Moderator: Dictators in Training
Zanchief wrote:Lyion wrote:Why do we need Pit Bulls? Would you be ok with disallowing ALL future Pit Bull pets, but allowing people to keep their current ones and just spaying and neutering all current ones?
I mentioned this in our last dance about pit bulls and Gypsy went nuts since her friend works for some militant Pit bull advocacy group.
You flat out ignored any discussion retorting your "evidence" because it didn't align with your preconceived notions.
Gypsiyee wrote:Why do we need pit bulls? Sorry, Lyion, but that's kind of a silly question. Why do we need any breed of dog? Why does Leah want a corgi? Why does Tossica want his french bulldog with the delightfully adorable bottom? Why do I want my shiba inu? The answer to all of them is personal preference in regard to the appearance, trainability, and demeanor of the breed and how it fits in with your family dynamic.
Gypsiyee wrote:My argument stems from the fact that there are 30+ breeds that look like pits that get lumped into the pit bull category of pit bull type dogs, thereby substantiating a self fulfilling prophecy that all pits are evil when in fact there's no actual evidence that the breed in question is, in fact, that breed.
"911 operator how can I help you?" "A pit attacked me!" "Oh, okay -- we'll add that to the list of pit bull attacks and add it to the mountain of unsubstantiated 'proof' of pit bull demeanor."
You flat out ignored any discussion retorting your "evidence" because it didn't align with your preconceived notions. The evidence you provided yourself listed multiple different individual breeds and then lumped miscellaneous breeds of a certain appearance into a 'type', and that's your irrefutable source: basically the equivalent of a list of office products broken down into tiny subcategories like staples, paper clips, scissors, thumb tacks, and then simply "writing types" to include highlighters, pens, pencils, dry erase markers, etc. One massive category lumped into a list of subcategories. Shelter vets don't even bother to verify breed, they call it whatever they think it looks like. What makes you think the average person can certify a breed?
Gypsiyee wrote:And again, why does your bizarre logic on pit bulls not apply to people? You're the quintessential anti-racist, but I could provide you mounds of evidence substantiating the statistics for an overwhelming ratio of crime in regards to race. Since people have the free will to know the difference between good and bad and dogs don't, doesn't it stand to reason that if one race is overwhelmingly responsible for a certain type of crime and they choose to keep committing them, then they must also be inherently evil? And since you could make the same argument in regards to education and employment, does that also make one race inherently lazy or stupid? I don't think so, but I'm also cognizant of the effect of environmental influence in relation to behavior. You are too, but apparently only when it suits your argument.
Gypsiyee wrote:And again, why does your bizarre logic on pit bulls not apply to people? You're the quintessential anti-racist, but I could provide you mounds of evidence substantiating the statistics for an overwhelming ratio of crime in regards to race. Since people have the free will to know the difference between good and bad and dogs don't, doesn't it stand to reason that if one race is overwhelmingly responsible for a certain type of crime and they choose to keep committing them, then they must also be inherently evil? And since you could make the same argument in regards to education and employment, does that also make one race inherently lazy or stupid? I don't think so, but I'm also cognizant of the effect of environmental influence in relation to behavior. You are too, but apparently only when it suits your argument.
Adivina wrote:We are the most bipolar acting community, bunch of manics with the mood swings on here.
Lyion wrote:Gypsiyee wrote:Why do we need pit bulls? Sorry, Lyion, but that's kind of a silly question. Why do we need any breed of dog? Why does Leah want a corgi? Why does Tossica want his french bulldog with the delightfully adorable bottom? Why do I want my shiba inu? The answer to all of them is personal preference in regard to the appearance, trainability, and demeanor of the breed and how it fits in with your family dynamic.
Bulldogs, Corgi's and Bassets generally do not eat pregnant women and maul babies. Ever. I can find stories of pits in the news doing that recently.
I'm sure since you support so many personal freedoms you are in favor of total gun rights and the freedom to bear any sort of arms whatsoever, correct? Especially since if there's a Pit nearby, one might need heavy artillery, especially if one is in proximity to a pregnant woman.
Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to June 25, 2010
By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2010,1 Merritt Clifton, editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE, shows the breeds most responsible for serious injury and death.
Read full study »
Study highlights
The combination of pit bulls, rottweilers, presa canarios, and their mixes:
80% of attacks that induce bodily harm
70% of attacks to children
83% of attack to adults
69% of attacks that result in fatalities
75% that result in maiming
Lyion wrote:Bulldogs, Corgi's and Bassets generally do not eat pregnant women and maul babies. Ever. I can find stories of pits in the news doing that recently.
Zanchief wrote:Again with your global media conspiracy. People reporting on these things don’t have to adhere to eye witness testimony since in most cases they can do research after the act has transgressed and could easily establish breed. You’re accusing journalists all over the world of misrepresenting the facts even though you don’t show one shred of evidence as to how or why.
The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bite by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). Specifically, the authors of this and other studies cite the inherent difficulties in breed identification (especially among mixed-breed dogs) and in calculating a breed's bite rate given the lack of consistent data on breed population and the actual number of bites occurring in a community, especially when the injury is not deemed serious enough to require treatment in an emergency room (Sacks et al., 2000; AVMA, 2001; Collier, 2006). Supporting the concern regarding identification, a recent study noted a significant discrepancy between visual determination of breed and DNA determination of breed (Voith et al., 2009).
Do you really want to equate the genetic difference between a white human and a black human to a pitbull and a corgi? Why not compare a bear and a beaver? That’s some good science.
leah wrote:we had a corgi who bit children (and adults, and other dogs) viciously.
Lyion wrote:Links are nice, but stats are better:
The stats are here:
http://www.dogsbite.org/bite-study-deaths-maimings.htmDog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to June 25, 2010
By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2010,1 Merritt Clifton, editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE, shows the breeds most responsible for serious injury and death.
Read full study »
Study highlights
The combination of pit bulls, rottweilers, presa canarios, and their mixes:
80% of attacks that induce bodily harm
70% of attacks to children
83% of attack to adults
69% of attacks that result in fatalities
75% that result in maiming
Here are fatalities for last year. Most previous years are similar with the Pitts/Rotts always leading the pack despite being far fewer in number.
22 was LAST year. There are many more deaths and the Pit is the protagonist from the dog world.
Lyion wrote:leah wrote:we had a corgi who bit children (and adults, and other dogs) viciously.
My mistake. Add Corgis to the list of killer animals and rabid attack dogs!
Please add this ferocious beast in with all the Pit Bulls for future euthanizating. Sorry Leah.
p.s. Every dog can bite. Any abused animal can be especially dangerous. However, take a good look at the history of Pit Bull attacks. There's no real comparison.
Zanchief wrote:Different breeds of dogs aren't like different races of people. I think anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of biology could tell you that. You're comment is just silly hyperbole, as was mine (I win though because I knew I was being ridiculous).
In biology, subspecies, race and breed are equivalent terms. Breed is usually applied to domestic animals; species and subspecies, to wild animals and to plants; and race, to humans
As for your first argument pointing out that it's difficult to determine dog breeds is well and good, but you'll have to determine why these errors wouldn't be random but instead be part of some vast anti-pitt conspiracy. It seems people just don't like their pregnant women being eaten alive.
Speaking of perspective, since you brought it up a number of times, don't you think it's weird that after hearing that a pittbull brutally mauled a pregnant woman you blamed the owners for having a dog near a pregnant woman (I still can't believe it). That doesn't strike you a bit like you're riding this pony no matter the evidence?
These dogs a bad. Even when taking into account alleged environmental and media backlash those stats would still say the same thing. These stats aren’t close at all.
Pit Bulls are .041 of the dog population and are responsible for almost all dog attack deaths and thousands of serious attacks and maiming incidents.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests