lol only in your narrowminded head, my dutch brother lol
not for the end result, but it matters if you state the killing is done āout of funā or because of instinct lol
1 Like
Iāll cut you (and Gunda, who liked your post) some slack because neither of you are native English speakers. You are simply wrong about this, however. I already wrote this (below) to explain it.
ChatGPT also chipped in these additional examples.
āIāve been hitting refresh on my email for the past hour for fun. Nothing new, of course.ā
āI opened a new document and stared at it for 30 minutes for fun. Didnāt even type a single word.ā
āI just scrolled through Instagram for an hour for fun. Didnāt even pay attention to anything.ā
āI spent my afternoon sorting through old receipts for fun. Theyāre going back in the drawer anyway.ā
āI spent my time clicking through random tabs I donāt even needāfor fun, I guess.ā
Both of you write excellent English for non-native speakers, but neither of you understands how this phrase is used in English.
lmao and he keeps going and goingā¦
reg, my dutch brotherā¦ you really should ask yourself if you are really qualified to determine what is fun for a dog or even to yourself if you need to ask your chatgpt what is fun 
No, Iām not qualified to assess whatās fun for a dog. I am, however, qualified to assess how stunning your inability to read and understand simple concepts is. I will not explain this again, ESL Nico. Carry on exposing your ignorance with every post.
rā amen, now was it that hard to admit you are wrong? lol
Ok, so āfunā does not necessarily have anything to do with enjoying something in english. Thatās indeed a difference to how Germans interprete that word. Understood.
But then your argument vanishes, as this means, that a dog who kills another animal or human only does it because something triggered his biological traits/instincts, no? If not, what exactly is - sorry for repeating - your point here?
And yes, my english isnāt very good, especially with idioms. I learned many new idioms since I am watching Lucifer in english. But I try to get better, as my love for training english got reignited.
No problem. My point is simple. You were mistaken here (below). That is my whole point.
You mistook my saying āthe vile pit bull would kill other dogs for funā to mean the pit bull would enjoy killing Gracie (which is probably also true but I have no way of determining that so I do not assert it as fact). In reality, that sentence means āthe vile pit bull would kill other dogs for no particular purpose or gainā. Instinct is not a purpose, it is a response.
That is my whole point.
New question: if a pit bull had killed Gracie, would you still defend allowing these dangerous animals in cities full of harmless dogs and cats?
EDIT: I can tell you this. If a pit bull had killed Lola, I doubt he wouldāve lived to kill another cat. I loved that cat more than I love most of my friends. Some think I am against pets. I am not. I am against pit bulls because I love pets and donāt want to see them senselessly killed by a disgusting dangerous animal that was bred only to fight and kill.
What we now know, from both the aggregate and the averages of the data, is that about 31,000 domestic dogs per year participate in killing other animals.
Nearly 90% of those dogs are pit bulls.
Just under a third of the animals killed by domestic dogs are other dogs: about 9,500 per year. Again, about 90% of the dogs doing the killing are pit bulls.
More than 10,000 domestic dogs per year are severely injured by other dogs, exclusive of the victims of illegal dogfighting.
Eighty-three percent of the dogs severely injured by other dogs are injured by pit bulls.
But there is a purpose. Instinct may be a response, but just like any predator, also the dogs instinct to chase and hunt down moving objects only serves the purpose to train their ability to survive by becoming or to stay efficient to get food.
Reggie, not just a Pit Bull has the potential to kill Gracie or my current dog, which is way smaller. If to prevent any killed pets by dogs is the goal, then you would have to ban all dogs alltogether. Maybe except Rattlers and Chiuahuas. But even they could kill a dog or cat if they come in a pack.
No, Gunda, read the data. It is not all dogs. You can eliminate 90% of dog-on-dog killings by eliminating pit bulls from our cities.
I did what you suggested right after reading your last post (if also only for Germany by using the german website of statista.com).
In Germany, the German Shepherd is responsible for most dog bites (that breed is also the most popular dog among the big ones in Germany, though). I for example got biten as a kid by a Deutsche Dogge (Great Dane), because I handed him a sausage slice through the fence on my walk to the school bus. But also smaller dogs like Dackel (Dachshund) are quite often on that list.
So, for Germany applying your logic would mean to ban German Shepherds (and the question arises, which breed next?).
Therefore I disagree to your idea. Itās not the breed, but the owner (and often enough also the one who gets biten). Improve the law, for that not every idiot can breed dogs and that every buyer needs to get a training session which is worth the name every single time BEFORE he buys a dog or any animal. And wild potentially dangerous animals like snakes, spiders, crocodiles, etc.) should be banned for anyone, imported or not, when we already are at it.
1 Like
rāamen!
properly train the owners and their dogs, educate the public and there wont be any dog killings at all
Well, there probably still will be, especially dog-to-dog, as you pass several unknown dogs when walking your own dog each day and you always hope at least one of the owner is open to let both dogs get to know each other or even play. And you never know what will happen. Just like if you meet a human which seems to be kind and charming. Dogs are honest, though, and they know very fast how the other one ticks.
1 Like
That was an interesting debate. I see the point from each side.
Thatās not true at all. Speaking from experience, a pit will attack even if it is the neighbor who gives the command.
fights and accidental injuries? sureā¦ but kills?! absolutely not!
i believe if you are not in control and cannot guarantee preventive action is taken before your dog(s) will kill another dog (or cat or squirrel or a human) then you shouldnt have any dogs period
then that pit wasnt trained properly
Reflecting, often, the owner did keep the pit in chains around a shade tree but idk if that would cause a dog to take command from a stranger.
probably not by itself, but somehow i dont think chaining up a dog is proper training
1 Like
Thatās probably true too. Raymond, the owner, probably trained him in the kill command. I was lucky he was outside when it happened. If he had been inside, I would have died.
its very weird to me that you seem grateful to the person that trained a dog to killā¦
Well, he called the dog off.