Who wants to talk about why it’s 90% black people in city jails and see how well your pitbull argument holds water against rational thinkers with larger scale ethics to consider.
I’d just like to see a sensible discussion that doesn’t involve the falsified statistics presented by the Dogsbite blog and its offshoots.
The so-called academic behind their “statistics” was outed for multiple frauds, the blogs are all set up by shadowy anonymous individuals with opaque funding.
It’s all just so janky, like there’s a big movement intent on muddying the water of actual useful conversation.
Large terriers are undoubtedly a potential problem in the hands of inexperienced or irresponsible owners, but to over simplify the argument to “pitbull dogs bad” is irresponsible.
Any dog over ~15kg can do great harm, and when you take into account the breed traits of terriers, it’s easy to understand the importance of proper debate.
But the crusaders need to be ranked out in favour of proper discussion.
I have actually told a pitbull owner the reality of pitbull statistics to their face, but I also made sure to explain that statistics and individuals are not the same thing. They failed to understand the distinction and made me go outside and meet their dog, whom they had brought to the bar. It was a very nice doggy and I also told the very nice doggy that it was statistically part of a very problematic breed. But like, really all those statics mean is that pits are a breed that require a good owner. No one would suggest someone in NYC get a border collie, whereas pretty much anyone can handle a King Charles spaniel.
I’m a strong proponent that it’s the owner, not the dog that is ultimately the reason pitty’s get a bad rap. I’ve rarely come across a pit bull that isn’t a big lovable goofball that just wants belly rubs and to play tug. But the one’s that haven’t been seem to have irresponsible owners that either don’t know, or don’t care about how to properly train their dog.
That said, it’s hard not to look at the data and agree that a breed ban would be best.
Wanna go around deciding who should have them and who shouldn’t? We can’t keep criminals out of public office or innocent people out of prison. YOU figure out how to judge people where everyone else has failed. Until then, let everyone keep their claws.
See i don’t know. There was a lady in the news a couple years ago walking her dog and then her dog attacked her. Was she a bad owner, was the dog not trained or did the dog just snap for 30 seconds and kill her.
In 2009, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia released a five-year review of dog-bite injuries. The review states that 51 percent of attacks were made by pit bulls.
In 2009, another study was published by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. The study ran for 15 years and it has concluded that pit bulls, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers are among the most common breeds that cause fatal dog attacks in Kentucky State.
In 2011, the Annals of Surgery published a study, which concluded that Pitbull attacks lead to more expensive hospital bills, higher risk of death, and higher morbidity rates compared to other breeds of dogs.
I love dogs, work with them and know a dogs behaviour like the back of my hand.
Pitbulls are bad but so are most of the bull breeds. The problem is all dog attacks come from working dogs and 95% of the time, people who have no fucking idea about dogs personify them and are completely naive about their capabilities are the problem.
The first linked thread was just one user getting pissy in the comments.
The second thread was flamebait, plain and simple. Has no business being in Lemmy Be Wholesome. On Shitpost I could give it a pass, maybe.
It’s already too late, but I would suggest in this case not using this thread as an extension to continue back and forth the argument highlighted in this drama.
That’s the argument. On one side it’s “Here’s a heap of statistics, and testimonials from Vets about how this breed was bred for fighting and is extremely dangerous to humans” and on the other side:
“Says the guy who probably tortures animals”.
So, of course it’s nasty. People who have actually been attacked by pitbulls, mauled and disabled by them, are fighting fucking morons. Really, really stupid people that care more about dogs than humans.
According to who the United Kennel club and the American Breeders association all recognize the breed. The American Kennel association does not. Or is it because the full name is not being used sorry the American Pit Bull Terrier.
I always look at these posts of people writing about pit bulls out of a place of fear. And just shake my head. But the post I replied to talked about logic, and research. So let’s logic.
Top Google search,Wikipedia "Pit bull is an umbrella term for several types of dog believed to have descended from bull and terriers.
“Pit bulls” are the most abundant dogs in the United states. The most common mutt is called a “Pit Bull”. Everyone who is afraid of dogs these days think Pit Bulls. I remember when it used to be German Shepards. People afraid of dogs would say German Shepards are evil dogs bred to hunt people.
Don’t be ruled by fear. Dogs are dogs. They are domesticated carnivores, and unknown dogs need to be treated with caution. You never know if they’ve been abused or have behavioral issues.
While I agree that pits have the capability to fuck your shit up 6 ways before you can blink, and along with breeds like the Pug should just be allowed to die off with the current generation, you are using a common tactic of “I’ll use the best argument to represent my side, and the worst argument to represent their side so it’s clear my side is superior” as a generalization for the entire opposing viewpoint.
Straw men blow away in strong winds. Build better arguments, you’ll make better points.
Pets are family, so people have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone badmouthing their pets even if the other person has a point.
My sister has a rescue pit. He’s the sweetest dog ever - he was afraid of men for a while due to his previous owner, but gradually warmed up and now runs up to everyone he sees for cuddles.
However, when they took him to visit someone in a nursing home he ran off and bit one of the staff unprovoked. It turns out how a dog behaves around family versus around strangers are two completely different things, and dog owners rarely see the latter so judge their pet’s personality based on the former.
A dog can be an absolute angel around people introduced to them by someone they love and trust, but if their little doggy brain registers someone as a threat (or even just an intruder in their space) things can go very wrong, very quickly.
This so much. I’ve had dogs snarling at me, and the owner is like “Oh, don’t worry, he’s friendly.” Like no, he’s friendly towards people he knows, not random strangers!
This got severely exacerbated by the pandemic too. A lot of people who had zero business having a dog found themselves with a bit too much free time and decided a new dog was the solution.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but if you get a dog as a quick fix to your own problems without putting a LOT of thought into it first, you might not be the best person to have a dog.
That’s why these discussions generally come down to understanding/misunderstanding ‘instincts’. Certain breeds have at least broadly understood instincts when it comes to offensive/defensive postures, and those instincts may never be triggered in their day to day, even year to year, routine…but extrapolating that to mean ‘my little Cuddles would never X if Y happened’ is dangerous and selfish.
Lots of dogs are like that too, but most don’t have tools to kill like a pit. You basically have all the aggression of a Yorkie and the bite of a bear. It doesn’t help that are pack motivated too. God help anything that looks like food or a toy when 2 of them are out.
Somehow you posting a picture of your dogs in a wholesome sub REQUIRES them to comment something shitty when they could, idk, mind their own fucking business?
It wasn’t a neutral post though was it? The title is “In retaliation to the Pit bull haters,”. That’s not a “wholesome” post to begin with, and if you call someone out, don’t be surprised when they answer back
Pit bull is a large category which many, completely unrelated breeds can be classified as too. Entirely different genetics, from entirely different regions, with entirely different temperaments.
Sure, if a person lumps together any dog that kinda looks like it belongs in the bully classification, you’ll get pretty high statistics. Especially when you compare against singular breeds like a rottweiler.
If you look at the graphic (which states 67% not 90) “pitbull” makes up atleast 8 breeds, though like many others I’ve read my assumption is that they’re still classifying many breeds as a singular breed.
You need to look at per-capita data by the way, even if you didn’t need to separate the breeds. With simply this data, there could simply be more pitbulls in existance than other breeds.
Also, there is no dotted line on the police report for “Dog Breed”. It’s just a dog bite/attack/fight etc. No police department is out here compiling and retaining data on what dogs are involved in what fights, let alone doing a fucking DNA test to make sure that was a pitbull or not involved
That is true, which is why most of the reports have to have some meta-analysis on them to be useful, but where dog breed and injury type/circumstances are broadly available within the report, breeds like labrador, spaniel, chihuahua, poodle, etc (and other, reasonably recognizable breeds) the injures are almost overwhelmingly related to non-life-threatening injuries and/or unusual circumstances (feral dogs, part of packs, extreme neglect or abuse) while deaths or serious, life-threatening instances where breeds seem reasonably documented, 60%+ are from the three commonly expected breed/types, which very heavily outweighs the percent of those breeds in the population.
If type of dog commonly labeled ‘pitbulls’ made up 60% of the population and were involved in 60% of attacks, that would basically mean they posed no more threat than any other breed…if they only make up 1% of the population and are involved in 60% of life-threatening attacks, it’s fair to say that ‘breed’ is extremely dangerous. It’s much closer to the second example than that first. If you wanted to make a good argument, if you could identify some specific breed that is commonly identified as ‘pitbull’ but which arguably are ‘not’ involved in life-threatening attacks, that might be worth highlighting, but unfortunately, just like everyone ‘calling everything that looks vaguely like a pitbull, a pitbull’…the instincts that earn then the poor reputation are just as spread out across the group as the physically recognizable traits.
Basically, the response to your comment is ‘yeah, but…’ because even though you’re right that we probably will never know exactly what breed caused which injury, there is an obvious enough pattern that pretending there isn’t a pretty heavy relationship between dogs ‘significantly mixed’ with pitbull and rottweilers and serious attacks is either intentionally deceiving or ignorant.
My theory: pitbull hate is just a thinly veiled dog whistle (lol pun) for racism. The majority of pit owners are POC and the vitriol people have for those dogs is eeriely similar to what you see in hate speech. Like German Shepherds are literally bred specifically for cops to bite people professionally but you never hear anyone bitch about them, because they’re associated more with authority and White America…
Here I can speak from experience. I was mauled by a dog when I was a kid. It had shitty owners that left him chained up all day no matter the weather. The breed? GSD. Not that it matters at all.
Add comment