Woman Hangs and Burns Pit Bull

[GothicLust]

Genocide only applies in human terms.

Genocide is defined as:

the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group

While not people, you can designate pit bulls as a race. Besides I don't know of any comparable term for animals.

Welch's is responsible for the genocide of grapes! No, that's not the right word, it's a grape holocaust! Seriously man?

[Blouman Empire]

What was incredible naive? A dog doesn't know any better. It doesn't know what a bible is or if it means anything to anyone. Dogs chew things.

My dogs have never eaten a book in their lives... It's called training.

That's because all your dogs a Toy Poodles they couldn't even bite an unusually large cockroach

[The Corparation]

Genocide is defined as: While not people, you can designate pit bulls as a race. Besides I don't know of any comparable term for animals.

Welch's is responsible for the genocide of grapes! No, that's not the right word, it's a grape holocaust! Seriously man?

No they aren't systematically trying to eradicate the species in its entirety as you advocated doing for the pit bull. Plus grapes are inanimate objects, while they are alive they have no feeling, dogs are alive, have feelings and are moderately intelligent depending on the breed. They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

[The Floridian Coast]

Oh, it's in South Carolina.

I swear to god every person in that state was dropped on his head as a baby.

prejudice is real.

Realizing some US states have generally dumber/ignorant/primitive populations isn't really prejudice. I've lived my whole life in Florida. I know it's infested with rednecks. On top of that I have to deal with all the Scino's in my city.

[Vetalia]

Realizing some US states have generally dumber/ignorant/primitive populations isn't really prejudice. I've lived my whole life in Florida. I know it's infested with rednecks. On top of that I have to deal with all the Scino's in my city.

Try going from Ohio to Georgia.

[GothicLust]

Welch's is responsible for the genocide of grapes! No, that's not the right word, it's a grape holocaust! Seriously man?

No they aren't systematically trying to eradicate the species in its entirety as you advocated doing for the pit bull. Plus grapes are inanimate objects, while they are alive they have no feeling, dogs are alive, have feelings and are moderately intelligent depending on the breed. They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

I think we might be buying our grapes from different places. My grapes are indeed soft and fuzzy and sentient.

[Blouman Empire]

They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

Grapes that have been left on the vine to long or have gone off are sift and fuzzy.

[The Corparation]

No they aren't systematically trying to eradicate the species in its entirety as you advocated doing for the pit bull. Plus grapes are inanimate objects, while they are alive they have no feeling, dogs are alive, have feelings and are moderately intelligent depending on the breed. They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

I think we might be buying our grapes from different places. My grapes are indeed soft and fuzzy and sentient.

I sincerely doubt the sentient part. I also doubt that dogs posses full sentience. They are towards in the animal scale of intelligence. Where lowest is the amoeba and highest is a tie for second between Dolphins and Chimps. First is people.

They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

Grapes that have been left on the vine to long or have gone off are sift and fuzzy.

Okay. Add one fact to my list of facts about grapes.

[Australien]

Especially when you call a dog 'devil dog' because it chews your bible. Hello! It's a dog, it doesn't know any better. If your precious bible means so much to you, put it somewhere where the dog won't reach it. She's more an animal than the poor canine she hanged and burned.

That's incredibly naive... Dogs do have the capability of thought.
A properly trained dog won't eat books...


That being said, it was a Pit Bull. The entire breed should be eradicated like small pox.

And we should eradicate pit bulls for what reason again? Because one owner in South Carolina has trained a single one poorly?

[The Norwegian Blue]

I think we might be buying our grapes from different places. My grapes are indeed soft and fuzzy and sentient.

I sincerely doubt the sentient part. I also doubt that dogs posses full sentience. They are towards in the animal scale of intelligence. Where lowest is the amoeba and highest is a tie for second between Dolphins and Chimps. First is people.

Dogs are sentient, and amoebas are not animals. A lot of people misuse the word "sentient" to mean "sapient" and "animals" to mean "anything alive and not a plant." The latter in particular is rather a pet peeve of mine.

[Embrihated Koalas]

I just couldn't read the article since I am a huge fan of dogs, especially the pit types, felt like responding, but reading the article would just continue to fuel my anger,
Pitbulls are great dogs willing to give their own live and skin for their owners and his / her close ones, yeah their are some rotten eggs in the basket, but that's in every breed, I mean Labradors or poodles would probably never make the headlines since their not breeds that we would see as dangerous or in any way aggreissve... Again how judgemental have we become

[GothicLust]

I sincerely doubt the sentient part. I also doubt that dogs posses full sentience. They are towards in the animal scale of intelligence. Where lowest is the amoeba and highest is a tie for second between Dolphins and Chimps. First is people.

Dogs are sentient, and amoebas are not animals. A lot of people misuse the word "sentient" to mean "sapient" and "animals" to mean "anything alive and not a plant." The latter in particular is rather a pet peeve of mine.

I knew I would never have to back down on that you being smarter than me thing. This is one debate I'll win! (although, I do not know anyone stupid enough to disagree)

[The Bleeding Roses]

My dogs have never eaten a book in their lives... It's called training.

That's because all your dogs a Toy Poodles they couldn't even bite an unusually large cockroach

My purebred field type English Springers take offense to that.

[Blouman Empire]

That's because all your dogs a Toy Poodles they couldn't even bite an unusually large cockroach

My purebred field type English Springers take offense to that.

You taught your dogs to read?

[Embrihated Koalas]

My purebred field type English Springers take offense to that.

You taught your dogs to read?

dogs are clever enough to do over 70 commands so yeah reading could be a possibility

[Ardchoille]

Okay, okay. We have established that several posters -- GothicLust and TBR among them, but I've only looked back over the past two pages, there may be more -- made a generalisation along the lines of "(All) pit bulls should be eradicated."

We have also established that several other posters -- The Corparation and Gauthier among them -- know that generalisations in debates have a fatal flaw: they can be particularised.

And we have established that said posters know that reductio ad absurdum is a seductively sweet way to show the weaknesses of a generalisation.

Well done. Consider the debating points awarded.

However, this is not a formal debate, it is a civil discussion.

If your opponents concede the point (or "clarify their views") by saying "I never meant ..." or "My actual views are ..." or "No, you misunderstood, what I believe is ...", then continuing to hammer them with statements along the lines of, "But you said ..." or "You say that now, but look at your own words (quote) ..." rapidly becomes uncivil.

Now, I understand that you may be doing so because this is not a face-to-face discussion. People may read just the OP and the past couple of pages, as I did just now, to get a feel for the debate. So posters often feel that an argument made on one page needs to be refuted on the same page, or as close to it as possible, even if this means repetition and angering the opponent.

Fine. But there is a point where the balance of this tactic crosses over from "refuting" to "angering".

If your opponent's replies show signs that you are angering them, maybe you should stop. If you anger them too greatly they may feel constrained to ask for Moderation assistance. Which may lead to a mod deciding that you took it too far, and dinging you for flamebait. Or it may lead to the mod deciding that the complaint is just using the "mods as weapons" tactic, and dinging the complainant.

And though you may then feel badly done by, because you were "just arguing" and didn't say anything personal, you won't have a leg to stand on. Because, though this is a debate and discussion site, the absolute standing rule, the foundation of all the others, is play nice.

Of course, there's also the possibility, when something like this makes it as far as Moderation, that the mod who picks it up may decide that people have just temporarily forgotten that they're arguing with other real people.

They may even have time, on a slow and lazy Saturday morning on a for-once-comfortable Australian summer day, to explain a point for any newbies who happen to be reading.

Thus: Gauthier, cool it. The Carparation, cool it. Anyone else who has been doing the same thing, evaluate your posts, figure out if want to take the risk of a warning, but I'd advise, cool it.

[Embrihated Koalas]

Okay, okay. We have established that several posters -- GothicLust and TBR among them, but I've only looked back over the past two pages, there may be more -- made a generalisation along the lines of "(All) pit bulls should be eradicated."

We have also established that several other posters -- The Corparation and Gauthier among them -- know that generalisations in debates have a fatal flaw: they can be particularised.

And we have established that said posters know that reductio ad absurdum is a seductively sweet way to show the weaknesses of a generalisation.

Well done. Consider the debating points awarded.

However, this is not a formal debate, it is a civil discussion.

If your opponents concede the point (or "clarify their views") by saying "I never meant ..." or "My actual views are ..." or "No, you misunderstood, what I believe is ...", then continuing to hammer them with statements along the lines of, "But you said ..." or "You say that now, but look at your own words (quote) ..." rapidly becomes uncivil.

Now, I understand that you may be doing so because this is not a face-to-face discussion. People may read just the OP and the past couple of pages, as I did just now, to get a feel for the debate. So posters often feel that an argument made on one page needs to be refuted on the same page, or as close to it as possible, even if this means repetition and angering the opponent.

Fine. But there is a point where the balance of this tactic crosses over from "refuting" to "angering".

If your opponent's replies show signs that you are angering them, maybe you should stop. If you anger them too greatly they may feel constrained to ask for Moderation assistance. Which may lead to a mod deciding that you took it too far, and dinging you for flamebait. Or it may lead to the mod deciding that the complaint is just using the "mods as weapons" tactic, and dinging the complainant.

And though you may then feel badly done by, because you were "just arguing" and didn't say anything personal, you won't have a leg to stand on. Because, though this is a debate and discussion site, the absolute standing rule, the foundation of all the others, is play nice.

Of course, there's also the possibility, when something like this makes it as far as Moderation, that the mod who picks it up may decide that people have just temporarily forgotten that they're arguing with other real people.

They may even have time, on a slow and lazy Saturday morning on a for-once-comfortable Australian summer day, to explain a point for any newbies who happen to be reading.

Thus: Gauthier, cool it. The Carparation, cool it. Anyone else who has been doing the same thing, evaluate your posts, figure out if want to take the risk of a warning, but I'd advise, cool it.

so just when someone is angry just because your right means that you need to cool it? OK weird

[Fartsniffage]

Okay, okay. We have established that several posters -- GothicLust and TBR among them, but I've only looked back over the past two pages, there may be more -- made a generalisation along the lines of "(All) pit bulls should be eradicated."

We have also established that several other posters -- The Corparation and Gauthier among them -- know that generalisations in debates have a fatal flaw: they can be particularised.

And we have established that said posters know that reductio ad absurdum is a seductively sweet way to show the weaknesses of a generalisation.

Well done. Consider the debating points awarded.

However, this is not a formal debate, it is a civil discussion.

If your opponents concede the point (or "clarify their views") by saying "I never meant ..." or "My actual views are ..." or "No, you misunderstood, what I believe is ...", then continuing to hammer them with statements along the lines of, "But you said ..." or "You say that now, but look at your own words (quote) ..." rapidly becomes uncivil.

Now, I understand that you may be doing so because this is not a face-to-face discussion. People may read just the OP and the past couple of pages, as I did just now, to get a feel for the debate. So posters often feel that an argument made on one page needs to be refuted on the same page, or as close to it as possible, even if this means repetition and angering the opponent.

Fine. But there is a point where the balance of this tactic crosses over from "refuting" to "angering".

If your opponent's replies show signs that you are angering them, maybe you should stop. If you anger them too greatly they may feel constrained to ask for Moderation assistance. Which may lead to a mod deciding that you took it too far, and dinging you for flamebait. Or it may lead to the mod deciding that the complaint is just using the "mods as weapons" tactic, and dinging the complainant.

And though you may then feel badly done by, because you were "just arguing" and didn't say anything personal, you won't have a leg to stand on. Because, though this is a debate and discussion site, the absolute standing rule, the foundation of all the others, is play nice.

Of course, there's also the possibility, when something like this makes it as far as Moderation, that the mod who picks it up may decide that people have just temporarily forgotten that they're arguing with other real people.

They may even have time, on a slow and lazy Saturday morning on a for-once-comfortable Australian summer day, to explain a point for any newbies who happen to be reading.

Thus: Gauthier, cool it. The Carparation, cool it. Anyone else who has been doing the same thing, evaluate your posts, figure out if want to take the risk of a warning, but I'd advise, cool it.

That is probably the best, and most comprehensive, "cool down" post I've ever seen.

Bravo.

[GothicLust]

Okay, okay. We have established that several posters -- GothicLust and TBR among them, but I've only looked back over the past two pages, there may be more -- made a generalisation along the lines of "(All) pit bulls should be eradicated."

We have also established that several other posters -- The Corparation and Gauthier among them -- know that generalisations in debates have a fatal flaw: they can be particularised.

And we have established that said posters know that reductio ad absurdum is a seductively sweet way to show the weaknesses of a generalisation.

Well done. Consider the debating points awarded.

However, this is not a formal debate, it is a civil discussion.

If your opponents concede the point (or "clarify their views") by saying "I never meant ..." or "My actual views are ..." or "No, you misunderstood, what I believe is ...", then continuing to hammer them with statements along the lines of, "But you said ..." or "You say that now, but look at your own words (quote) ..." rapidly becomes uncivil.

Now, I understand that you may be doing so because this is not a face-to-face discussion. People may read just the OP and the past couple of pages, as I did just now, to get a feel for the debate. So posters often feel that an argument made on one page needs to be refuted on the same page, or as close to it as possible, even if this means repetition and angering the opponent.

Fine. But there is a point where the balance of this tactic crosses over from "refuting" to "angering".

If your opponent's replies show signs that you are angering them, maybe you should stop. If you anger them too greatly they may feel constrained to ask for Moderation assistance. Which may lead to a mod deciding that you took it too far, and dinging you for flamebait. Or it may lead to the mod deciding that the complaint is just using the "mods as weapons" tactic, and dinging the complainant.

And though you may then feel badly done by, because you were "just arguing" and didn't say anything personal, you won't have a leg to stand on. Because, though this is a debate and discussion site, the absolute standing rule, the foundation of all the others, is play nice.

Of course, there's also the possibility, when something like this makes it as far as Moderation, that the mod who picks it up may decide that people have just temporarily forgotten that they're arguing with other real people.

They may even have time, on a slow and lazy Saturday morning on a for-once-comfortable Australian summer day, to explain a point for any newbies who happen to be reading.

Thus: Gauthier, cool it. The Carparation, cool it. Anyone else who has been doing the same thing, evaluate your posts, figure out if want to take the risk of a warning, but I'd advise, cool it.

Is it civil for them to follow me from one thread to another and make claims that I support genocide? Because that is what happened.

[Ardchoille]

Is it civil for them to follow me from one thread to another and make claims that I support genocide? Because that is what happened.

That wasn't the subject of your complaint in Moderation. Mods will certainly look into any such complaints.

For reasons given here, I personally think a GHR is usually the more appropriate way to go, but whether via GHR or Moderation, please provide links.

[GothicLust]

Is it civil for them to follow me from one thread to another and make claims that I support genocide? Because that is what happened.

That wasn't the subject of your complaint in Moderation. Mods will certainly look into any such complaints.

For reasons given here, I personally think a GHR is usually the more appropriate way to go, but whether via GHR or Moderation, please provide links.

Their quote from me saying all pits should be killed is from another thread, not this one. I went on in that thread to clarify my opinion for a good 10 pages and eventually converted to NOT killing all of them. They are well aware of this and continue to bully me and follow me from that thread to this one saying I believe in genocide, animal abuse and all manner of things I did NOT say and I asked them to stop and they did not.

[Panzerjaeger]

It is an initiation rite for all citizens of that State.

I take offense to this.

EDIT: I might not be good proof against this idea though...

Pfft you would.
Virginia über alles!

[Ardchoille]

so just when someone is angry just because your right means that you need to cool it? OK weird

No. You are drawing a general conclusion about an overall rule from a single example about a specific situation. That may sometimes get you the right answer, but sometimes not. For this specific situation, read my previous post. For the rules, this is the reliable source.

Note that moderation decisions are applications of the rules, tempered by circumstances, content, intent, poster history (and, where relevant, the phases of the moon and what quarter the wind sits in).

@ GothicLust: Your post in Moderation noted. Checking. Other posters, take relevant responses to the Moderation thread, not this one.

[Kruplyan]

This has to be the most random and useless discussion I've seen on here since I joined...

[SaintB]

Welch's is responsible for the genocide of grapes! No, that's not the right word, it's a grape holocaust! Seriously man?

No they aren't systematically trying to eradicate the species in its entirety as you advocated doing for the pit bull. Plus grapes are inanimate objects, while they are alive they have no feeling, dogs are alive, have feelings and are moderately intelligent depending on the breed. They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

I respectfully disagree, let your grapes sit on the counter for long enough and they become soft and fuzzy,