yeo
 Offline
Posts: 3651
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 11:22:09 » |
|
He'll always be Blinkpip to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
/
W56196272
|
|
|
|
nochee
|
|
« Reply #16 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 13:52:29 » |
|
As you may know I've recently had a dog attack on my son, they would not hurt a fly they cry. Fuck of all dogs have an inbuilt ability to attack any other dog/human without provocation.
As do humans. It's all about the way you are brought up. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
blinkpip
His Infernal Majesty
Offline
Posts: 6761
|
|
« Reply #17 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 13:54:27 » |
|
He'll always be Blinkpip to me.
I did think about changing back to blinkpip, but was worried I would get locked out (as it happened to others) Can't believe it's been over five years since I really wound you up about stoning your dogs. Everyone grown up (apart from DMR), not much bollocks topics exist nowadays.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ee the trick is only pick on those that can't do you no harm
Like the drummer from Def Leppard's only got one arm
I annoyed Yeovilred 28/01/06
|
|
|
ronnie21
Offline
Posts: 6154
The Mighty Hankerton
|
|
« Reply #18 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 13:59:10 » |
|
not much bollocks topics exist nowadays. Sorry, cannot agree with that statement, there's enough on here written about Oxford - and that's just bollocks!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mexicano Rojo
Offline
Posts: 11953
Demasiado no es demasiado
|
|
« Reply #19 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 14:03:08 » |
|
i would stone yeos dogs, having met them i would take a fucking machine gun to them
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yeo
Offline
Posts: 3651
|
|
« Reply #20 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 14:10:45 » |
|
Very mean,they were nice to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
/
W56196272
|
|
|
Mexicano Rojo
Offline
Posts: 11953
Demasiado no es demasiado
|
|
« Reply #21 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 14:12:23 » |
|
they were locked in the garden
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thedarkprince
Offline
Posts: 2747
Hubba-hubba
|
|
« Reply #22 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 14:46:22 » |
|
Even as the owner of a dog from a normally placid breed I would have to disagree with that. All dogs, however normally good natured, can't be guaranteed to act in a certain way at a certain time.
I genuinely believe it comes down to what the breed has been bred for and how it gets raised. Dogs that were bred to hunt, fight, chase, etc are far more risky than those that have been bred to help humans - St Bernards, retrievers, new foundlands, etc. When my nieces come round and start pulling my dog's tail and falling on her, she doesn't ever growl or look to get vicious, she just takes herself off out of the way. I think it helps that she's older (11 years) and has always had little ones around (see my point about how they are raised) but I'd trust her to be fine with even the most horrible little brat. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Friday, September 14, 2012, 14:56:17 by thedarkprince »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yeo
Offline
Posts: 3651
|
|
« Reply #23 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 16:59:04 » |
|
I genuinely believe it comes down to what the breed has been bred for and how it gets raised. Dogs that were bred to hunt, fight, chase, etc are far more risky than those that have been bred to help humans - St Bernards, retrievers, new foundlands, etc.
Ill informed and complete nonsense,but if it makes you happy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
/
W56196272
|
|
|
|
red socks
|
|
« Reply #24 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 17:24:24 » |
|
nuture not nature - same as people, the difference is some breeds are capable of inflicting more damage due to muscle/jaw/teeth/build etc, same as people
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thedarkprince
Offline
Posts: 2747
Hubba-hubba
|
|
« Reply #25 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 17:51:30 » |
|
Ill informed and complete nonsense,but if it makes you happy.
So you think owning, say, a Japanese Tosa is just as risky as a Golden Retriever? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thedarkprince
Offline
Posts: 2747
Hubba-hubba
|
|
« Reply #26 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 18:04:57 » |
|
nuture not nature - same as people, the difference is some breeds are capable of inflicting more damage due to muscle/jaw/teeth/build etc, same as people
Oh I agree, it is largely about nurture but there must be something to this nature malarkey otherwise why would specific breeds be listed under the Dangerous Dogs Act? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thedarkprince
Offline
Posts: 2747
Hubba-hubba
|
|
« Reply #27 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 18:10:15 » |
|
...and yes I know this particular Act is far from perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
herthab
TEF Travel
Offline
Posts: 12020
|
|
« Reply #28 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 18:14:48 » |
|
Sure we've had a similar debate before? I've always had dogs, Doberman, Staffy, Corgi, mutts, labs and retrievers. The softest, most placid, was a staffy X, the most aggressive was the fucking Corgi!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It's All Good..............
|
|
|
|
red socks
|
|
« Reply #29 on: Friday, September 14, 2012, 19:08:22 » |
|
Oh I agree, it is largely about nurture but there must be something to this nature malarkey otherwise why would specific breeds be listed under the Dangerous Dogs Act?
 hmmm you may be on to something there... 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
