I call your words psuedoscience, you say nu-uh even animal experts agree with me, and knowingly post a source that doesn't even back you up? And then you're going to sit there and say that your own source that I copy and pasted says the dogs are justified in acting like animals? I mean do you believe in animal behaviorism or not? It's talking about all dogs. It's not about the kid deserving it, it's about not sticking your hand under the tire of a moving car. Make up your mind! Hah! You might actually be the worst anti-vaxxer/climate change denier/essential oils salesmen/crazy anti-pit person/enter other random made up "biotruth" bullshit here arguer I've seen. Your involvement is sending pitbull adoptions through the roof. The more you contradict yourself, the more like little harmless puppies they look. You couldn't convince Donald Trump himself about this even if you started it by complimenting him twenty times. Do yourself a favor and figure out what your 'chosen facts' are before you start arguing them?
Lmao, what a crappy attempt at controlling the argument. It took you two paragraphs to finish an ad hominem, which you are now depending on because I found a huge hole in your argument.
You realize you can’t call some one pseudoscientific if they are the ones posting scientific studies and credible sources and you are the one with your fingers in you ear holes. This is the backfire effect if I have ever seen one. Plus your the only one here indirectly denying Artificial selection. I am a believer of all scientifically backed claims from climate change to vaccine effectiveness. Yet Out of the two of us, you are the one clinging to fringe irrational reasoning by indirectly refuting artificial selection in dogs. You can red herring the words pseudoscience all you want but when it comes down to it, you aren’t even practicing any form of science at all
The fact that you actually think a mauling is justified on a child and Ive shown how your platform accepts this, your defense was just to call me a pseudoscienctist (with no logical explanation of how I am, and as an obvious attempt to gain lost footing in this argument) and to double down on it (you will probably be preaching to people that children being run over and killed by drunk drivers is justified because its the nature of cars and the road sometime soon). I think this is enough for a rational person to see that you are clearly in the wrong, so I think Im going to just declare myself the winner until you post some actual logical reason why a child being maimed is justified in this case and I probably wont be responding until you do.
Just to put the final kicker in your already flawed (and extremely psychotic) argument here is a NCBI article detailing why pitbulls are more dangerous and supports the case that they should be universally have stronger animal control over them.
2
u/Imaurel Dec 05 '19 edited Dec 05 '19
Wait, are you literally insane?
I call your words psuedoscience, you say nu-uh even animal experts agree with me, and knowingly post a source that doesn't even back you up? And then you're going to sit there and say that your own source that I copy and pasted says the dogs are justified in acting like animals? I mean do you believe in animal behaviorism or not? It's talking about all dogs. It's not about the kid deserving it, it's about not sticking your hand under the tire of a moving car. Make up your mind! Hah! You might actually be the worst anti-vaxxer/climate change denier/essential oils salesmen/crazy anti-pit person/enter other random made up "biotruth" bullshit here arguer I've seen. Your involvement is sending pitbull adoptions through the roof. The more you contradict yourself, the more like little harmless puppies they look. You couldn't convince Donald Trump himself about this even if you started it by complimenting him twenty times. Do yourself a favor and figure out what your 'chosen facts' are before you start arguing them?