.. Excuse me?!

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by AnimalHouse36

I have been put in many bad situations with dogs.

A jack russel terrier when I was young, ripped me by my hair. It was his owners fault. I may have cared for him when his owners were away and given him all the love I could when they threw him outside for days at a time, but it wasn't enough.

A bichon freesh(sp?) tore open my lip while I was petting him. Once again, it wasn't the dogs fault. I was stupidly hovering and to anyone else it would have looked like the dog just "snapped".

And a Cairin Terrier who's belly I was scratching bit me.

All of these dogs were under 40 pounds. I have been bit by my lab. And I have been licked by my dog.

I have never been bit my a pit bull. Not when I pulled their ears (when I was younger) or their tail. Not when I yanked to hard on the leash and not when I played rough with them.

Any GOOD trainer could go and be bit by a family dog and find them selves at fault..or passed experiences. Maybe the dog didn't like hats. You were not there nor are you a dog trainer.

This IS the breeders fault and the owners. The dogs are not at fault here. That just like racism in my opinion.

I think that you are the one putting earplugs in. We have given you the facts yet you still beleive that they are at fault.

Since when is it right for someone to call someone a racist for strongly disliking a certain breed of dog!? I must say I'm shocked!
If someone's afraid of spiders and dislikes being close to them, you wouldn't call that person a racist either. Yet it has happened and a number of people even approved of it, including a moderator. This is going too far!

[tehdoc809]

First, you technically weren't called a racist.

But I went back and read the thread and it is like racism, which is what animalhouse said. You keep stereotyping pitbulls like its all the pitbulls fault. When a good 90% of how any dog behaves has to do with the owner of the dog and how they treat and teach the dog to be. The simple definition of racism is the belief that one group is better than another, and you saying that pitbulls and german shepards are bad because they could be aggesive, is a racist comment because most of the pitbulls and german shepards aren't going to be aggressive. Honestly, I've known many pitbulls and never seen any of them be aggressive.

[Nymphae]

Well, you know what? I think it's racist to call someone ignorant or stupid for strongly disliking a certain dogbreed. It's not like I suddenly decided to dislike them, it has just grown that way over years of bad experiences with them. And if you can't respect that, well, then I think you're the one who's ignorant.

[shtinkypuppie]

By that logic, anyone who makes any remarks about any breeds temperament, intelligence, or other attributes is akin to a racist.
Dogs have numerous inherited traits attributable to breed, behavioral and physical. Just accept it. There is no sense going on about a dog's individuality and arguing from specific to general by citing a few examples. It is 100% scientifically valid to make generalizations according to breed. To bury your head in the sand and insist that every dog is different is to ignore reality for the sake of one's petty loyalties.

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by shtinkypuppie

By that logic, anyone who makes any remarks about any breeds temperament, intelligence, or other attributes is akin to a racist.
Dogs have numerous inherited traits attributable to breed, behavioral and physical. Just accept it. There is no sense going on about a dog's individuality and arguing from specific to general by citing a few examples. It is 100% scientifically valid to make generalizations according to breed. To bury your head in the sand and insist that every dog is different is to ignore reality for the sake of one's petty loyalties.

Yes, thank you! *falls over* X_x That was all I was trying to say, but I'm no good at explaining stuff..

[tehdoc809]

umm... what? I simply gave you a subjective assessment of the question you asked and you called me ignorant. No one said anything about anyone being ignorant or stupid and I certain didn't mean to disrepect you. I just answered the question.

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

umm... what? I simply gave you a subjective assessment of the question you asked and you called me ignorant. No one said anything about anyone being ignorant or stupid and I certain didn't mean to disrepect you. I just answered the question.

That was not subjective. You said I was 'stereotyping' Pit Bulls, which is your opinion on how I was talking about them.. OPINION, not fact. And I was called a racist, and you were right that it's not directly. But it was certainly indirectly, so basically I was still called a racist.

Also a little side info to prove my point. The post I showed you was taken from my Introduction Topic. So it was generally all directed at me, not toward people in general.

Last, but not least I'd like to point out that AnimalHouse made the assumption I'm no dog trainer. Well, I have a dog.. and I trained it. Also, I live right next to someone who breeds dogs and as a child I've spend a lot of time there, so I do know some stuff about dogs and have a lot of insight in their behaviour. And a dog isn't supposed to bite because of some small irritation, my own dog was ATTACKED by a German Shepard two times and never did anything back. Not to that dog, neither did he become mean at other dogs. Also, he likes cats and can get along great with rodents like Rabbits and Cavy's. Now I'd like to see THAT behaviour from a Pit Bull, I doubt a dog with a more fiery temperament like that breed would show the same behaviour in all aspects.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by shtinkypuppie

By that logic, anyone who makes any remarks about any breeds temperament, intelligence, or other attributes is akin to a racist.

Yes actually, that was the point. Because Nymphae asked about you could call someone a racist over dog breeds, and I explained it. Becuase focusing on stereotypes to prove anything is how racism spreads.

Originally Posted by shtinkypuppie

It is 100% scientifically valid to make generalizations according to breed.

No offense, But I got a good laugh out of this. Nothingis 100% scientifically vaild, there are always variables.

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Yes actually, that was the point. Because Nymphae asked about you could call someone a racist over dog breeds, and I explained it. Becuase focusing on stereotypes to prove anything is how racism spreads.



No offense, But I got a good laugh out of this. Nothingis 100% scientifically vaild, there are always variables.

I thought I'd have a go and check the dictionary:
Racism - a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Did you notice the 'human' part? Didn't say 'dog', did it?

Also I'd like to add that it seems perfectly okay when someone shouts out; 'Ooh I love Pit Bulls so much! I think they're the best dogs in the entire world!' and for some reason, then all of sudden it isn't racism?? Can you guys make up your mind allready??

[shtinkypuppie]

'100%' is a colloquialism, not a reference to some level of accuracy.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by Nymphae

That was not subjective. You said I was 'stereotyping' Pit Bulls, which is your opinion on how I was talking about them.. OPINION, not fact. And I was called a racist, and you were right that it's not directly. But it was certainly indirectly, so basically I was still called a racist.

I really hope that this puts some perspective on this. Lets start at the top.

Yes, actually it is subjective because we don't have racism with dogs. Therefore this whole thread is subjective. You asked how you can be cause racist for disliking a specific breed of dog and I explained it using a subjective view point of racism applied to dogs.

Then you called me ignorant and stupid.

Next, you have the definition of racism which if you apply it to dogs would mean that one breed has something making it superior to another breed. yes? Again, subjectively.

Next, you blatantly stereotype pitbulls saying that they could not show the same behavior of your dog. Which you can say is like racism, if racism would be applicable to dogs.

Originally Posted by Nymphae

Since when is it right for someone to call someone a racist for strongly disliking a certain breed of dog!? I must say I'm shocked!
If someone's afraid of spiders and dislikes being close to them, you wouldn't call that person a racist either. Yet it has happened and a number of people even approved of it, including a moderator. This is going too far!

This is your original post, and I answered it subjectively applying racism to dogs to give you an example of how you could be called racist. I never actually called you a racist, nor meant to imply it. I simply showed you how you could call a comment about a dog, racist. Because you asked.

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by shtinkypuppie

'100%' is a colloquialism, not a reference to some level of accuracy.

Indeed, also the complete sentence was;

It is 100% scientifically valid to make generalizations according to breed.

It only states that it's completely valid to make generalizations on a dog breed. It's just known that certain breeds are good in certain things. Just imagine someone letting a Chiuaua drive cattle! "Yeah, I got to pick between between a Border Collie and a Chiuaua, but someone said it would be racism to pick the Border Collie just because they were bred to do that kind of work." XD

To Tehdog809:
I just showed that it is impossible to call someone racist because that person dislikes a certain dog breed. It's just not done, it only applies to humans! The real question I'm asking in this thread is how it's possible someone calls me a racist and a moderator basically tells him; 'Good job.'?

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by Nymphae

I just showed that it is impossible to call someone racist because that person dislikes a certain dog breed. It's just not done, it only applies to humans! The real question I'm asking in this thread is how it's possible someone calls me a racist and a moderator basically tells him; 'Good job.'?

Simple answer, because it's subjective.

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Simple answer, because it's subjective.

Calling someone a racist is definately not subjective! Racism is a certain behaviour towards humans, I'm not showing that behaviour. So I'm not a racist. Calling someone a racist while that person is not is SLANDER; a false and malicious statement or report about someone.

[tehdoc809]

1. This entire thread is Subjective
2. Its not slander

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

I'm very glad you said this, because now I'm going to call you on two technicalities which is what you have been doing this whole thread.

1. This entire thread is Subjective
2. Its not slander

1, it is very subjective because when something is subjective it isn't based on facts, its based off personal experience. A subjective view is how you feel about something, an opinion. The fact is racism is something humans use against each other. However, I subjectively applied it to dogs to show you how you could be "racist"towards dogs. You choose to nitpick semantics on that one and continue to say that people called you racist when no one has. They said it was LIKE racism, which it is if we had a form of racism for dogs. SUBJECTIVITY! Not based on fact!

2, Its libel

Okay.. First of all, I already proved it isn't even LIKE racism, 'cause racism is only something between humans. If someone says sunflowers are ugly or he hates the rain you wouldn't call it 'something like' racism either, would you? This is the exact same thing, there isn't something 'like racism', it's either racism or it isn't. It's that simple.

And I was called a racist, like I just proved in my other posts? Which means you're either not reading them or completely shoving them aside and just type away like a train going 200 miles an hour, 'cause you're so convinced that you're right about this. Well, guess what? This thread isn't about you and your opinions, it's about a false allegation! And I will have justice! The only reason I even put it up for discussion was that simply pm'ing a moderator wouldn't have made a difference, since the only available moderator (there aren't any moderators online at this time), agreed with AnimalHouse36.

About the Slander/Libel thing;

Libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.

It's basically the same thing,Libel is like false court material being printed in a local newspaper. This is a forum, not a local newspaper, so I'll stick with slander thank you very much. Not that it matters, it's both offensive!

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by Nymphae

It's not like I suddenly decided to dislike them, it has just grown that way over years of bad experiences with them.

What bad experiences could you have had with the pit bulls you say don't even exist in your country?

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

What bad experiences could you have had with the pit bulls you say don't even exist in your country?

They did exist.. just not anymore. There were numerous cases of children being bitten and even killed by Pitbulls. Even babies! Also, the number of general Pitbull attacks on people was far higher than any other dogbreed had here in the Netherlands. The government then decided to ban them. With other words, it's proven these dogs are more aggressive than other dogs. And of course there are exceptions, I never said there weren't. It's just that I personally think these dogs aren't suitable as pets 'cause it's too risky.

My personal experience goes to German Shepards, that was the experience of mean dogs I was talking about to begin with, I never said I had those experiences with Pitbulls. I've had 2 experiences of my own dog being attacked by a German Shepard and one close encounter. With that comes a case of a small kid who lives down my street being personally attacked by a German Shepard.

But that isn't even the point now. The point is I'm being accused of being some kind of racist while that just isn't true.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by Nymphae

They did exist.. just not anymore. There were numerous cases of children being bitten and even killed by Pitbulls. Even babies! Also, the number of general Pitbull attacks on people was far higher than any other dogbreed had here in the Netherlands. The government then decided to ban them. With other words, it's proven these dogs are more aggressive than other dogs.

Sorry, no. That a law was passed is not evidence that the law is just or fair or even reasonable.

[Nymphae]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Sorry, no. That a law was passed is not evidence that the law is just or fair or even reasonable.

Not all laws are good laws, I agree. But Pitbull aggressiveness was investigated and the government doesn't just take up a law to pester dogs and their owners. However, this is not the point. The point is that because I dislike Pitbulls and German Shepards I'm being called a racist. And THAT isn't definately not true.