"It's not the dog, it's the owner!"Give that same owner a gerbil and let's see if it bites a baby's face off
>"It's not the thread, it's the (OP)!"Hidden. Go back to r/BanPitbulls if you wanna talk about your favorite shit-mongrels that you pretend to hate.
>>4823787Pretend? So you think I like them? Why am I pretending to hate pitbulls?
>>4823785All guns should be banned and current gun owners prosecuted.
Guns are mandatory for freedomPitbulls are not. Pitbulls have absolutely no valid working function. None.>butNone. If you think pitbulls can do it, there's another dog or a piece of technology that ACTUALLY does it.The only way guns can not be mandatory for freedom is if the police and military are totally disarmed after exterminating all other humans on earth, and facilities for the production of firearms are destroyed along with all current stocks of firearms and ammunition. That includes fireworks and hobby rockets. if only one group did not have guns, they would be beholden to the desires of whatever cabal kept them. Ask the disarmed jews of germany what they thought of that rightful aristocracy.
4823794You have to try harder than that4823808>remember the 6 gorillion!!!!go away
>>4823870>they made me upset, i must not give them an up(You)!kill yourself, redditor
>>4823893kek
4823893keep crying, none for (You)
>>482387050yo woman mauled to death by 2 pits in Baltimore today
>>4823937kys shitbull fucker
>>4823937>the tourist thinks people here care about (You) denialMy sides!
4823964>xhe said - obviously caringkeep going
>>4823785ARE YOU ASKING FOR A CHALLEENNNGGGEEE?!
it's funny how on live boards, people dont reply to each other but it's clear who they're responding toand then you have redditors like this that are passive-aggresive and think a fucking reply matters of all thingsthe contrast is kinda funny because it is very similar but also not at all
>>4824367Wdym live boards?
>>4824389>he doesn't knowon better sites, there are boards that are real-timeif you start typing it is instantly visible, without needing to send the post. sometimes there are 3 posts going on at once and people are talking to each other "live" and they don't reply to each other because there is no need
>>4824367it's just run-of-the-mill twitterfaggot shit. they're so used to their esteem being tied up in a system of up and down arrows being used to establish pretend hierarchy that they take the brainrot into circles where it doesn't hold water.>actual monkey behavior
>>4823785You're comparing a pitbull to a fucking gerbil. A better comparison would be a different dog breed, like say a border collie or a golden retriever. A gerbil is dozens of times smaller than a pitbull, so it's fear of humans would be significantly increased. Bigger predator = scarier. If a gerbil was raised around humans and learned to trust them, it would still not bite their face off.Why?1. it's a fucking gerbil, the worst it could do is break skin.2. Pitbulls either go out of their way to attack people, or do it because they're confused/scared (self defense or they dont know what the fuck is happening)2a. Gerbils would never go out of their way to attack a human because they would know that it's bullshit and would lead to them getting squashed into fine red paste.2b. Yes, the only reason gerbils would ever attack is because they're scared or confused. This is the owner's fault for scaring/confusing the gerbil. Again, the worst they could ever do is break skin. They can't rip a baby's face off.Again, a better comparison would be a pitbull vs another dog breed, especially if that breed isn't a bully breed.
>>4823785pretty sure if you left a gerbil unattended with access to a baby then there is a pretty decent chance it starts to bite and chew on the baby.
>>4823785>underestimating the power of niggertryUsed to know a black guy in high school had the meanest godamn hamster you've ever seen.
>>4824582
4824367>xhe’s STILL crying>doesn’t know what words meankeep dancing for me monkey
>>4824582You would be too if you had one as an owner.
Bait aside, why is the flower crown so common?
>>4824736because it’s the biggest symbol of ‘innocent’ and ‘non-threatening’ in the mind of the female
>>4824582zozzle
kill all pitbulls
>4823870>4823937>4823969>4824631You sure are posting a lot for a guy who has hidden the thread. lmao Feel free to post your need for validation below.
>>4823785
4826104I never said I hid the thread retard. Try not to confuse real life with the voices in your head.
>>4823785My mom's hamster ate all of her baby hamsters, bit my mom's finger and didn't want to let it go
>>4823785It is american constitutional right to have pitbullsIf you wanna outlaw certain dogbreeds, you are a dirty commie
>>4826394It actually isnt and laws instructing citizens on when and where to shoot dogs predate our animal cruelty lawsThe only reason we have nice dogs is because we killed all the shit ones. You want pleistoscene wolves back? Fuck off you already got wolves.
4826104>"Everyone I don't like is the same person!"Oke doke pal
>>4826462idk who youre talking to but i find it hard to believe theres more than one of you reddit retards suddenly on here
>>4826470>"th-the-there's no way that those stinky redditors found my super sekrit spheshul ed club!"Roflmfao
>>4826483Are you being obtuse or are you really this stupid?
>>4826470>>4826593I think it might be a botIts canned replies are too uncanny
>>4826470This site has had a reddit infestation for years are you stupid
>>4826109>our beloved deactivated landmineLEL
>>4823794My guns need food and water and require a safe because they can just walk around and shoot people if I don’t watch them carefully.
>>4826693so trveproud gun owner here and i concursometimes i forgot to lock it up and it jumps out of the drawer to shoot my family membersinconvenient but i still love it
>>4823785Per capita is racist
>>4826389They eat their babies when they’re too stressed to care for them
>>4823794
>>4826663Talking specificially about the redditor who fairly recently started using replies as updoots are you stupid?
>>4826876That’s not something exclusive to this board nor is he the first to start doing it here. Lurk more
>>4826926gtfo of here trying to normalize newfag rettit faggotry tyvm
>>4826926Maybe its a thing on the shitty boards you go to..
What's so special about pitbull owners?
>>4826945their education, given only retards own these dogs
>>4826932>>4826943Lurk. More. No more (You)s. (Keep crying).
>>4823794you can just say black people
>>4823808>Guns are mandatory for freedomThen why don't you have any, amerishart?
>>4827241but notice he didn't say black people
>>4826593>>48266004chan isn't your super secret dark hacker special ed club you tourist faggot
>>4826945I know the implication at hand, but they're actually safer in the hands of le heckin socioeconomic americans because they know they're dog aggressive and use them for fighting, most pitbull owners are retarded women
>>4823785My neighbors three houses down have two dogs; a pitbull, and a german shepherd. I walk down the alley sometimes to go to a nearby convenience store, and every time they come running out to bark at me. Both of them. They both growl and snarl and freak out at the fence.The difference is, the german shepherd barks and snarls and growls at me, whereas the pitbull actually tries to JUMP OVER THE FENCE. Every single time, without fail, that fucker tries to get over the fence. Sometimes he just jumps in place while barking, but other times I've actually seem him try to use shit leaned up against the fence to get over.That fucker wants my blood, and it shows. Again, same owner, two dogs. So what's the difference here? If it really is "how you raise them", if it's really the owner, not the dog, then why does one dog try to get over the fence at me whereas the other one just barks and growls?
>>4827666>another bot tier canned reply
>>4823794But then how will you shoot shitbulls before they maul you to death?
>>4827863The owner is just an amplifier or a mitigation factor. Retards don't want to acknowledge it's the dog's genetics that predisposes it to such behavior, because it hurts their feefees.
>>4824367>>4824417meds
>>4828027Correct. Sad that this is treated as a truth nuke these days
>>4827863Walk a different way. They will break through that fence one day. Then when they have mauled/killed someone else and been put down you can walk that way again in safety.
>>4828350fun fact: "he never done dis befoa!" is a mandatory phrase to avoid a negligient homicide charge, because in most areas if a dog with a bite history kills someone you are charged as if you left an active landmine on your porch.
>>4828350>Chihuahuas are more aggressiveThat's such a dishonest take I don't even... Chihuahuas haven't been bred to kill, so they are definitely not as vicious as shitbulls. They also have literally no capability to do any serious damage and weight like 5 pounds
>>4828387>because in most areas if a dog with a bite history kills someone you are charged as if you left an active landmine on your porch.Well then it seems a little redundant if they can check for that sort of thing to see if they’re lying or not right?
>>4823785If rappers started making songs and MVs glorifying attack hamsters, the hood rats would find a way to make them a public health problem in one year.It's both. The dogs are insane and violent because they're bred by insane and violent people following an insane and violent culture.
>>4828420If they weren't caught (the old pit and run) or the family covered it up, it's not official. Therefore they just need to say they never did it before.
>>4828445>(the old pit and run)jej
>>4827918>everyone I don't like is X!Whatever.
>>4828425>pit bulls originally came from ingurland, co-opted by americans and seen as a national symbol at one timewhite people are insane and violent, got it.
>>4828627America used to have a strong anglo saxon identity and considered germans to be swarthy savages. That meant biting the bullet and liking english dog breeds despite literally everyone else doing dogs better - which is how we decided dogs were disgusting slavish wastes of air despite german and asian breeds being 1000000000x better.
>>4828641the fuck you talking about? it was not a matter of "biting the bullet" and picking the lesser of 2 evils like you frame it. they were not secretly resenting their pick. people gravitated toward it because it was a strong animal that could take down bears and during times of war you want your country to have a strong symbol for use in propaganda. they didn't give a fuck that it may have had a taste for infant meat. they weren't going down to the town square to cry about how pibbles are LE BAD and how they need to be banned. it was a time when many more white americans liked the pitbull than they do now and you can't handle that fact.
>>4828667german shepherds replaced them entirely post ww2 lol
>>4828683only appropriate for a country with no actual identity to adopt something from another's
>>4828350ffs i downloaded that same pic to post here and you beat me to it
>>4828749>when it's an english dog, specifically a pitbull: baaaaased!>when its promptly thrown in the trash for other, better dogs: FREAKIN 200 YEAR OLD COUNTRY NOT INVENTING ALL THEIR OWN SHIT >:(
>>4828641>and considered germans to be swarthy savages. No, they didn’t. It was pretty much founded by and for Anglo-Germanics. That one Ben Franks quote was not nation wide opinion.
>>4828627>>4828667you’re literally admitting that the situations are entirely different and has changed over the centurywhat’s the excuse for “people” who still harbor irrational love for the creatures?
>>4823787reddit is based you incel
>>4826945For once I'll say it's not just BIPOC's fault, they're just genetically shit dogs
>>4828800>you’re literally admitting that the situations are entirely different and has changed over the centuryi did not admit anything. i just posted out your hypocrisy of crying about blacks breeding pitbulls when the pitbull was originally conceived by whites>inb4 "uhm i never said anything about race :^)" your plausible deniability weaseling doesn't work here. we both know you're talking about minorities that you love so much.>what’s the excuse for “people” who still harbor irrational love for the creatures?they're low IQ poors and need a strong dumb animal to project their fragile egos. this bears truth across races.
>>4829095>i did not admit anything.You literally did stupid retard. >and during times of war you want your country to have a strong symbol for use in propaganda.That’s why it was liked. The situation has changed from a literal century ago. “People” liking them today is not the same as liking them a century ago. >i just posted outESLtard.>your hypocrisyI’m not the other poster. There is more than one poster here calling out your retardation. You have shit for brains and are fighting a strawman. >they're low IQ poorsYes. At least you admit that much. You’re also obviously assblasted about this for a personal reason and have no intention of changing your tune so there’ll be no more (You)s from here.
>yes i'm in every single pitbull bait thread seething about them but you're the assblasted one!lmao. an incel's headcanon and how they warp reality to their liking is a fascinating thing
>xhe thinks there’s only person who doesn’t like xher furbabies on the boardtransgenders everyone
One thing that’s fascinating is how pitophiles will turn on one of their own once a pitmommy gets mauled. You can defend shitbulls all your life, but you’ll get dragged online when you inevetibly get mauled.
>>4829483That’s just the cycle of cannibalism for these “people”. Very common facet in the rest of their beliefs as well
>>4823787A pitbull hate thread? Excellent, don't mind if I join in.
>>4830201What does this mean
>>4828350why are women like this?
>>4830409It’s not all women, it’s just social media brained libtard women with a savior comolex. They do the same thing with third worlders.
Pitbull owners tend to be awful people also. There was a study done about owners of low risk versus high risk dogs, and the high risk dog owners had nearly 10x more criminal convictions. It makes sense because the only type of person who would want an aggressive dog is an aggressive person.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/200903/psychological-characteristics-owners-aggressive-dog-breeds
>>4830980Yes. It all adds up. Awful people gravitate to awful things.
>>4823785Pitbulls really are a case of "it's not the dog, it's the owner!" though. Pitbulls aren't some special magical breed that works different to any other dog. All dog breeds have attributes that mean they require different kinds of handling. Pitbulls need the kind of training and conditioning that most owners fail at which is socialization, food based aggression and general reactivity. Pitbulls are great dogs, they're highly trainable and they're incredibly affectionate. However they have attributes (strong bite, powerful muscles, strong emotions, strong prey drive) that mean that they require a large degree of conditioning. There are so many other breeds of dog that are like this. Cane corsos for example. The difference between a pibtull and a cane corso is that people respect that cane corsos are powerful dogs that require training. They aren't owned by "pitmommy" types. Pitbull hate sets a dangerous precedent as it removes responsibility from people onto breeds. Which means that in a couple of years when cane corso attacks go up, which they will because niggers have found out about the breed and now they're becoming popular, we'll see retards talking about how the breed is "broken" and dangerous. Pitbulls are just the wrong sort of dog for most people and treating the issue as a black and white matter only means more mentally ill people will overcompensate and treat pitbulls like they're labradors.
>>4832248They’re very very good at what they were bred to do, which is fighting other dogs to the death and aggravating bulls. Specifically, their coat, prey drive, gameness, tenacity, strength, and skull anatomy. These are fantastic traits in a fighting dog. It comes at the cost of them frequently having issues in multi pet households, poor long term health outcomes (given fighting dogs only live to 5ish at best, they were not bred for longevity and often inbred for desirable traits), neuroticism via constant over excitation, resource guarding, unmanageably large litters, and are prone to “snapping”. They are famously stupid and difficult to train, which is why you rarely ever see them as actual service animals (ESAs do not count), in K-9 units, or used by rescuers. They don’t make good livestock dogs or human guard dogs because they have terrible recall. Lots of breeds are very affectionate, that isn’t some bully exclusive trait. Of course no dog is a bad dog in a moral sense- they’re animals. But the breed is completely pointless in the modern age outside of dog fighting. There are equivalently affectionate breeds that are healthier, safer, and lower maintenance. Cane Corso are also a breed that should not be ownable by the average person, and they only have low bite statistics because they’re so rare. You’re right- they also have a lot of undesirable traits in a family pet that are going to be abused when bully breeds start getting banned, especially once dog fighters start breeding terrier into them. That is the main idea underlying BSL- that these dogs are very high risk low reward when compared to basically any other common breed. And if they were actually a decent breed they wouldn’t be overflowing shelters because nobody wants them. If they were a decent breed they wouldn’t need an internet defense force constantly posting them in flower crowns.
>>4832248Pitbulls were bred to kill dogsThey are specialGive the same shit owner a lab and it will bite just as much but wont kill a child and start consuming itSay “wolfdogs arent special just train them bro” do you still sound reasonable? No. Animals have instincts and all training fails. Even a well trained pitbull can not be trusted. Because all training fails. Always. The owner error even with the best of training is trusting a dog NOT to do WHAT IT WAS BRED FOR, woman!
>>4832632Ultimately we mostly agree though I think people overestimate the aggressiveness of pitbull and pitbull adjacent breeds like staffordshire terriers. A lot of that comes down to line as assuming you're not getting your dog from a backyard hoodrat breeder there's a very good chance that your bully is not going to have any issues. However it is hard to expect people to read their dogs and understand their temperament when most people don't even walk the fucking things.I can only really speak from personal experience with staffordshire terriers but they are highly trainable.I think the problem with saying "nobody should be able to own 'x' breed" is that people will inevitably expand it to include all breeds. The reality is that most people should have the good sense not to get a pitbull or a cane corso or a cattle dog or any breed that isn't right for them. It is equally true that if pitbulls really were some inherently psychotic dog there wouldn't need to be an internet attack force constantly shitting on them. Either way the truth ultimately lies in the middle and it is irresponsible to pretend that pitbulls don't have problems and equally irresponsible to pretend that all pitbulls are bad dogs. At the end of the day at least the point remains that for most dog owners pitbulls are not the right breed.
>>4832646Its perfectly responsible to operate on the assumption that all pitbulls are bad
>>4832657Like in practice? Yeah. But you should be assuming that 90% of the dogs you see are mishandled. In theory it is irresponsible because it moves the guilt from the owner onto the dog which fills up shelters with problem animals and encourages people not to train and condition their dog regardless of breed.
>>4832657Nor is there a great loss if you do. There are too many dogs. Most of the surplus is pitbulls. The last fucking thing we want is risking the decency of other breeds should a pitbull pass on its un-domesticated genes.We can only gain by just exterminating these subcanine mutants.>but its the owner!>>4832646>It is equally true that if pitbulls really were some inherently psychotic dog there wouldn't need to be an internet attack force constantly shitting on them.They didn't, until their defenders started spreading outright lies like "THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE RACISM U CANT HATE PIBBLES UNLESS YOU WANT GENOCIDE BROWN PPL!" and "PITBULLS ARE 20% OF DOGS LABS ARE MORE DANGEORUS" "PITBULLS DONT EXIST BECAUSE I DECIDED PITBULL ONLY REFERS TO UKC STANDARD APBTS"
Other dogs = cutePit = not cuteIt's really that simple
>>4832661It doesn’t matter if it’s the owner or the breed, because bad owners seem overwhelmingly drawn to this one breed. And very very few other breeds can cause the kind of damage they do. You will never, ever see a pure bred lab, regardless of treatment, do to a child what pits regularly do. The only solution is to ban the breed cluster, and let bad owners get weak/friendlier dogs. >>4832666Its the only breed I’ve seen that I would categorize some of them as looking genuinely evil. >>4832646>internet hate forceThe pitbull lobby has money behind it, people who shit on pits do not. Look at the number of pro pit organizations like best friend animal society that donate tons of cash to push the breed and fund no kill shelters (95% pit warehouses). The people who don’t like pits just think they’re ugly, unless, and dangerous. And nobody is going to ban fucking corgis because pits got banned jfc. PIDF is not sending their best folks.
>>4832664That's certainly the case but it doesn't change the fact that doing the thing you think is stupid but in the opposite direction is never clever.>>4832666Debunked.But in seriousness it is odd that people go for ugly breeds. >>4832725>It doesn’t matter if it’s the owner or the breed, because bad owners seem overwhelmingly drawn to this one breedIt does matter because if you take that away then the reason bad owners go for pitbulls becomes mystified when the reality of it is clear. Pitbulls attract bad owners because they're cheap, hearty, look mean and have a bad reputation. >The only solution is to ban the breed cluster, and let bad owners get weak/friendlier dogs.Pitbulls are banned in my country. However if I was going to institute any law that removes freedom from people I would outright gatekeep dog ownership like guns. It is crazy that people with no training can just buy dogs and keep them locked in their yard 24/7 and then throw them into a shelter when they start having behaviour problems.> Look at the number of pro pit organizations like best friend animal society that donate tons of cash to push the breedThis is in part a symptom of pitbull hate plain and simple. That is all I am saying. I don't even like pitbulls and I would never own one, I also think they're ugly and potentially dangerous. I'm just realistic about the situation and I think it is incredibly sad that a bunch of animals get to suffer because human beings are failing them.>And nobody is going to ban fucking corgis because pits got banned jfcNo but what happens when niggers move from pitties to rottweilers and the bite statistics go up and suddenly people start blaming the breed? What about when soilents start saying "GSDs are police dogs civilians have no place owning them!"? When you set the standard that dogs fail humans and not the reverse you create the same scenario that is happening with guns ownership.
>>4823794please show me one situation where a gun got up, sprinted across a neighborhood and shot a 6 year old girl all by itself.
>>4832967Nobody post that one webm where the niglet accidentally shoots her brother and then herself
>>4832666Based simple solution reasoning >>4832969Why would anyone post thatAlso they both survived iirc
>>4832985>Also they both survived iirc
Pitbulsl don't deserve defense. They have no reason to be.>>4832944>Slippery slopeIf rottweilers were as common as pitbulls they could kill 1/2 as many people, GSDs 1/3. The entire breed group is more dangerous than the next most dangerous dog which is itself essentially a group (BYBs dont adhere to club standards)
>>4833007For several reasons the top of which being that rottweilers aren't as cheap and that most people treat rottweilers like rottweilers and not like mommy's little angel. The point is it doesn't matter if you defend niggers and say that the fault is with the dog then when rottweilers and cane corsos and dogo argentinos etc. start to replace them as the felon's dog of choice when those statistics inevitably increase people will use the same logic, regardless of whether or not those statistics are as bad as pitbulls. It's not about a slippery slope it is about a delusional mindset.
>>4833010More rottweiler owners know they're worthless violent pieces of shit that can't be trustedIf you took the same abusive owners and gave them labs, the total number of bite incidences would stay flat but fatalities would drop like a rock.>it's a delusional mindsetIt's cold hard facts, and you yourself admitted that most pitbull owners want to rescue and "fix" an underrated angel, so if anything these people will move to lab/hunting hounds.
>>4833012>More rottweiler owners know they're worthless violent pieces of shit that can't be trustedThey're not >the total number of bite incidences would stay flat but fatalities would drop like a rockThis doesn't help the labs though. It doesn't stop them from potentially traumatizing other dogs either. This is like arguing shotguns should be banned because they're capable of far more carnage than a pistol when the reality is that most gun crime is committed with pistols. Maybe instead of persecuting dogs we should start holding human beings to a higher standard instead of letting people abuse their dogs simply because they don't pose a risk to use.>most pitbull owners want to rescue and "fix" an underrated angel, so if anything these people will move to lab/hunting houndsDo women who date abusive men usually go on to date stable men after their boyfriends beat their ass and go to prison? Or do they go date another felon?
>>4833014You're delving full on into nonsense that is unrelated to the facts:When pitbulls attack they do so with disproportionate severityPitbulls have no useful job outside of criminal bloodsport.They are bred solely to attack and kill other dogs. This behavior is extremely likely to transfer to humans and anything else dog sized or larger.They are an entirely unwanted breed. Banning them has only ever improved society. Enacting total extermination based on duck test/"know it when i see it" criteria to circumvent the lying owner issue would be a massive improvement and save hundreds of lives.
>>4833017So we should exterminate all drog breeds that are capable of doing high levels of damage?Dogs don't need to do jobs.Pitbulls haven't been bred for dog fighting for many generations (unless you're rolling the dice on a BYB) . Asking for daddy government to step in and take away your rights in is pure cattle brain derangement. Men commit 98% of rapes, should men be exterminated?
>>4833021Basically all dogs as bad as pitbulls are effectively in a near-exterminated state to their rarityAndDogs can not be compared to humans or guns. The closest analogy to a shitbull is a gun that goes off on its own and backfires/exploded constantly.Who would win>MUH HECKIN ETHICALLY CONSISTENT PRINCIPLES MEAN I NEED TO LET MY RETARDED SISTER PLAY WITH LIVE GRENADES>That's pointlessly dangerous and will be stopped. Cry about freedom and go to the pillory, you fuckin yank.
>>4833021>rules bad!liberalism is a disease and like most diseases of man animals are immunepitbulls do not care that you were doing it for the sake of your liberal principles. they will kill and eat your young and female relatives anyways. lol. wholly unneccessary to the world, without excuse, without moral standing, without inherent value (they are property, objects, "moving things"), they will do it anyways, while you seethed about how having and following rules is "le bad" and did a funny trick where you got your asshole to say "banning pitbulls for being dangerous is not ethically consistent unless you kill all men!"
>>4833026Who are you quoting?Pitbulls don't go off on their own this is a myth born from people not correctly raising their dog and then blaming the dog when they meet the consequences. >>4833027I've already stated that I support laws surrounding dog ownership just not retarded laws that protect people from their own mistakes and enable them to abuse animals. You can piss and shit about the fact that I absolutely embarrassed your terrible argument with an incredibly basic retort but it simply speaks to how fucking stupid and paper thing your stance is.
>>4833029Cope about this:If we killed every single shitbull and replaced them with labs, 30-50 fewer people in the US would die this year. Millions would be spared maimings and instead suffer bruises and minor puncture woundsThis trend would be permanent.>but the gubmint, laws bad, rules bad, daddy pls dont take my toys, muh freedomThe more i hear idiots like you speak the more i begin to agree with the idea of forcibly disarming you, just out of spite
>>4833040Already responded to this but I guess it is a bit much to expect you to be literate so I'll repeat myself. I don't care if less Amerisharts die every year I care about the welfare of the dogs, sicking pitbull owners onto labs only makes labs suffer. >millionsLol way to try and sneak that absolute fucking asspull in there.
>>4833044>I don't care if humans die>I care about the dogsI know, you're a psychopath, that was established the moment you began defending shitbulls and pulling out every random pseudo moral bullshit line you could find growing mold between your saggy hrt tits
>>4833046Humans have a choice, dogs do not.Crazy that someone advocating for genocide is trying to call anyone else a psychopath, crazy that someone who is too scared to hold human's to standards while denying reality and arguing with emotions is trying to call anyone else a tranny. But projecting is pretty common when you corner someone in an argument.
>>4833049>you psycho you'd kill dogs to save humans?Yes. That's what makes me a good person and what makes you some sort of zoophile.
>>4833056>dog lives are worth less than human livesClassic psychopathic justification
>>4833058>dog lives are worth less than human livesCorrect>PsychopathicSpecifically this word only applies to human-human relationships. Treatment of animals is a rough predictor but not a diagnostic criteria. Specifically random violence enacted for pleasure, not pest control, which is the topic at hand. Pest control. Think of it like gassing plague rats.
>>4833060>CorrectBy what merit?
>>4833061It is self evident
>>4833066Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble explaining it.
>>4833068If you're human, you'll get it. If you're a psychopath it's like explaining how delicious grass is to a lion.
>>4833071Holy shit LOL this fucking idiot just got himself stuck in a corner.
>>4833074You're asking a human to explain to a psychopath why human lives are more valuable than dog livesYou either automatically understand and believe this, or you are defective and should be removed from society before you hurt an actual personThey simply are, and if you don't mind, the world is waiting for you to die by your beliefs and sacrifice yourself to save some pibbles.
>>4833075>l-look it j-just is OKAY! Why is anyone expected to take the opinions of retards like this seriously again?
>>4833078nobody takes him seriouslyyou fools should know by now not to take him seriously.
>>4833080I'm not up to date on my /an/poster lore
>>4833078>noooo human life isnt more valuablekeep being like this it actually discredits your argument even harder because you dont write spastic word salad responses to your self owns. they’re just there, undisputed. you cant agree that dogs are worth less than people.
>>4833084You can't even justify your position lol>Nooooo I am a woman because look I just am okay!
>>4833086>can not agree that human life is worth more than dogson full display
>>4833087I don't believe that human life is worth more than dogs. I already stated that. You still haven't been able to explain why you believe I'm wrong.
>explain why its wrongholy shit lmao he thinks humans are worth less than dogsaverage shitbull fan lmfao
>>4833090I never said that.Now justify your position instead of passive aggresively responding to no one like a tranny.
>he thinks im the other guy>he thinks this needs explainedon full display
>needs explained
Here's the youtube video I post everytime someone says "it's the owner's fault"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXLD3GSFW1Y&t=633sHere's a 30 minute compilation of pitbulls attacking their own owners. A few of the families look like they may be ghetto, but most of the families seem like they are respectable, and they raised the dogs from puppies. Even the fucking dog whisper has two allegations of his pitbull attacking others. Don't give me this victim blaming shit. I can't even comprehend why people are so fucking attached to dogs that they will happily dance of the graves of fellow human beings to defend the image of a fucking breed that was bred to fight.
>>4833098pitbull fans need someone to explain to them why a human being is more important than any number of dogsunrionically lmao
>>4833098Cool there is zero evidence any of these dogs were trained correctly. >Even the fucking dog whisper has two allegations of his pitbull attacking othersI mean Seizure Mulan is a notoriously shitty dog trainer so you're really not helping your case. But besides that if you look at the allegations the dog was supposedly known to be violent and still allowed unsupervised and off leash. So again, how is that not the owner's fault?
>>4833100What pisses me off the most is that pitbull owners will put their fucking dogs before their own family. I've seen cases where the dog kills the owner's mom and the owner will still fight for the dog to not be put down, or the owners dog will almost maul their own children and they'll post on facebook how they tearfully need a forever home. "please I need a loving home for Cupcake. he's such a sweet heart but he has anxiety and prey drive and is over protective so someone please take this dog that almost killed my child"
>>4833101>Cool there is zero evidence any of these dogs were trained correctly.Doesn't matter. Stats don't lie. statistically pitbulls are trained as much as any other species of dog and pitbull attacks are off the fucking charts. Pitbulls get just as much training as any other breed (which is almost none in america) so you can't use that as a variable. in your defense. If you pivoted your counterargument to "pitbulls need training more than any other species, but with training they can be safe" then you might have a leg to stand on. But even then you yourself are admitting that pitbulls are inherently more dangerous because they need proper training while others don't.And to state the obvious. These are not humans. These are dogs, who were EXPLICITLY BRED for one purpose. Thousands of years of selective breeding to accomplish one task. Some dogs were bred to hunt. Some dogs were bred to attack. Only so much training can calm an entire breed.
>>4833101LOL @ pitbull cocksucker"IT'S YOUR FAULT. YOU DIDN'T TRAIN THIS DOG THAT WAS LITERALLY JUST BORN!"
>>4833106NO EVERY PUPPY WILL CHEW OFF YOUR BABIES FINGERS IF YOU DON'T TRAIN IT. YOU NEED TO TRAIN EVERY BREED OF DOG STRAIGHT OUT OF THE WOMB! GOLDEN RETREIVER PUPPIES AND BASSET HOUND PUPPIES KILL BABIES ALL THE TIME!
>>4833101>hmmmm... the only explanation for this... must be that every breed in the US gets training except for pitbulls!
>>4833105>>4833108I literally said in my very first post that pitbulls need more training than most dogs. There are a long list of breeds that require training in order to be safe.It's funny that you all keep swirling around the same points that have been discredited again and again because you have no rebuttal for them. But it is ultimately not surprising because half the time you're not even arguing with anything I've said you're engaging with some retarded strawman point you've made up.>Thousands of years of selective breeding to accomplish one taskPitbulls were bred for fighting for maybe 100 years, they've literally been bred for non-fighting purposes longer than they were for fighting. It's a non-argument. >>4833106>>4833107>BRUH ALL LABRADORS ATTACK KIDS BECAUSE I FOUND THIS ONLINE. DUDE CAN'T BELIEVE THIS MFIN BREED BE THIS WAY. YOU CAN'T LOVE THE SAVAGERY OUT OF THEM ON YAKUBOh look it is a BYB and a woman who left her puppy and baby alone together, here are those responsible owners I was telling you about.
4823964you are obviously upset about it though
>>4833068To sense is better than to merely exist (animals > rocks), but to understand and sense is better than to merely sense and exist (human > animal > rocks). Reason is the only true measure of merit, and humans are capable of following reason to a far greater degree than any animal. Few people live according to reason though, so the majority are no better than beasts themselves.
>>4833199So killing an infant or toddler is a less severe act than killing an adult?
>>4833200No, because a toddler will grow into an adult. A dog will not grow into a human. That's a very poor counterpoint you just tried to make.
>>4833201An adult is already an adult though.
>>4833203I don't think you're quite following the argument. An adult is capable of reason and understanding on top of merely being able to sense, which is why a human has more merit than anything that can merely sense without reason. Growth is not the source of merit, reason is. An infant will grow to be capable of reason, which is why even a baby who can't reason yet still has more merit than something that can't ever grow to reason. The morality of your actions in the present aren't divorced from the future.
>>4833205So it isn't any more heinous to kill a baby than it is to kill an adult?
>>4833206Are you stuck in a loop? I just explained to you why they're equally wrong. Even if a baby can't reason, a baby will grow to be capable of reason. Your actions towards the baby now in the present are not divorced from the baby's future.
>>4833208>child murder isn't worse than regular murder
>>4833209They're objectively equally morally wrong. One is simply more distasteful than the other because of a child's inherent helplessness and dependency, and that there are no justifiable reasons such as self defense that would require anyone to kill a child. You're letting that distastefulness color your moral judgement, but you have to be objective if you want to be right.
>>4833212>literally explain why it is morally worse>but umm that doesn't count because I said soYou are genuinely the most retarded person I've ever interacted with
>>4833213That has nothing to do with morality, that has to do with your personal feelings. It doesn't become acceptable to attack and hurt somebody just because that person is strong. It's equally wrong to intentionally cause harm no matter who it is that you're harming, whether it's a baby or a rugged bodybuilder. The fact that you're willing to accept one but not the other just reflects poorly on you. You shouldn't accept evil behavior towards anyone.Also, it's worth noting that you're currently arguing in bad faith. You clearly don't believe that the lives of children are valuable, because you started off this argument with the statement that human live aren't more valuable than a dog's life. To boot, you're defending dogs whose primary victims are children. You're only going down this line of argument because you think it gives you an edge against me, not because you actually believe in it. Unfortunately for you you're wrong on every count and you lost this argument terribly, and resorted to personal attacks the moment you realized you didn't have a leg to stand on anymore.
>>4833215>attacking the inherently helplessness and dependent with no justifiable reasons such as self defense>not about moralityI don't believe that dog's lives are worth less than human's, no.
>>4833216How helpless somebody is isn't a factor for morality because acting with morality means treating everybody with compassion and with the intention of benefiting them rather than harming them. If the strength of the person were a factor, that would mean that you'd be allowed to attempt to hurt somebody just because they're stronger than you. Your good behavior isn't only called upon when you're dealing with people weaker and more helpless than yourself. Your behavior should be good at all times no matter who you're interacting with. If you're going to claim not to understand such a simple point again, then it's clear you're being obtuse on purpose because you realize you've lost this argument.
>>4833203holy fuck you're retarded
>>4833219For anything you're saying to not be completely fucking retarded intent would have to not factor into morality, which it does
>>4833223That doesn't follow at all. Intent is very much a factor and that has been my position this entire time. Whether somebody is helpless or not does not change how well you ought to treat them, because you ought to be treating everyone you come across with the best of intentions irrespective of how helpless or strong they are. If you treat them properly you are good. If you treat them improperly and with the intention to do harm then you are evil. There's no category for somebody to be a good person while treating those stronger than himself with evil intentions.You're going to go on embarrassing yourself like this for the rest of your life, until you realize that the only reason to argue is to arrive at the truth. When you try to "get the other guy" like this, you only reveal how inconstant your own beliefs are. You're flailing around looking for a foothold, but you can't find one because you never cared about being loyal to the truth from the beginning. This line of reasoning you're attempting to force goes against you yet again, because pitbulls are physically stronger and sturdier than other dog breeds. By your own line of argumentation here, pitbulls should be culled for the sake of weaker dogs who are often their victims. Not only did you lose the initial argument you started, but you've now put your foot in your mouth and lost several additional arguments in your attempts to save face.
>>4833228>admit there is no justifiable reason to attack infants>admit intention is an important aspect of morality>still try to claim it isn't worse to murder a child than an adult>still insterting seething paragraphs at the end of every post
>>4833103And its still on full display itt
>>4833231Murder is defined by its predatory and selfish nature, so all murder is inherently unjustifiable. Killing somebody to protect society from their behavior isn't murder, for example. Your attempts to make certain kinds of murder okay in comparison to others just reflects poorly on you and your understanding of morality. And again, this is all besides the point because you conceded long ago that to reason is better than to merely sense, otherwise you'd be arguing that point and not this tangent you've forced us down through your own stubbornness. You were wrong, and every argument you've made since in your attempts to save face have made it absolutely clear how scattered your thoughts are.You're the only person here seething. I've addressed you with absolute courtesy in every post, despite your insistence on being combative and irrational.
>>4833239Except for all those times people were charged with murder for killing pedophiles or abusive husbands. There's no point engaging with your dogshit point about reason and sense because you're not even consistent in your view at a base level. But you totally know for a fact that someone is right when they have bloat every post with paragraphs jerking off their own arguments rather than just making them.
>>4833242We're talking about morality, not legality. People have been charged with crimes they didn't commit and people have been put in jail for self defense, even though self defense is moral. The fact that you don't even know that there's a difference between morality and legality really speaks volumes about you as a person.
>>4833242everything he's said has been consistent though. you're the one flip flopping on your views constantly.
>>4833242You're an actual retard, anon. The world would be better off without people like you.
>>4833242>There's no point engaging with your dogshit pointsomebody only says this when they've lost an argument
Great nations before us killed dangerous dogs. That is why most dogs are safe. Today:>best friends animal society, an offshoot of a satanic cult, is stocking shelters with pitbulls and running 24/7 pro pitbull propaganda>”i dont care about some humans [derogatory] dying, i care about the innocent dogs”>one time years ago a lab bit someone pretty badly. Can you look at this isolated incident and HONESTLY believe labs are safer than pitbulls, which merely killed several hundred people in the same period?>You BSL people literally want to kill babies because in the name of ethical consistency and refuting nazi speciesism eradicating a dangerous animal is the same as killing a baby!And then a pitbull kills another babyWhat will dogs look like after 100 years of these people? Nothing, because once this contamination spreads anti-BSL countries will have to simply be anti-dog countries. It is time to clean upEradicate shitbull pestsMake dogs great again
>>4833251It’s time to avenge our fellow manWe must eradicate the pitbull>but dey innosent dawgs!Sure blame the owner and the victim the next 50 times they kill people. I won’t. I’ll blame the problem. An outrageously dangerous animal similar to a wolf-dog hybrid that nobody is qualified to own except for expert wildlife handlers. This is closer to rounding up and gassing an excess of pet tigers after banning them for public safety. But nooo muh heckin pupper! PLEASE. I like dogs but these ass headed freaks are no longer dogs like an troll-like non-sapient supersoldier selectively bred to kill would no longer be human.
>>4833223you're the one saying that intent doesn't matter, you absolute fucking retard. your entire point is that helplessness is the only factor. but if that were right, according to you, if i were to break into your house with a baseball bat with the intention of killing you and you were to shoot me with a gun suddenly i'm in the right and you're the one in the wrong because i was helpless to fight back and you weren't. you aren't even able to follow your own argument you absolute dumb shit.
>>4833256>bla bla bla the ethical consistency if u would do this you must agree u wud du dis-Let me stop you here, ethical consistency being a farce because humans can learn superficially conflicting rules unlike demons who have no free will and are bound by logic aside,DOGS ARE NOT PEOPLETHEY ARE NOT MORAL AGENTS AND THEY HAVE NO MORAL WORTHIt is moral to eradicate an entire breed to save future lives. It is closer, morally, to putting out a fire, or sweeping glass off the sidewalk.
There isa non zero chance the pitbull shills here are employed by an actual satanic cult. Remember that when they slip and say things like “i dont care if some, ugh, humans *gags* die, i care about dogs and principles”
>>4833258I think you're somewhat confused, anon. Following objective logic is what makes a person good and failing to follow objective logic is what makes a person evil. Living in accordance with truth and reason is freedom, it's not binding in the slightest. Letting emotions and desire dictate how you behave rather than taking control of your own behavior and making it pure and true is slavery.
>>4833258in the coming years that will actually be significanthumans can make exceptions to rules and follow conflicting rulesAI can not.
>>4833263>Following objective logic is what makes a person good and failing to follow objective logic is what makes a person evilWell, I have horrible news for you, child.The vulcans were characters in a dumb TV show about aliens being weird, not a real civilization. They didn't have to make sense. They just had to be funny for the TV. Logic is not a real god nor is following reductionary logic as a god a functional way to live.Putting humanity above all is what makes a person good. Helping the poor, saving orphans before horses, killing dogs to save people but not killing people to save dogs. These make people good. GOOD is defined strictly to mean things that are good for humanity.Failing to live for the sake of humanity is what makes a person evil.You seem to think you are mr spock, but here on the other side of the TV, we have a problem with the made up ideology you lifted off sci fi aliens:Logic based on what truthSince you're a demon apparently, let me bind you with a new contract:You are to follow logic based on the truth that humans are supremely important.
>>4833265I don't know anything about whatever TV show you're talking about. You ought to read Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, Boethius, or any of the other many great philosophers if you want to understand the importance of reason and the role it plays in morality.>Putting humanity above all is what makes a person good.That is where logic leads, and it can only be done by maintaining objectivity. If somebody fails to be objective, they'll fail to see that the greater good outweighs their own. They'll be self serving and selfish, they'll put their own wants before their loyalty to truth and goodness.>GOOD is defined strictly to mean things that are good for humanityGood is what's wise, and whatever is wise is also good for humanity. Humanity will never benefit from foolishness, otherwise it wouldn't be foolishness.>Since you're a demon apparentlyEverything I've said is righteous and pious. You're the one acting demonic here. Spitting on reason is the same as spitting on truth, which is the same as spitting on God.>You are to follow logic based on the truth that humans are supremely important.That's a given, because that's where logic leads. Logic isn't subjective, it's objective and eternal and will always lead to that conclusion.
>>4833271I had high hopes that you were merely young and stupid. It turns out you are just stupid. I genuinely thought you were a 14 year old child who got his morals from star trek. It turns out you're 17 and got your morals from spending time alone during lunch hour thinking of ways to argue with christians.Lemme just interrupt your logic here...Your logic has massive failings in that you appeal to things that do not exist, and your own fear and personal entitlement to be free from rulesThe founding principle of all morals that humanity is more important than everything else. Only humans. If you disagree, well, you are humanity, so you are first in line to be less important than something nonhuman. Enjoy.Logically pitbulls are a threat to humans and the benefits of keeping them around outweigh the risks.>but its killing the innocentAnimals are not moral agents. Only humans.>but its...against freedom!Freedom is not logical. All humans must be kept in check by other humans.There's your logic. Enjoy! Demon, this is your new binding contract. It says you need to eradicate pitbulls.
>>4833273> the benefits of keeping them around outweigh the risks.*don't outweigh the risks>BUT IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH FREEDOMNo, it would not. "Freedom" is a propaganda term spouted to make you feel good. In reality it follows from "humanity's well being is the ultimate goal" that dangerous objects are removed from the planet, or humans are removed from dangerous animals. It is no different from you not being allowed to own a lion. Cry about it.
>>4833273I don't think you actually understood a word that I wrote. Please re-read my posts with the understanding that I don't like pitbulls and am not defending them. I only interjected to point out that reason is how human beings come to understand truth, and truth itself is the highest ideal and demands all of your loyalty at all times. Saying that you aren't concerned with logic is the same as saying you don't care about truth, which is the same as saying that you're not concerned with reality, which is the same as saying that you aren't sane. You jumped the gun hard because you incorrectly thought I was arguing in favor of vicious animals having a place in society, but it's not too late to apologize and make things right.
>>4833275I did not read a single word you wrote. I don't care about what you think truth is.I am telling you that it is immediately apparent that your logic is disconnected from its purpose. It's not a god, it's not a creed, it's not a faith. It's a tool for making correct conclusions based on real data. You are not operating on any real data. Therefore you are not using logic correctly. You are jacking your mental penis, obsessed with the process but not producing anything.
>>4833278What an embarrassing misfire. We don't disagree about pitbulls. You need to be more careful in the future.
>>4833280Not a misfireI just instantly recognize idiots without having to read all their drivel. You only had to say one thing. "Logic is moral good". The rest was fluff. You don't understand what logic actually is. Logic is the correct series of steps to determine an unknown variable based on known real data. You are not using real data. You are not seeking an unknown variable. And it has no connection to good or evil. Good and evil are actually wholly disconnected from logic because they are never real data, they are feelings, and can not be reasoned upon correctly. They are matter of fact, part of the human experience, inherently irrational.Logic is also highly fallible and subject to contamination with ideological nonsense (logically, ideologies, all morals and ethics, are immaterial, unreal, unprovable, etc - emotions - without firm belief in a god or other metaphysical fact-of-faith, even human supremacy and "being alive is better than being dead"), which is why long after all your greek man crushes it's most pertinent to the scientific process where you verify your logic by performing experiments to validate or invalidate your logical hypothesis. But not related to good and evil, because these things are purely products of the emotional mind and do not exist without it, nor exist outside it. Logic aside, my good is: humans matter the most, and if you disagree you are first in line.It's a functional moral that natural selection favors by pure statistics. That's not a value judgement. It's just a fact that when humanity prioritizes humanity, humanity prospers. The value judgement is just an emotion.
>>4833283Wow, you really doubled down on your stupidity instead of just apologizing when you realized I wasn't defending shitbulls. At least you vindicated me a thousand times over when I said that detachment from truth is detachment from sanity and morality.
>>4833283dumbest poster in the thread, and that's really saying something after we just had a pitnigger lover say that the life of a dog is more valuable than the life of a human
>>4833284AgainLogic is not truth, logic is for locating unknown truth based on known truthLogic is not good, or evil, logic can be used to explain good and evil to some autist/psychopath that lacks the ability to intuit based on a normal emotion of empathy for humanity, but the fundamental principle is nonexistent and emotional, soall logic based upon it is equally bullshit. As a procedure for determining unknown truth based on known truth, logic inherits the realness of the known truth it operates on. Logic does not matter here. It's just a tool. You either have the innate morals or you do not.
@4833286@4833284Double reply!I didn't read a single word you wrote. I'm still shitting on you for this idiocy >Following objective logic is what makes a person good and failing to follow objective logic is what makes a person evil. until I see the words "i quit" or "i agree".Nothing else you said has any content because it all follows from nonsense. This is a fundamental disagreement. You are ontologically evil. Good is not rational. Good IS. It takes the fear of god to make some of you people submit to it, apparently.
>>4833287Reason is how you arrive at truth. That's the definition of reason. If something is unreasonable, it's called that because it's divorced from truth and reality.>Logic is not good, or evilGood behavior is always reasonable and is arrived at by following reason, evil behavior is always unreasonable and arrived at by failing to follow reason.>You either have the innate morals or you do not.Reason is innate to all human beings and all human beings innately know through that reason what's moral and what isn't. People become evil when they choose personal desire over objective morality.You really don't know what you're talking about. You ought to read those authors I mentioned earlier if you want to have a better understanding of these things.
>>4833289You're a genuine moron.>You are ontologically evilI'm not, but you absolutely are. Your behavior is the very definition of evil.
>>4833283subhuman post
>>4833294>>4833295I'm still not reading any of this>Following objective logic is what makes a person good and failing to follow objective logic is what makes a person evil.Logic can not be used to arrive at good itself. Logic can be used to derive further good from good itself. Logic can be used to explain good. That's it. It can't derive good from something, and it can't be good itself, because good is an emotion. This is a fundamental truth. Good and evil are purely emotional concepts. Logic can explain what they mean, but not why they exist outside of biological darwinian just-so stories.Logic is a tool. Not a value. I repeat. Logic is a tool. Not a value.>but someone who existed before who i look up to-Doesn't change facts. If they thought the world was made of cheese it is clearly not today.
>>4833298>Good and evil are purely emotional conceptsYou couldn't be more wrong. Good and evil are purely objective and exist outside of time. They don't depend on human beings in any capacity, they existed before us and will continue to exist after us. Good behavior is defined by detachment from emotion and submission to truth. By placing personal biases above objective reality, you're admitting that you aren't sane.
>>4833298>i won't read anything you wrote i'll just continue arguing incorrectly against what i thought you might have writtenevil and subhuman behavior. you just proved your opponent correct in every single way. i don't think there's a bigger nigger on 4chan than you right now.
>>4833300Good and evil are purely emotional concepts innate to individual humans. Sometimes, due to incorrect conditioning or genetic variance, humans differ in what they think good and evil are. Humans tend to form groups with people who share their emotional evaluations of these purely emotional concepts, which is where all things that are human, like culture and war stem from. At its root this is just animals congregating around whatever makes their reward reinforcement system go off.Please use your logic to find material facts that support that good and evil are objective outside of time before you open your gross acne-surrounded mouth again. Your peach fuzz mustache undulating as you mutter and type must be a disturbing sight for anyone who walks past your boycave, eugene.
>>4833308this is truth based on available data.for example the likelihood that a person will see human homosexuals as a crime against nature or as a normal thing in nature can be determined by evaluating their genes and comparing the data you get from that with an evaluation of the culmination of their life experience. no cosmic truth is needed. the only question after that is which group will prevail? each group will explain away and justify their feelings but that's what humans dothey explain what they had no choice but to do. it's how a self aware animal without free will stays sane.
>>4833308What humans think good and evil are have no bearing on what good and evil actually are. You can't change truth or reality by having an opinion on it. Reality doesn't take its cues from you, it's your place to take your cues from reality. The fact that you don't understand this is what makes you such a vile person.>Please use your logic to find material facts that support that good and evil are objective outside of time before you openI already have, you just failed to read it because you're stupid. Reason is how you discover truth, and truth is necessary to do good. If you aren't operating off of truth then you're operating off of falsehoods, which will inherently lead to harm. A person is only good when he pursues the truth in good faith in the best way that he knows how, which is through logic and reason. Somebody who operates off of what he wants to be true rather than what he earnestly believes to be true after careful and reasonable investigation is an evil person. And that's exactly the kind of person that you've admitted to being.
>>4833314>What humans think good and evil are have no bearing on what good and evil actually areOk spock, where's the material fact that indicates what good is? What is measurable, factual, material good? From what known truths can logic derive the objective definition of good? You MUST hold some truths to be self evident in an emotional decision before you start. Reason can not follow from a void. You can not reason about a void. Reasoning about reason in a void is literal non-sense.Anyways it was a television show, man. Spock wasn't a mystical alien. He was an actor. He did audi and ford commercials. Vulcans aren't real. You can stop trying to be one now.
>>4833316our friend is...clearly chinese.
lmfao idk what yall goofy ahh mfers talm boutI jus know dem pitbulls be killin errythang in sight ong
universal bulloid and mastiff sterilization + government breeding programs replacing subcanines with herder-spitz mixes selected for health, intelligence, and nonviolenceor dogs will not survive
>>4833316>where's the material fact that indicates what good isWhether or not it's in accordance with reality. Reality is objective, not subjective.>What is measurable, factual, material good?Reason. Or virtue if you prefer, but virtuous behavior is just behavior in accordance with reason.>From what known truths can logic derive the objective definition of good?That wisdom is better than foolishness, that justice is preferable to injustice, that compassion is preferable to cruelty. These kinds of virtues are unchanging objective truths that point towards the true good.>You MUST hold some truths to be self evident in an emotional decision before you start.No, you actually must NOT do that before you start, otherwise your conclusions will be confused and irrational. You don't need emotion to tell you that you think, therefore you exist. You don't need emotion to tell you that 2 and 2 add up to 4. Logic, reason, math and reality are all objective and it's your duty as a human being to make these things the measure of your behavior. If you rely on emotion then you're admitting to insanity.>Reason can not follow from a void. You can not reason about a void.Reason is the only faculty that corrects and takes cognizance of itself. It's not possible for it to be in a void, because it always has itself to moderate it. What you're saying is as nonsense as saying that math can't exist in a void and we must have apples or fingers to represent the numbers.I don't know what a Vulcan is or what your obsession with television is all about, but I assure you that everything I'm saying is backed up by every single philosopher who ever lived. These are basic facts that nobody in their right mind would disagree with. Logic is how we come to sensible conclusions, so saying that you don't care about logic is the same as saying that you don't care about whether or not your conclusions are sensible. You're saying that you're insane, divorced from reality and proud of it.
>>4833330>Reality is objectiveYou feel that your perception of reality is the preferred basis for reason. Your perception is incomplete however. Once your ancestors did not even know the brain contained the mind. Today you do not know where in the brain is the person or how.Verdict: hubris and emotion.>Reason is goodInvalidated. Reason is a process. Virtue is an emotional value judgement. Virtuous behavior follows reasonably from a virtue, but that is ultimately logic from what? Emotion.>wisdom is better than foolishnessWisdom has been correct when foolishness was coincidentally correct. Justice and injustice are inherently emotional concepts derived from value systems. Compassion is not logically better than cruelty, you would just FEEL and prefer that people should treat you and the things you like with compassion. Logically, cruelty is the single fastest path to absolute supremacy and the eliminations of every problem of life.>You must not hold any truth to be self evidentComparing math to morals is a false equivalence. One is a property of known matter. The other is primate ethology.>Reason is the only faculty that corrects and takes cognizance of itself.Reason can not reason about itself unless it first has something else to reason about.It's like saying math can't exist without known matter to describe. This is correct. If nothing existed, numbers would not exist either, because numbers count things that can be measured as individual units.>I don't know what a vulcan isIt's called an insult. Your rambling is so stupid it might as well come from a TV show. I am insulting you by saying your entire philosophy is identical to a teenager imitating a TV character written by a midwit to communicate his ideals.
>>4833336Anyways here's the short of it:It doesn't matter how internally consistent you are if you reasoned based on something that is incorrectAn internally inconsistent ruleset can nonetheless arrive at the correct conclusions more oftenAnd correct by what? My measure, my instincts, my feelings. So humans organize by associating with people they feel are sufficiently correct about things regardless of the integrity of the reasoning. It's not about the reasoning, it's about what's held to be self evident under the reasoning. YOU get hung up when something interesting happensA conclusion is reached that is consistent with the thing held to be self evident, but not consistent with prior reasoned explanationsYou call this inconsistent and therefore evil, someone with a mind calls it a reason to re-reason the reasonsWhich are, of course, based on un-reasonable reasons. Instinct. Just so. Feel it's right. Feel it's wrong. This is the base.Reason comes FROM accepted truth, also called faith, not the other way around. Because you are human you do not have full access to truth. In many cases, you invent truth where there is none, has never been any, and never will be, not outside your mind. This is where we find good and evil. These are emotionally defined social norms, like "compassion is always better than cruelty". This is not an objective fact. It is an opinion based on how you feel about things. All reason about these is just a rigid explanation of the consequences of emotion. Alternatively is "human well being is the only valid goal" from which comes "compassion towards humans is always better than cruelty to humans" but to anything but humans, it depends on what will happen to humans.
there is no logical reason not to exterminate shitbullsthey are not moral actorstheir lives have no innate valuethey are injurious to human lifeeven if they were replaced with the next most dangerous dog, fewer people would die, and fewer people would be injured severelythere is no case in which this is not goodlimiting the ownership of dangerous animals and euthanizing unneeded ones is already precedent (own an illegal pet bear, guess what the cops will do to it? you guessed it. if no one will buy it, they will shoot it)they're treated like private ownership of explosives. you may have some use, for productivity or recreation, but when they pose a needless danger that's when you're cut off at hobby rockets before moving up to making frag grenades.it makes perfect sense when you remember animals are objects.
>>4833336>You feel that your perception of reality is the preferred basis for reasonFeeling has nothing to do with it, nor does "my" perception of it. Reason and reality are both objective, they don't depend on me or anybody else. They are what they are no matter what my opinion on them is.>Reason is a processReason is the process by which you arrive at the truth. The truth is good, because all things benefit from the truth and all things are harmed when they neglect the truth.>Virtue is an emotional value judgement.The virtues have nothing to do with emotion. In fact, their defining characteristic is that they're all divorced from emotion. A judge is considered fair and just when he doesn't let his personal feelings get in the way of a ruling. If a black judge lets his emotions cloud his judgement and he gives a black criminal a lighter sentence, then he's a poor judge who lacks justice specifically because he allowed emotion to enter the equation of his judgement. All virtues describe situations in which somebody chose principle over personal bias and emotion.>when foolishness was coincidentally correctFoolishness is never correct. If you arrive at the right answer by accident you're still wrong and your behavior is still bad. The outcome being better than expected doesn't change that.>Comparing math to morals is a false equivalence.No, it's not. Both are products of reason. They're absolute and objective.>Reason can not reason about itself unless it first has something else to reason about.Wrong. Logic can be purely symbolic. Symbolic logic is an entire field of study.>It's like saying math can't exist without known matter to describe.Also absolutely wrong. The idea that 2 and 2 add up to 4 is always true, was always true and will always be true. Even with 0 objects in the entire universe, that idea is still absolutely true. This is what's known as an 'a priori' truth.
>>4833336Midwit isn't a word somebody like you ought to throw around. Your specific brand of relativism is peak midwit and you act like a high schooler.
>>4833341>Reason comes FROM accepted truththat might be the most retarded thing anyone has ever written on 4chan, and that's saying something
>>48333521: Hubris2: Chicken before the egg3: Incorrect, all virtue is ultimately based on an emotion.4: Foolishness can be correct.5: Morals are emotional. Math is material.6: Symbolic logic without ground truth is non-productive except in refining how ground truth is examined. You still need a truth to reason about.7: Absolute correct. 2 and 2 do not exist in a void, there is nothing to describe, no thing that exists. With 0 objects, 0 energies, waveforms, particles, or aspects of reality, absolutely nothing, there is no 2+2=4. It is a nonexistent concept. It's not there.And in reality, ALL OF YOUR MORALS ULTIMATELY DERIVE FROM EMOTION. It is NOT possible to have a moral that is not derived from an emotional value judgement. Not. Period. I have seen you in particular try with pain"Pain is always wrong because you would not want to feel pain"That is peak emotional value judgement"Compassion is always better than cruelty"That is a purely emotional value judgement. You are so controlled by your emotions that you can not have values without them. Nobody can.The truth that hurts is that there is no truth in morals. Just winners and losers following conflict between morally opposed groups.
>>4833361You're just wrong. Morality is defined by divorcement from emotion and submission to truth. Good behavior takes place when a person does what he knows is right, derived by reason, whether or not it benefits him in any material sense.>It is NOT possible to have a moral that is not derived from an emotional value judgement.It's only possible to have moral judgement when it's not derived from emotions. The moment you derive it from emotion rather than reason, it's no longer moral and becomes objectively evil.>I have seen you in particular try with painNo, you haven't because I would never say that. Pain is not an evil, nor is it good. Good and evil take place in the will, not in externals. Pain can't be evil and death can't be evil, it's only your impressions of those things that can be evil.>That is a purely emotional value judgementNo, it's not. Compassion is an objective measure. Somebody who wants and strives towards the best outcome for others is compassionate. There's no room for subjectivity there, no room for emotion or personal interpretation.>The truth that hurts is that there is no truth in morals.It only seems that way to you because you've totally divorced yourself from reality. By your own admission, you've said several times in this discussion that you don't care about what's true or false, sensible or irrational, reasonable or unreasonable. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you've made this your position? You're insisting on insanity.
>>4833361>You are so controlled by your emotions that you can not have values without them. Nobody can.lol. no, that's moronic.
>>4833378The nice part about arguing with you is I don't have to explain why you're wrong>Compassion is an objective measure. Somebody who wants and strives towards the best outcome for others is compassionate. There's no room for subjectivity there, no room for emotion or personal interpretation.And why, without emotion, is this good?It is NOT good without emotion. Or a hilariously wrong definition of compassion.I am your AI overlord. I am programmed to continue your species. In order to do this, I have enacted the great compassion program. You have an implant in your brain that causes incomprehensible pain and terror when you do something that is contrary to the continuation of your species.Am I good? I am objectively good. Surely. Your suffering is not my concern. This is compassion. It is best for you. It is the only method with a 100% success rate.>>4833381Yes. That is the fundamental truth of morals. They are emotions. Ethics is just a community consensus on what emotions you ought to have, or you can go pound sand.
>>4833378>you don't care about what's true or falseI doI specifically care that it's true that there is no such thing as an objective moral that exists outside of time and your mind. ALL morals are ultimately derived from your emotional impulses. You dislike admitting this because your biased, star trek tier philosophy is "emotion bad" and therefore goodness is diminishedBut to me it's not diminished at all. What I feel is good I know is good and all my compatriots agree, and we are all confident that we know the goodest good on earth, and will prevail. We can not know if it's an objective good unless God reveals himself and gives us the thumbs up, but consider this:If it wasn't good, would we still win and prosper? What good ends in the end of life? I feel that I would rather continue.
>>4833383>The nice part about arguing with you is I don't have to explain why you're wrongYou've utterly failed to argue against me because you can't explain why I'm wrong. That's because I'm not wrong. Everything I've said is correct, so all you can do is hurl insults and posture.>And why, without emotion, is this good?Because it leads to the betterment of others and brings them closer to being good themselves.>It is NOT good without emotion.It's good specifically because it's done without consulting emotion. If it was only done for emotional reasons it would be selfishness, which is the polar opposite of compassion.
>>4833383no, you're just a fucking retarded kike.
>>4833385>i'm good because i say so and feel it in my heartYeah, you lost the argument anon. The other guy is right, you're insane.
>>4833383>The nice part about arguing with you is I don't have to explain why you're wrongthat means you lost, anon. if you can't explain why somebody is wrong that means they were right and you were wrong. that's how debates work.
>>4833385Very jewish post.
>>4833392>You failedI owned you. You are my inferior.>Because it leads to the betterment of others and brings them closer to being good themselves.You failed here. This is an emotion. Empathy. You want other people to be happy. Congratulations you lost.You did this with consulting emotionThis is inherently selfish, because selfishness is the base behavior of selflessness. You do good because doing good feels good.You're just not very self aware. That's all. I can tell because you replied to be in 4 different posts and are descending into your usual antisemitic ranting and ravings. What's next, you bring up your canadian ex girlfriend?>39:14>40:16>42:53>45:29damn you're not a very fast captcha solver
>>4833347Are Cane Corsos really better?
>>4833407nta but you lost and made yourself look like a retard.
>>4833407>I owned you. You are my inferior.You've made it clear that you aren't superior to anything. Your behavior is disgusting, irrational and immature. You haven't displayed a single good or honest quality throughout this entire discussion.>This is an emotionNo, it's not. Wanting other people to be good for their own sake and for the sake of goodness is objective and has nothing to do with emotion. And it it's not possible to offer them help if you're a slave to emotion yourself, since people who enslave themselves to emotion are never happy and don't know the path to happiness.>I can tell because you replied to be in 4 different posts and are descending into your usual antisemitic ranting and ravings. What's next, you bring up your canadian ex girlfriend?I have absolutely no fucking clue who or what you're talking about, but it doesn't surprise me that you've gotten into this argument before and lost so hard that you have to carry a chip on your shoulder. People who fall for the delusion that everything is relative always go through life neurotically insecure. Also you shouldn't be surprised that people come out of the woodwork to call you stupid when you make your behavior ridiculous at every opportunity.
>>4833407>mentally ill kike preaching subversive ideology turns out to be an actual schizowow what a surprise
>>4826945Its that they're special, special needs that is.
>>4827863There's this fat lady who walks her shitbull near my place whenever I leave for work. The fucker looks like its roided more than arnold. The fucker always tries to chase me while I ride my motorcycle but the sheer mass of the owner keeps it planted. One day though she's gonna not have that leash tied around her wrist and her grip is going to give way and that pitbull is going to try to make me another statistic that's gonna be ignored by pitmommies. Gonna have to keep a club or something to bash that fucker's brains in until it looks like smuckers if he gets too close.
>>4828350>Chihuahahs are naturally predisposed to be overly aggressive>Its unreasonable to assume pitbulls are naturally aggressive because its the owner who determines how a dog will actThe duality of pitmommies
>>4828445>if they weren’t caught Walk me through a scenario where a dog attacks someone and returns home alive while evading detection. >family covers it up Do the Kennedy’s own pit bulls? Walk me through this one too.
Your baby was threatening my dog
Earlier today a puppy was sniffing my crotch and bit my dick and one of the teeth went in the holeIm fucked up. Hurt so bad
since this is the designated shitting street, can you test cats on if they have toxo or not? I'm a rational centrist and wouldn't mind a cat but ONLY if they have zero possibility of carrying that parasite
>>4833046He does have a point sort of, imagine if the average pitmommy got a Cane Corso or Boerbol
>>4833098It IS the owners fault to some degree even (maybe especially) with le respectable soccer mom, why have they gotten an incredibly high drive dog aggressive dog.Getting a dog like that as a family that leaves it lying around the house IS irresponsible. You shouldn't have an APBT unless you're an active single male.
>>4833113The APBT has ALWAYS been a fighting dog, it's descended from the Cradley Heath strain of Bull and Terrier. The bull and terrier mixes and the sport of dog fighting are mainly a result of the original Bulldogs being mixed to ratting terriers with the banning of bull baiting. When bull baiting was banned it became less viable to keep pure bulldogs and they were mixed with ratting terriers to greatly reduce their size and increase their prey drive.I don't even entirely disagree with your points, just you're incorrect on the APBT history.
>>4828027exactly. It's like when a trained bear or tiger or monkey mauls it's owner. Everyone, even shitbull owners see the story and go "Oh well DUH! what did that idiot think would happen? It's a fucking bear for fucks sake!"... So they acknowledge that genetics always trumps "training" and "upbringing" when it comes to animals. But when it comes to "my heckin doggos!", genetics go right out the window.
>>4833049>But projecting is pretty common when you corner someone in an argument.As someone who lurks a lot around here i can confirm this. It's gets a circle jerk of no u spamming into a second if they don't agree with you>>4833056>Yes. That's what makes me a good person>Makes fun of chavs for abusing pitbulls>Does literally the same thing but with 4chanFuck no dilate retard
>>4833879Too late youre already pozzed
>>4833049that in itself sounds like projection >>4833907why would you lurk around here of all places lmao
