Oh yeah. No one could ever love a pit-bull, right?

6/23/05 9:41:48 PM

Loving, perhaps, but . . .

. . it's like having unprotected sex with someone you know has AIDS. It probably won't get you the first time or the fifth, or even the fiftieth, but chances are eventually it's going to get you.

Insurance rates for people with pit bulls and similar dogs should logically be astronomically high, but then nobody with a pit bull will have insurance with which to pay off the survivors.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #212,358

by boxley

6/23/05 10:09:33 PM

anyone care to guess which breed most likely to bite?

golden labs, check it out. Its not the pit bulls at fault. its the fucking useless excuse for a human being who has adopted the breed. Sure blame it on the dog, after all guns kill people, all by themselves with nobody to pull the trigger. I dont own a pit. I wont own one because I do not have the time to spend to train it. They are not naturally vicious, they do have a few traits like being unable to dislodge their jaws when biting down and they love rough play, traits a fuckwit wont work with. Try a great dane or a st bernard, much more naturally vicious.
thanx.
bill

All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #212,366

6/23/05 10:54:47 PM

Personally, I consider any largish dog . . .

. . a risk better avoided, especially in an urban setting. They all can bite, it's their nature, and when they do it's liability time.

Of course, whenever a dog kills or maims, it's always, "He's such a loving pet, he'd never do anything like that, the victim must have been at fault".

And then sales soar and prices rise for whatever breed it was that killed. Tell me these "pets" aren't bought simply because they are known to be dangerous.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #212,369

by boxley

6/23/05 11:07:47 PM

if one wants to own a dog for "protection"

train it. Dont buy a 44 magnum handgun because its "its the baddest handgun in the world" and expect it to ssve you during a home invasion and you havnt even bought bullets. A dog of whatever breed is a companion, a family member who needs to be treated just like a child/sibling. If a dog owner is unwilling to do that get a pet fucking rock. No I dont fear dogs in urban settings because I can usually read them. The realize that I am no threat to them and would anhilate them in a moment if they interfere with me.

I will be getting a bark of my own soon. Criteria will be
1. My little girl gets to pick
2. I have veto power over the pick
no noodle dogs, yappie bastards or lab mixes
no apparent hammerheaded dogs indicating pit mix (dont have time to train)
otherwise any canine that wants to join the family in its proper place, (at extreme junior member) will be shown how to go to work ensuring safety of the family (all agressive decisions revert to me, wife in my absence lots of growling and looking tough in the absence of both) and will be loved by a little girl, tolerated by others and accepted by me.
thanx,
bill

Post #212,371

by admin

6/23/05 11:14:49 PM

WTH is a "noodle dog"?

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #212,374

by boxley

6/23/05 11:28:38 PM

what little girls with hearing impediments call poodles :-)

Post #212,381

by admin

6/24/05 12:19:55 AM

What's wrong with a poodle?

Standard size, don't get a foo-foo cut - just a "puppy" cut as they call them.

Poodles are smart, loyal, and fun. My parents have two standards, and they're great dogs.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #212,399

by boxley

6/24/05 8:36:48 AM

standards are fine, its the little fockers I dont like

rats pretending to be dogs,
thanx,
bill

Post #212,403

by admin

6/24/05 9:21:25 AM

Agreed.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #212,445

6/24/05 12:43:44 PM

While I'm generally kind to animals, and even insects . .

. . every time I see a toy poodle I have an almost irresistable urge to step on it.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #212,401

by bionerd

6/24/05 9:11:11 AM

My next door neighbors have a pit bull

She's less than a year old, but big and unpredictable. She often charges the fence when we come outside. Her jaws are massive. Her owners are laid back hippie types who chuckle at her aggressive behavior and attribute it to her being "just a puppy". She's also a digger and digs at the fence line. She's made holes big enough to get under, but she hasnt come in our yard yet. Her owners saying "no no Isabell" is about all the training she gets. This dog scares me. They also have 2 other dogs that bark worse than mine. They get going with their yapping and it triggers Sadie to chime in. (And they also dont pick up the their dog waste. 3 dogs, 97 degree temps today- you can guess what it's going to smell like. I have no prob telling them their yard stinks. It's the only thing that motivates them to pick up)

Post #212,408

by imric

6/24/05 9:39:56 AM

People.

They don't assume responsibility for children misbehaving.

They don't assume responsibility for their pets.

Many times they neglect them. Many times they don't train them. Training is part of caring for pets and children.

Then they claim that their little angels can't misbehave.

Our society is sick, and these are some of the symptoms.

It's not a new thing; we had a few neighbors with dogs that would pack together at night and attack our sheep. Fang (my dog) would often run them off, but if he wasn't around, my grandfather had a 20gauge with shells loaded with rock salt to drive them off. Often just the sound would drive them away, but... Well, he never killed a dog (outside of putting his own down when necessary); he loved dogs.

We always heard the 'but MY dog would NEVER hurt a fly' whenever he had to resort to this.

Luckily, we lived in a mostly agricultural community (well, it was at that time, anyway), so the authorities would just dismiss complaints from the dog-owners (then why were they on the property hunting sheep? We had witnesses, they had assertions contrary to the nature of canines). It probably wouldn't work today - the way society works today, we'd probably be charged with the claim that keeping sheep was an 'attractive nuisance' for pets.

But I digress - a yard like that is neglect; have you thought about taking pictures and sending them to the SPCA? Take pictures of the holes, too - if the unruly animal gets into your yard and threatens you, you want evidence that the owners didn't take sufficient steps to contain their unruly animal. Tape recordings of the barking might help too.

I dunno.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,409

6/24/05 9:44:09 AM

Precautionary visit from Animal Control/SPCA in order? :-(

Especially having your own dog in the back yard, I think you want to have someone impress upon your neighbors that they need to train their pooch.

At least you might want to call someone in Animal Control or the SPCA to impress upon them your concerns (if you haven't already).

Or, maybe they'll move soon. ;-)

Luck!

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #212,420

by drewk

6/24/05 11:16:55 AM

Had a neighbor like that

10-year-old son got a pit bull. Would walk around the neighborhood with the leash in one hand, a library book called "Attack Dog Training" in the other. No, it wasn't a power trip at all.

The dog tore through our wooden fence four times in three weeks, and we found her in our backyard. Fortunately we always noticed her before going out ourselves. Finally she tore through the fence on the other side, and that neighbor didn't have a gate so the dog got loose in the neighborhood.

That's not why we moved, but it made it easier to not miss the old place.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #212,421

6/24/05 11:20:39 AM

I have a very large dog

cross breed pit and rott. 110 pounds by my latest estimate. He licks strangers that walk in the house. The last time he had any question about someone entering the house I believe was Greg last year when he was 12 months old. At that time he was an unimpressive 80 pounds.

He barks in the back yard and promptly is yelled down. Digging gets his nose pushed into the hole and a nice firm tap on the tip of his nose following. I like my grass (what I have left)

However, my neighbor expressed discomfort at the low fence that was keeping the dog in (the dog has zero leaping ability, all power is in front and its not strong enough to get vertical). I held the dog (who is completely non threatening for most everyone) while it became aquainted with her.

He still will bark when he hears the car, but now promptly shuts up when he hears her tell him to be quiet. He cannot see her anymore, as the fence has now been replaced with 6 foot wooden fencing as opposed to the old 4 foot chain link.

We worry about him with very small children only because of his size.

I will admit, when he barks/growls he is >very< frightening to hear. I have no faith in his ability to protect me, however. Maybe he will lick the assailant to death.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #212,933

by ben_tilly

6/28/05 9:04:00 PM

As you've discovered...

Pit bulls may be good at fighting, but are inclined to be very loving dogs.

Even if your dog has been raised to take advantage of this, though, you still need to be on top of accidents where they can cause injury through not understanding their own strength.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #212,446

6/24/05 12:50:18 PM

Tossing the dog a box of chocolate bars . . .

. . will fix the problem. Dogs love chocolate.

Chocolate is also fatal to cats, but cats won't eat chocolate.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #212,666

by static

6/27/05 12:34:45 AM

Chocolate's not good for dogs, either.

Ask any vet.

Wade.

Save Fintlewoodlewix

Post #212,670

6/27/05 1:10:06 AM

That's what I implied . . .

. . with "will fix the problem" and "also fatal to cats".

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #212,795

by static

6/28/05 1:24:37 AM

D'oh. I misread.

Save Fintlewoodlewix

Post #212,671

by pwhysall

6/27/05 1:59:19 AM

"Fatal"?

You sure about that?

Post #212,674

6/27/05 3:01:20 AM

Yes

There are plenty of sites on the internet giving dosages and types of chocolate to sicken and kill. Here's the first one from a google search: [link|http://www.dogownersdigest.com/news/library/chocolate-dog-poisoning.shtml|
Chocolate Dog Poisoning].

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #212,707

by scoenye

6/27/05 12:55:32 PM

Well...

On a recent trip to the US, I brought a box of chocolates as a gift. The family mutt (13 yo. chocolate lab...) burgled my suitcase and absconded with the whole pound. No ill results other than a brief spell of the runs and mutt absolutely want to know where the rest of the goods are...

Post #212,708

by tuberculosis

6/27/05 12:59:46 PM

6/27/05 1:00:26 PM

Nevermind

I misread your post.

"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"   --Mark Twain

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."   --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."   --George W. Bush

Edited by tuberculosis June 27, 2005, 01:00:26 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #212,709

6/27/05 1:18:08 PM

Exactly the result...

...that is predicted by the toxicology.

Had that been a pound of baker's chocolate you would likely have been mourning the loss of the hound.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #212,712

by bionerd

6/27/05 2:11:33 PM

It's the theobromine in chocolate

For humans, it acts as a mood enhancer. Eating chocolate really does make you feel good. Comined with the caffeine found in cocoa, chocolate acts as a pick me up. Watch your coworkers head to the vending machines for a candy bar as they hit their mid afternoon slump.

Dogs and horses metabolize theobromine slower than we do- which is why its more toxic to them. It over-stimulates the heart and lowers blood pressure.

Post #212,376

6/23/05 11:32:32 PM

It's true.

My SIL volunteered at the city of Cleveland animal shelter when she lived there ~ 5 years ago. My wife and I went with her a couple of times to help out when we visited. They usually had a large collection of pit bulls and Rotweilers that had been abused and involved in dog fights. Some were in the "Biters" area - dogs that wouldn't be adoptable. A few of those were extremely aggressive and very angry (there were a couple that seemed to be out of a Stephen King novel).

I remember one pit bull in particular that had about a 2" rip in its lower lip and assorted other injuries, standing quietly in its small cage. It seemed, understandably, quite melancholy. But it seemed to be quite a sweet dog too. I pet it through the bars for a few minutes before we had to leave. :-(

My SIL said that many times a young man would come in looking for a large dog to adopt, and if it was a pit bull so much the better. The implication was that the dog would most often be a power statement in such occasions.

I'd like to think that the Presa Canario became less popular after Whipple's death, but the cynical side of me says that's unlikely.

:-(

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #212,382

6/24/05 12:51:34 AM

Acording to an article in the Los Angeles Times . .

. . Presa Canario sales soared after that attack.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #212,368

6/23/05 11:03:53 PM

Pitbulls and Rotweilers have caused more deaths.

[link|http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf|CDC] (5 page .pdf):

[p. 2 of the .pdf] Fatalities during 1997 and 1998 \ufffd During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died as the result of dog bite attacks (18 people in 1997 and 9 in 1998). Of 27 human DBRF, 19 (70%) were children (1 was ≤ 30 days old, 3 were between 7 and 11 months old, 9 were between 1 and 4 years old, and 6 were between 5 and 11 years old), and 8 were adults (ages 17, 44, 64, 70, 73, 75, 75, and 87). Approximately half (n = 15 [56%]) of the human DBRF were male.

Five (19%) deaths involved unrestrained dogs off the owners\ufffd property, 18 (67%) involved unrestrained dogs on the owners\ufffd property, 3 (11%) involved restrained dogs on the owners\ufffd property, and 1 (4%) involved a restrained dog off the owner\ufffds property. Eighteen (67%) deaths involved 1 dog, 5 (19%) involved 2 dogs, and 4 (15%) involved 3 dogs. Sixty
percent of attacks by unrestrained dogs off the owners\ufffd
property involved more than 1 dog.

Fatal attacks were reported from 17 states (California [4 deaths]; Georgia and North Carolina [3 each]; Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin [2 each]; and Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South Dakota, and Tennessee [1 each]).

Some breed information was reported for all 27 attacks. As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs (Table 1). Together, these 2 breeds were involved in approximately 60% of human deaths.

Rotweilers and pit bulls are very strong dogs. If they're also aggressive, they can be dangerous. An aggressive terrier isn't much of a threat, but there is a report of a death caused by a cocker spaniel between 1979 and 1998 (table 2). That same table lists 1 death caused by a pure-bred Lab, and 4 by Lab mixes in that time period. There were 76 pit bull (pure or mixed) and 44 Rotweiler (pure or mixed) dogs involved in deaths in that same time period.

Note that (in the quote above covering 1997-1998) 86% of the deaths were caused by unrestrained dogs. Leashes and proper fencing would minimize much of the problem. There would, of course, be terrible cases like Ashton cited and [link|http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Whipple.html|Diane Whipple's death in San Francisco].

It's a risk management problem - one that can have fatal consequences. But we're only talking about [link|http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAttacks/fataldogattacks.html|20 reported fatalities in the US 2004]. While many many more are injured or traumatized, the problem seems to be much less widespread than one would think from the press reports.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #212,367

by Ashton

6/23/05 10:58:04 PM

Straw Dog___ Pshaw.

There are extreme slogans on every complex matter, prepackaged.
{sheesh}

Mine isn't; I favor most-all animals over the dominant twits that are fucking up the place for all lifeforms known and undiscovered. Thought that was obvious, by now. Screw your straw dog hyperbole. I'd trust a certain wolf named Ivan, especially if "in trouble" - over a squadron of Fatherland Security drones with those safe Tazer thingies. .. But Ivan was not left to grow-up FERAL (or just potty-trained). Either. And it took Lots of Intelligent Work <<<
for him to retain his natural wolf-ness and still be a sweetheart.
This Training IS NOT OPTIONAL for anyone trying to make a 'pet' of a sometimes-aggressive animal.

(Of course, I'm cheating: anyone who knows shit about 'wolf culture', grokking just a bit of the complexity of their society - realizes that they are admirably 'civil' when compared with most homo-sap $-based counterparts. They are also powerful.)

Among the forever-debatable canine opinions are propositions (probably unProvable via Boolean or other mere logic) like,

some breeds are genetically disposed towards
a) hunting
b) hunting Anything
c) moving viciously; sometimes ameliorated by the condition
c-1) .. once they've reached an emotional state ~~ akin to Spock-in-heat.

Yada.

Since volumes have been written re 'training' and 'conditioning' dogs, and these comprise a wide spectrum of oft-divergent Opinion on all aspects:

I am ~neutral on the nature/nurture generalizations and am sure-enough that, even if genetic: always there will be Pit Bulls who-think-they-are-Cocker-Spaniels / and vice-v.

I've also encountered the Pit-Bull-as-pet + its 'owner', noting the 'carefulness' of their owners and their apparent need to explain to any encounterer:
No .. s'OK ..*He's* ..Nice!
So it's no secret what the general perception has become.
(That owner; nearby .. is an ex-owner, BTW)

As in the case of the also maligned Germen Shepherd, I generally attribute many of these attacks to the fucking-Ignorant buyers of animals as puppies - who fail even to domesticate said beasts, let alone 'train' them in other civilities, when amidst strangers. Another one for rampant dumbth? sloth? Not Giving a Fuck?

Hey baby, neglect of the basics ain't Love.
And the kid who died was around that pair ... all the time.

A woman a couple years back, in SF [ongoing repercussions of That one, still] was attacked by a pair of PB *while the fucking owner* was {unsuccessfully} "holding the leash", until they Went Spock and killed this 30-something woman, who was trying to open the door of her nearby apartment - just as Fang1 Fang2 + Owner emerged from theirs.

Clearly all these animals had spent lots of time in non-Godzilla mode. If there are some dog-bite/dog-kills stats out there.. they will change no one's mind who, like the mother of the dead 12-yo:

spent her entire 'interview' just afterwards, in the Chron.. defending the killer-dog. Said at one point re death of her son, ~ "..when it's your time, it's your time".

I've read of many incidents over the years; know there are also slime who train (many breeds) of dogs to become Human-like killing machines. Should they Pay when their machine fulfills its conditioning? (I think courts, presented with evidence of Human-beast-like conditioning, generally say: Yes.)

But - -
Should those who just played with a puppy, newspaper-'trained' it - which later-on "just went Spock" and killed - be exonerated because it hadn't killed their Local Family Group? Should ___?

Yawanna debate What Might/Should Be 'Done', If Anything\ufffd? or just play the fluffy-bunny card?

'Course - nothing Will be 'Done', after the exchange of homilies.
Especially - no one will pass a bill requiring owners of certain and certainly-suspect breeds to administer any-sort-of 'training' == just pay the bill afterwards, when sued. It's the Murican Way, after all.

Leave an animal feral - it goes with instinct.
Leave a homo-sap feral - it becomes a Repo.
Nothing to be done.

Post #212,372

6/23/05 11:15:26 PM

Nit.

Whipple was killed by [link|http://www.ukcdogs.com/breeds/guardiandogs/perrodepresacanario.std.shtml|Presa Canario] dogs, not pit bulls. The UKC page says:

The essential characteristics of the Presa are those which enable it to drive and hold cattle, and to guard its home and family. These tasks require a powerful, agile, courageous dog with a large head and powerful jaws. The Presa is extremely affectionate, docile and well behaved with its owner and family, but is wary of strangers and aggressive with other dogs.

Serious Fault: Unstable temperament

I'll say...

:-(

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #212,377

by Ashton

6/23/05 11:38:09 PM

- Picked. Indeed; similarly sloppy re lumping Rotweilers

with PBs in my particular cache. I figure there are many mixes as add to the ID problem - and the posts above have covered most bases.

$-pain appears to be the only practical deterrent to dumbth+ennui in these parts -- but that prevents Nothing -- just provides pretty unsatisfying revenge.

(I also remember when it was thought a keen idea.. if you could have a leashed ocelot for a pet.)
Fashion / vanity / $$ R US

Post #212,394

by imric

6/24/05 7:02:42 AM

Nonsense again.

The owner is responsible for what the pet does.

People are more dangerous than these dogs. I guess people can't be loved.

This was a tragedy borne of ignorance, and have no doubt that the owners are responsible - but your characterization of the dog as unlovable by nature was ridiculous. Of COURSE the family losing the dog would be traumatized by both the dog's actions andthe prospect of losing the family pet, which was no doubt loved by the family.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,467

by Ashton

6/24/05 4:00:28 PM

6/24/05 4:31:13 PM

JeezSkip, go READ some stuff on this breed's RECORD, willya?

Like [link|http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/15/BApitbull15.DTL&hw=Chuck+Squatriglia&sn=030&sc=600| THIS one], practically next door to my small oasis far-from the madding crowd.

And [link|http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/16/BAGIUD9FUM1.DTL&hw=Chuck+Squatriglia&sn=028&sc=615| this FOLLOWUP] entitled, Not first time pit bull had bitten family members
Fearful neighbors would stay inside when dog got loose

And, Skip - if you fancy, as is somehow implied.. that.. you are going to teach moi all about love [let alone WTF .. Love might Be-About] -??-

Bring. It. On.

Edited by Ashton June 24, 2005, 04:31:13 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #212,473

by imric

6/24/05 4:27:47 PM

So which part do you disagree with?

That the owners are responsible?

That people are more dangerous than dogs?

That it was a tragedy of ignorance?

the 13 yo 'minder' of the dog threw herself atop 'Smokey' to prevent a shooting

I guess the mother MEANT to endanger the son in the other case, as well.

Oh that's right. Neither family can have loved the dog. Thou hast spoken. Never mind.

---

Now, for the rest of your analogy:

The Neocon junta is a tragedy of ignorance

the voters of this nation are responsible for putting 'vicious dogs' in a position of dominance

the people love their 'dogs' and will take real convincing to 'put them down'

BTW, I honestly believe that the meanest dog is still morally superior to most humans.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,476

by imric

6/24/05 5:10:51 PM

6/24/05 5:11:35 PM

No, Ash.

I will not tell you whether you do, or can, know what love is.

Y' see, while I may be arrogant, IMO I don't display the colossal arrogance you did when you implied that the families did not, could not, love the dogs that attacked those kids. I don't see things in black and white; I 'play it all in colors'.

Nor did I defend the choice of pet - it's not the only breed that requires both extra care and training (Chows come to mind). Indeed, I advocate responsibility AS I ALWAYS DO.

Nor did I intend my chiding to become an entire thread, lending more weight to it than it deserved in context.

However -

Your implications about these tragedies were insulting to the families involved, based on the glib summaries that pass for news articles today. That is appalling to me; to me it is akin to the same flaws in humanity that put the current US junta in charge.

IOW, you reserve for yourself the right to judge whether love is real, but you get mighty defensive, mighty fast, if you think that someone might question your judgements.

Humble yourself sometimes. Not always. Just sometimes. Sometimes that POV is instructive.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric June 24, 2005, 05:11:35 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #212,478

by Ashton

6/24/05 5:50:50 PM

I'll go ~ with 'the meanest dog being superior'

because it's a no-brainer to select WHICH species is the. most. vicious., least responsible .. and drawn to superstitions as EZ full-replacement for the work necessary to preserve the planet from eventual unrecoverable decline - at the bloodied hands of that marauding species of strutting Peacocks and Lying (innate - then refined) Motherfuckers .

You appear to have missed (but imagined, instead) any August Pronouncement du moi - re any *solution* to this conundrum. (That conundrum, BTW ... So Far from the Point of my fucking metaphorical posit.)
ie Only did I suggest.. the likely course, a form of the doggerel which the disturbing stats are apt to catalyze in the tiny-brained majority.

And imply that, most likely? nay.. inevitably:
we Will fail in any effort to protect ignorant and-Happy-that-way masses from playing Murican-roulette with their guns or their Celebrity gun-like-'Pets' .. so oft purchased to bloody-well Show Dem My Attitude! cha cha cha

The faster the tetched-breeds and asinine-owners eat<-->each<-->other - the fewer shall be left voting Repo (while mistaking Repo1 for Gawd). ie to make it all Perfectly Clear, even to you:

SAVE EARTH !!!
BUY / SELL MORE MIXES
as just --love-- to
MUNCH. HOMO-SAPS.

HTH

:-\ufffd

Post #212,480

by imric

6/24/05 6:22:50 PM

*shrug* Whatever.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,502

6/24/05 10:59:06 PM

Any dog can end up vicious depending on its owners

The odds of that happening are greater for dogs of certain breeds. Those breeds aren't quite suitable as "loved" family pets. Get a goddamned clue.

-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken

Support our troops, Impeach Bush.
D. D. Richards

Post #212,504

by imric

6/24/05 11:14:34 PM

So what? Read my posts

If you want a 'goddamned clue'.

'Suitability' has nothing to do with being loved.

A pet's being beloved by a family does nothing to ameliorate the responsibility of the owner when tragedy occurs.

Who is ANYONE to judge whether the love is genuine by judging the actions of the target? Not you, not Ash, not me.

Sheesh.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,506

6/24/05 11:30:03 PM

Point = missed

The fact of the pet being loved is immaterial. It may "love" it's owners. It's not meant to be a pet. It was bred with different goals in mind. Don't expect a dog bred to fight to be a good family pet. Dogs were bred into different breeds for different purposes. Some of those purposes are not conducive to "family pet". Once again, get a goddamn clue.

Post #212,507

by imric

6/24/05 11:35:33 PM

ONCE AGAIN, read my posts.

Or didn't you read "This was a tragedy borne of ignorance".

Also, I didn't say anything about the pet loving the owner. Anywhere.

The article sure indicated that the owners loved the pets, though.

And NOWHERE did I excuse the owners responsibility for these tragedies.

Wow.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,512

6/24/05 11:54:53 PM

That's what I'm responding to

I've read them. More than once. My point stands. Get a family dog of a breed that was bred as fighter and love it. It's still a fighting dog. Not suitable as a family pet. Why is this so hard to understand? It's still a dog that has been bred to fight. These dogs have their places, they are not in apartment houses or suburbia. These are "edge of wilderness" animals, not housepets.

Your "love" of the animal does not change the animal.

Post #212,515

by imric

6/25/05 12:04:32 AM

And THAT'S where 'tragedy borne of ignorance' comes in.

Or are you saying that love for 'edge of wilderness' animals is less genuine? THAT is horseshit, plain and simple. All I was doing was chiding Ash for dismissing the feelings the families had for these animals. EVERYBODY was hurt to some degree by the ignorance of the owners. The victims more, of course.

Christ, man, NOWHERE did I say that this was OK, that all dogs were suitable for family pets, or pets in suburbia. NOWHERE did I excuse these pet owners from their responsibility.

The idea that that post blew into this thread amazes me. It simply amazes me.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,517

6/25/05 12:22:50 AM

I think Ashton was talking about 2 kinds of love.

In both cases, the owners (and in SF - the victim) 'loved' their 'pets'; the mother of the dead boy somewhat disgraced herself, post. this. mortem. via paeans of rationalizations about how this 'accident' happened... and how loving were the male/female dog pair cha cha cha.

So we have here the classic dichotomy: devotees of a schizophrenic love object. It 'loves you' but it may 'eat you' ... depending upon circumstances, luck and perhaps.. how you smell today.

I think Ashton's saying: People end up projecting their love of the dog back onto themselves. "I love Killer so much so he must love me back!" Love is blind, after all. As in the case of the abused wife or child mentioned elsewhere, one can't really say whether the returned love is genuine or a pathology.

I have no doubt that the 13 year old girl in the story felt very loving toward the dog. But in this case, I think we can all agree that it doesn't matter whether the dog was loving with her before hand. And it really doesn't matter if the owners genuinely loved the dog but couldn't or wouldn't train it. It became a weapon - guided or not.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #212,518

6/25/05 1:11:20 AM

I think I may begin to see a glimmer of your point

Somehow, you think that the "love" for the animal is, in any way, a consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong. You *have* mentioned love of the animal quite often. That is your point, right? We who find objection to keeping attack bred animals as pets aren't considering just how much those who own these attack bred animals love them? If that is the case, all I can say is make sure you have paid up insurance and I won't be visiting.

Post #212,519

6/25/05 1:12:40 AM

Keep trying...you are VERY cold (meaning far from the point)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #212,520

6/25/05 1:14:50 AM

Correct me then. Show me the error of my understanding

Post #212,522

6/25/05 1:17:58 AM

6/25/05 1:19:14 AM

Re-read Imrics first response to Ashton

Several times, if necessary. His point is crystal freakin clear and it had nothing to do with dogs. (well, maybe a little bit..in that a dog was the object of affection that simply could not be loved)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Edited by bepatient June 25, 2005, 01:19:14 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #212,527

6/25/05 1:27:47 AM

I have, many times.

Please educate me on the point I am missing.

Post #212,524

by boxley

6/25/05 1:24:46 AM

define attack bred animal

strong jaw, impervious to pain (which makes them unaware of giving pain since their own threshold is so high) however these dogs do not fight unless trained specifically to fight.
Now dogs are pack animals, when they move in with a family they will take as high a pack attribute as the alpha male/female in that pack will allow or they may determine they are the alpha, in that case viciously attacking someone who is being perceived as trying to better themselves (usually a stranger). This will/can happen with any breed. Pits are no more heinous in this regard as any other breed.
thanx,
bill

Post #212,528

6/25/05 1:28:34 AM

Umm, Animals bred to fight?

Post #212,529

by boxley

6/25/05 1:31:16 AM

care to name a breed that was not bred to fight?

Post #212,531

6/25/05 1:43:02 AM

Parsing like a republican you are.

You know the point I was making. Don't pull yet more nit picking shit.

Post #212,532

by boxley

6/25/05 2:16:56 AM

I see, no answer so start wild accusations :-)

Post #212,539

6/25/05 8:19:23 AM

Here's an answer

Newfoundland

Post #212,540

by boxley

6/25/05 8:24:12 AM

viking war dog

Post #212,934

by ben_tilly

6/28/05 9:06:15 PM

Toy Poodle. :-P

Another fun example is a Lhasa Apso. A watchdog, yes. Fighting dog, no.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #212,936

by boxley

6/28/05 9:14:39 PM

both examples wrong, toy breeds of fighting dogs

except toy poodles are closer in kin to rats while the other breed is a lovable friend,
thanx,
bill

Post #212,942

by ben_tilly

6/28/05 10:31:04 PM

You do not breed toys to fight

It may have been bred from a fighting dog. But the breed that we now have was not bred to fight, it was bred to be a toy. Hence my point.

As for the Lhasa Apso, [link|http://www.animalforum.com/dbreed/nslhasa.htm|http://www.animalfor...breed/nslhasa.htm] suggests that they are not toy dogs. They are guard dogs. However as anyone who has seen the breed knows, they won't take down intruders, but no intruder will pass unnoticed by anyone within earshot. So my understanding is that the breed is not bred to fight, only to alert people that there is an intruder.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #212,533

by imric

6/25/05 2:26:05 AM

6/25/05 2:30:40 AM

*sigh*

My point - a very minor one, and not related to the point Ash was driving at, was not to denigrate the feelings the owners had for the animals because of the behaviour the animal exhibited. They didn't 'love' the animal, they feel love for the animal. It's not psycho, it's not wrong, and it's beyond judgement. The animals in the stories hurt others, and that was tragic - the owners were responsible, yes. That doesn't mean that the owners didn't love thier dogs.

We who find objection to keeping attack bred animals as pets aren't considering just how much those who own these attack bred animals love them? If that is the case, all I can say is make sure you have paid up insurance and I won't be visiting.

Geez. Listen a little, will you? *I am not saying that all breeds are appropriate for suburban or family life - heck, I'll extend it and add urban to that. The only thing I objected to was Ash denigrating the feelings of the ones that owned the animals. From the stories, they DID love thier pets - they were more than just weapons or power symbols. That makes it even more tragic - it makes those stories WORSE. Did they make poor choices? Sure. Did it end VERY badly? Yes. Does that excuse the owners? No. Get that? No. I'll say it again. No. Once again, I am not rationalizing thier choice of breed. Again, the owners are responsible for the tragedy. Get it? Really? Get. It?

Now, does this mean that the love the owners held for the pets is somehow lessened, less real, less valid, less than another pet-owner's? No.

How many more times do I have to repeat this?

*edit sentence parsed badly

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric June 25, 2005, 02:29:08 AM EDT

Edited by imric June 25, 2005, 02:30:40 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #212,538

6/25/05 8:18:03 AM

So be it.

I got the impression from your originial reply to Ashton that the fact these animals were "loved" somehow trumped the fact that they are dangerous. Yeah I can be a prick. If that's all you were saying then, duh. I'll go ahead and apologise for breaking out the flamethrower.

Where's that kneejerk emoticon when you need it?

Post #212,541

by imric

6/25/05 8:44:03 AM

*chuckle*

Don't sweat it...

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,585

6/25/05 6:38:10 PM

Oh, bullpucky.

Imriskip drivels:

My point - a very minor one, and not related to the point Ash was driving at, was not to denigrate the feelings the owners had for the animals because of the behaviour the animal exhibited.

Why the fuck not?

To "love" a fucking killer-beast is moronic, plain and simple; why the fuck should anyone be compelled to "respect" some moron's demonstrably moronic feelings?

They didn't 'love' the animal, they feel love for the animal.

Huh? What the fuck is the differrence? (AFAIK, they are by definition the same thing: "to love [verb] someone/something" *is* to "feel love [noun] for that someone/something". Is this another editing artifact?)

It's not psycho,

Yes it is.

it's not wrong,

Yes it is.

and it's beyond judgement.

No it isn't.

The animals in the stories hurt others, and that was tragic - the owners were responsible, yes.

Oh, how magnanimous of you to admit that much.

That doesn't mean that the owners didn't love thier dogs.

The *main* counter to this is, of course, that it's totally irrelevant: Who the fuck gives a fucking shit about whether these fucking morons fucking "loved" their fucking killer-beasts or not? What the fucking fuck does that have to do with fucking anything?

The fact that you're just plain wrong -- a feeling so pathological as that of the mother who made excuses for her dog after it KILLED HER SON can hardly be called "love" without tainting everything we call by that name -- is secondary. (Unless, of ourse, one considers... It could at least be argued, IMO, that these idiots' "love" for their killer-beasts makes it *worse*. Then, yes, I probably *would* actually give a shit about this aspect.)

Geez. Listen a little, will you?

Heh -- that's rich, coming from you, in this thread.

*I am not saying that all breeds are appropriate for suburban or family life - heck, I'll extend it and add urban to that. The only thing I objected to was Ash denigrating the feelings of the ones that owned the animals. From the stories, they DID love thier pets - they were more than just weapons or power symbols. That makes it even more tragic - it makes those stories WORSE. Did they make poor choices? Sure. Did it end VERY badly? Yes. Does that excuse the owners? No. Get that? No. I'll say it again. No. Once again, I am not rationalizing thier choice of breed. Again, the owners are responsible for the tragedy. Get it? Really? Get. It?

Yeah, well, that's all very fine and good, as far as it goes... But even that is not enough.

Now, does this mean that the love the owners held for the pets is somehow lessened, less real, less valid, less than another pet-owner's? No.

Yup.

It is, as DrooK pointed out, a "love" similar to what battered wives have for their battering husbands; to what Ge^H^HIraqi "patriots" had for Ad^H^HSaddam.

I mean, holy fuck, a woman "loves" her vicious fucking beast to the extent of MAKING EXCUSES for it after it KILLED HER SON -- and you DON'T SEE anything wrong with that "love"?!? (Either you didn't read the original post, and just totally missed this whole part -- which is what makes your exhortations to others to "listen" so hilarious -- or *you* freaking need your head examined, too.)

To sum up, it's STUPID and WRONG and BAD, and therefore, yes, it _I_S_ DEFINITELY less real, less valid, and worth less than other pet-owners' NON-pathological love for their NON-killer pets.

How many more times do I have to repeat this?

None, or infinity: It still won't become true, however often you repeat it.

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]

Post #212,589

by imric

6/25/05 6:58:56 PM

CRC

If you want to diminish the tragedies involved, and stand in judgement over the reality of the feelings of others, based on newsbites from US newspapers, fine. Your nature is duly noted.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,647

6/26/05 2:34:05 PM

Those are indeed my initials.

If you want to diminish the tragedies involved

Huh?!? How the heck did *I* "diminish the tragedies involved"???

It wasn't *me* who posted post after post of apologia for vicious killer-beasts and the pathological "love" their owners feel for them, all the while neglecting to mention the *victims* of said vicious killer-beasts until about my 731st post in the thread... Who, exactly, is it who is "diminishing" the REAL tragedies here?

and stand in judgement over the reality of the feelings of others,

Ooo, the big bad man dares stand in *judgement* of things! That might hurt somebody's pwecious *feeewings*, and we just can't have that, now can we? Yeah, well, sorry, but I *have* judgement, and am fully prepared to use it. That's what separates man from the animals, you know.

Furthermore, I wasn't actually *mainly* judging "the *reality* of the feelings of others" (although I doubted that too), but was primarily trying to explain that said "feelings" -- be they real or not -- are WRONG and BAD and STUPID(*).

based on newsbites from US newspapers,

Ooh, how extraordinary -- he bases his judgement on the data available to him! So, what do YOU base YOURS on (if you ever have any) -- do you channel Shirley MacLaine, or...?

Your nature is duly noted.

I dare excercise my rational human judgement over the apparent feelings of others based on the data available to me, and that somehow makes me a bad person?

So, are you saying that woman whose dog had killed her son DIDN'T spend all(+) of the interview with her afterwards making excuses for the dog? (If not, then stop whining about my sources.)

Or are you saying that the "real" love this shows she had for the dog somehow makes it *OK* for her dog to kill her son? (If not, then stop whining about my daring to judge.)

If neither of the above is what you're trying to say, then what the Hell *are* you whining about?

(*): Yes, feelings CAN be "wrong" and "bad" and "stupid". Obviously, if feelings like these exist.

(+): Or "most of", or even "much of" -- that would still be almost as bad, AFAICS. Or do you think it would be all right if she spent, say, equal time on the dog and the kid...? (And *I* am "diminishing the tragedies"! Give me strength!)

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Post #212,653

by imric

6/26/05 5:00:12 PM

6/26/05 5:15:17 PM

Love <> Excuse

Nowhere in any of my posts did I post apologia for the owners. Never once, though you certainly want to paint them that way. In fact, in almost every one of them, I said that the owners are responsible.

The thing that Ash was doing WAS impugning the reality of the feelings the owner had for the anmals; he was implying that the love the owners wasn't really love. That's what the quotes around love inferred. The dogs in question were taken away, and that adds to the tragedy, it adds to the hurt of the incidents, and that's REAL. It makes things worse; the fact that it's necessary and right doesn't change that.

The nature of newsbites in our papers is to typically sensationalistic. They rarely give enough data to judge anything, but instead try to lead people to adopt the reporters viewpoint. Making snap judgements of people based on that is silly.

Bad person? Geez. I was trying to emphasize the futility of arguing with you when you've made up your mind on something. Don't go paranoid on me, Christian. Curmudgeon you may be, I've never thought of you as a bad person.

The 'excuses' (note the quotes) that the woman was making was more about the horror she felt about the whole thing, IMO - she never expected it to happen based on the prevous behavior of the dog, and NOWHERE did I say that this excused her. Never once. How many times have I lamented the lack of responsibilty displayed by people? I certainly haven't changed my stance now.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric June 26, 2005, 05:15:17 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #212,656

6/26/05 6:04:45 PM

Ah. OK, sorry.

When you put it that way, it sounds quite reasonable. (So YTF didn't you put it that way to begin with? :-)

Yeah, I know I can be quite silly sometimes.

Anyway, again, I'm sorry.

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Post #212,659

by imric

6/26/05 6:39:53 PM

*smile*

S'alright! And I didn't mean to annoy you...

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,597

by rcareaga

6/25/05 7:54:34 PM

of dogs and men (new thread)

Created as new thread #212596 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=212596|of dogs and men]

Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.

Post #212,600

by mmoffitt

6/25/05 9:34:29 PM

Nit.

To "love" a fucking killer-beast is moronic, plain and simple; why the fuck should anyone be compelled to "respect" some moron's demonstrably moronic feelings?

s/moronic/psychotic/g

bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #212,521

6/25/05 1:16:04 AM

Interesting.

In that this does nothing at all to explain why I have a very large "bred to fight" dog that is incredibly docile and had to put down a silver show poodle that attacked my daughter and I in the back seat of the car.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #212,525

6/25/05 1:25:50 AM

Victim of the RNG in the sky.

Some animals end up psycho. It happens.

Post #212,508

by drewk

6/24/05 11:38:05 PM

I just re-read the original post

I was trying to think how to put this and finally figured it out. When a man beats his wife, and she stays with him because she "loves" him, is that "real love"? Most people would say it's obsession. Or that the man is fulfilling a deep, unhealthy need for the woman.

Is it our place to question whether that is "real love"? Well ... yeah, I think it is. We feel pity for them, but it's not the pity you feel for someone hit by a car. It's not an accident. It's predictable. What's pathetic is that there is something so wrong with them that they live with the risk.

That's what I think of people who get large dogs -- particularly breeds known to have agressive tendencies -- and don't train them. Either they're wilfully blind to reality or they want a large, agressive dog. So which do they deserve: pity, or anger?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #212,510

by imric

6/24/05 11:52:40 PM

And when a mother loves a child?

And the child goes bad, through bad parenting, poor environment? Genes? If the child was adopted after exposure to drugs in the womb? (after all, the parent/guardian would 'know better ' iin that case, right?) When does the love stop being real?

There may come a time when a healthy person may have to remove the bad loved one from their life, sure.

Does that make the love less genuine? Or does it make the situation more tragic, more painful?

I tend to believe the second.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #212,586