-blood) - over the years I used to ensure it was locked in a different room when I went there with my family (son who was very young at the time - baby to 6 yrs old).

I dread to think what would have happened had they had a Pitbull - I certainly wouldn’t have visited. 

Meanwhile, I have another friend who has a PitBull, the dog is wonderful, but I won't let my Son go anywhere near it.

[IvorBiggun2]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Meanwhile, I have another friend who has a PitBull, the dog is wonderful, but I won't let my Son go anywhere near it.

Good for you and I hope that applies to all soi dogs as well?

[josephbloggs]

39 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

Good for you and I hope that applies to all soi dogs as well?

No, I am sure he encourages his son to play with soi dogs.  What a weird and pointless comment.

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

No, I am sure he encourages his son to play with soi dogs.  What a weird and pointless comment.

It was a question which was obviously leading to the response... 

... "So its all dogs you want eradicated from the planet”  !!!... so I chose to ignore. 

 

Its an interesting debate - but the reality is, just like gun owners, Pitbull owners see things so differently - ultimately (my thoughts is) they have Pitbulls because they want want, for whatever reasons...   people may allude to inner attitude etc and wanting to look tough etc, but I don’t agree... it may be they just like the breed and thats that... 

 

But...  Pitbulls are more dangerous than any other dog - they are banned in the UK (American Pitbull, as are some others such as the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro etc)...   They are banned for a reason... just like guns !... 

 

Soi dogs - a different matter, they are a pest, they are annoying, they cause accidents etc and yes, they also become territorial and attack children - they should be removed from the streets.

 

Other dogs - Should all have an owner, a collar identifying the owner who is accountable for those dogs. 

 

I also support the licensing of dogs above a certain size - I see far too many owners not looking after their dogs properly, keeping large dogs in tiny apartments or townhouses... thats just not on. 

 

People should respect their animals, train them well, look after them properly in an environment with the necessary space etc if they can’t do that, don’t have a dog - too many people give into their want rather than think what’s best for the animal.

 

I see so much cruelty to animals here because people will not make the right choices so the government should legislate.

One of those legislations really should be controlling who can have these highly energetic and powerful breeds. 

 

But we are in Thailand and they can’t even enforce helmet wearing - so enforcement of who can have a powerful animal ????.... no, everyone is safer if we have a blanket rule... its disappointing for those who would be excellent owners of such breeds,  those people can thank the selfish ayholes who have these dogs, fail to train them properly and let the side down. 

 

They shouldn’t up upset at people like me with a strong opinion about these dogs - they should be upset at those who provide me with the reasons to have developed this opinion. 

 

 

 

 

 

[GinBoy2]

All the pitbull lovers just can't deny the statistics.

 

You can defend them all you like, but the numbers don't lie

 

https://www.warriorsforjustice.com/dog-biting-statistics-by-breed/#:~:text=Pit Bulls%2C Rottweilers%2C German Shepherds%2C Presa Canarios%2C and,statistics for bite attacks. Others worth mentioning are%3A

 

The figures of attacks and deaths compared to the next dangerous breed, Rottweiler, are staggering.

 

To the apologists there must be an awful lot of folks not training their killer animals!

[Thingamabob]

9 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

All the pitbull lovers just can't deny the statistics.

 

You can defend them all you like, but the numbers don't lie

 

https://www.warriorsforjustice.com/dog-biting-statistics-by-breed/#:~:text=Pit Bulls%2C Rottweilers%2C German Shepherds%2C Presa Canarios%2C and,statistics for bite attacks. Others worth mentioning are%3A

 

The figures of attacks and deaths compared to the next dangerous breed, Rottweiler, are staggering.

 

To the apologists there must be an awful lot of folks not training their killer animals!

A famous quotation ...'There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics'....

[Sydebolle]

On 9/20/2022 at 7:30 PM, edogthong said:

That's a horrible idea. You've obviously never gained the trust of a pitbull.  They can be the most loyal and trustworthy dogs in the world.

No, Sir, I would never even consider trying to gain "the trust" of a pitbull.

Same missing confindence in "trust" I apply to i.e. crocodiles, any big cats (leopards, tigers or lions for that matter) or at sea of any sharks. These animals are, given a circumstance not known or recognizable to humans, dangerous. Their (re-)action is triggered off by their and not our instincts.

So since they "can" be most loyal but not "guaranteed" most loyal I rather opt for less dangerous  animals and, if it has to be a dog, there are many other dog species which are more predictable. 

Fact is, that most mauling by dogs go onto the account of "trusted" pitbulls - your call! 

[Thingamabob]

21 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

No, Sir, I would never even consider trying to gain "the trust" of a pitbull.

Same missing confindence in "trust" I apply to i.e. crocodiles, any big cats (leopards, tigers or lions for that matter) or at sea of any sharks. These animals are, given a circumstance not known or recognizable to humans, dangerous. Their (re-)action is triggered off by their and not our instincts.

So since they "can" be most loyal but not "guaranteed" most loyal I rather opt for less dangerous  animals and, if it has to be a dog, there are many other dog species which are more predictable. 

Fact is, that most mauling by dogs go onto the account of "trusted" pitbulls - your call! 

To repeat what has been said many times on this thread akready, properly cared for pit bulls are loyal, friendly and fun, and no threat to anybody.