Pitbull attacks kitten. OMG!!!!!!!!

OMG!!!! I thought 1 lunatic 1 icepick was hard to sit through!!!!!

IFag link:


 BARF @ 15 seconds when the dog gnaws on the poor kitty.

DONT WATCH IT PEOPLE

I turned it off at 1:24...Irreversible fire extinguisher ain't got nuttin on that

Not watching :( Phone Post

Greenup - Not watching :( <img src="/images/phone/droid.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>


oh My GAWD!!!!

Where's PETA?!?!?


;)

Kill them both just in case the pit bite turns the kitten into a werepitbull.

As a mod I should probably not be posting such things. Perhaps I should be stripped of my mod status for posting such a vile, reprehensible video!!!!!!!






















P.S. LOL @ all the "not watching" posts LOL

iPhone :'( Phone Post

Cannot be unseen...

Griffdog - 
MTH - 
Alright, last try.  (And here goes a FRAT . . . .)

This isn't about social perception of Bentleys, whether blacks are treated equally in the American justice system, etc. 

My nook in this debate is only threefold: <b>(1)</b> The commissioner's questions are normal in context; <b>(2)</b> whether an action is "racist" is determined by the intent of the actor, not the understanding of the recipient; and <b>(3) </b>determining whether the commissioner's questioning was "racist" requires a review of whether she has asked similar questions in cases not involving blacks.

You disagree with my second point, and you may disagree on the others as well.

As to racist intent, you say "[c]alling a black man 'Boy' is deeply offensive to him. Just because someone has no racist intent does not make their statement or the application of that word non-racist." 

I disagree.  The absence of intent makes that non-racist.

Presume I tell a Romanian exchange student--who speaks no English and knows nothing of American culture--that my black neighbor's name is "Boy" and the way to call to him is "Hey, Boy."  The Romanian student does so, and deeply offends the neighbor who assumes the student is American.  Is the student racist?

Presume a white toddler mispronounces the name of a black woman named "June," instead calling her "coon."  The woman hears it, doesn't realize it came from a toddler, and is deeply offended.  Is the toddler racist?

Presume I get into an entirely accidental fender-bender with a black man.  Not realizing it was an accident, he believes it's racially motivated.  Am I racist?

Presume a hearing commissioner asks all witnesses she interviews whether they speak, read, and understand English.  Among the many people she asks is a black man.  Unaware thes are standard questions, the black man is deeply offended.  Is the commissioner racist?

The answer to these questions is: "No, of course not."  Anything else allows somebody else to determine what YOU meant.  And this is my point--the intent of the actor determines whether an action is racist, not the understanding of the recipient.  There's no reasonable argument to the contrary.

I think you're hung up on the meaning of "intent," as demonstrated in your statement that ". . . someone who has never been on the receiving end of racial hatred and MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE of their racist manners?"

I'm not suggesting that for an action to be racist the actor must possess an affirmative, knowing belief that another race is inferior, or be taking the action with the deliberate intent to belittle, offend, or insult somebody of another race.  That certainly qualifies as racist, but that isn't the bar I am setting for "racist intent."  To the contrary, it is possible to ASSUME a racist intent without realizing it.   Not recognizing your own racist intent doesn't make it go away.  

For example, the commissioner would not NEED to be thinking, "I think many blacks are illiterate so I am going to insult this black man by suggesting he is illiterate," in order for the questioning to be racist.  However--at the very least--for the questioning to be racist the commissioner would have to be inspired to ask the question on account of race.  Some sort of unspoken assumption that, because Lawal is black, he must be illiterate, or a desire to offend or belittle Lawal because he is black. 

Whatever the case, SOME level of racist intent is required for her questions to actually be racist. 

The "historical relevance" you mention is only relevant for determining when an action MAY be racist, when a black person may PERCEIVE an action as racist, and for attempting to INFER a racist intent based on that action.  But it does not in and of itself make the action racist--see the Romanian exchange student, etc. above.  

Note your own language: "It isn't hard to understand how an authority figure SPEAKING DOWN to a black man and suggesting that he may be illiterate is racist."  Similarly, you say, "Doesn't it make more sense to take the word of someone who has dealt with racism his entire life and KNOWS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE . . . ?"

To "speak down" to somebody is PEJORATIVE and--given the "historical relevance"--it's not hard to see how a black man may PERCEIVE somebody speaking down to them as racist.  After all, he "knows what it looks like."  But that alone doesn't prove the black man right and magically impose a racist motive on somebody.  It just means that the black man has identified an action that MAY be racist, and further investigation is warranted.

So again, <i><u><b>if</b></u></i> <strong>(1)</strong> the commissioner's questions are normal given the context; <b>(2)</b> whether an action is "racist" is determined by the intent of the actor, not the understanding of the recipient; and <b>(3) </b>the commmissioner routinely asks these questions to non-blacks, <i><u><b>then</b></u></i> absent some other evidence of racist intent, I don't see how anybody can conclude the questions were in fact racist, regardless of how Lawal feels about it. 

And that's all there is to it.  




As a lawyer, you yourself are part of the very system that persecutes and discriminates against minorities the most.

Please see my link on my last post. Why do you and your fellow lawyers and judges continue to persecute the black man? Is this just a continuation of your ilk's machinations to disenfranchise the black man? A much more subtle attack than the Eight Box Law or the Grandfather Clause?

I understand your need to break down and deconstruct any claim of racism. It may be that you just have cognitive dissonance and can not bear to face your own xenophobia and racist tendencies. Perhaps your inherent hatred of all things different drives you to endlessly defend those who belittle and keep the black man down. For all I know, it may be that your bigotry has lead you to believe that the black man has a larger penis and in your envy and fear of him absconding with your wife or daughter, you have become angry and vengeful towards the black race.

I also understand why you are so focused on intent. It allows you and your cronies to justify any racist action you make by deviousness and guile. Lawyers are masters of subtlety and word play, always trying to shift the paradigm in their favor. Always manipulating the system for a favorable outcome. You can argue away any racial slight with a simple "You don't know what that person REALLY meant!!".

All of this is purely conjecture though. To really know if you and your fellow attorney are racists, you would have to ask King Mo.







 MTH is logical and clear while your post screams of emotional wannabe victim. 

OMG!!!!!

It seems that the kitten survived the first attack and they caught a second attack on tape! When are these people going to learn that that pitbull is an uncontrollable animal???!!!!


Poor kittah put up a good fight :(

If that cat ever gets in a fight with another cat it is going to FUCK it up! Playing and roughhousing with a Pit is like training at AKA every day.

I won't watch it. It seems odd that someone was videoing the attack rather than beating the shit out of that dog. Tell me there were serious attempts at intervention.... Phone Post

 i love watching big dags kill kittens


thanks for posting op!

Malvert the Janitor - I won't watch it. It seems odd that someone was videoing the attack rather than beating the shit out of that dog. Tell me there were serious attempts at intervention.... Phone Post




You should watch at least the first minute of the vid in the OP to really understand what was going on. Looks like the pit goes into a frenzy shortly after that which is why it's not stopped

colefknpage - iPhone :'( Phone Post
. Phone Post

Direct link of First video for Iphone:




Direct link of second video for Iphone:

TTT

TTT for the nightshiftas!!!! Phone Post