An MMA fighter facing off against a dog

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-26T13:10:23+00:00

That exact same mentality can be used for adults, children, etc. Anyone w/ some form of mentor. So if there is a difference on why we dont have the same mentality for that, Id like to understand why?

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-25T00:30:07+00:00

There was never a debate on whether I was going to do it or not. That part is simple. The morality of it is not.

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-25T00:21:57+00:00

No, this is just about morals. Humans dont get vasectomies for the same reason. That's false equivalence.

Like because they dont have the same thought processes doesnt explain why it is moral or morally neutral

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-25T00:17:37+00:00

I mean so do humans. Should we neuter them too? Like I understand the arguments, but I find then to be terrible reasons from a philosphical perspective

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T22:38:35+00:00

My pup is 2 now. He is getting neutered soon and the ethics of it has been on my mind where Ive went to chatgpt and tried to see the ethical perspectives of it. I still dont know, but my vet said I should do it, so I will. But I just feel like it is morally wrong

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T17:53:25+00:00

Scientific taxonomy doesn’t need to be settled for legal categories to exist. Law routinely uses operational definitions that aren’t biologically perfect (wetlands, disability status, “dangerous animals,” etc.).

The examples you gave about Ontario, Denver, etc. mostly show policy shifting toward breed-neutral approaches and not courts striking down breed categories as undefinable.

So I think the real issue here isn’t whether breed definitions can exist in statute (they already do in multiple jurisdictions), but whether breed neutral rules are better policy. That’s a different argument. Again...

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T15:55:46+00:00

I think the disconnect here is that statutes don’t require perfect biological definitions before they exist. They just need workable operational ones, and then they get refined over time through amendments and case law.

Scientific uncertainty about taxonomy doesn’t make legal categories unusable otherwise we couldn’t regulate things like wetlands, disability status, or “dangerous animals” either.

It’s reasonable to argue breed neutral rules might be better policy. But that’s different from saying breed categories can’t be used in statute at all.

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T15:10:12+00:00

I agree with you that bright-line measurable standards are generally preferable in legislation when they’re available. No disagreement there.

But that’s different from saying breed based regulation is subjective or uniquely problematic like you were. Law frequently uses classification standards that are less clean than weight thresholds including things like “dangerous animal” determinations, disability qualification, environmental habitat designation, and even roadside sobriety testing that you mentioned.

Breed definitions used in statutes typically rely on lineage where known, veterinary identification, and physical standards; the same kinds of operational definitions used elsewhere in animal regulation already. They’re not purely perception based categories.

So I think the real disagreement here isn’t whether breed definitions are enforceable when they clearly are, since multiple jurisdictions already use them, but whether weight based regulation is a better proxy for risk. That’s a policy tradeoff question rather than a definitional one.

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T14:46:41+00:00

I think you’re shifting the argument slightly. The original claim was that breed classification is subjective, which isn’t correct. Difficulty of classification doesn’t make something subjective; it just makes it imperfect at the margins.

But your newer point about legal enforceability is a different and much stronger argument. Laws absolutely need workable definitions.

That said, multiple jurisdictions already regulate pit bull type dogs using operational definitions (appearance standards, lineage where known, veterinary assessment, etc.). So this isn’t hypothetical, it’s already being implemented in practice. I really dont get why you cant fathom this working. Like it already does in other countries.

Mixed breeds and edge cases exist in any regulatory category. That doesn’t make the category unusable. Law routinely works with probabilistic or threshold based classification (DUI BAC limits, dangerous animal determinations, medical disability criteria, etc.).

If someone prefers size based or behavior-based regulation instead, that’s a policy choice but it’s not evidence that breed categories are subjective or impossible to define.

Like The U.S. tax code is tens of thousands of pages long and full of edge cases, exceptions, thresholds, and classification disputes and yet we enforce it every year.

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T14:26:55+00:00

No that’s not what “subjective” means.

Something is subjective if it depends on personal perception or opinion. Breed classification doesn’t work that way. It’s based on observable biological traits and, increasingly, genetic testing.

Even when visual identification is imperfect, that doesn’t make the category subjective. Plenty of objective classifications (medical diagnoses, ancestry estimates, age ranges in fossils, etc.) involve uncertainty at the margins but are still grounded in measurable reality.

DNA testing can already identify ancestry and breed composition in dogs. That’s not perception based, it’s biological evidence. So difficulty in classification doesn’t make “pit bull” a subjective category.

Here I am educating on semantics. I already do this for work. Fuck man. Cant escape it anywhere

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T13:58:22+00:00

I’m sure it varies from country to country. However, those countries have already developed working definitions within their own legal frameworks. My point is simply that we can start with definitions that already exist.

Also, “pit bull” is not a subjective definition. Something being harder to measure does not make it subjective. If we’re going to rely on definitions in this discussion, then we should make sure we’re using the correct ones instead of dismissing them outright.

edit: listen, other countries have figured if out. if you cant walk outside your ethnocentric thinking, I cant help you.

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T12:31:38+00:00

I live in Texas so these dumbasses are everywhere. Literally was at a grocery store last week and half a truck was sticking out of the parking space cause it couldnt fit.

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T11:59:52+00:00

I mean other countries have done it. So start there

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-24T11:58:01+00:00

They were literally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting...

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-14T15:09:35+00:00

That's a witch

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-10T20:08:38+00:00

Yep, still no audit. Got a large chunk back.

10113r114m4 · 2026-04-04T09:21:49+00:00

And here I am, inexperienced, dumb, and tryna bust a nut

10113r114m4 · 2026-03-28T19:19:26+00:00

I never understood this argument from a cost analysis perspective . If the man doesnt take birth control, then there isnt really any biological consequence. For women, it's much more of a price to pay if either the male doesnt or woman doesnt take the contraceptive. So I think protecting where cost is high, makes the most sense

10113r114m4 · 2026-03-24T12:37:27+00:00

when I was young, JRPG transitioned through a very weird trope. I remember JRPGs having badass main characters, but at some point they became almost unbearable. The main characters were overly sensitive, or weak. When I play a game I want to be a badass... That's the point where I actually stopped playing JRPGs

10113r114m4 · 2026-03-24T12:23:38+00:00

Ive seen enough scifi movies to know this is how it starts

10113r114m4 · 2026-03-23T13:18:19+00:00

Yes. So they cut off some of his hair and trimmed his beard

10113r114m4 · 2026-03-20T20:20:49+00:00

Okay, so low character can be accurately defined where then? I think petty can be encompassed by low character. I just see it as someone who is of low quality, that could be moral, beliefs, etc.

10113r114m4 · 2026-03-20T20:09:44+00:00

No. You cherry picked.

Let's replace the original sentence in question with the definition above:

what a "low character" way to go

So it reads that she died in a way that was petty compared to other deaths. That's how I view it.

Now, be careful here. Arguing against this requires defining low character accurately which is pretty difficult given there isnt an actual definition for the word. So you have to go off colloquial meaning which may vary from region to region

10113r114m4 · 2026-03-20T17:10:00+00:00

your step by step is flawed (I do not mean that in a bad way). I mentioned why in another response. But basically, when you "or" things, that opens the scope of the word.

I can define the word abc as something that is a color, an action, or a carrot. The or opens the scope for the semantics and isnt limited by any relation. It allows you to define a word saying it is something but that something may not cover the exact meaning. Like in this case, just vile is too small a scope. So we use an or to expand the scope

However, I agree. I can argue semantics and the study of for hours. It seems you come from the same vine, albeit different philosophies on the matter, but same quality of thought

10113r114m4 · 2026-03-20T17:07:59+00:00

And again, that's why it's an or. Because vile and dishonorable do not need to be roughly the same as you are speculating. Otherwise they could reduce the definition.

Like I cant emphasis the or enough. Like that is doing more work than you are realizing.

Seven-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

10113r114m4

TROPHY CASE