Page 2 of 56
Posted on September 6 at 3:01 p.m.
The very existence of the "breed" of pit bull is why they tend towards aggressiveness--although originally for animals, and not humans.
For the record, I am speaking specifically of the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), although the Staffordshire Terrier and American-Staffordshire Terrier breeds are very similar, to nearly be considered the same, IMO.
APBT's were crosses between terriers lines (for tenacity), and bully-breeds, which are descended of mastiff lines (for strength/toughness). Dogs that were aggessive to other dogs were good for fighting, but ones that bit handlers were culled (killed), which was "natural selection" for dogs which would not attack people.
April 2013, I lost my 13 y/o female, red-nosed APBT, and she only ever showed aggressive/protective traits when strange dogs would approach us--and that one time that one of my friends dogs decided to snap at her first! Furthermore, she showed traits of abuse when I got her, and would cower from stick-like objects (mop, broom, pool cue, etc.) but never snapped at anything out of fear, and I got her at about 1-1/2 to 2 years old.
Currently, I am housing another, male APBT who is male-animal aggressive, and will ignore bitches while immediately wanting to "scratch" (dog-fighting term--look it up) against other males. He was raised with his parents, and sometime around turning 2 years old (no longer a *puppy*, but a *dog*), he could no longer be kept with his father. He would play with the mother all day, but would move to attack his father if given the chance--possibly a dominance issue, but due to pit bull traits, it's a fight....In fact, I had to personally separate the two once (I mistakenly did not get a sliding door closed completely), and not once was I concerned about being bitten while wrestling with them both! I would not say the same about other breeds. [Pit bulls place extreme focus on the 'opponent', while other breeds may perceive handling during an altercation as a threat, and bite by reflex.]
Oddly enough, the father dog is much like my red-nosed girl was--he doesn't race to attack other dogs, but will not stand for being attacked. A couple of family-history notes on the dog I have now: 1) the grandfather was reportedly (hearsay) a fighting dog in Alabama, and 2) one of his sisters from his litter has also attacked and killed another dog. Oh, and 3) the time I had to separate him from his father, the mother kept jumping in to grab the father's collar, and was trying to yank him back!
I do greatly believe in "nurture over nature" (environment vs. heredity) when it comes to most dogs, but not so much with pit bulls. However, I stand with my previous assertion that no person should ever *assume* that a dog (of ANY breed) is 100% safe.
On Dog Bite Dangers
Posted on September 6 at 2:24 p.m.
I believe that you are allowing your personal feelings (prejudice) to cloud your comprehension--you are attacking the author of the letter, and essentially defending the landlord where you do not need to do so.
"Now your landlord returns excess rent, your deposit and pays you a relocation fee and you still think you've been swindled."
"After the fire, the tenant realized his belongings would not be replaced, and was upset that the landlord would not replace the belongings or provide additional assistance, so he hired a lawyer".
"The landlord should return the deposit and the prorated rent that was prepaid, but the $1000 for assistance was just an extorted payoff to get the guy's lawyer out of his hair. The landlord had no obligation to pay that money. There is a sense of entitlement from this tenant that can't be denied."
"The tenant clearly wanted more from the landlord than he was entitled to however."
.I don't read any ill will towards the landlord in the letter. In fact, I think that disclosure of the landlord's action in returning the rent, deposit, and adding $1000 "clearly" placed the landlord in a good light.
If you re-read the parts pertaining to the letter more objectively, you might find that the parts relating to responsibilities of the renter and the landlord were simply stated as fact. Any overtone of frustration in the letter appears directed at the lack of any true "emergency housing services", locally, which has already been addressed by previous posts to this one.
On Holes in the Safety Net
Posted on September 6 at 1:29 p.m.
I agree with spacey--it seems more of a politically-based rip, than a racial one.
As to racism, Italiansurg has (probably unknowingly) brought up a point that often goes unnoticed: There is a difference in bigotry and racism. BIGOTRY is an intolerance of others for pretty much any reason (and often the cause of prejudice). RACISM is actually meant to be specifically applicable to support of bigoted practices (such as forcing black people to the back of a bus) *by the government*, however, it's commonly taken to be any kind of practice that appears to be degrading to someone, due to their race. [Aside, I think that is due to the term "racist" being applied liberally, which connotates to the original definition.]
There is also no reason that the dark history (pardon the pun) of the U.S. should be forgotten, but to paraphrase Italiansurg--sans the name-calling ("professional victims")--*persons* SHOULD look more toward the future than the past, and consider that they have greater opportunities in the modern world than their ancestors had. And, while it may make me appear bigoted/racist, I DO direct that last comment towards black Americans in particular--the ones that actually fit the stereotype(s)!
Lastly, I am going to stop before I start agreeing too much with 'surg. :)
On Racism in America: A Nation in Denial
Posted on August 28 at 12:48 p.m.
"As a pedestrian, I am more worried about being knocked silly by a bicyclist than by any driver."
Of course--you should be worried about being maimed or killed if a car hits you!
"It should be obvious to those organizations that the promotion of bicycle ridership must include an emphasis on lawful and sensible behavior"
The problem isn't bicycles, it's the people riding them...and possibly some of the *types* of bicyclists--such as the (downhill) mountain bikers that DrDan brings up. (Adrenaline junkies are not often the most considerate of personalities.)
My question is, how it would be possible to teach anyone "lawful and sensible behavior", when most people no longer understand simple etiquette?
On Take a Hike, Bike
Posted on August 28 at 12:36 p.m.
Anyone have a link to these figures? I tried a Google, but nothing relevant bubbled up in the results.
"...even if that cost could take the life of your child or your pet’s life."
No person should ever *assume* that a dog (of ANY breed) is 100% safe. If one is wary of adopting a "vicious breed", then get a goldfish!
Posted on August 28 at 12:27 p.m.
"...India and China's roles in this picture. What is thought of as progress over there, is considered irresponsible over here."
Bill, I just wanted to point out that America *was* that "irresponsible"--unfortunately, such stages of industrial growth are more dangerous to the 'health of the planet', the later they come along in time.
Aside, I have a question: Isn't America likely to be the largest consumer of goods and services that are sourced in the Indo-China area? Would that not then make us culpable in the consumption of resources, and accompanying pollution, that comes from there?
On Energy Independence Means Freedom from Fossil Fuels
Posted on August 23 at 7:58 a.m.
"Teanderthal" -- Now that's funny!
On Jail Guards Gone Rogue?
Posted on August 15 at 8:35 a.m.
Yes, I think that is the more correct form, but using it in name-form, I default to the American English construction of adjective-then-noun (although, it could also be taken as a possessive and noun, or two nouns only).
Aside, my question/correction to the letter was submitted as to make sense of the sentence. A name can be anything...
On Lack of Scrutiny
Posted on August 8 at 2:07 p.m.
Last paragraph, second sentence. Shouldn't "hence not property debated" be "hence not PROPERLY debated"? Or, should the "[sic]" notation be used?
Posted on August 8 at 1:48 p.m.
"Murder is the unlawful killing of one Human by another. Zimmerman was found not-guilty, so it's not murder.".
The first sentence is basically wrong, and the second is nonsensical.
Murder includes an *intent* component. What Zimmerman did was manslaughter of a kind, yet the FL statutes on that were not exactly, completely, satisfied for that verdict either. [Oddly enough, it is often that the proverbial drum is beaten for the "letter of the law", while the intent of the law is ignored. Also, please don't confuse my separate uses of the word "intent". --In the first case it's relating to the intent of a person, in the second it's about the intent of the legislators in approving a law.]
Zimmerman did not commit murder, and was found "not guilty", not the other way around.
On Trayvon's Right to Stand His Ground
vKnown for his affable humor, the popular host and best-selling ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month