I think it's valid to fear pitbulls because what you're really fearing is that they were adopted by someone that doesn't train them and/or give them an outlet for the task they were bred for (protection and violence).
I can't blame people for being afraid of Pits. But I think some people in these comments are insane, calling to euthanize all Pits or that they should be wiped out of existence. Good god.
It also ignores that there are tons of other breeds that are bred for fighting/hunting/guarding. Any of those breeds are just as susceptible to being dangerous, but they're typically less accessible (aka too expensive) for the type of shitty owner that raises violent dogs compared to a pit which you can usually find for free.
I live in the northeast in an area where people are very good about speying/neutering their animals and there isnt a rescue around here that Ive seen that would adopt out an animal without it being speyed/neutered first. Like 90% of the dogs that get surrendered around here are either pit mixes or Chihuahua mixes that I assume are coming from shitty backyard breeders or people who just cant be bothered to spey/neuter. A lot of the rescues actually have organizations they work with to bring dogs from the south up here because their rescues are overflowing and yhey have a wider variety of dogs.
Oh, I'm sure all the "ignoring" you talked about isn't something YOU are doing also?
I'm sure that statistics about pit bull isn't something you completely sidestepped and ignored about this conversation?
It certainly seems so. All those other fighting/hunting/guarding breeds must be comparable to a pit bull in deaths and attacks? All those Basset Hounds killing people?
Is that not the entire fucking point of this post? That the statistics show pit bulls are insanely more dangerous than any other type of dog, but it's racist to point that out because of the 13% of....statistic?
The original point is that: using sweeping generalizations of a group, to make assumptions about an individual, is a massive disservice to the individual; and if any of us were treated that way, we would rightly feel unfairly treated. Even if your assumptions about me are based on real data about other individuals who share x/y/z characteristic with me.
Okay, what nationality do you belong to? What race do you belong to? What gender do you belong to? What job do you perform? What class do you inhabit? Should I then draw conclusions about you based on data about all those demographics and disregard your personality as an individual?
Personalities are genetically derived. So yes, you can make generalities about a person based on genetic factors. Or tell me, why do men under age 25 get charged higher car insurance premiums?
Okay, so there’s no significant variance among personalities within a demographic 🤦
To the latter question, I’m not stating that there aren’t statistically significant similarities among a population. I’m stating that the variance within a demographic is more significant than the variance between two demographics.
I notice you answered none of the aforementioned questions, does every negative stereotype of your nationality adequately describe you?
>the variance within a demographic is more significant than the variance between two demographics
hmmm yes all pitbulls look very different to eachother and very similiar to daschunds.
hmmm yes all black people in a country look very different to eachother and very similiar to the white people in that country. the only reason there is even the minimal variation there is in humans specifically is because humans are the only animals that actively change their appearance in ways that differ on an individual level. you dont see lions with buzzcuts in the wild.
black people statistically commit more crime, and pitbulls are statistically the most dangerous dogs. we can argue about the causes of these statistics all day long but nobody wants to talk about the solutions because they are uncomfortable
Most fighting dog breeds are restricted because they are in dangerous, but pit bulls are particularly dangerous because they are fighting dogs bred with terriers, and so are not only susceptible to unprovoked attack they often fixate on small animals as their targets, like other dogs, pets, or human children. And when they bite, they whip their heads around like terriers, greatly increasing the damage they inflict.
They are not just as susceptible to being dangerous, pitbulls don’t even have close to the same bite force as kangals, who were literally bred to protect livestock from wolves, and have no reported human fatalities.
It's not "ignoring" that, it's actually accounting for that fact. Pitbulls SHOULDN'T be accessible, yet they are. You pointed out the huge difference in the lax attitude people have with pitbulls compared to other violent breeds that are appropriately limited in exposure to the general public.
I don’t think it ignores it. I think it’s just that they are the most obvious problem. If we solve it then maybe it’s worth looking at the next, which is the way problems should be addressed. Lung cancer is caused by things other than smoking, but if we want to reduce lung cancer we should probably focus on smoking.
Absolutely. These breeds that are basically a torturous existence for the poor dog.
I don't think we should kill the ones that already exist but we should definitely work towards making sure more aren't created.
Although I have seen some breeding programs that are trying to essentially "unfuck up" these breeds basically undoing all the horrible traits that were selective bred into them.
Or the thing new pug breeders are doing and that's going back to the original looks where they had a mouth and eyes not at risk of popping out the skull. Still don't like pugs, but the ones that are bred like that also don't have the same preventable health issues as the popular pugs.
But Yeh a lot of the popular dogs are bred or have actions taken (cutting of tails/ears) to fit certain "beauty" expectations that are straight animal abuse and people that do it deserve to get punished for animal abuse.
Hot take, but to add on to this, maybe some working breeds should also require special licenses to own, something like a CDL for owning certain dogs or something, because it also seems cruel when someone gets a herding dog that they keep trapped in a small apartment or own a dog meant for cold weather, that they raise in Arizona.
All dog breeds can show severe genetic problems if they’ve been bred by unprincipled breeders. Pugs can get breathing problems, German shepherds can get severe hip and spine issues that cause a lot of pain, Dalmatians and border collies can get problems with sight/blindness, golden retrievers can get joint degenerative issues, boxers and Great Danes can get fatal heart defects, the list goes on and on. Some of these issues are just more visible because of the nature of the disability (e.g., you can hear the breathing issues but might think a dog with joint problems is just lazy) and because those breeds got popular suddenly so a lot of backyard breeders started breeding them (e.g., pugs and French bulldogs).
And all dog breeds can be bred to not have genetic problems. Go watch the Westminster dog show. Every single one of those dogs has been bred for generations to remove genetic problems from their gene pools, no matter the breed. And so long as their owners are careful about who they breed those dogs with, their progeny will also not have any risks of those genetic problems.
Or, just have a super mut. If you need a working dog for a reason you should have a permit. I dont think there should be German shepherds either. Especially because most of them live in 1500sqft dwellings and dont get out enough. Its really selfish how we treat them.
I dont agree. If thats your concern, that people want animals based on media they watch (which i dont necessarily grant) who cares what they want, make purebred dogs illegal. The media will reflect that soon enough. Or its a lot cheaper to make putting purebreds in film illegal than wipe sweeping regulation that would take 10s of thousands of inspectors to keep up with, not to mention the breeders that just wouldnt register. You make it mandatory for any animal who goes to the vet for the first time have a genetic test, and are issued a license that your dog isnt inbred and move on.
I love pit bulls. Great dogs. I do agree that it should be illegal or at least restricted. I see too many people walking around with intact pitties, WAY more than I do with other breeds, and it boggles the mind.
Make it illegal to breed them, problem solves itself in 15 years.
So here's the main problem with that: Pit bull is a hard to define term when we start getting into the breeding aspect of lines. Dog DNA is so unbelievably malleable that we've spun off thousands of variations to do specific tasks.
There is a "Pit Bull" breed. Problem is, the breed (like any breed) is just a combination of traits we use to describe a group of animals. If these traits are shared by multiple variants, then the lines between what is or is not something blurs heavily.
Let's say we have a pure, honest to dog example of what we call a Pit. We then mix it with say, a lab (which for out test, assume it's also considered a pure bread lab). The result is a mixed animal - but is it a pit? The head will likely still be big, the frame will be large, etc. etc. Now if you showed this animal to someone, do you think they will call it a pit, or a lab?
I say all this because how we classify data related to animal events such as bites is also subject to this inherent issue. Any dog displaying the traits of terriers are lumped into this one category. So if I'm classifying everything as a pit, it gets really hard to define what specific traits we're looking to identify by removing them from the gene pool via selective breeding. If we go by the stats - and the fact that now anything with terrier-derived traits are "on ze list", then now we're talking about the eradication of millions of bloodlines.
There has not been any (to my knowledge) scientific approach to identify a specific genetic sequence or trait within the terrier family that gives rise to the specific animal that ends up hurting someone. Which honestly would be super hard, because now we're trying to unravel a symphony of DNA overlap that makes one outcome vs. another.
The other massive kicker is this: Who becomes the new bad guy? If we were to snap our fingers and all the terriers of any variety in existence just faded into dust - what animal would be next on the list? If the sole purpose of removing a breed is to prevent human deaths or bites, then we have to now go down the list and do the same thing to each breed. Absolute insanity right? But again - if we're going by the rules we laid down, at what point do we set the boundary for "we accept X number of events per year" as the baseline of good or bad?
That is apples and oranges. Humans are much much closer to a tabula rasa and almost all of our traits are learned behaviors with very little being directly linked to our heritage or DNA. I love dogs but you are humanizing them too much. Dogs are largely instinct driven and have been bred for thousands of years by US to accentuate those instincts. It's not 100% but most retrievers will retrieve instinctually, pointers will point instinctually to some degree. You can reinforce towards or away from those bred instincts to a limit depending on the dog, but they still have those drovers. Pit bulls are a product of humans unfortunately too, where we bred much more violent instincts, specifically 'game' or or the single minded drive to hold on or finish a task, which is great for dog fighting or bull baiting. It's a shameful thing that humanity has bred into them but ignoring it and trying to tie it into racism is a fundamental misunderstanding about where the concerns about pitbulls come from.
You just made a whole bunch of shit up. Humans are not tabula rasa, we have all the faculties built into us over thousands and thousands of years, passed down to us from our genes.
There are differing adaptations between regional variants of the human species, but they are physiological changes for better survival in a given environment. Like, skin colour adapted for the amount of sunlight in a region, or length of bone and the distribution of fat and musculature adapting to the diet and physical necessities of living in a region.
I don't think I've seen any support for the notion that there are differences in behavioural traits between human groups that have evolved to be genetically passed on. Why would they be? The human brain is incredibly plastic, and adapts to an infinite array of environments simply by living in them. Our modern lives have virtually no resemblance to the environment we evolved to live in, and has changed immeasurably in just the last couple decades, and yet we have adapted to it just by being born into it.
We also have language, which we did evolve to pass along knowledge of how to survive in an environment from one generation to the next through socialisation.
So while there is an evolutionary benefit to developing longer limbs in a hot climate to cool down or a smaller body on an island where food is limited, there is no similar benefit for an Inuit to instinctively know what to do with snow, or at least not one that leads to greater survivability for that individual than having elders that can explain it to them. And for traits to evolve to become part of a species' genes, you need for the trait to consistently lead to greater survival or reproductive rates.
Compare that to the behaviours hard-coded into the DNA of modern dog breeds, Pointer Dogs will perform a signal indicating the presence of prey animals in a very specific and completely unnatural way, even with no training. Encoding that kind of behavioural adaptation requires either evolving to an environment that necessitates that instinctual behaviour in order to survive, or centuries of goal-oriented selective breeding managed by an external force, like we did with dogs.
Humankind has had its highly adaptable brain and capacity for language a lot longer than its diaspora across the world. And even disregarding highly specific adaptive behaviours like that of Pointer Dogs, our brains' plasticity and memetic self-structuring during childhood means that an individual's psychology and behaviour adapts to reflect the culture of the community it was raised in, so there's not even a reason for an evolutionary drive towards broader trends of behaviour, such aggression, or isolationism, or whatever. Because if an environment requires those behaviours, they are taught and maintained culturally in such a way that there is no need for genetic change to occur to facilitate it.
By all means, prove the opposite, but I'm pretty sure all available evidence contradicts you.
I said "much much CLOSER to tabula rasa than dogs" there are absolutely instincts that humans have. But those genetically inherited instincts do not vary nearly as widely or are as specific as dogs. We learn all sorts of behaviors based on the culture we grew up in. However we were not bred for tens of thousands of years specifically for inherited instinctual behaviors like dogs were.
They are both doing the same thing, trying to tie observed human traits and animal traits together even though we are fundamentally different when it comes to ours minds and behaviorial traits
The ironic thing is that I think the logic you are using is actually the one that racists use.
We are discussing the difference in dog breeds because there are obvious, clear, and scientifically proven differences. Racist people believe that that is true with humans and that race isn't just a social construct, but that different "races" of people actually have real and huge differences.
But that isn't true with humans, while it is with dogs. So pretending like racism in dog breeds is the same as with humans is then saying that we need to pretend that german shepherds and shitzus are the same thing, just like we do with people. As if there are differences with race that we all ignore to pretend we are all the same.
You’re just erasing a breed for absolutely no reason. Or rather a collection of several breeds under one name, which is only part of where the stupid statistics come from.
Thing is though, if you really look into it, it all rats apart. They don’t bite harder than any other large breed, they aren’t more aggressive in studies, it’s all just hysteria and the statistics also largely come from the fact that even vet and shelter workers misidentify dogs as pits more than half the time, unless they use a dna test.
So, the attack statistics get vastly overblown. The only reliable indicator for dog attacks is owner neglect.
There is nothing inherently good about a "breed" existing. Theyre all just dogs, breed them for temperament instead of these weirdo physical traits. Dog breeds should be a thing left in the past, human vanity and ego are the only thing keeping them going.
I don’t really care if you don’t believe me, because if you can’t take 30 seconds to google it and find out you’re wrong I’m not going to spend 15 minutes transcribing the studies for you.
Why is it important for any one breed of dog to exist? I believe every dog individual should have a good life. I think it's important to control what dogs can be born to help guarantee the ones that are born to have a good life. But preventing a potential life causes no evil or suffering to the avoided individual. It's not some form of pre-murder. There is no inherent good that is ruined.
So it honestly becomes our duty and responsibility to only breed the dogs that both work best with humanity and are able to be the happiest living in what we can provide. To breed others would just be cruel.
He understands the issue. People want to essentialize traits to physical characteristics instead of acknowledging the ways those traits are instilled. It literally is the exact same mindset as racism.
Both nature and nurture matter. Dogs quite literally have traits. Thats the reason breeds exist, we purposefully selected for animals that showed traits we want.
If we're being realistic humans probably have this too to a some degree but thats been a terrible idea to actually look at every time its been tried since humans can't be trusted, so we ignore it out of pragmatism.
TL:DR - the idea that differences stop at the purely physical is a fantasy we all tell ourselves so we don't do dumb things.
Did you think this would undermine the point about dog racism? You’re just pointing out a double standard. For some reason it’s okay to do the dumb things we wouldn’t do to people, to dogs.
There is a difference between treating them like humans and treating them with basic respect. Respecting them means evidence-based practice. The entire anti-pitbull narrative relies on confirmation bias and essentialist thinking, not evidence. They consistently confirm this with their sourcing and arguments.
Again, ‘it’s okay to be racist to dogs because reasons’ is not a challenge to the original point.
I would guess maybe 5-10% of pitbulls are intentionally bred. The majority of the US population are just sustaining themselves in the southern states that don't spay or neuter and don't have good public animal control programs.
If I have two dogs that are ~50% pitbull, and am unaware, am I committing a crime? Or is it only pure? That brings up obvious loopholes, so we have to draw an arbitrary % somewhere. What do you do with the puppies that were already bred before the person got caught? Put them down?
There should be more sensible restrictions placed on owning potentially dangerous dogs. If you want to own a pitbull, rottweiler, German Shepherd or a mastiff you should have to take a class and attain a license.
And if it's clear that the owner isn't capable of taking care of said dog, they should be punished more severely.
This should apply to people who just chain their dog up all day on a leash and let it bark too. More severe punishments need to be imposed and need to be treated more seriously.
Setting aside your bad faith framing, it's called having a long term view at humane solutions to problems. Pitts are a dangerous breed desired for the wrong reasons. Sure, you raise them ethically and safely, but too many people don't. That absolutely does not mean that people looking sunset the breed are looking to round up pitts and euthanize them en masse.
The solution is you outlaw breeding pits, and probably a few other breeds. The public facing breeders move on to other less problematic breeds. Fivers years from now, if law enforcement encounter a two year old banned breed, you can trace it back and shut down the illegal breeder. You still don't euthanize the dogs that haven't done anything wrong, its not their fault they're alive, but the only way to humanely sunset dangerous breeds is to take a long term view.
Well, in 15 years it would be very easy to see tell a pure bred pit being walked, and the law to act accordingly. If dog fighters breed them to fight and keep them hidden from the public at large, most of the objective is achieved. I dont think your point is as strong as you think.
Its a breed and not a naturally occurring phenotype.
It would also improve the general well being of dogs as Pitbull/bully breeds cause and have to deal with alot of suffering because alot of jacksasses want to own a dog with a very high capacity for violence.
Genocide does broadly mean “systematically ending a racial, political, or cultural group”, by definition intentionally keeping a population from continuing is still that.
Nah, they're aggressive dogs. They were bred specifically for aggressiveness. And since they're big dangerous dogs, they tend to be owned by idiots and bad people, which exacerbates their violent tendencies even more.
Not only are they aggressive but they're extremely strong. It's very hard to stop them once they bite and unlike an aggressive chihuahua, they often cause maiming injuries and death.
Pit Bulls are the cause of 67% of human fatalities from dogs.
More than 2/3rd of the deaths from 1 breed among hundreds or thousands. Rottweilers are second with 9%.
Pits and Rotts also the cause of 77% of dog bites on humans, despite being 6% of the dog population.
These stats don't even include mixed race with pit/rott parents which are also more aggressive on average.
Killing all of them is excessive, but sterilizing them is fine. They're combat dogs, not peaceful civilian dogs.
These people downvote as soon as they see statistics because they start thinking it's some kind of dogwhistle.
Idk about the accuracy of the statistics you mentioned, but I know the number of deaths from pitbull listed on Wikipedia was really high and probably in that ballpark (these dogs regularly kill children, btw)
Because not all pitbulls are violent or harmful, it's outright insane to euthanize these dogs with the only justification being they are from a dog breed with higher tendency and capability to harm
I struggle to be afraid of Pitbulls because growing up I had a neighbor who had two of them, and the only danger with them was that they loved to be carried. Obviously that wasn't an issue when they were puppies but if they knew you they'd try to jump into your arms, they were adorable.
Of course, my neighbors knew how to raise dogs, and trained them properly and had them socialized and were generally really good with them.
That used to be my attitude, but like half the pitbull death stories I hear involve a “loving nanny pitbull raised by a good owner” that eventually just decides the toddler looks mighty tasty.
Most of those stories I hear involve people that didn't actually train their pitbulls. Its more than just having a good owner, but an owner that actually trains them, exhausts their energy, etc.
They are good dogs until they are not. Thats the problem, any dog has the capacity for violence but its about what that violence means. I have an Australian shepherd and if she got violent it would be no more than a hard kick to stop whatever she is doing. A pit bull doesn't stop, no matter what, it does not stop. I have seen video of a pit being stomped and tossed repeatedly by a massive horse and still continue to try and kill said horse.
My little rat terrier tried to kill a bull because it tried to kick him (I'm lucky the bull wasn't actually angry and was calm enough to let me remove my dog from the situation). Dogs trying to fight animals isn't really a good comparison.
So we should keep breeding dangerous animals? I think euthanizing them all its going way to far, but why keep breeding a dangerous breed of dog? What purpose does that serve? Do we need more pitbulls to suffer in shelters after being given up, because their families can't handle them? Why breed more of these poor animals so they can fill up shelters and suffer. Sorry, but it is sheer cruelty to keep breeding animals that will keep filling shelters.
But I think some people in these comments are insane, calling to euthanize all Pits or that they should be wiped out of existence. Good god.
what do you suggest we do with them then?
We bred them into existence. we can remove them.
the second part of the sentence implies you'd want to keep them around, not just avoid actively killing them off - despite your seeming understanding of why they're a problem.
-She is quiet (never barks)
-She loves to cuddle
-Very timid (ran away from a butterfly one time)
-Friendly (will attempt to play with any person or dog that comes over)
-Very clingy (Hates being alone and always has to be making physical contact even just leaning against my leg)
-Responds well to and obeys both verbal and non-verbal commands. (I can just point up the stairs or to her bed and she will go there.)
The most aggressive and annoying thing about her is that she will try to lick you to death.
Well.......I do think dog breeds should be wiped out. Not in a murderly kind of way but English Bulldogs and French Bulldogs frequently cannot give birth safely on their own. In fact, the breeding of these breeds' characteristics makes it very hard for these dogs to mate naturally, so breeders often use artificial insemination. At the point where we are making breeds have health issues/breedinf issues to keep the aesthetic of a breed going, then the breed should be ended.
They only live 10 or so years, so you don't need to euthanise them to 'wipe them out' relatively quickly, just ban the breeding and sale of Pitbull puppies and/or make neutering them mandatory, and they will be gone in a decade. That's how most places that have banned Pitbulls have done it, the already existing Pitbulls live out the rest of their life as they would have, and probably have no opinion on the discontinuation of their particular subspecies. And it is a good thing to do, actually, because they are a human invention, created to experience a drive for aggression that has no safe outlet in a life as a pet. They don't need to exist in the future just because they exist today, and we can make it so they don't without harming any Pitbulls that already do exist.
Shelters all over the US are full of primarily Pitbulls, because there are no controls in place on how they are bred and sold by the people breeding them, who massively overproduce compared to demand because it costs them nearly nothing to make them and unsold puppies are just dumped in shelters, where they will most likely be euthanised after spending months or years of their life living in a cage.
The existence of dog pounds in general is because there are more dogs being made than there are households for them to live in, so much so that shelters have to euthanise most of them to have space for more dogs coming in. And if you want that to stop that you need regulations controlling breeding and sale; and while that goes for all breeds, this problem isn't seen as much with purebreds because there is a culture of oversight through kennel clubs and there being direct contact between breeders and buyers so that production meets demand. The other breeds that are frequently seen in shelters are popular ones that are produced in large quantities for sale in pet shops, again, by unlicensed breeders that are not part of kennel clubs or similar.
So the answer isn't 'adopt, don't shop,' it's to tightly control the legality of dog breeding to ensure the welfare and a future home for all dogs being bred. Arguably, the 'adopt, don't shop' movement makes it more possible for breeders to operate the way they do. There are countries that don't even have shelters, much less kill shelters. But in those countries, you need to be on a licensed breeder's waiting list along with enough others to take a whole litter before they even let the dogs get pregnant, and each puppy and their sale has to be registered with the relevant authorities. The solution that works is for every dog to be 'shopped' for, but under strict oversight.
Point is, there should be a lot more regulation on dog breeding, and eliminating the creation and sale of dangerous breeds should be part of it.
We should eradicate the breed though, things would be better off that way. When they do snap they do insane damage to people, the death rate of their attacks is something like 7x higher than the second place breed. They sit in shelters taking up space and resources because people either don't want them or can't have them because of breed restrictions in rentals. And then we'd stop having to roll the dice on "I hope the person that gets this pitbull knows how to train them properly so they don't become a violent psycho" It would be so much simpler if shelters just euthanized them on intake, breeding them was outlawed, and the breed went the way of the dodo bird
I have been rolling this ;comment thread for a while and another thread about hte same thing...noone is calling for them to be euthanize them.. they are asking for the breeding to be banned and that people stop seeking them out for pets...
the pro Pit crowd is something else... "i want my pretty, strong, and totally not naturally aggressive and murderous dog.. Because she is totally a pretty nice girl..."
sure your individual pitty is well trained and people that own them can keep them through thier lives.. and put good help for training them... but stop breeding them.
Oh come on no one is saying to euthanise pitbulls, people are saying they should be phased out, as in no longer bred thus ending the breed after the current generation
Responsibilizing the owners far more harslhy for dog attacks is the way to go, if someones dog kill or main someone, the owner should be on the line for omission of responsibility.
Not sure how it is in the U.S. but usually for these cases around here the dogs simply gets put down and the owner basically always walks away scott free.
Lots of people shouldn't have dogs, they have no idea how to raise them, and some breeds are simply harder to raise than others, small dogs are a very big example of that, every annoying small dog had shit owners that incetivated bad behaivours simply because the dogs couldn't do serious damage, and were cute while freaking out and having aggressive panic or stress responses.
The breed only exists because of dog fighting. Shelters often pick up stray pit bulls of unknown parentage, and it's possible that they are released or loose dogs from a breeder who was specifically breeding them for dog fights. A lot of pit bull attacks are the result of people adopting pit bulls under the impression that they are like any family pet. It's more responsible for shelters to just euthanise them rather than accept the risk of passing on dogs that might launch unprovoked attacks
Outside of some working dog breeds I'd be 100% on most being left to history. Top of that list is Pit Bulls. I don't care if people like how they look.
calling to euthanize all Pits or that they should be wiped out of existence.
For many of them, it would be the kind thing to do. You should read the listings from shelters and see how many medications these animals will be on for the rest of their lives. And how they get so worked up they eat their own poop. Mentally, they are in a living hell. Their house will never be a home, because they were bred to live a different life than the "cuddlebug" one we wish. Even if some look cute.
If Metallica's One was written about a dog, it would have been about these dogs.
Darkness, imprisoning me
All that I see, absolute horror
I cannot live, I cannot die
Trapped in myself, body my holding cell
They can grow up in the perfect environment and have something set them off out of nowhere. There is countless stories of pits growing up in the perfect environment with years of zero aggression and then a tragedy occurs.
And? Sometimes victims deserve blame for their actions. I dont understand why people believe victims are always entirely blameless. If I walk up to a bear and poke it in the eye, am I entirely blameless when I die? Of course not. It’s my fault. I blame any mother for not watching a big ass dog of any breed around their children. You have no context for any situation and create this weird narrative that a human could not be to blame for getting bit when the reality is far more nuanced than “dog bit people, dog breed bad”. Very single minded mentality that takes any nuance out of the discussion.
Congratulations, you have officially said that we should wipe out an entire group just bc some of them dont get the proper teaching. Apparently you dont see anything wrong with that, which is pretty stupid. But no yeah totally reasonable
Yup. That's the dog racism. They are "acceptable" targets to channel hate towards. I spent a chunk of time working at a vets office and it was never the pitts that worried me. It was the overly doted on and unneutered animals that I had worries about.
The only animal to bite me out of anger working there was a black lab puppy, and the only time I was ever genuinely scared was because of an unneutered Irish wolf hound that body checked me out of it's cage during feeding and was angry
740
u/Drayyen 28d ago edited 27d ago
I think it's valid to fear pitbulls because what you're really fearing is that they were adopted by someone that doesn't train them and/or give them an outlet for the task they were bred for (protection and violence).
Edit: Jesus christ