6 Year Old Girl Killed in FL Dog Attack

[lfd0311]

I'm just going to wait until you explain surplus killing and why it's significant to the topic and how this somehow implies I was owned.

In other words Make a point.

The fact that you don’t seem to want to touch it makes my point for me. I don’t need to address it anymore than that.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

The fact that you don’t seem to want to touch it makes my point for me. I don’t need to address it anymore than that.

So you basically you don't have a point.

Dodge noted.

 

[lfd0311]

So you basically you don't have a point.

Dodge noted.

I continue to make it, you continue to dodge it.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I continue to make it, you continue to dodge it.

Dick tuck #2

 

[lfd0311]

Dick tuck #2

You're a very sad person. you're 12th consecutive dodge attempt was an attempt at accusing me of dodging? No dice, pal.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

You're a very sad person. you're 12th consecutive dodge attempt was an attempt at accusing me of dodging? No dice, pal.

I told you, produce a point and i'll address it.

Till then here is harambe

 

[lfd0311]

I told you, produce a point and i'll address it.

Till then here is harambe

Again, surplus killing. that's 14.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Again, surplus killing. that's 14.

What of it?

 

[lfd0311]

What of it?

Try reading. 27th dodge in a row.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Try reading. 27th dodge in a row.

I can wait for a point.

Spoiler

 

[lfd0311]

I can wait for a point.

Spoiler

Again, you're making it by not answering. you can't explain surplus killing and still take the position that animals don't have an instinctual drive and desire to kill

Spoiler

38th dodge

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Again, you're making it by not answering. you can't explain surplus killing and still take the position that animals don't have an instinctual drive and desire to kill

The innate desire is to hunt prey not to simply kill regardless of what happens to the carcass after the kill.

It's a problem with phraseology. You want to call it "kill drive", I and most sensible people call it "prey drive". Im aware of it since i have mentioned it a million times. Every single dog has prey drive some have it more than others and are more capable of killing.

So basically your making shit up as you go.

I'll ignore you saying that prey drive isn't kill drive despite the fact that the exact reason that herding dogs were selected to herd things for their inate desires

From an older post of yours. So basically you don't like the commonly accepted terms. No biggie

Anything else?

 

[lfd0311]

The innate desire is to hunt prey not to simply kill regardless of what happens to the carcass after the kill.

It's a problem with phraseology. You want to call it "kill drive", I and most sensible people call it "prey drive". Im aware of it since i have mentioned it a million times. Every single dog has prey drive some have it more than others and are more capable of killing.

So basically your making shit up as you go.

From an older post of yours. So basically you don't like the commonly accepted terms. No biggie

Anything else?

So if it’s “simply” prey drive, how do you explain surplus killing, and the difference between carnivores and omnivores. Once again your inability to answer this in any meaningful way is why you lost.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

So if it’s “simply” prey drive, how do you explain surplus killing, and the difference between carnivores and omnivores. Once again your inability to answer this in any meaningful way is why you lost.

I actually did answer this but since you cannot read i'll further simplify.

What makes predators attack or engage prey is called prey drive. What happens to the carcass after is irrelevant and the observation of surplus killing does not lend credence to your made up fairy tale term "kill drive". I should note that this prey drive is in all dogs it's just higher in pitbulls and working dogs.

There i answered it.

Edit: Because it wont suffice an appeal to google shows dogs are facultative carnivores

A facultative carnivore does best on a carnivorous diet, but can survive-but-not-thrive on a non-carnivorous one. It prefers not to do that, but when pushed, it will. An omnivore really doesn't care much either way. It eats what's available, vegetable or meat.

So dogs being descended from wolves means they got that taste for blood. Savvy?

 

[lfd0311]

I actually did answer this but since you cannot read i'll further simplify.

What makes predators attack or engage prey is called prey drive. What happens to the carcass after is irrelevant and the observation of surplus killing does not lend credence to your made up fairy tale term "kill drive". I should note that this prey drive is in all dogs it's just higher in pitbulls and working dogs.

There i answered it.

Edit: Because it wont suffice an appeal to google shows dogs are facultative carnivores


So dogs being descended from wolves means they got that taste for blood. Savvy?

So why don't ominivores also do this?

Also, "facultative carnivore" is something dog food companies made up to avoid putting meat in your dog's food and make it more cost efficient for them. Can they live? Sure. Is it what they need or what's best for them? not even close.

And it's great that you continue to hedge your bets and inch closer and closer to just admitting you were wrong without actually doing it. First it was "just prey drive". Dogs and other carnivores had no instinctual desire to kill that needed to be satisfied. They were just satisfying the "chase, capture" cycle of prey drive, and only on the minimum amount of animals needed to eat. Until surplus killing, which you ignored for the better part of two weeks. Then suddenly carnivores will kill as many animals as they can at one time, but it's still just to fulfill this prey drive cycle, and not because they like it, and even though they somehow, now have a taste for blood, but that of course doesn't drive them to kill.... Somehow...

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

So why don't ominivores also do this?

If i were to hazard a guess i would say it's because their biology doesn't necessitates them gravitating to their ideal food source (meat).

Also, "facultative carnivore" is something dog food companies made up to avoid putting meat in your dog's food and make it more cost efficient for them. Can they live? Sure. Is it what they need or what's best for them? not even close.

You made a claim that it's a made up term (which it isn't) and then go on to describe exactly what it is. You seem to be allergic to facts which is what got you in this mess in the first place.

And it's great that you continue to hedge your bets and inch closer and closer to just admitting you were wrong without actually doing it. First it was "just prey drive". Dogs and other carnivores had no instinctual desire to kill that needed to be satisfied. They were just satisfying the "chase, capture" cycle of prey drive, and only on the minimum amount of animals needed to eat. Until surplus killing, which you ignored for the better part of two weeks. Then suddenly carnivores will kill as many animals as they can at one time, but it's still just to fulfill this prey drive cycle, and not because they like it, and even though they somehow, now have a taste for blood, but that of course doesn't drive them to kill.... Somehow...

You simply threw it out there with zero context and decided that it was an argument.....there isn't anything to ignore. I have said Prey drive is the motivator for engaging in attacks/killing of people and animals alike, it's been addressed and you don't want to accept it so you rehash made up terms and call it "kill drive" which no one recognizes except your self and present it as a new argument yet again in another display of mental trapeze artistry. The problem here is that you believe that what happens afterwards is relevant yet it's not. Not only that but you are inching closer towards the realization that all dogs have prey drive, an idea i have been drilling into your skull since the very beginning.


In any case you still have to explain why this is relevant as in produce a point and explain how it gives way to Brazilian pit bulls and terriers not being terriers and how this somehow validates sensationalized statistics.<-------this is what you are avoiding btw.

 

[lfd0311]

If i were to hazard a guess i would say it's because their biology doesn't necessitates them gravitating to their ideal food source (meat)

It's because they don't have an instinctual desire to kill you. More people have survived Bear attacks than attacks by Big Cats for this very reason. Because Bears are omnivores and don't care if you're dead. Cats are carnivores and very much do care. They get a satisfaction out of the act of killing you.

You made a claim that it's a made up term (which it isn't) and then go on to describe exactly what it is. You seem to be allergic to facts which is what got you in this mess in the first place.

The irony of this post. I obviously know what it means if I can describe exactly what it is. I told you where it came from. I didn't "claim" anything. I made a fact based statement. You're inability to understand that once again speaks volumes.

You simply threw it out there with zero context and decided that it was an argument.....there isn't anything to ignore. I have said Prey drive is the motivator for engaging in attacks/killing of people and animals alike, it's been addressed and you don't want to accept it so you rehash made up terms and call it "kill drive" which no one recognizes except your self and present it as a new argument yet again in another display of mental trapeze artistry. The problem here is that you believe that what happens afterwards is relevant yet it's not. Not only that but you are inching closer towards the realization that all dogs have prey drive, an idea i have been drilling into your skull since the very beginning.

Right. My text wall posts are text walls because there is "no context". Keep lying to yourself, guy.

In any case you still have to explain why this is relevant as in produce a point and explain how it gives way to Brazilian pit bulls and terriers not being terriers and how this somehow validates sensationalized statistics.<-------this is what you are avoiding btw

1.) I owned you with my actual arguements.

2.) you got hardcore trolled to the point that it's all you have to fall back on when the argument (naturally) turns against you.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

It's because they don't have an instinctual desire to kill you. More people have survived Bear attacks than attacks by Big Cats for this very reason. Because Bears are omnivores and don't care if you're dead. Cats are carnivores and very much do care. They get a satisfaction out of the act of killing you.

Ones an omnivore and the other is a carnivore. One looks at you as food indefinitely the other not as much which is the point you are apparently missing. This is also why surplus kills are cached for later because they are a source of sustenance for carnivores. You can rehash that as kill drive all you like but what happens before the kill is relevant and not what happens afterwards.

The irony of this post. I obviously know what it means if I can describe exactly what it is. I told you where it came from. I didn't "claim" anything. I made a fact based statement. You're inability to understand that once again speaks volumes.

The allergy is working up once more.

You don't like commonly accepted phraseology as your proving once more with this post. Prey drive becomes an innate desire to murder and is called kill drive and now facultative carnivores are a figment of our imagination conjured up by dog food companies to sell more fluffed out kibbles and bits.

You can't make up this sort of stupid.

Right. My text wall posts are text walls because there is "no context". Keep lying to yourself, guy.

No. There is brain melting fuel but no context.

1.) I owned you with my actual arguements.

You never had one to begin with and still don't

2.) you got hardcore trolled to the point that it's all you have to fall back on when the argument (naturally) turns against you.

Let me break it down for you real quick.
Dude it takes me like 5 minutes to respond to your wall of texts as i take my morning shits or in between my readings and this is your attempt at absolving yourself of stupid comments like "brazilian pitbulls" which you will never live down by the way.

Also we have done this multiple times in other threads and you were as salty then as you are now. Switching modes to "im trolling" is like the oldest play in the book. The real trick is roping you into those "massive walls of texts" you dingus.

Worst attempt for an appeal to "trolling" i have ever seen.

 

[glenwo2]

So are we still talking about the 6-year-old girl that was killed by a Florida Dog or no?

Looks like everyone has now switched gears to Flaming the fuck out of each other.

 

[lfd0311]

Ones an omnivore and the other is a carnivore. One looks at you as food indefinitely the other not as much which is the point you are apparently missing. This is also why surplus kills are cached for later because they are a source of sustenance for carnivores. You can rehash that as kill drive all you like but what happens before the kill is relevant and not what happens afterwards

That's the argument held by a minority of conservationists, and that argument is also based off of the rationale that predators "only" engage in surplus killing during the winter months when food is scarce and they will engage in scavaging to survive. Those willing to make that argument are also willing to ignore the fact that that is demonstrably not true and predators will engage in surplus killing basically any time they can, regardless of the season or the availability of food.

The allergy is working up once more.

See above.

You don't like commonly accepted phraseology as your proving once more with this post. Prey drive becomes an innate desire to murder and is called kill drive and now facultative carnivores are a figment of our imagination conjured up by dog food companies to sell more fluffed out kibbles and bits.

I see your phraseology as dishonest and intentionally misleading, and one of the many, many reasons we constantly see threads like this. Because people refuse to achknowledge that their sweet little pet Muffie is in reality a predatory animal that has it's own free will that it will absolutely exercise whenever it sees fit no matter how much training it has and you can only control it so much. And I'm not even talking about Pits right now. I'm just talking about dogs in general.
You can't make up this sort of stupid.

No. There is brain melting fuel but no context.

Translation= You surrender

You never had one to begin with and still don't

except for constantly

Let me break it down for you real quick.
Dude it takes me like 5 minutes to respond to your wall of texts as i take my morning shits or in between my readings and this is your attempt at absolving yourself of stupid comments like "brazilian pitbulls" which you will never live down by the way.

Trolled

Also we have done this multiple times in other threads and you were as salty then as you are now. Switching modes to "im trolling" is like the oldest play in the book. The real trick is roping you into those "massive walls of texts" you dingus.

Wait... so... you've.... talked to me in other threads...... but have never seen me post long posts before..... and you.... tricked me into it.... right. Nice try.

Worst attempt for an appeal to "trolling" i have ever seen

Trolled