Tavarin @ Tavarin @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

617

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, you see they subtracted room and board from him, that's why he only got $800k.

Not when the link to said source gives a 404 doesn't exist page. Blame your source website.

And some of those factors just apply to pits because of their breed.

76% are not given lots of human contact, because pits are violent and aggressive, and need to be kept away from people.

77% compromised ability to interact with dogs; well pits are way too strong for the vast majority of people.

Unneutered dogs being more likely to attack. Just an argument to force neuter all pits.

As for breed identification. If it be big, terrier shaped, and boxy head, it's pit enough.

Yeah, the source for that webpage doesn't exist, so not going to believe a word on it.

Oh, a traffic offense, oh goodness they must be horrible dog owners. Seriously, nearly everyone has a traffic offense, if that's in the criteria, then no shit it's at 100%.

Nope, spent my whole life around dogs. Fearful dogs are very unlikely to attack, they're nothing like aggressive dogs.

Doge is not an akita, she's a shiba inu.

They also are no more capable of causing injury than any other equivalent sized dog.

Not true. Pitbulls do not give up attacking as easily as other breeds. What makes pits so dangerous is that once they do decide to attack something there is very little you can do to stop them. I've watched video of a pit trying to attack a horse, and even after being repeatedly kicked in the had, the stupid dog just kept attacking until the horse killed it.

This is a trait that has been bred into pitbulls since they have been bred to fight other dogs. Other dog breeds are smart enough to give up on an attack.

If any other breed was categorized the same way where any wild-assed guess that it might be "part x-breed" counts as an "X-breed attack" then it would easily top the lists the exact same way

If you add up literally every other dog breed in the list of fatal dog attacks it doesn't even come close to the number of kills by pitbulls. Combine together rotweillers, german shepherds, malinose, huskies, chow-chows, mastiffs, etc... and pits still kill more people than all of those together. And that's not including pits killing other dogs, which is a frequent occurrence.

Pitbulls were specifically bred as fighting dogs to fight and kill other dogs in pits.

Don't apply human logic to dog breeding. Dogs are specifically bred by humans to have specific traits. Humans are not bred to have specific traits.

And at least one study I've read showed that bad ownership and rescue status only account for 20% of dog attacks, so most attacks are not a result of bad ownership.

My guy, I really am very smart. 99th percentile or so through my PhD, and into my well published scientific career.

Pitbulls suck and we need to stop breeding them, live with it.

Pitbulls dominate the list of fatal dog attacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks

And yet they only account for about 6% of owned dogs. They are more dangerous than other breeds, vastly more so in fact. And just because dogs only kill a few dozen people each year, there is no reason not to eliminate the majority of that source of deaths.

And I've had friends attacked by "well-trained" and friendly pitbulls. Really nice neck scars they got from that super duper lovely little pibble. Don't know anyone injured by any other breed.

And how many cocker spaniels have killed people? I;m seeing zero on the list of attacks.

You are really stretching the words may be a lot here. Most fearful dogs are more likely to run away, and will only attack if cornered with no other way out. Seems you're the one who doesn't know about dog behavior, would explain why your a pitbull apologist.

Don't complain about downvotes, or you'll just get more downvotes, it's one of the basic rules of the internet.

Cool, more downvotes for you then.

Don't bring racism into this, this has nothing to do with racism or people.

And yes, per capita pitbulls do account for far more fatal attacks compared to other breeds.

And my goodness, you're actually linking to pitbullinfo, hahahaha. I already did a full teardown of that idiotic site, and its inability to actually read scientific papers with another lemmier. It's such a massive crap pile of propaganda, trying to disguise itself as a reliable source.

Every paper they list in their sources either doesn't say what they claim it does, or says literally the exact opposite. It's hilarious how bad that site is, and I can't believe anyone falls for it.

Also, no your link does not say temperament is propensity to attack. A dog can fail the temperament test because it is shy or nervous, as per your own link.

Let's see, 1 person has been killed by a Chow-chow, and none by shar-peis in recent years, yet dozens killed by Pits. Yes, I see how chows and shar-peis are what I should be worried about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks

For me, usually yes. And I'm the one debating here, and making the point from my perspective, so for this conversation my argument stands. Cyberpunk is a really good game, that I've had a ton of fun playing, and I genuinely enjoyed my time with it more than most games.

Temperament does not equate to ability and preponderance to cause severe injury or death.

Mixed breed is a separate category from pit. Your example dog would be under mixed breed.

70% of fatal bites are by pitbulls, but no where near 70% of dogs are pitbulls. Pits are roughly 6% of dogs.

Pit bulls are estimated to only be about 6% of the dog popualtion, and account for 70% of fatal bites.

By your logic pitbulls would have to be 70% of owned dogs, and let me tell you walking around 7 in 10 dogs are not pitbulls.