Im not an AR by defination, but I do think anyone who would fight a dog is a POS. I am a hog hunter and knowing Josh I would say if he says someone used the dog for fighting that is what happened, it almost sounds as if you are defending dog fighters I also believe if its his thread he can jump to conclusions or speculate all he wants to. He gave the facts (as HE saw them) who can question that? and why would anyone question it except to stir the pot!
Because I'm educated to the history of that particular breed of dog and I give my opinion regarding the speculation of others I'm defending dog fighters? I think all I've done is state a reasonable opinion (or argument, if you wish to call it that) regarding the speculation of another individual. I don't know Josh, but, I'm quite sure that unless an individual was in a position to witness how animals (or other people for that matter) obtained their scars...it is nothing more than speculation. The facts are that he found a dog with scars on it's head and blind in one eye that has been severely neglected. Everything else is conjecture.
Why would I question it? Because I wouldn't want anyone who saw the scars on my dogs from hunting to speculate in the same fashion and assume that I fight dogs. It seems that we have a difference of opinion...that is the extent of it.
