Page 24 of 38 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 373

Thread: OMG my next door neighbor has bought a red nosed pit bull!!!!

  1. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChoppaChop View Post
    I believe that if someone kills another person with a BB gun then yes, they should be dealt with the same! Why should they not be ? People are still dead.
    Why should they not be? Because the risk potential is completely different and thus the culpability for that risk is either increased or decreased. People buy bb guns and 9mm's for different reasons, and use them differently. The likelihood of accidentally killing someone with a bb gun is next to zero, while the likelihood for accidentally killing someone with a 9mm is significantly higher.

    Similarly, people buy chihuahuas and rottweilers for different reasons. You can't expect people to weigh up totally different risk factors as if they were exactly the same. Punishing people for accidental mishaps where the risk factor is extremely low isn't justice, it's just revenge.
    Last edited by Mosh; 12-20-2012 at 09:33 PM. Reason: stupid misprint

  2. #232

    Default

    Yes! That is what I believe should happen!
    Just because the old lady called her little dog a cute name and the 30 year old dog was compensating something he was obviously missing matters little. 2 People dead, both by dogs,both same history,both same outcome.

    I dont understand that you can believe that the old lady shouldnt get it as bad as the young bloke?
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  3. #233

    Default

    Sorry but rubbish!

    It just doesn't wash.
    You are suggesting that some people get less than other people for Man Slaughter or similar based on possible risk factor.

    That was sposed to have quoted your last post
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  4. #234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChoppaChop View Post
    Yes! That is what I believe should happen!
    Just because the old lady called her little dog a cute name and the 30 year old dog was compensating something he was obviously missing matters little. 2 People dead, both by dogs,both same history,both same outcome.

    I dont understand that you can believe that the old lady shouldnt get it as bad as the young bloke?
    Because I wasn't aware that was how justice worked. It's about the punishment fitting the crime, not about being consistent among a range of wildly varying factors.

    Soooo... risk factor means absolutely nothing in a culpability verdict? Ok, lets take this further.

    Should the owner of a tiger be treated the same as the owner of a housecat if both animals are responsible for an accidental death?

    Should a speeding 16 wheel semitrailer be treated the same for speeding as a VW golf?

    Should a driver who blows 0.055 be prosecuted the same as someone who blows 0.12?
    Last edited by Mosh; 12-20-2012 at 09:32 PM.

  5. #235
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,291

    Default

    What if the owner of the chihuahua called their dog Killer and the pitbull was called Mr Fluffypants? Would that make a difference?

    Are implying that the owner of the pitbull had intent and the SWF owner didn't?

    And in any case it has nothing to do with it being a pitbull. You could've used a lab or an ACD or a GSD or whatever too in your argument.

  6. #236
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    A small fluffy dog can do just as much harm to a baby as a rotty could do to a man. If the end result is two dead humans of course the owners should both receive the same punishment. Their dogs have caused a fatality regardless of size.

    You've just got me shaking my head at the moment....

    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face.

  7. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jadielee87 View Post
    A small fluffy dog can do just as much harm to a baby as a rotty could do to a man. If the end result is two dead humans of course the owners should both receive the same punishment. Their dogs have caused a fatality regardless of size.

    You've just got me shaking my head at the moment....
    Granted, but we're not talking about babies, we're discussing comparable scenarios. Obviously if the old lady had left her horrible chihuahua in the room with a baby, she should be charged the same as the rottweiler owner. Why? Because THE RISK THAT THE CHIHUAHUA WOULD HARM THE BABY IS AS HIGH AS THE ROTTWEILER.

    The chance of a chihuahua attacking and killing a human capable of defending itself is pretty much 0. And yet there are people saying that an attack by a tiny chihuahua should be treated the same as a rottweiler that has a much greater potential for harm. I am genuinely scratching my head here and trying to figure out the reasoning.

  8. #238
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Oh for god's sake! Why are any of us trying to reason with Mosh?

    Reason is something that does not happen for Mosh.

    Being reasonable just does not wash with Mosh.

    How about we just cut our losses and choose to ignore this person?

    Cheers,

    ricey
    The APBT is the best of the best dogs (but it is just a dog, like any other breed of dog)

    My avatar? It's a pit bull in a poodle suit (a bit like me really)

  9. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    What if the owner of the chihuahua called their dog Killer and the pitbull was called Mr Fluffypants? Would that make a difference?

    Are implying that the owner of the pitbull had intent and the SWF owner didn't?

    And in any case it has nothing to do with it being a pitbull. You could've used a lab or an ACD or a GSD or whatever too in your argument.
    I didn't say pitbull, I said rottweiler.

    No, the name doesn't make a difference I was just trying to flesh out the scenario. I'm not implying that the rottweiler owner had intent, I'm implying that there are different levels of caution you can reasonably expect people to use in response to different levels of risk. An aggressive rottweiler has an astronomically higher risk of killing a person than an aggressive chihuahua. The degrees of care and responsibility to safety are completely different. Why then should both be treated the same?

  10. #240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ricey View Post
    Oh for god's sake! Why are any of us trying to reason with Mosh?

    Reason is something that does not happen for Mosh.

    Being reasonable just does not wash with Mosh.

    How about we just cut our losses and choose to ignore this person?

    Cheers,

    ricey
    I would love it if you cut your losses and ignored me. Please do. I'm not sure why it matters so much to you what everyone else does though. If you don't like this thread then go away, nobody is forcing you to read it.
    Last edited by Mosh; 12-20-2012 at 09:48 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •