This is correct. My argument isn't just that they top the lists... it's ALSO that the damage they do is much higher than any other breed as well. These concepts are inextricably linked.
When a pomeranian bites you, it's whatever... bleeds a little bit, you put a bandaid on it later, but punt the fucker now. If a pitbull bites you... You might be missing part of your fucking leg. Try punting a pitbull...
We have more known attacks that are pitbulls simply because the damage they do is so fucking much more that it can't just be handled in private. It's actually probably 100% probably that pitbulls on average strictly bite at the same rates as other dogs... But the sheer amount of damage done by pitbulls means those bites = more deaths and hospitalizations. I've never once claimed that pitbulls bite more or less than any other breed, simply that they cause more casualties (and often specify deaths).
This is correct. My argument isn't just that they top the lists... it's ALSO that the damage they do is much higher than any other breed as well. These concepts are inextricably linked.
This is called gameness and the trait is not inextricable for pit bull breeds. It was bred into them through selection, not too dissimilar to how those stubby faced breeds were bred to be that way (e.g. pugs).
If pit bull breeds were selectively bred to reduce/remove that trait it would change things. It’s almost like the root problem isn’t the dogs but the people and breeding practices.
Pits already are selectively bred to reduce/remove that trait. The only person who wants a pit suited for fighting is the exact person who should never own a dog anyways. Since there’s literally NO benefit to the trait, obviously breeders jump through a lot of hoops to not sell aggressive murder dogs.
People who casually imply that every pitbull is a fucking monster are so woefully illinformed, and usually completely unwilling to consider they don’t know all the facts.
People who casually imply that every pitbull is a fucking monster are so woefully illinformed, and usually completely unwilling to consider they don’t know all the facts.
If this was directed at me I wasn’t implying every pit bull breed type is a monster.
Certified, professional breeders might be breeding out the gameness but the backyard breeders and the accidental breeders aren’t.
The number of pit and pit mixes in shelters aren’t coming from professional breeders or their dogs. Our second adopted dog is a mutt but dominant breeds are Border Collie and Am. Pit Bull Terrier. We’ve got her pretty well trained now, but if another dog comes snapping and biting at her I have to jump in to get a hold of her because she’s still got enough game in her that, if provoked, she goes hard in the paint.
I will always believe that pit type breeds are not for inexperienced or lazy dog owners. They need work, structure and training consistently.
This is key, it's like they are bigger than they appear. We inherited one. Sweet nature, good with the cats, but weighs the same as the bigger dog in the household and strong as fuck.
It’s actually probably 100% probably that pitbulls on average strictly bite at the same rates as other dogs…
I'm sorry, but this is a probably 100% probably on average strictly convincing sentence you've got, there.
Oh man... I said "probably" rather than "probable"! I better go get the noose and hang myself cause @daltotron can't understand what a typo is!
No, I get that people type on mobile, and that autocorrect is a bitch. The thing that struck me more was that you hedged your bets like 4 times in the same sentence, against someone calling you out for not having any evidence of what you were claiming, but then you still end up using your claim to extrapolate an argument with what seems like a relatively large amount of certainty.
Also that the sentence was kind of repetitive, which struck me as funny. "probably 100% probable" is just saying the same thing twice, saying that something is "probably" the case is the same thing as saying it's "100% probable", and the "100%" part of that strikes me as completely superfluous. "on average strictly" is kind of contradictory, you usually wouldn't claim something to be "on average" but then also say that it is "strictly" that way, because an average is, you know, an average, it's an aggregate of numbers, including outliers. So it can't really "strictly" conform to whatever you're wanting it to conform to, unless it's an exact match of the average, or unless you don't actually mean "strictly" in the strictest sense. I dunno, I give it a C-.
The argument also strikes me as wrong, I would think pitbulls probably do just attack people more ,and with more aggressiveness, than other dog breeds. Maybe not that much more, relative to, say, german shepards, but say, compared to irish wolfhounds, I would think so, yeah. I think if an irish wolfhoud was attacking someone at the same rates, with the same aggression, as pitbulls, we would see them kill a lot more people than pitbulls do. Pitbulls aren't actually that big, relative to other dogs.
This is correct. My argument isn't just that they top the lists... it's ALSO that the damage they do is much higher than any other breed as well. These concepts are inextricably linked.
When a pomeranian bites you, it's whatever... bleeds a little bit, you put a bandaid on it later, but punt the fucker now. If a pitbull bites you... You might be missing part of your fucking leg. Try punting a pitbull...
We have more known attacks that are pitbulls simply because the damage they do is so fucking much more that it can't just be handled in private. It's actually probably 100% probably that pitbulls on average strictly bite at the same rates as other dogs... But the sheer amount of damage done by pitbulls means those bites = more deaths and hospitalizations. I've never once claimed that pitbulls bite more or less than any other breed, simply that they cause more casualties (and often specify deaths).
This is called gameness and the trait is not inextricable for pit bull breeds. It was bred into them through selection, not too dissimilar to how those stubby faced breeds were bred to be that way (e.g. pugs).
If pit bull breeds were selectively bred to reduce/remove that trait it would change things. It’s almost like the root problem isn’t the dogs but the people and breeding practices.
Pits already are selectively bred to reduce/remove that trait. The only person who wants a pit suited for fighting is the exact person who should never own a dog anyways. Since there’s literally NO benefit to the trait, obviously breeders jump through a lot of hoops to not sell aggressive murder dogs.
People who casually imply that every pitbull is a fucking monster are so woefully illinformed, and usually completely unwilling to consider they don’t know all the facts.
If this was directed at me I wasn’t implying every pit bull breed type is a monster.
Certified, professional breeders might be breeding out the gameness but the backyard breeders and the accidental breeders aren’t.
The number of pit and pit mixes in shelters aren’t coming from professional breeders or their dogs. Our second adopted dog is a mutt but dominant breeds are Border Collie and Am. Pit Bull Terrier. We’ve got her pretty well trained now, but if another dog comes snapping and biting at her I have to jump in to get a hold of her because she’s still got enough game in her that, if provoked, she goes hard in the paint.
I will always believe that pit type breeds are not for inexperienced or lazy dog owners. They need work, structure and training consistently.
This is key, it's like they are bigger than they appear. We inherited one. Sweet nature, good with the cats, but weighs the same as the bigger dog in the household and strong as fuck.
I'm sorry, but this is a probably 100% probably on average strictly convincing sentence you've got, there.
Oh man... I said "probably" rather than "probable"! I better go get the noose and hang myself cause @daltotron can't understand what a typo is!
No, I get that people type on mobile, and that autocorrect is a bitch. The thing that struck me more was that you hedged your bets like 4 times in the same sentence, against someone calling you out for not having any evidence of what you were claiming, but then you still end up using your claim to extrapolate an argument with what seems like a relatively large amount of certainty.
Also that the sentence was kind of repetitive, which struck me as funny. "probably 100% probable" is just saying the same thing twice, saying that something is "probably" the case is the same thing as saying it's "100% probable", and the "100%" part of that strikes me as completely superfluous. "on average strictly" is kind of contradictory, you usually wouldn't claim something to be "on average" but then also say that it is "strictly" that way, because an average is, you know, an average, it's an aggregate of numbers, including outliers. So it can't really "strictly" conform to whatever you're wanting it to conform to, unless it's an exact match of the average, or unless you don't actually mean "strictly" in the strictest sense. I dunno, I give it a C-.
The argument also strikes me as wrong, I would think pitbulls probably do just attack people more ,and with more aggressiveness, than other dog breeds. Maybe not that much more, relative to, say, german shepards, but say, compared to irish wolfhounds, I would think so, yeah. I think if an irish wolfhoud was attacking someone at the same rates, with the same aggression, as pitbulls, we would see them kill a lot more people than pitbulls do. Pitbulls aren't actually that big, relative to other dogs.