The dog of peace spreading love again.

[FSU_UCLA]

He absolutely intended his book to be a persuasive argument for belief in God, which is exactly why he chose to demonstrate the fallacy of attempting to convince people to believe on the basis pragmatic decision making.

By showing the flaws in attempting to settle the argument through formal logic, he was directly attacking the methods of the atheists. In other words, he was using their own rhetorical tools against them to show that they were not applicable to the discussion of faith.

The point of the wager was to demonstrate that faith in the Christian God transcends logic and earthly evidence. Pascal was a classic apologist in this regard.

Social science only demonstrates the value of religious belief within the finite, natural sphere, which is clearly not the emphasis of Pascal.

 

[Lurker1999]

I didn't ask whether you believe owning a dog is a responsibility. I hoped you would address the actual questions I asked.



I didn't ask whether you believe that someone should have to obtain a license to own a dog.



I didn't ask what you believed to be the reason for people to own pit bulls.



In your opinion, but I didn't ask your opinion about why pit bulls attack.

Happy to try again?

1. If a dog is 5x more likely to be involved in a fatal attack, is that a factor that should be ignored?
This one is a yes/no, but feel free to expound.

2. At what point do you ‘listen’? 10x more likely?
Here I'm wondering what multiple (100%, 500%, 1,000%) of the typical rate of fatal dogs attacks held by a breed would cause you to take notice?
Put a number on it, and then expound as you see fit. Obviously you have a different threshold than others for what is an 'acceptable' outlier rate for fatalities caused by a specific breed. I'm trying to put it in objective terms.

3. Where do you think pit bulls stand in that regard based on the numbers already provided in this thread?

Those numbers aren't really relevant, in my opinion, because the overall chance of a fatal dog bite is still relatively small overall.

As I stated in the thread, if you could demonstrate that more than half of Pitbulls bite humans, I would begin to believe that they should be bred out of existence.

That's my threshold.

If you claim that a Pitbull is 5 times more likely to bite a human than a Chihuahua, that doesn't really move me much.

 

[Lurker1999]

He absolutely intended his book to be a persuasive argument for belief in God, which is exactly why he chose to demonstrate the fallacy of attempting to convince people to believe on the basis pragmatic decision making.

By showing the flaws in attempting to settle the argument through formal logic, he was directly attacking the methods of the atheists. In other words, he was using their own rhetorical tools against them to show that they were not applicable to the discussion of faith.

The point of the wager was to demonstrate that faith in the Christian God transcends logic and earthly evidence. Pascal was a classic apologist in this regard.

Social science only demonstrates the value of religious belief within the finite, natural sphere, which is clearly not the emphasis of Pascal.

I agree with part of what you wrote. Pascal did use decision theory to show why it is rational to believe in God. Are you denying that Pascal used decision theory in his wager?

Pascal also did write about the benefits of religious belief in our Earthly sphere in his argument for the wager although I guess you could claim it was not his main emphasis.

Pascal argued that even if there is no God, the religious believer will still live a better life than the atheist will:

"But what harm will come to you from committing to God? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, doing good, a sincere and true friend. It is of course true that you will not take part in corrupt pleasures but will you not have others? I tell you that you will thereby win in this life."

If you read the book I linked, you will see the wager argument that belief in God is indeed rational based on evidence from science, philosophy and historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ that makes Christianity likely to be true.

It is thought that Pascal may have used this in his Pensees but he died before it could be completed.

Anyways, if you're interested, give it a read.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I did not write that Pascal used decision theory to demonstrate the rationality of belief. I stated exactly the opposite, as did Pascal. The wager was not his argument; it was a preamble to his argument intended to counter and set aside the debate rhetoric of the atheists that emphasized formal logic and mathematics proofs.

I am not interested in reading the book that you have linked.

 

[Lurker1999]

I did not write that Pascal used decision theory to demonstrate the rationality of belief. I stated exactly the opposite, as did Pascal. The wager was not his argument; it was a preamble to his argument intended to counter and set aside the debate rhetoric of the atheists that emphasized formal logic and mathematics proofs.

I am not interested in reading the book that you have linked.

OK, well the Professor states in the book that the wager was based in part on decision theory and he explicitly shows how.

Decision theory is knowing how to make a good decision in circumstances of risk or uncertainty.

I'm not sure how you claim Pascal's wager does not use decision theory even though that was basically the entire point of his wager.

I'm also not sure where Pascal claimed he did not use decision theory as you claim.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

The wager does use decision theory. Again, that’s the point: it was a rhetorical device to show that decision theory supports neither belief nor disbelief, and was thus an attempt to undermine one of the atheists’ primary rhetorical tools. What you are missing is that Pascal did not intend or believe that the wager represented a compelling argument for belief. Rather, it was a preamble to his actual argument that belief presented an opportunity for peace and happiness that transcended traditional logic and rhetoric.

 

[Lurker1999]

The wager does use decision theory. Again, that’s the point: it was a rhetorical device to show that decision theory supports neither belief nor disbelief, and was thus an attempt to undermine one of the atheists’ primary rhetorical tools. What you are missing is that Pascal did not intend or believe that the wager represented a compelling argument for belief. Rather, it was a preamble to his actual argument that belief presented an opportunity for peace and happiness that transcended traditional logic and rhetoric.

What? Why do you believe that Pascal did not intend the wager to be an argument for belief?

Pascal implores the reader to believe in God after he lays out the wager.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

The wager was an opening rhetorical gambit intended to set the stage for his argument imploring belief by undermining one of the primary counterarguments and rhetorical strategies of the atheists, not the argument, itself. Again, Pascal was an apologist.

 

[seminole97]

Those numbers aren't really relevant, in my opinion, because the overall chance of a fatal dog bite is still relatively small overall.

We're not talking about the likelihood of being bitten overall. That is significantly lower precisely because pit bulls are a small subset of the population.
We're talking about the relative danger of pit bulls compared to other dog breeds.
You're trying to mask the danger posed by pit bulls by aggregating that danger with more domesticated breeds.

As I stated in the thread, if you could demonstrate that more than half of Pitbulls bite humans, I would begin to believe that they should be bred out of existence.

Until more than HALF of the breed is mauling people you can't even "begin" to see a problem?
That strikes you as a reasonable standard of risk assessment?
If just 40% of the breed was actively mauling people, how many hundreds of dead people do you think that would be in a year?
And you're trading those dead kids trying to walk to the bus stop for what exactly?

If you claim that a Pitbull is 5 times more likely to bite a human than a Chihuahua, that doesn't really move me much.

Subject isn't even bites, it's killings.
I asked how many more times. 10x? 100x?
Put a number on it.

 

[Lurker1999]

The wager was an opening rhetorical gambit intended to set the stage for his argument imploring belief by undermining one of the primary counterarguments and rhetorical strategies of the atheists, not the argument, itself. Again, Pascal was an apologist.

Where did Pascal write this?

 

[Lurker1999]

We're not talking about the likelihood of being bitten overall. That is significantly lower precisely because pit bulls are a small subset of the population.
We're talking about the relative danger of pit bulls compared to other dog breeds.
You're trying to mask the danger posed by pit bulls by aggregating that danger with more domesticated breeds.



Until more than HALF of the breed is mauling people you can't even "begin" to see a problem?
That strikes you as a reasonable standard of risk assessment?
If just 40% of the breed was actively mauling people, how many hundreds of dead people do you think that would be in a year?
And you're trading those dead kids trying to walk to the bus stop for what exactly?



Subject isn't even bites, it's killings.
I asked how many more times. 10x? 100x?
Put a number on it.

I want to talk about the likelihood of being bit overall because that's what's most convincing to me.

If you could convince me that most Pitbulls kill humans, I would agree that the breed as a whole has a inborn problem. Even if you could demonstrate that a much lower percentage kill humans, say 20%, I'd probably agree they were a problem.

Now, if I could prove to you that the vast majority of aggressive Pitbulls were abused or had irresponsible owners, would that change your view on the breed?

If I could show you that the vast majority of PitBulls that were raised by responsible owners never bit humans, would that change your opinion of them?

Blame the bad owners, not the breed, is my point.

It's not the Pitbulls fault that many of their owners are degenerates. Pitbulls are so loyal that they always want to please their owners, which is part of the reason they were used to fight other animals.

 

[seminole97]

I want to talk about the likelihood of being bit overall because that's what's most convincing to me.

But the discussion is on the higher relative risk of being fatally attacked by a pit bull compared to other breeds.
Asserting that pit bulls are not more dangerous because most dogs don't kill people is faulty logic. Can you spot the error?

If you could convince me that most Pitbulls bite humans, I would agree that the breed as a whole has a inborn problem.

What is magic to you about majority?
Why does 50% + 1 raise an eyebrow that 40% wouldn't?
What you're actually saying is, "unless it's a coin flip that this pit bull will kill me, I can't see a problem." And that strikes you as reasonable?

Now, if I could prove to you that the vast majority of aggressive Pitbulls were abused or had irresponsible owners, would that change your view on the breed?

If you could prove that same pool of owners could make a Chihuahua as dangerous you'd have an argument. Think you can do that?
I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that abusive and irresponsible dog owners stick with pit bulls exclusively, and yet other breeds don't demonstrate the same propensity to kill. Why do you think that's the case?

If I could show you that the vast majority of Pit Bulls that were raised by responsible owners never bit humans, would that change your opinion of them?

I already know that the vast majority of them do not bite humans, but that doesn't change the degree to which that breed is an outlier in fatal dog attacks.
I'll ask again, what about this breed is so special it's worth dozens of human lives every year? You liked watching one climb a tree?
It's not like Chihuahuas are waiting to step up to the plate if we don't have pit bulls murdering dozens of people every year.
What are we actually gaining?

 

[Lurker1999]

But the discussion is on the higher relative risk of being fatally attacked by a pit bull compared to other breeds.
Asserting that pit bulls are not more dangerous because most dogs don't kill people is faulty logic. Can you spot the error?



What is magic to you about majority?
Why does 50% + 1 raise an eyebrow that 40% wouldn't?
What you're actually saying is, "unless it's a coin flip that this pit bull will kill me, I can't see a problem." And that strikes you as reasonable?



If you could prove that same pool of owners could make a Chihuahua as dangerous you'd have an argument. Think you can do that?
I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that abusive and irresponsible dog owners stick with pit bulls exclusively, and yet other breeds don't demonstrate the same propensity to kill. Why do you think that's the case?



I already know that the vast majority of them do not bite humans, but that doesn't change the degree to which that breed is an outlier in fatal dog attacks.
I'll ask again, what about this breed is so special it's worth dozens of human lives every year? You liked watching one climb a tree?
It's not like Chihuahuas are waiting to step up to the plate if we don't have pit bulls murdering dozens of people every year.
What are we actually gaining?

I've already answered most of these questions throughout the thread.

A good Pitbull is better than almost every other breed of dog; smarter, more loyal, stronger, faster, more athletic, etc., etc.

A good Pitbull is the best friend you'll ever have.

That's what we gain.

Now, what is your solution to the Pitbull problem as you see it? I've already given my solution (ownership licenses)

It's obvious we don't agree on Pitbulls as a whole. You think that many of them are brutal killing machines because of their inborn nature.

I don't.

Here's the evidence that Pitbulls are handicapped by bad owners

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0886260506294241

We can both agree that Pitbulls aren't going away anytime soon.

What is your logical and rational solution to the epidemic of Pitbull bites and killings?

 

[PoopandBoogers]

Why are people so against pit bulls and them killing their owners? Have you seen the majority of the owners?

 

[RancheroNole]

Why are people so against pit bulls and them killing their owners? Have you seen the majority of the owners?

Best post in four pages, but don't look for truth to make an appearance.

 

[seminole97]

I'm still trying to put your 'risk assessment' to the test:

Subject isn't even bites, it's killings.
I asked how many more times. 10x? 100x?
Put a number on it.

I've already answered most of these questions throughout the thread.

You never answered that question.
Seems almost like you’re avoiding putting a number on it in case you find out reality is already on the other side of your number, or that it would be as absurd as not seeing a problem unless half the population in question was mauling people.

What is your logical and rational solution to the epidemic of Pitbull bites and killings?

Ever seen Old Yeller?

I’d suggest a documentary on dogs I watched some time back. If memory serves it was titled Dogs Decoded, by National Geographic, and available on Netflix.
One of the vinettes was on the Soviet effort to breed domesticated silver foxes. If the creatures could be domesticated it would make the fur industry much simpler.
They found <2% of captured silver foxes showed indifference to humans. By breeding these specific foxes in just two generations they had a tame animal. Interestingly, its physical features were also much more ‘dog like’ and it didn’t have the pelt they sought.
It brought home to me the degree to which a largely instinctual animal like a dog or fox crafted by nature over nurture.
You keep commenting on bad owners, and I have no doubt they play a role, but more is baked into the ingredients than you seem willing to accept. That’s why so many of the stories include tidbits about how nice the dog was until something triggered an instinct.

 

[cfbfan23]

 

[Lurker1999]

You never answered that question.
Seems almost like you’re avoiding putting a number on it in case you find out reality is already on the other side of your number, or that it would be as absurd as not seeing a problem unless half the population in question was mauling people.




Ever seen Old Yeller?

I’d suggest a documentary on dogs I watched some time back. If memory serves it was titled Dogs Decoded, by National Geographic, and available on Netflix.
One of the vinettes was on the Soviet effort to breed domesticated silver foxes. If the creatures could be domesticated it would make the fur industry much simpler.
They found <2% of captured silver foxes showed indifference to humans. By breeding these specific foxes in just two generations they had a tame animal. Interestingly, its physical features were also much more ‘dog like’ and it didn’t have the pelt they sought.
It brought home to me the degree to which a largely instinctual animal like a dog or fox crafted by nature over nurture.
You keep commenting on bad owners, and I have no doubt they play a role, but more is baked into the ingredients than you seem willing to accept. That’s why so many of the stories include tidbits about how nice the dog was until something triggered an instinct.

I have seen Old Yeller.

Are you suggesting that all Pitbulls should be shot and killed? Really?

 

[seminole97]

I have seen Old Yeller.

Are you suggesting that all Pitbulls should be shot and killed? Really?

I would exchange every pit bull for one child.
What’s your exchange ratio?

 

[Lurker1999]

I would exchange every pit bull for one child.
What’s your exchange ratio?

I obviously value a child's life over a dogs.

You're not making any sense, though. You just don't understand the breed.

 

[seminole97]

I obviously value a child's life over a dogs.

You're not making any sense, though. You just don't understand the breed.

I understand that breed kills about three times as many people as ALL other breeds combined, which happen to compose 93.5% of the dog population.
But let’s hear another of your personal anecdotes to help me forget the actual data I should base a decision on.

 

[Lurker1999]

I understand that breed kills about three times as many people as ALL other breeds combined, which happen to compose 93.5% of the dog population.
But let’s hear another of your personal anecdotes to help me forget the actual data I should base a decision on.

I've already explained why Pitbulls can be more dangerous than other breeds. I've proposed a rational solution. For some unknown reason, it just doesn't seem to sink into your equation.

Again, the vast majority of Pitbulls do not bite humans. Therefore, your solution of killing millions of innocent animals is not only inhumane and sociopathic, it's also illogical.

How do you make any sense?

I award you no points for your "argument" and may God have mercy on your genocidal soul.

 

[divinnole]

NM

 

[seminole97]

I've already explained why Pitbulls can be more dangerous than other breeds. I've proposed a rational solution.

It's rational to license the other 93.5% of dog owners because one breed isn't sufficiently domesticated to keep it from killing dozens of people every year?
And do you think the crowd that is attracted to pits is going to care about your licensing scheme and comply?



So then what, more people in jail?
Don't forget what government is whenever you propose something like this.
“the essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning."

For some unknown reason, it just doesn't seem to sink into your equation.

You've provided no 'equation' to enter it into.
Just magical thinking on your part that if we create an army of bureaucrats to dole out licenses suddenly this breed is going to quit doing what it was bred to do.
How do you make any sense?

Again, the vast majority of Pitbulls do not bite humans.

6.5% of dogs causing 75% of the fatalities. I think I have a solid handle on where the problem lies.
Did you consider that if all dogs were pits we'd have hundreds of people killed by them annually?
"But did you see it climb that tree!"

Therefore, your solution of killing millions of innocent animals is not only inhumane and sociopathic, it's also illogical.
How do you make any sense?

Logic of this is simple to follow: If they don't exist they can't murder any more 5 year-olds walking to the bus stop.
Where did I lose you?

 

[Lurker1999]

It's rational to license the other 93.5% of dog owners because one breed isn't sufficiently domesticated to keep it from killing dozens of people every year?
And do you think the crowd that is attracted to pits is going to care about your licensing scheme and comply?

View embedded media

So then what, more people in jail?
Don't forget what government is whenever you propose something like this.
“the essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning."



You've provided no 'equation' to enter it into.
Just magical thinking on your part that if we create an army of bureaucrats to dole out licenses suddenly this breed is going to quit doing what it was bred to do.
How do you make any sense?



6.5% of dogs causing 75% of the fatalities. I think I have a solid handle on where the problem lies.
Did you consider that if all dogs were pits we'd have hundreds of people killed by them annually?
"But did you see it climb that tree!"



Logic of this is simple to follow: If they don't exist they can't murder any more 5 year-olds walking to the bus stop.
Where did I lose you?

Your logic is unsound. There are over a million Pitbulls in America and they kill "dozens" of people, so we should just slaughter them all? What percentage of Pitbulls are involved in killing humans each year?

How would you logically carry out your psychopathic program of mass animal murder? Gas chambers or mass shootings?

Maybe we should just kill every man age 18-45 because they commit most of the murders in our country, while we're at it?

Does that sound logical to you?

How do you even function on a daily basis?

Yikes.

 

[ncnole1975]

You can disagree with facts all you want, but that doesn't make you right.

The irony here is amazing....

 

[ncnole1975]

I obviously value a child's life over a dogs.

You're not making any sense, though. You just don't understand the breed.

I think everyone in this thread understands the breed much better than you do.

 

[seminole97]

Maybe we should just kill every man age 18-45 because they commit most of the murders in our country, while we're at it?
Does that sound logical to you?
How do you even function on a daily basis?
.

I function by not anthropomorphising animals.
I'm aware they don't have the cognition of humans, and never will, and instead rely on instinct to a degree we do not, so I do not consider them analogues in behavior.

 

[fsu1jreed]

I function by not anthropomorphising animals.
I'm aware they don't have the cognition of humans, and never will, and instead rely on instinct to a degree we do not, so I do not consider them analogues in behavior.

As much as I love animals and do know they are cognitively self aware (to an extent), this is very true.........I don't BLAME the animal for killing someone, it's not like it decided before hand to do it. Just that when it snaps it's cerebellum takes over (think fight or flight, except they are are fight) and then it's over.

 

[seminole97]

As much as I love animals and do know they are cognitively self aware (to an extent), this is very true.........I don't BLAME the animal for killing someone, it's not like it decided before hand to do it. Just that when it snaps it's cerebellum takes over (think fight or flight, except they are are fight) and then it's over.

Aesop’s farmer and viper come to mind.