Final attempt. For clarification:
Quote:
|
1 - because they dont want to kill the dogs, by definition of their jobs they are not supposed to or allowed to use maximum violence against the beats
|
Question 1; Restated: If, as you contend, humans are so vastly superior in every way to dogs, why is it not equally simple to capture them? If your understanding is correct, why does it not render the capture of such an animal a simple matter? You contend that dogs are by nature cowardly and subservient; why does this not make their capture easy? You contend that humans are so vastly superior that killing a dog built and bred for combat is a simple matter easily attempted even by a person who admits to having no experience with such. Why is capturing them not an equally negligible proposition? And if -anyone- could/should be trained to exploit such disparities, it would be the professionals: why then do they not bear out your positions?
Yes or no? I'll take this as a "no."
Quote:
|
2a - common sense and the observation of reality. I dont need to be an astronaut to know that the moon goes round the earth. I dont need to be a dog handler to know that a 200 lbs human being is stronger than a 100 lbs dog.
|
However, you refuse to listen when an actual dog handler, a Military Policeman with extensive experience working with these animals, tells you that a 100lb dog is stronger than a 300lb man. He has experience working with these animals in a professional capacity; you have no personal or professional experience in this regard (per above). This refusal calls your common sense and observational abilities seriously into question. This suggests rather strongly that the reason the pros haven't adopted your understanding is that your understanding is nonsense.
Now, please provide some sources for your assertions that don't revolve around insisting that we place your unsupported layman's opinion over the supported opinion of a professional.