*Rant on dangerous pets and their owners*

[Premmy]

You shouldn't say that, your mother is a loyal companion and I take excellent care of her.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Premmy

Labrador breeds bite Pretty often, actually

Only straight labradors, though.

Also, they're in second with pitbulls in third.

Rottweilers have no numbers.

Only paying attention to maimings. Just bites that cause some kinda bodily harm are hardly worth considering.

Edit: I'm pretty sure labradors are a lot more prevalent than pitbulls as well, but I don't care enough to look for numbers.

Edit2: I mean, arguably I chose a bad breed for the direct comparison, but there are only three breeds that are in the triple digits or higher (goddamn sharpei), and one of them is pitbulls. That is not exactly helping your case.

[Marc v4.0]

You are greatly mistaking "pitbulls are more often improperly trained to be fighting dogs, because they have exploitable traits, so incidents of attacks from them are high" with "Pitbulls are all dangerous all the time no matter what so that is why people fight them" It is a rather remarkable display of ignorance, honestly. The door on training this particular breed of Dog swings both ways, but they have recieved a horrible reputation due to a combination of people being careless and either not getting the animal trained properly by a proffesional or deliberatly training it to be a killing machine.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

people being careless and either not getting the animal trained properly

You realize that with most breeds not doing this isn't going to end up with someone maimed, right?

I mean, I've never said you can't do this. I've just said that you have to do this with this breed and you should be careful because hey: It's a dangerous breed.

Edit: Well, and that calling a breed you have to train properly/not be careless with/be careful with 'sweet hearts' is a misnomer, and kind of hints at a level of disregard for proper training/safety. Though, I guess you know better, it still comes off that way when you defend a breed with just 'they're sweethearts'.

[Marc v4.0]

Yes, throw out my entire point because you can take a word I said and shift it around to be right. That is how this works.

Clearly I meant you should handle all strange and untrained animals as nothing but babies all the time.


I am not singling pitbulls out as needing training to be well adjusted, you are twisting my words to mean that to suit your point of view on the matter. ALL DOGS should be professionally trained at least as soon as they start becoming of a terrirorial age. Singling out one particular breed as being a bad egg when it boils down to how Humans have mishandled their training or intentionally trained them to be monsters is wrong.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

I am not singling pitbulls out as needing training to be well adjusted, you are twisting my words to mean that to suit your point of view on the matter.

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

The door on training this particular breed of Dog swings both ways, but they have recieved a horrible reputation due to a combination of people being careless and either not getting the animal trained properly by a proffesional or deliberatly training it to be a killing machine.

You totally did.

APPARENTLY you didn't mean that.

However, I didn't twist your words at all. That's how that reads.

FURTHER:

ALL DOGS should be professionally trained at least as soon as they start becoming of a terrirorial age. Singling out one particular breed as being a bad egg when it boils down to how Humans have mishandled their training or intentionally trained them to be monsters is wrong.

Originally Posted by Krylo

You realize that with most breeds not doing this isn't going to end up with someone maimed, right?

Seriously, the vast vast vast majority of people are 'careless' with their training of dogs.

The numbers still say pitbulls maim more people.

You'd have a point if people professionally trained every other breed or whatever, but that's not a thing that happens. Hell, Pitbulls, BECAUSE of their reputation, probably get proper training more often than most other dogs.

Honestly, your point seems to be that despite this breed a) being stronger than most other breeds, b) being statistically more likely to maim than other breeds, and c) being bred to fight and then as guard dogs* that they are no more dangerous than dogs that are weaker than them, statistically less likely to maim than them, and were bred to be companions. Which doesn't make sense, really.

And is, honestly, just a dangerous attitude to propagate. Maybe you think all dogs should be professionally trained. Most people don't. Most people won't get a dog professionally trained if they don't think not doing so is going to significantly dangerous. Most people grew up with dogs of less aggressive breeds that weren't professionally trained and never had a problem. Most people have reason to believe the average dog doesn't need it.

Pitbulls, rottweilers, sharpeis, aka...whatever they ares, etc. etc. do. Other dogs could benefit as well, yes, but you're significantly less likely to end up with your Jack Terrier maiming a child (or adult) than your pitbull. DEM'S JUST STATISTICAL LIKE FACTS.

And honestly, why do you think that it is a correlation directly between more people training pitbulls to be aggressive or mistreating them automatically? You have no evidence of this as causation. All we have is correlation, here. Without numbers backing up that pitbulls are only more likely to be aggressive because they are more likely to be mistreated (which I honestly find unlikely: dobermans are just as often trained for that kind of misbehavior and are yet far 'safer') seems rather... defensive of the breed.

It's a pretty small fringe of people that raise dogs to be violent on purpose. And if it isn't on purpose it's just as likely to be any other dog as a pitbull.

*Settlers bred and trained them as guard dogs. I had the order of fighting vs guard wrong before, admittedly.

[Menarker]

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

I am not singling pitbulls out as needing training to be well adjusted, you are twisting my words to mean that to suit your point of view on the matter. ALL DOGS should be professionally trained at least as soon as they start becoming of a terrirorial age. Singling out one particular breed as being a bad egg when it boils down to how Humans have mishandled their training or intentionally trained them to be monsters is wrong.

I don't think it's wrong but "unfortunate". Certain species are more of a liability when things go wrong. It's like comparing a child predisposed to steal with one predisposed to fighting. Both when raised to be healthy moral human beings are a boon, but the one predisposed to fighting is more of a liability to others' safety when things go wrong, which can be as small as a single incident which pisses them off.

Certain species of animals, like bulldogs, are like that child predisposed to fighting. Animals are not capable of comparing one abstract situations to another. Most animals can be trained to be obedient and gentle to humans, but once a certain trigger occurs cognitively, that unlucky person in their sight is no longer a human... to which they then default to their prior predisposed set of insights. You can't erase an animals tendencies so much as try to build/paint over it. They also lack the cognitive foresight to apply any of their training toward human to this "new thing that looks human but for some reason in their mind isn't".
By trigger, I mean anything like some odd perfume or colors, especially if it has a bad history with it with a former owner or antagonistic force like someone who kicked it before. Or just old age or illness wrecking havoc on their senses. Anything really. Animals react to many different stimuli, and as much as the training tries, there can be gaps in the training which doesn't cover certain stimulus which the dog is predisposed to act (something we can't predict without seeing and recognizing what it is in the first place.)
And when that animal is a strong animal like a bulldog, then a single incident is all that's needed to ruin someone's day/life.

The same is much stronger for wolves/dogs comparisions where wolves have vastly different cognitive states than dogs despite their similar looks. I mean, look at Dingos. Practically every guide will advise you to stay the fuck away from them and keep them away from children, because despite how much like they look like domesticated dogs, they are indeed wild and dangerous.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Krylo

You totally did.

I guess context really doesn't mean much of anything around here as far as arguments go?

We were talking specifically about Pitbulls, so of course I used them in my response. Would it have made much sense if I had used some other animal? This is specifically twisting what I said around so you can be right, ignoring the specific context of the argument at hand to say even I am singling them out when THEY WERE THE TOPIC. I think I just made it very clear I think the same way of all animals.

[rpgdemon]

Pit Bulls are good dogs, generally. My cousin has two, and there's nothing in the breed that makes them violent naturally, unless they're inbred and abused into fighting.

The problem is that they're very strong dogs, so even if they're not violent, they can still cause damage (The two were running around, ran into my aunt and broke/sprained her ankle), and when they -are- violent, they can cause a lot more damage than other breeds might, with their immensely powerful jaws, for one. A violent chihuahua on the other hand? Just kick it in the face.

In general though, Pit Bulls will be aggressive towards other dogs, but not humans, and in fact, the inbred ones are still bred for docility towards humans, and aggressiveness towards dogs. Even the people who want hostile aggressive pit bulls don't want a fighting dog mauling it's owner.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

This is specifically twisting what I said around so you can be right

No, this is you wording things poorly and then blaming everyone else for twisting it around. This isn't the first time you've done it and I'm not the first person you've done it to or I wouldn't even mention it.

If you meant any dog, then you should have said something to that effect. Like, for instance: "Any dog can be violent due to poor training, but pitbulls have a particularly bad rap because of x".

I am not sure what x would be, in that case, however. Because your argument doesn't even make sense without singling out pitbulls as needing training, considering you were trying to explain why they cause the third most maulings and have a bad reputation but aren't ACTUALLY worse than any other dog.

Which, itself is another problem with your wording, not my reading. You made an argument that only makes sense when taken a specific way and is worded in such a way as to be taken a specific way. You then get angry when people take it that way.

This is a thing you do a lot. You should work on that. Not even the wording things better part, but the accusing other people of purposefully twisting your words around when no one did that part. It's not that hard to just say "Well I actually meant any dog" without accusing whomever you're arguing with (in this case me) of shit.

Edit@RPG: The plural of anecdote isn't data. Explain why pitbulls cause more maulings than most other breeds without making wild assumptions as to how they are trained worse than any other dog SO MUCH that they cause 5-10x the maulings. Honestly, I don't care if I'm wrong, but everything I've learned about the breed says I'm right and all I'm getting in return is anecdotes and guesses as to why they might be more violent without any actual proof or data to it.

I've laid out my reasoning clearly, but I can do it again:

Bred to be aggressive (Humans are just another animal and shit happens when you train something to be aggressive toward animals) -> Extremely powerful -> Often Lackadaisical Attitudes Toward Their Danger By Their Owners Because They Are So Nice -> Violence. This has been backed up by data, ironically from Premmy because man I wasn't gonna look that up, wherein they cause the third most maulings.

I mean, their just being stronger and shit happens could be part of it (though I don't think accidentally knocking someone's ankle would be counted as a mauling statistically), but there are lots of very strong dogs on that list with lower numbers. Like Boxers. I've yet to see/hear anything that accounts for such a large discrepancy (again, people who train dogs to be violent on purpose are fringe, and accidental poor training could happen to any breed) other than a natural streak of aggressiveness combined with their power that means they should be handled with more care than many breeds of dog.

Edit: I'm not even sure why I'm getting so much vitriol. It's not like I'm saying they're bad dogs, or horrible animals, or no one should have them as pets ever, or whatever. Just that you should be more careful with certain breeds of dog, this one among them.