3 ms·

> The idea of the dog protecting the family is common amongst all large dog owners, it's not really specific to pitbull owners. Ok then my argument still holds

> The idea of the dog protecting the family is common amongst all large dog owners, it's not really specific to pitbull owners. Ok then my argument still holds true, and you're just upset that I called out pitbulls specifically. Your argument for negative correlation also doesn't really make sense - if it did, gun owners would just stop at buying one gun because they already have one. People who take their self-defense seriously don't usually just stop at the bare minimum.

hunterb123 4y ago
> Ok then my argument still holds true, and you're just upset that I called out pitbulls specifically. You stereotyped pitbull owners specifically, not dog owners. Then you backed off as the logic fell apart. You're just spouting off assumptions (which you've admitted are assumptions) without anything to back it up. > if it did, gun owners would just stop at buying one gun because they already have one. Many gun owners do only have one gun for protection. Again, another stereotype assumption. Some people aren't comfortable with guns, so they get a dog for protection. Now that you've done "gun owners" and pitbull owners would you like to stereotype anyone else? Or do you just want to stop at the one that is acceptable to?
- failTide 4y ago
  > Many gun owners do only have one gun for protection You keep using this logic, but it's just another strawman. I've never claimed these statements apply to everyone - that's a very weak interpretation, so I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    You keep using strawman incorrectly in this thread. First off, that response was not refuting your main point, but a secondary point. (I'm really not sure what your main point was as you changed it from profiling pitbull owners to profiling dog owners after I pointed out the flaw in your logic) I was simply disputing your statement that dog owners would have also have a gun because gun owners own multiple guns. That's not sound logic. Your logic is jumping around and you don't have a cohesive point. Would you like to rephrase your main point so we can add straw back to the man?
    - failTide 4y ago
      I'm not using the term incorrectly. You're changing my argument's meaning from 'some' to 'ALL' - and then refuting the weaker argument. I feel like you're arguing from a place of emotion and clearly are offended, and I'm not interested in continuing that.

hunterb123 4y ago

> Ok then my argument still holds true, and you're just upset that I called out pitbulls specifically. You stereotyped pitbull owners specifically, not dog owners. Then you backed off as the logic fell apart. You're just spouting off assumptions (which you've admitted are assumptions) without anything to back it up. > if it did, gun owners would just stop at buying one gun because they already have one. Many gun owners do only have one gun for protection. Again, another stereotype assumption. Some people aren't comfortable with guns, so they get a dog for protection. Now that you've done "gun owners" and pitbull owners would you like to stereotype anyone else? Or do you just want to stop at the one that is acceptable to?

failTide 4y ago
> Many gun owners do only have one gun for protection You keep using this logic, but it's just another strawman. I've never claimed these statements apply to everyone - that's a very weak interpretation, so I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  You keep using strawman incorrectly in this thread. First off, that response was not refuting your main point, but a secondary point. (I'm really not sure what your main point was as you changed it from profiling pitbull owners to profiling dog owners after I pointed out the flaw in your logic) I was simply disputing your statement that dog owners would have also have a gun because gun owners own multiple guns. That's not sound logic. Your logic is jumping around and you don't have a cohesive point. Would you like to rephrase your main point so we can add straw back to the man?
  - failTide 4y ago
    I'm not using the term incorrectly. You're changing my argument's meaning from 'some' to 'ALL' - and then refuting the weaker argument. I feel like you're arguing from a place of emotion and clearly are offended, and I'm not interested in continuing that.