Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bohandas]

From what they say, they'll start with pornographic images, then switch suddenly to images and video of animal cruelty.

I think that would ENHANCE the porn....

BTW, do any of you have a link?...

[ChairmanPoo]

It doesn't exist yet I think

[Dsarker]

What Chairman said.

[Blargityblarg]

Sorry, Chairman, but your first link is from 'saveabull.com' and your second simply contradicts you.

sorry blargityblarg, but your first dismissal was a "poison the well" attempt, and you didn't bother to finish reading the second

The report's authors went on to say:
"Although the fatality data are concerning, one must broaden the context to consider both fatal and nonfatal bites when deciding on a course of action. ...[A] 36% increase in medically attended bites from 1986 to 1994 draws attention to the need for an effective response, including dog bite prevention programs. Because (1) fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite regulations are promulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dog bite prevention."
The report's authors suggested that "generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog's behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog's breed. In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective."[37]
The latest CDC "Dog Bite: Fact Sheet" includes a disclaimer regarding this study, saying that
"it does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."[38]

I wasn't aware that dismissing biased evidence is a bad thing. Furthermore, I did read the second; in fact I'd already had it open as part of my own Google for evidence. To respond specifically to your bolded selections: I agree that there is a large factor of owner influence, but I remind you that people choose pit bulls as dogs to train for aggressive purposes for a reason; they're good at it. Whilst there is no concrete evidence on dog attacks by breed overall, that does not mean there is no evidence at all, and what evidence there is points to Pit Bulls being more aggressive than most.

[ChairmanPoo]

I wasn't aware that dismissing biased evidence is a bad thing.

The more you know huh? Now you're aware that outright dismissing evidence under blanket labels of bias is a fallacy. You never go to sleep without learning a new fact, they say.

I agree that there is a large factor of owner influence, but I remind you that people choose pit bulls as dogs to train for aggressive purposes for a reason;

Nuh huh. PLENTY of dogs are picked to be trained for aggresive purposes.

Whilst there is no concrete evidence on dog attacks by breed overall, that does not mean there is no evidence at all, and what evidence there is points to Pit Bulls being more aggressive than most.

Or maybe we are just witnessing yet another media hype, just like with the porcine flu, or the supposed cellphone cancer link

[Bohandas]

Or maybe we are just witnessing yet another media hype, just like with the porcine flu, or the supposed cellphone cancer link

Or antidepressants worsening suicidal thoughts, or sacchrine causing cancer, or WMDs being hidden in Iraq...

[Vector]

Meh.  I do wear leather clothing (boots and a coat), but I buy all of it used.  It's basically the option I've got in terms of footwear I can actually, you know, wear.

(I need an elevated heel due to short Achilles tendons, and most of the tennis shoes with that make me walk really, really funky)

[ChairmanPoo]

Or antidepressants worsening suicidal thoughts

To be fair this one is based on a misperception of a real phenomenom: Endogenous depression sufferers, at their worst, are for the most part unable to fulfill suicidal intentions because of a general lack of energy. When you start antidepressive therapy with them, there's a window period in which the suicidal ideation from the depression remains, yet they do have the energy to do it. That's why it's recommended to commit them for the first period of treatment.

[kaijyuu]

Heh yeah finding footwear is a pain I do have a pair of leather shoes but I got those a while ago as a gift. Not like throwing them out will do any good, nor do I have the option to return them anymore, so...

[Pnx]

Everything I have experienced and been told has taught me five things:
That no dog is ever aggressive if it has been raised well.
That dogs that are prone to snarling and biting most often only ever do so defensively if they feel threatened. It's very uncommon to find a dog that will actively seek out and attack someone, even when they're on their territory. Even dogs that bark a lot are usually soft-hearted creatures that really don't want to bite you.
That temperament will vary wildly in a breed, although breed will often influence behaviour.
And that with a good attitude, some patients, and most importantly a big bag of treats you can get into the heart of any dog.

I can understand a large percentage of pitbulls being hard to keep, but writing them all off is ridiculous.

Or antidepressants worsening suicidal thoughts

To be fair this one is based on a misperception of a real phenomenom: Endogenous depression sufferers, at their worst, are for the most part unable to fulfill suicidal intentions because of a general lack of energy. When you start antidepressive therapy with them, there's a window period in which the suicidal ideation from the depression remains, yet they do have the energy to do it. That's why it's recommended to commit them for the first period of treatment.

It's actually a bit more complex than that. Antidepressants are suppose to increase the "propogation of thoughts" or something like that. From what I was told increasing serotonin will stimulate your brain into thinking with "more areas", or something like that.
The idea is that a depressed person will be stuck in a mental rut, and focus on negative thoughts to the exclusion of others. Antidepressants are supposed to counter this and open up the variety of thoughts you think, but it's not uncommon for a person to find more negative thoughts to think about.

It's tricky, since brain chemistry is something we don't have a clear understanding about, and these things always effect different people differently.

Personally when I went on antidepressants I actually lost energy. I spent all my time crying in bed, and actually slept for ~14 hours a day. I was told nobody who experienced my symptoms should be on antidepressants and was promptly taken off of them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My impression of all we know about antidepressants basically was: "We don't really know what the fuck these things really do, but sometimes when depressed people take them they get better, sometimes nothing happens, and sometimes they kill themselves even faster, but that tiny success rate is literally the only medical option we have for this so that's what gets used."

[Pnx]

... that tiny success rate is literally the only medical option we have for this ...

Not true, there's a wide variety of ways to try to effect your brain chemistry with the hopes of a positive result, and we actually have some idea of how a few of them work!

[ChairmanPoo]

. The idea is that a depressed person will be stuck in a mental rut, and focus on negative thoughts to the exclusion of others. Antidepressants are supposed to counter this and open up the variety of thoughts you think, but it's not uncommon for a person to find more negative thoughts to think about.

I'm unaware of this. When I studied it they attributed it to what I mention. I've googled it a bit and apparently there's no real consensus about the underlying reason for this, or the therapeutic window period. Eithrr way, the keypoint is that there's a somewhat increased risk the first few weeks.

[G-Flex]

It makes sense to me. When you're horribly horribly depressed for a very long time, and just starting to come out of it (via drugs in this case), it makes sense that you would start to have more motivation/energy to do things, but are still fairly depressed and so used to despair that there will be high potential for that energy/motivation to go towards suicide, if there was preexisting suicidal ideation.

[Vector]

Yeah, I remember coming off depression so slowly that it was several months of "Oh, look, I can concentrate on something fifteen minutes, rather than five!  That is cool.  Cannot make a fucking plan, but this is okay." and "great, I have energy to walk around for another hour now.  Whooooooo."

Oddly enough, the thing that really broke being depressed for me was a two-week marathon of all 6 seasons of Lost (well, and a very strange dream at the beginning of the summer made me sure everything would be okay).  Takes all kinds, I guess >_>