Staff Dogs and Muzzles

liam8282

gregg1 wrote: »

Because, unlike you I really could not give a stuff about people's perceptions of this breed of dog and am certainly not bothered enough to jump to your tune!

You chose not to believe what I said, that is your choice. Deal with the fact that some people are of the opinion the breed is deserving of it's reputation however unpalatable it may be to your over sensitive nature.

As I said, some people are ignorant, some through lack of knowledge, others apparently by choice.

It isn't the breed of dog that is at fault.

System

liam8282 wrote: »

As I said, some people are ignorant, some through lack of knowledge, others apparently by choice.

It isn't the breed of dog that is at fault.

Can you explain then why numerous countries have the breed of dog on a restriction list? Plus as Fosterdog has said the breed is banned in Germany?

You seem to have this belief that the dog breed is perfectly harmless and yet many other people/countries share the same concerns.

Frankly your strange belief that there are absolutely no concerns with this breed weaken your whole argument!

liam8282

goater78 wrote: »

Can you explain then why numerous countries have the breed of dog on a restriction list? Plus as Fosterdog has said the breed is banned in Germany?

We are in the UK, the breed is not on the dangerous dogs list, end of discussion.

Anything else is your desperate attempts to come up with something to support your own opinion. I will stick to the facts.

Also, you were proven wrong on nearly every country that you said the breed was banned in. I think you should just give it up.

goater78 wrote: »

You seem to have this belief that the dog breed is perfectly harmless and yet many other people/countries share the same concerns.

Frankly your strange belief that there are absolutely no concerns with this breed weaken your whole argument!

I have never said that the breed is perfectly harmless. What I said was the breed is irrelevant, any breed of dog could be harmful. There is a big difference.

Go back and read my very first comment.

System

liam8282 wrote: »

We are in the UK, the breed is not on the dangerous dogs list, end of discussion.

Anything else is your desperate attempts to come up with something to support your own opinion. I will stick to the facts.

Also, you were proven wrong on nearly every country that you said the breed was banned in. I think you should just give it up.



I have never said that the breed is perfectly harmless. What I said was the breed is irrelevant, any breed of dog could be harmful. There is a big difference.

Every country i said the breed was banned in had legislation against the dog breed, if the breed of dog was irrelevant then the dangerous dog list would also be irrelevant.

You have produced no facts at all. While other posters have produced reasoned and sensible facts to refute me, your argument approach is to simply state your position, provide no backup to prove this, and then say "end of discussion". Its like arguing with an imbecile.

liam8282

goater78 wrote: »

Every country i said the breed was banned in had legislation against the dog breed, if the breed of dog was irrelevant then the dangerous dog list would also be irrelevant.

You have produced no facts at all. While other posters have produced reasoned and sensible facts to refute me, your argument approach is to simply state your position, provide no backup to prove this, and then say "end of discussion". Its like arguing with an imbecile.

I produced the fact that the breed is not considered dangerous in the UK. Go back and check.

Everything I have said is based on facts, which as you quite rightly point out, has been verified by other people producing evidence to support it.

On the other hand, everything you have said is based on your own warped opinion, which has been dismissed by other people and my self producing evidence to show it is incorrect.

Notably you have not actually produced anything that agrees with your own argument. I also dismissed your two companies which you said would not accept SBT on insurance grounds, simply by going to the links you provided and reading the information and relaying it back to you.

Your position seems to be based on what friends or the bloke down the pub has told you. I don't feel the need to waste my time disproving any more of your nonsense.

liam8282

Staffordshire Bull Terrier, no muzzle, happy and content with a Miniture Yorkshire Terrier.

Is this the vicious beast I have heard about on this thread?

System

I imagine you could find a photo of a friendly nazi in the 1940's. That proves nothing! However I am not surprised you own one as like has been mentioned alot on this thread they are the dog of choice for a certain demographic.

I never said those two business's banned terriers on insurance grounds. I just said they were banned. Which is true.

All you have done is post the list of dangerous dogs. Nobody has ever said that the dog is on that list!

liam8282

goater78 wrote: »

I imagine you could find a photo of a friendly nazi in the 1940's. That proves nothing! However I am not surprised you own one as like has been mentioned alot on this thread they are the dog of choice for a certain demographic.

I never said those two business's banned terriers on insurance grounds. I just said they were banned. Which is true.

All you have done is post the list of dangerous dogs. Nobody has ever said that the dog is on that list!

Back with the insults.

One of the last resorts when a person has lost an argument. An argument they started.

System

liam8282 wrote: »

Back with the insults.

One of the last resorts when a person has lost an argument. An argument they started.

Famously you started this whole arguments with insults. So I assume that you lost the argument at the start?

zaksmum

Come on guys, stop insulting each other. This thread's about a puppy that was attacked, can we keep to that please?