Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren't as safe drivers. It isn't "fair" in that the dog didn't choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of "teenagers as unsafe drivers," you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it's statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? "Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime" and suddenly now since it's optically bad to charge black people higher rates "causation only equals correlation when we can't be called racist for it?"
That shit don't sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they're arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they're the ones the cops use now, and they're "not" "bred to attack" over pits? Come off it.
"If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all." Your argument is peak "Argument to Authority." I guess it's a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait...
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They're statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that "pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals" is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you're gonna have to convince me with more than "insurance companies say they are."
Quick thought experiment - magically replace every pitbull in the world with a chihuahua instead. Do the number of maulings go up or down?
The number of maulings would go down even if you replaced every Golden Retriever with a chihuahua. Replacing every member of a particular breed of dog capable of mauling someone with a member of a breed incapable of it would always cause a reduction in instances. Maybe you think we should go around Old Yellering every Golden Retriever in the world, just to be safe?
The causal link is implied. When someone says "Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk," this is another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal's breed that makes it this way. It's literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately "more criminal" than another ethnic group.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though. I've known dog owners that get those breeds specifically and they have no understanding of how to treat a dog. Like they'll get a working dog and an cage it all day then wonder why it's aggressive. I'd like to know the difference. Because too many people get dogs for looks and don't actually give a fuck a about the dogs soul.
Sorry if I come off aggressive, I just talk like that... I'm genuinely curious about this.
Sure but then the problem is moron owners, not the dog or it's breed. Those morons could be just as cruel to a German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, Presa Canario, Bullmastiff, etc. Nature vs Nurture I guess.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though.
This is sort of my point. A pit bull that's socialized, well trained, and cared for is generally very safe to be around. A pit bull that has the opposite kind of life? Well, what kinda dog wouldn't be an asshole under those circumstances?
I don't hate the breed or agree with breed bans but both my niece and my friend's daughter were badly bitten by pits and they do make me nervous.
I'm this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
The one in my neighbourhood jumps all over me. I am also a bit on edge, although most of it seems to be goofiness.
Okay, I'm trying to understand your argument here. Are you saying that pitbulls are being racially profiled and that information from other dogs aren't being collected or that bites of the same severity by other dogs aren't being correctly gathered or are bring suppressed? And, if so, what are the factors that should be taken into account when discussing dog bites or dog aggression?
The other user who responded to you, @evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world, does a good job of analyzing the core idea here. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Black people are no more "innately inclined towards criminality" than a pit-bull is innately inclined towards mauling people. Where people of color have been historically over policed, profiled by the criminal justice system, and generally set up to have a higher rate of criminal statistics than other ethnic groups, pit-bulls face similar statistical problems. Bite statistics are often self-reported by people who either witnessed a dog attack or who were themselves victims of one. Identifying a dog's breed by sight, especially for mixed breed dogs, is nearly impossible, and more error prone than accurate. And for a pound, any "big dog with a blocky head" immediately gets labeled as a pit-bull, even if it has literally no pit-bull DNA. These dogs are routinely adopted by people who explicitly train a dog to be mean to people, as opposed to socializing them. The fact that they also have this reputation as guard dogs or attack dogs exacerbates their reputation.
I already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here.
Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn't tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable.
Couldn't tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn't matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn't be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
Couldn’t tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Because those are the two dog breeds that exist. Pitbull and Chihuahua. There are no others.
I think the reason they are making that comparison is that there are a lot of other factors that feed into the final numbers. Crime stats aren't a final determination of the inherent criminality of different groups of people. Things like poverty, arrest rates, and conviction rates all skew the numbers.
With pit bulls, people often get them because they want a dog that's "tough" and they essentially train (or don't train) them to be bad dogs. The dog itself isn't at fault.
Anyone who's been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey. The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me....
Anyone whos been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey.
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren't killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Of course it's not the dog's fault. It is just an animal. It's the breeders' and the owners' fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you're just looking for a pet next time.
What do you think happens to all the unadopted pitbulls, pizza parties every Friday? Nope, it's euthanasia.
Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls.
There are a shitload of people who advocate for completely destroying this breed of dog.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They'd certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
Everyone knows the FBI is in the pocket of big-chihuahua.
Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren't as safe drivers. It isn't "fair" in that the dog didn't choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of "teenagers as unsafe drivers," you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it's statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? "Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime" and suddenly now since it's optically bad to charge black people higher rates "causation only equals correlation when we can't be called racist for it?"
That shit don't sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they're arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they're the ones the cops use now, and they're "not" "bred to attack" over pits? Come off it.
"If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all." Your argument is peak "Argument to Authority." I guess it's a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait...
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They're statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that "pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals" is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you're gonna have to convince me with more than "insurance companies say they are."
Quick thought experiment - magically replace every pitbull in the world with a chihuahua instead. Do the number of maulings go up or down?
The number of maulings would go down even if you replaced every Golden Retriever with a chihuahua. Replacing every member of a particular breed of dog capable of mauling someone with a member of a breed incapable of it would always cause a reduction in instances. Maybe you think we should go around Old Yellering every Golden Retriever in the world, just to be safe?
No one is ascribing any casual links here.
The causal link is implied. When someone says "Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk," this is another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal's breed that makes it this way. It's literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately "more criminal" than another ethnic group.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though. I've known dog owners that get those breeds specifically and they have no understanding of how to treat a dog. Like they'll get a working dog and an cage it all day then wonder why it's aggressive. I'd like to know the difference. Because too many people get dogs for looks and don't actually give a fuck a about the dogs soul.
Sorry if I come off aggressive, I just talk like that... I'm genuinely curious about this.
Sure but then the problem is moron owners, not the dog or it's breed. Those morons could be just as cruel to a German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, Presa Canario, Bullmastiff, etc. Nature vs Nurture I guess.
This is sort of my point. A pit bull that's socialized, well trained, and cared for is generally very safe to be around. A pit bull that has the opposite kind of life? Well, what kinda dog wouldn't be an asshole under those circumstances?
I don't hate the breed or agree with breed bans but both my niece and my friend's daughter were badly bitten by pits and they do make me nervous.
I'm this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
The one in my neighbourhood jumps all over me. I am also a bit on edge, although most of it seems to be goofiness.
Okay, I'm trying to understand your argument here. Are you saying that pitbulls are being racially profiled and that information from other dogs aren't being collected or that bites of the same severity by other dogs aren't being correctly gathered or are bring suppressed? And, if so, what are the factors that should be taken into account when discussing dog bites or dog aggression?
The other user who responded to you, @evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world, does a good job of analyzing the core idea here. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Black people are no more "innately inclined towards criminality" than a pit-bull is innately inclined towards mauling people. Where people of color have been historically over policed, profiled by the criminal justice system, and generally set up to have a higher rate of criminal statistics than other ethnic groups, pit-bulls face similar statistical problems. Bite statistics are often self-reported by people who either witnessed a dog attack or who were themselves victims of one. Identifying a dog's breed by sight, especially for mixed breed dogs, is nearly impossible, and more error prone than accurate. And for a pound, any "big dog with a blocky head" immediately gets labeled as a pit-bull, even if it has literally no pit-bull DNA. These dogs are routinely adopted by people who explicitly train a dog to be mean to people, as opposed to socializing them. The fact that they also have this reputation as guard dogs or attack dogs exacerbates their reputation.
I already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here. Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same? Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn't tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable. Couldn't tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn't matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn't be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
Because those are the two dog breeds that exist. Pitbull and Chihuahua. There are no others.
I think the reason they are making that comparison is that there are a lot of other factors that feed into the final numbers. Crime stats aren't a final determination of the inherent criminality of different groups of people. Things like poverty, arrest rates, and conviction rates all skew the numbers.
With pit bulls, people often get them because they want a dog that's "tough" and they essentially train (or don't train) them to be bad dogs. The dog itself isn't at fault.
Anyone who's been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey. The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me....
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren't killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
Of course it's not the dog's fault. It is just an animal. It's the breeders' and the owners' fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you're just looking for a pet next time.
What do you think happens to all the unadopted pitbulls, pizza parties every Friday? Nope, it's euthanasia.
There are a shitload of people who advocate for completely destroying this breed of dog.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They'd certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
Everyone knows the FBI is in the pocket of big-chihuahua.
*little chihuahua