Dog breed bans are about human prejudice — not the dogs

jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 53 points –
Dog breed bans are about human prejudice — not the dogs
vox.com

Highlights: In a bizarre turn of events last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he would ban American XL bullies, a type of pit bull-shaped dog that had recently been implicated in a number of violent and sometimes deadly attacks.

XL bullies are perceived to be dangerous — but is that really rooted in reality?

138

You are viewing a single comment

Sorry, can you clarify what part of OPs post is racism? Genuinely struggling with that connection.

Did you read the original article? It explains the racebaiting that goes on with pit bulls

The idiot I'm replying to believes that The genome of a animal directly correlates to that animals behavior potential for intelligence and general demeanor.

Now where have I heard before that someone's genetic makeup makes it so that they are not qualified to the same rights and privileges as the others. If this person believes that the parentage of a animal determines how a animal will live and act.... That's eugenics.

Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,”

To clarify, you are directly equating dog breeds with different races of humans so you can paint op as a eugenics apologist, and win an online argument about dogs? Did I get that right??

Yes, all these ban pitbull people are eugenicist apologists. That's facts. They might be useful idiots, but they have been tricked by pseudoscientific lies about genetics and behavior.

I dont see anywhere in the comment saying they're making direct comparisons to specific human racial segregation. Just making an analogy using human racism as an example.

I can see how someone might misconstrue that if they didn't like the argument, though.

Breed restrictions are a soft way of telling certain people that they're not welcome by forcing them to choose between their pet and living in a given location.

It's redlining via an external factor that isn't considered discriminatory. Some idiots look at a hard number "2,000 deaths in 30 years, OMG DANGER!" and refuse to accept the fact that per capita there are more dangerous dog breeds out there. But not by much, because the odds of you being killed by a dog are so preposterously low as to be irrelevant to your daily life.

I am merely reading the man statements at face value. Quote" “It’s the owner not the breed.” And “Breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behavior in dogs.”

Those statements just aren’t true. Dogs are specifically bred for certain physical and behavioral traits"

If you do not see that as the definition of eugenics then I don't know what to say in regards to your assessment.

We have been practicing eugenics on animals for literal centuries via selective breeding. We have shaped the designs of many a farm animal this way. Did you think poodles existed in the wild?

Pitbull dogs that were bred for fighting were euthanized if they attacked people. Also, most pitbulls were not used in dog fighting.

So really you just sound stupid.

2 more...
2 more...

You're missing the huge difference that humans arent selectively bred for specific physiological and behavioral traits reinforced over many generations. Theres no human race thats 10 times as small as they used to be with bulging eyes and breathing problems.

Oh really?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-height-by-country

Humans have been selectively breeding ourselves for centuries. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by force, and sometimes by Habsburg. This is largely defined by the beauty standards of a given culture, but there are always more factors.

mmm yeah really, 160cm isnt 1/10th of 184cm.

compared to say, a chihuahua's 3-6lb average weight up againt an American pit bull terrier average 30-60 lbs. Or 80 lb average North American wolf.

You really going to die on your braindead hill of "ten times bigger!" while ignoring actual evidence of you being an idiot?

Sounds about right.

You playing a half role in deciding who you breed with for one generation and having your own preferences in a mate is not the same as an organization controlling both halves of breeding over many generations with a well defined and consistent list of genetic traits being bred for, which is clear in the major magnitude of variance amongst sizes of different dog breeds, compared to human races.

Calling other people idiots and then continuing with the rest of that message is not a good look.

2 more...
2 more...