Saturday, December 1, 2012

dog nutter pyramid

orangedog recently sent me an interesting link about dog nutters. i wanted to blog it but as luck would have it, a famous nutter has hit my desktop which takes precedence (thanks snack!). but this blogger's thoughts on dog nutters is really too good not to share. so here is a taste with a link to the original. enjoy!


A few days after the fuss died down, I got curious and visited the Facebook page of the group which was said to have commissioned the t-shirt. I got the same feeling about the “lay of its land” that I always get with animal rights groups: An emotional ponzi scheme, if you will, of well intentioned but misinformed animal lovers residing at the bottom of the pyramid who with little, if any, critical thought, have bought into the wholesale guilt of breeders. The further one goes up the pyramid, the more concentrated the power, and in my view, the more sinister the agenda becomes, as in the case of PETA.


here are a few breed specific emotional ponzi schemes that prey upon the character disturbed and the fragile egos of the ultra liberal, politically correct:
AFF, NCRC, best friends, badrap, indy pit crew, our pack, pit n' proud, chako, the unexpected pit bull, hello bully, real pit bull, don't bully my breed.....


thanks orangedog!


24 comments:

orangedog said...

Like I said in my email, if the nuts who make derpy t-shirts with "Save a Pit Bull, Kill a Breeder" on them would just kill off their pit bull breeding friends, the shelter overflow problem would be solved. But then their cash cow would be gone so that's not happening. And from the t-shirt slogan, apparently pits don't come from breeders - they must magically appear like a chihuahua that mauls a baby. And I thought there was no such thing as a pit bull?! How can I save something that doesn't exist? I'm so confused! ;)

Dude, I BaggedYourPit said...

"An emotional ponzi scheme, if you will, of well intentioned but misinformed animal lovers residing at the bottom of the pyramid who with little, if any, critical thought..."

Love that!

Since the anti-breeders are presumably calling for the demise of gun dog breeders as well, I'd like to ask them a question: In a war between armed gun-dog lovin' hunters and anti-breeders, who wins? (I'll be over here loading the magazine of a shotgun while they think about this.)

Put THAT on a tee-shirt ;-)

snarky said...


scammers who want people to believe they are not part of the problem . they can have their mutant instead of a nice dog and blame someone else for it . they are saving a beautifull , innocent bully dog from a hatefull society that blames the dog instead of breeders and irresponsible owners and they are part of the solution by being so caring and responsible . ......bleeding heart wankers and scammers .

Jaloney said...

Yo
I consider myself liberal and I don't subscribe to any of those nutter groups. Pitbulls are not mean to be.. that is my philosophy.

snack sized dog said...

I think the operative words here are: ""emotional" and "little, if any critical thought."

These aren't just liberals, they're a subset of liberals called "stupid, emotionally stunted liberals."

I believe thinking of the animal activist culture as an emotional ponzi scheme is brilliant. I do think the masses at the bottom don't have a clue while the upper echelons are manipulating them for their own gain.

And pit nutters specifically are both liberal and conservative. Liberal nutters tell me I must be a conservative and conservative nutters tell me I must be a liberal right before they tell me I'm an asshole. :)

dawn james said...

i see the conservative camp of pit nutters as being comprised of dog fighters and the people who have a very strict adherence to "it's my property and i can do what i want with it" philosophy. it's all about the rights of the dog owners.

the liberal camp of pit nutters is made up of the kooks at the best friends cult and the lexus project. they think their fur babies have rights, due process and full access to the courts. for them, it''s all about the rights of the dogs.


i like this quote. it reminds me of the ultra liberal politically correct pit nutters like sloane quealy miner.

I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Arthur Hays Sulzberger

snarky said...

i believe that animals should have rights to be free from abuses and cruelty but that this is only a general principle . if animals are to be owned and used and consumed , then there will be abuses . from my point of view i dont give a rats ass about a pit bulls rights , but as a human i should have protection for myself and also my dog as i walk down the street or use my back yard . as far as the spca , they are useless twats , in my opinion and i wouldnt expect anything good from them. they just want to sit on the fence and not piss anyone off . unfortunately or otherwise , in my area , the spca HAS pissed people off , lots of em.

70dd0968-b7d2-11e1-92d9-000bcdcb5194 said...

Yeah, well, I disagree, as usual.

As a gun toting, rednecked, ultra liberal, I get the joke on the t-shirt. The only ethical way for breeders to exist would be for them to directly fund euthanasia and not make ME, the tax payer, pay for it.

Seriously, I don't have to pay for your garbage service, why do I have to pay to get rid of your surplus?

Either that, or breeders should be campaigning to get dogs (and cats) featured on fine dining menus.

I think the AKC is full of whack jobs as seriously defective, if not as anti-social, as your average pit bull breeder. Most judges out there happily place "conformation" winners just this side of pathologically deformed. I remember the first AKC show I went to and saw GSDs moving worse than any sored, heavy shod Tennessee Walking Horse* ever did. I wasn't sure if I wanted to cry or punch somebody.

There's a reason why the Working Border Collie owners fought 10 years to keep bcs out of the AKC and why they'll still yank the papers from any dog shown in conformation. The biggest, and oldest, animal related Ponzi scheme out there is Kennel Club. Everybody out there who "needs" a purebred whatsits with its fancy paper work so they can make more purebred whatsitses is paying a premium to buy into that scheme.

At the very bottom of the pyramid is the euthanasia tech.

cazz

*google Tennessee Walking Horse and soring, and THEN tell me animal rights activists are useless sacks of shit.

Miss Margo said...

"And pit nutters specifically are both liberal and conservative. Liberal nutters tell me I must be a conservative and conservative nutters tell me I must be a liberal right before they tell me I'm an asshole. :)"

Haaahahahahaha

Regarding the politics of nutterdom...I like Dawn's classification of right vs. left-wing pit nutters, but I think that pit bull fanaticism often defies political quantification. I hate to bring him up because I sure as hell don't want him trolling me again, but take Fight For Your Rights (FFYR). His appalling MySpace was full of chauvinistic, nativist, Hawkish crap, and then his pit bull advocacy was all sentimental bleeding-heart don't-be-a-dog-racist variety.

To be clear, I'm not trying to smear any conservative readers by saying FFYR is right-wing. That would be unfair. I think that mostly he is just a degenerate.

I think that for many (certainly not all) pit nutters, pit bulls are just about the only political cause they give a shit about. This is interesting, because causes that attract such single-minded followers are relatively rare. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are guns and abortion.

Miss Margo said...

OT, but I thought someone might be interested: HBO is showing a documentary called "One Nation Under Dog." You can look it up online. I watched it last night while I had insomnia. If anyone has HBO or can download it via the internet, you might want to do so.

It's not a great film, unfortunately...but the first 22 minutes involve the amazing story of Dr. Bob Taffet, Asshole Neighbor From Hell and Dog Nutter Extraordinaire.

Taffet has the exact same mentality and fuck-you attitude of the pit nutters we see on CD and Dogsbite, except that he owns Rhodesian Ridgebacks--unneutered males, between 4 and 6 at a time. Taffet is also a wealthy man.

Long story short--the dogs bite, repeatedly, and Taffet covers it up, until he can't any more. Then Taffet spends like $100,000 fighting his neighbors (victims) in court rather than voluntarily contain his dogs or euthanize the most vicious. Taffet says lots of dishonest, insensitive things on camera. His wife complains that a security fence damages their mansion's aesthetic.

The Ridgebacks keep getting out. Taffet adds a Kangal or two to the mix. Dog rips off little girl's EAR. Judge says the dog "just nipped her." Taffet says "fuck you" to the little girl's family.

The meanest one bites AGAIN and Taffet finally puts him down. Taffet shows human emotion for the first time in the film.

Oh yeah. Good stuff.

I have the movie. I'd post it on youtube, but I'm worried that HBO would nail my ass for copyright infringement.

Here's a write-up of the Taffet debacle in anyone wants to read it:

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/a-dogfight-in-haddonfield062110/

I'd blog about this asshole for CD, but the media's already covered it to hell and back.

Packhorse said...

I am an animal rights advocate. I am on board with craven and dogs bite just as much as anyone here. I don't appreciate being lumped in with the gullible nuts -- most of whom aren't even vegetarians and don't care a whit about non - pit species. I see true AR advocates as being people like Merritt Clifton, not hacks like LEdy VanKavage. And for all their silliness, PETA is the only big group that supports BSL.

snack sized dog said...

I agree with the others who have said there is no coherent principle or ideology underpinning the ponzi scam.

I believe with both the conservative nutters and liberal nutters it comes down to them not understanding the principles they're parroting or even really caring about those principles in order to justify them personally being able to keep their pit bull.

the conservatives do, in fact, use the property rights and personal liberty arguments, and then they invariably and laughably turn to the three most heavily regulated consumer products on the planet, cars, guns and alcohol as examples of dangerous things they can, in fact, own.

They apparently haven't noticed that they need government licensing that includes testing to operate a vehicle and they are mandated to have at least three documents with them at all times when driving. Or that their government issued license functions as a government issued ID card when purchasing alcohol or that after they are in possession of that alcohol, they don't have the personal liberty to do whatever they want with it like drink it in the car on the way home.

The fact that they invariably use these examples to buttress their argument that there should be zero regulation of pit bulls leads me to believe they're not really veteran crusaders of strict personal liberty and freedoms, and they just pulled those examples out of their ass because they want to keep their pit bulls.

The liberal nutters are conflating and perverting some elements of animal rights and animal welfare beliefs and BREEDERS agendas - all of which contradict each other. The anti-spay and neuter push is pure AKC backed breeders platform.

They are also using elements of animal rights and owners rights issues with the legislation dealing with dangerous dogs. The Lexus project hires lawyers for the dog, not the owner. The Lexus project doesn't care if the owner was negligent and they don't care if the dog goes back to the owner - often they lobby for the dog to be rehabilitated and adopted to another owner or put in a sanctuary for the rest of its life. That sounds like animal rights, but animal rights activists would typically not support putting a dog in a cage for the rest of its life.

Then there's Ledy Van Kavage who identifies as liberal but whose legislative agenda has been to exploit the fact that animals are considered property under the law to introduce due process legislation allowing owners to appeal the seizure of their property even if said property just chewed up the neighbors' kid - which is more in line with the conservative argument. For a while, animal welfare advocates were trying to craft legislation that would create a special class of property that would have allowed owners to sue for more than the monetary worth of the pet in tort cases. That would have been a huge problem for the AVMA and veterinarians everywhere with regards to malpractice suits agains veterinarians. But, liberal minded Ledy couldn't champion that and keep the AVMA in the pit bull fold or protect frankenmauler owners from enormous lawsuits.

And then there's the whole problem with nutters advocating for PIT BULL and their owners' rights not giving one crap about the rights of all the normal dogs not to be massacred and their owners' rights not to live through the massacre of their beloved pets which puts the lie to their "animal rights" BS.

I truly believe they'll just say anything and push anything on the dumb bottom of the pyramid dufi who will parrot anything just to keep their maulers - My guess is most of them don't vote and don't participate in any other kind of activism.

orangedog said...

I doubt they have time for any other advocacy. Somewhere on the internet a pibble needs defending and they need to rally to the cause. Since these dogs attack and maul so frequently, the nutter must be vigilant at all times - ready to spring to pibble's defense. Perpetual victim mode.

Packhorse said...

I agree with Snack. There's no place for across-the-board AR bashing here when one considers that the person who has done the most research to refute the nutters' lies is an AR advocate writing for an AR newspaper--Merritt Clifton of Animal People.

In my less enlightened days I accepted what Best Friends and the others said about pit bulls, simply because I'd never interacted with pit bulls and knew very little about them. It's easy to believe the pretty stories when ignorant. But then I started reading Animal People, which let me to DogsBite, and I wasn't too proud to change my opinion profoundly. Now I link Animal People News to fellow animal advocates who may fall prey to the pit nuttery nonsense.

My primary issue as an AR advocate is ending the worst abuses of factory farms, because it by far involves the most animals and the most extreme suffering. As a poster above noted, do your own research on factory farms, as well as "smaller" issues like puppy mills, canned hunts, Tenn. Walking Horse soring, and shark finning--and it becomes far more difficult to argue we shouldn't have an organized animal advocacy movement.

dawn james said...

looks like i touched a lot of nerves. i will address this in depth later. gotta bathe my dog.

tropical storms said...

Any dog of any breed or combination which is vicious toward any human or animal, barring extreme provocation on its home property should be euthanized. I'm a proud liberal animal advocate, very familiar with bulldogs, who believes they should be exterminated, not fought or bred.

DubV said...

Excellent comment, Snack.

I'm thinking the lines of nutters can also be broken down into:

1. wants the dog for attention to the compassion/enlightenment worn on sleeve (PC nutters)

and

2. wants the dog because they are capable and perhaps able to protect them and a source of fear to transgress them (more of the stereotypical conservative, but I don't think that fits so well). These folks are likely prepping for various survival scenarios where their pit bull will help them survive an invasion by a hostile power.

3. Then you have the belligerent thugs that are pissed that anyone dared mention their dog or try to put any limitations on what they would like to do.

dawn james said...

clarification: i don't think animal rights activists are useless sacks of shit. i wasn't bashing them. i was bashing pit nutters. most people who read me probably don't realize that i have been a vegetarian for more years than i have been a meat eater. over the past 25 years, i've known many animal rights activists and in my experience, not all but the majority fit the description of well intentioned but misinformed animal lovers. i know merritt, he does not. the problem with the well intentioned but misinformed pit nutters is their naiveté poses a serious risk to society.

i agree with miss margo in that, i think a lot of nutters defy political party pigeon holing because they don't really care about politics. plus they are just too busy crating and rotating or harassing city officials about discrimination of wiggle butts. they happily parrot the talking points that have been spoon fed to them and that gives the false impression that they are politically engaged. hell, most of these fucktards don't even understand the functions of the 3 branches of the government or appreciate the first amendment!

i also think that there is some cross over, for example ryan (pit nutter) identified himself as a conservative and he is clearly of the fur mommy type. but i think the overwhelming majority of nutters who actually do think or try to think about politics and vote do fall into the categories that i described above. i know they're out there but i think they're the minority. i don't believe in absolutes. but the liberal fucktard fur mommy poses a much greater risk to me than the conservative dogman and THAT is why i am so hard on them.

i also agree with snack. the machiavellians at the top of the pyramid, like ledy vankavage will exploit whatever argument they think will advance their agenda.

sorry orangedog. your link has been hijacked into a political debate that i didn't foresee.

dawn james said...

interesting...


I'm thinking the lines of nutters can also be broken down into:

1. wants the dog for attention to the compassion/enlightenment worn on sleeve (PC nutters)

(my experience with these people is they LOVE to tell the rescue story and get praise from strangers. it's weird. and yes, they tend to fit the liberal type)

and

2. wants the dog because they are capable and perhaps able to protect them and a source of fear to transgress them (more of the stereotypical conservative, but I don't think that fits so well). These folks are likely prepping for various survival scenarios where their pit bull will help them survive an invasion by a hostile power.

(i don't think it fits as well as #1 and #3 but i think it does fit, maybe not the traditional conservative but the libertarian)


3. Then you have the belligerent thugs that are pissed that anyone dared mention their dog or try to put any limitations on what they would like to do.

(this tends to be the TRUE apolitical type)

snarky said...


shit, i just think theyre all big , big assholes.

snack sized dog said...

DubV, thank you! I am always very happy to win praise from you!

Animal Uncontrol said...

One dimensional political paradigms do not describe most people very well. I am an economic conservative and a social progressive... what does that make me?

That said, if we were to apply a political position to a PitNut ( or any extreme dognut ), the only one that "sticks" is Neo-Feudalist.

They are narrowly focused arch-reactionaries who believe that owning their pet of choice grants them some sort of overclass status: Rules are strictly for riff-raff and rabble! They have found an essential way to rationalize their narcissism.

dawn james said...

"One dimensional political paradigms do not describe most people very well. I am an economic conservative and a social progressive... what does that make me?"

one dimensional paradigms do not describe thinking people very well. lazy people who are content to let others process information and feed it to them are rather one dimensional, in my opinion. unfortunately, i think more and more americans are falling into the non-thinking category.

politically, you sound a lot like me and i call myself a progressive, for lack of a better word.

Jake said...

@Dawn -

Regarding your category #2 - people who obtain pit bulls for protection - these are a sad case, since pit bulls kill family members far more often then they kill intruders. It's like buying a type of gun that randomly fires backwards at the owner.

Such people would be far better off with a type of dog bred for protection, rather than a type of dog bred for random violent attack. But perhaps they want the danger of an unpredictable mutant, to give them an little extra thrill.