The MyBB Pit Bull attack thread

[konfab]

This doesn't help your case at all. Firstly you selected Rottweiler for an American Bulldog (which is oddly enough one of the dogs mistaken for a pit bull, though it falls in the same type as Rottweiler.)
You then had Boxer for an American Staffie? Which is also a Pit bull type dog, so basically this indicates you literally do not even know what a pit bull type dog is and those that are mistaken for it.
Yet you see fit to claim that they are the most aggressive? When you're not even sure what type of dog you're even talking about, cause the media does do tell you so right? Them the bad dogs, you're just parroting what the media tells you.

That doesn't change the fact that someone who really isn't a dog person can fairly reliably identify the type of dog that you claim does not exist. I never claimed personally am a dog identification expert.

A machine learning system would probably do far better. But this destroys your point that it is impossible to identify a Pit bull. They absolutely do have a type.

Play the game yourself and see how well you do.

 

[konfab]

Because banning a type of dog isn't the answer, it will just move to the next one and the next one, where we end up with hamsters as pets.
As where you do you draw the line? Could put other actions in place to prevent bites, as in ownership of a particular type of dog needs to be licensed? Or something else, but banning them just leads down a rabbit hole of possible other dogs being banned.

I cleared that up in a previous post.

What would be the greater harm to society if it went and banned dogs that come from a heritage of fighting? That is it.

The ban isn't done based on which dog breed is aggressive or not, it comes from a genetic definition of breeds that came from dog fighting.

If you wanted to go after working dogs, you like German Shepards, you would need to go after border collies et al.

 

[Lupus]

That doesn't change the fact that someone who really isn't a dog person can fairly reliably identify the type of dog that you claim does not exist. I never claimed personally am a dog identification expert.

A machine learning system would probably do far better. But this destroys your point that it is impossible to identify a Pit bull. They absolutely do have a type.

Play the game yourself and see how well you do.

Except when even it shows a % of the dog, yet they'll be labelled as a pit bull type dog even if they are only 25% american pitbull forget the 75% other breed. You see what the problem starts to become? Mixed breeds, pit bull types of all kind are thrown into the mix, not just one breed of the type.
Whereas in the 70s, 80s and 90s the 3 big in those decades were just one breed, they weren't the mixed breeds down to quarters, or the the mastiffs or the herding dogs of them, but just those breeds.
A Staffie is a different dog to a Bull terrier to a American Pit bull to a Bully. But they are all thrown into the same type? See how reporting from the media skews it, even if the dog has 25% Pit bull it gets that label.

 

[Lupus]

I cleared that up in a previous post.



The ban isn't done based on which dog breed is aggressive or not, it comes from a genetic definition of breeds that came from dog fighting.

So now you want to ban on a genetic level wow. Thought banning a type was bad enough now you wanna go genetic.

 

[konfab]

Except when even it shows a % of the dog, yet they'll be labelled as a pit bull type dog even if they are only 25% american pitbull forget the 75% other breed. You see what the problem starts to become? Mixed breeds, pit bull types of all kind are thrown into the mix, not just one breed of the type.
Whereas in the 70s, 80s and 90s the 3 big in those decades were just one breed, they weren't the mixed breeds down to quarters, or the the mastiffs or the herding dogs of them, but just those breeds.
A Staffie is a different dog to a Bull terrier to a American Pit bull to a Bully. But they are all thrown into the same type? See how reporting from the media skews it, even if the dog has 25% Pit bull it gets that label.

If 25% of an apple is rotten, it is a rotten apple.

This is succinct definition of the type:

What people now call pit bull types descend from 19th-century “bull-and-terrier” crosses. The idea behind this cross was to blend the strength of the bulldog with the drive and agility terriers were known for. Prior to the passage of Britain’s Cruelty to Animals Act in 1835, the dogs were selected so they could be involved in lion-, bull-, and bear-baiting—fighting much larger animals in fighting pits, the origin of the “pit” name in “pit bull type”—but then this form of absurd bloodsport was banned and the animal fighting scene moved towards more discreet and cheaper dog-on-dog fighting.

Dogfighting was immensely popular, an overnight success that resulted in the mass proliferation of pit bull types and their mixes. The sport eventually led to the only two actual breeds of pit bull, the APBT/AmStaff and the SBT. The former is more popular in the U.S. and the latter is more popular in the U.K. and Australia, but both were bred to fight.

Early dog breed classification neglected the pit bull because the organizations behind them rightly rejected the barbarity of dogfighting and didn’t want to encourage it by recognizing breeds involved in it. Dogfighting fans responded by creating their own kennel clubs that would recognize the breed. The APBT was recognized by one of these clubs—the United Kennel Club—nine years after John P. Colby began to breed the most famous line of them in 1889.

The reasonable revulsion that people feel towards dogfighting is part of why the subject of classifying dogs as pit bulls has become so confusing. The confusion is, in some part, intentional. When mainstream kennel clubs came around to recognizing pit bulls, they asked for the breed to be recognized by a new name because of the stigma of dogfighting. Thus, the American pit bull terrier became the Staffordshire terrier, and later, the American Staffordshire terrier, but these dogs are still cross-registered across kennel clubs that use different names for the breed; anyone who’s serious knows they’re still the same thing.2

https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/pit-bulls-part-i-identification#footnote-1-182921479

If you think that is biased, here is Wikipedia saying the same thing.

The term has been used since at least the early 20th century.[20][6] It is believed all dogs that are now classified as pit bulls descend from the British bull-and-terrier, which were first imported into North America in the 1870s.[9][10] The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting. It was created by crossing the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog with the agile, lithe, feisty Black and Tan Terrier.[9][10] The aggressive Old English Bulldog, which was bred for bear and bull baiting, was often also pitted against its own kind in organized dog fights, but it was found that lighter, faster dogs were better suited to dogfighting than the heavier Bulldog.[9][10][11] To produce a lighter, faster, more agile dog that retained the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, outcrosses from local terriers were tried, and ultimately found to be successful.[9][10][11]
As it was in the UK, dog fighting became a popular pastime in 19th century America and bull-and-terriers were imported to the New World to pursue the blood sport.[9][10] In the United States, organized dog fights have been progressively outlawed in various states since 1874, culminating in federal legislation criminalizing animal fighting in 2007.[19]
In the 1890s breeders of American pit bull–type dogs attempted to have their dogs recognized by the American Kennel Club, but because of the type's association with dogfighting, the club rejected these entreaties.[9][10] Following this rejection, in 1898 breeders of American Pit Bull Terriers established a rival kennel club, the United Kennel Club. In addition to being a breed registry, the United Kennel Club also regulated dogfights.[9][10][21] In the 1930s the American Kennel Club was faced with a dilemma: whilst not wishing to condone dogfighting, there was a desire to recognize a uniquely American dog breed for which over 30 years of breed records existed.[9][10][21] The solution was to recognize Pit Bull Terriers under a different name and prohibit these dogs from being used in organized fights, and in 1935 the American Kennel Club recognized Pit Bull Terriers as Staffordshire Terriers.[9][10][21]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

I am referring to a type of dog that has its genetic heritage from dog fighting.

 

[Sir Peel-a-Lot]

Milan is being naive here.

Okay, I'll bite, excuse the pun, how is Milan being naive? He's basically spot on with his argument.

Oh, and you lost me at "firearms".

 

[TofuMofu]

People want to ban dogs when children are the real danger to society.

 

[konfab]

Okay, I'll bite, excuse the pun, how is Milan being naive? He's basically spot on with his argument.

Do people require an "education" to have a cat that won't have a chance of mauling random people? No they don't. The animal isn't really dangerous to people. So he concedes the animal is dangerous.

Next I have a really low opinion of education fixing social problems tbh. HIV is basically 100% preventable with "education", yet it still is a disease that is very common.

I would wish that society never had to cater towards irresponsible people, but unfortunately it just does.

And in this case, the calculus is fairly easy for society. There are not that many downsides. The only people who really would lose out would be the people who financially profit from breeding these dogs. Everyone else gets to keep their dog until it dies, and then they can get literally any other type of dog. The dogs in shelters would have their lives cut short, but that usually is the case for pit bulls anyway because the shelters don't want people to have these dogs.

Oh, and you lost me at "firearms".

Because using an analogy is too difficult for you?

 

[Sir Peel-a-Lot]

Because using an analogy is too difficult for you?

No, because anybody who believes it's their right to bear a firearm as a responsible thing hasn't done enough research around the psychology of how owning a firearm changes the way a person thinks, in terms of impulsivity, much like owning an untrained and aggressive power breed dog.

 

[Lupus]

Do people require an "education" to have a cat that won't have a chance of mauling random people? No they don't. The animal isn't really dangerous to people. So he concedes the animal is dangerous.

Next I have a really low opinion of education fixing social problems tbh. HIV is basically 100% preventable with "education", yet it still is a disease that is very common.

I would wish that society never had to cater towards irresponsible people, but unfortunately it just does.

And in this case, the calculus is fairly easy for society. There are not that many downsides. The only people who really would lose out would be the people who financially profit from breeding these dogs. Everyone else gets to keep their dog until it dies, and then they can get literally any other type of dog. The dogs in shelters would have their lives cut short, but that usually is the case for pit bulls anyway because the shelters don't want people to have these dogs.





Because using an analogy is too difficult for you?

When does it stop? You can pit Bull type dogs, but next up is Rottweilers, then German Shepherds, then Dobermans, then Labs.
You say there's no downsides but there are cause you're to naive to realise that once you start banning things it doesn't stop as the next dangerous thing moves up and up.
Plus you're now saying that 25% is bad for a dog cause you're listening to the wrong information and just jumping on the media bandwagon.
Like you didn't watch the Milan clip where he even said that years ago it was different breeds of dogs everyone was scared of.
You are correct education is needed, dogs are not toys, they are not products. They're living beings, just because they are part of a certain breed doesn't mean they are like that. You can have a genetic disposition to something doesn't mean it'll happen.
Humans are the same, you're saying that a child of a murder is a murder as well? Cause they are 50% of the murder?

 

[konfab]

No, because anybody who believes it's their right to bear a firearm as a responsible thing hasn't done enough research around the psychology of how owning a firearm changes the way a person thinks, in terms of impulsivity, much like owning an untrained and aggressive power breed dog.

Forget about the right to own firearms then. It was more about legal practicalities of a ban.

Let's make it easy, and say this is for the police, who you presumably think should have a gun on them

A properly working firearm will only fire when the person wielding it wants it to. Thus the responsibility is 100% on the wielder.

If a specific model of firearm is defective, and has a non zero chance of unintentionally going off when the trigger is not pulled, that responsibility diminishes from 100%.

Should the police be putting that gun into active service?

 

[Sir Peel-a-Lot]

Forget about the right to own firearms then. It was more about legal practicalities of a ban.

Let's make it easy, and say this is for the police, who you presumably think should have a gun on them

A properly working firearm will only fire when the person wielding it wants it to. Thus the responsibility is 100% on the wielder.

If a specific model of firearm is defective, and has a non zero chance of unintentionally going off when the trigger is not pulled, that responsibility diminishes from 100%.

Should the police be putting that gun into active service?

I don't believe police should carry firearms, (in a perfect world, which we aren't in) there's enough psychosocial research out there to show that the mere presence of police at a peaceful protest is enough to cause some predispositioned people to turn things violent, completely unprovoked, but we're getting off topic.

If I read your parallel correctly about defective guns in service being likened to power breeds bred specifically for fighting, then no, neither of those two things should be allowed to mix with the general public.

 

[konfab]

When does it stop? You can pit Bull type dogs, but next up is Rottweilers, then German Shepherds, then Dobermans, then Labs.

I am stopping by saying it should apply to dogs that have a fighting breed lineage.

You say there's no downsides but there are cause you're to naive to realise that once you start banning things it doesn't stop as the next dangerous thing moves up and up.

If you live in a town, it would be illegal for you to own a pig in your back garden. Ditto for any farm animals, even though those are not really dangerous to humans. I could extend this to wild animals as well. People have managed to cope with the hardship of life without owning lions and wild dogs.

Bans are already in place for animals. I have tried to make the ban based on something that is limited because I do recognise the danger.

Plus you're now saying that 25% is bad for a dog cause you're listening to the wrong information and just jumping on the media bandwagon.

What media bandwagon? The bandwagon is that pitbulls are poor innocent victims who need people like you to rescue them. Look at the people calling them nanny dogs.

Like you didn't watch the Milan clip where he even said that years ago it was different breeds of dogs everyone was scared of.

I did. And that time people were mistaken because those dogs did not come from a lineage of fighting dogs. The facts are very different for Pitt bulls.

You are correct education is needed, dogs are not toys, they are not products. They're living beings, just because they are part of a certain breed doesn't mean they are like that. You can have a genetic disposition to something doesn't mean it'll happen.

It is stronger than you think. Enough to see it in probability.

Humans are the same, you're saying that a child of a murder is a murder as well? Cause they are 50% of the murder?

Applying human morality to animals isn't a good argument. You would probably agree that if a dog goes and kills a child, it must be destroyed without question.

 

[konfab]

I don't believe police should carry firearms, (in a perfect world, which we aren't in) there's enough psychosocial research out there to show that the mere presence of police at a peaceful protest is enough to cause some predispositioned people to turn things violent, completely unprovoked, but we're getting off topic.

If I read your parallel correctly about defective guns in service being likened to power breeds bred specifically for fighting, then no, neither of those two things should be allowed to mix with the general public.

That is correct. The issue is the random probability of something bad happening.

It could be with a defective car for example.

 

[RedViking]

Just gonna leave this here from someone who talks sense. Humans create problems for themselves and then blame the animal.

Thats why they should not be allowed in residential areas. Because humans cant take care of them.

 

[Sir Peel-a-Lot]

Thats why they should not be allowed in residential areas. Because humans cant take care of them.

So by that logic, all dogs should be banned from residential areas as it's not just pit bulls humans can't care for. Maybe it's humans who should be banned from the animals' environment.

 

[RedViking]

So by that logic, all dogs should be banned from residential areas as it's not just pit bulls humans can't care for. Maybe it's humans who should be banned from the animals' environment.

That would be nice. Imagine the peace and quiet. I will miss my doggy though. But to focus on the issue here, dogs that literally kill and have a trend going and getting worse, This is really the issue. Not all dogs that are a nuisance do the same physical harm these breeds do. Sure they are all capable to leave a plaster wound, but these dogs leave a funeral or serious scars for life and the real issue is in residential areas and towns where it affects other people. As crime gets worse, more idiots adopt these dogs without taking care of them. Ultimately it all boils down to bylaws that are not enforced anymore, crime that is out of hand, and general lack of care in this selfish and careless culture we have now.

 

[Bliksis]

So by that logic, all dogs should be banned from residential areas as it's not just pit bulls humans can't care for. Maybe it's humans who should be banned from the animals' environment.

LMAO

 

[Sir Peel-a-Lot]

That would be nice. Imagine the peace and quiet. I will miss my doggy though. But to focus on the issue here, dogs that literally kill and have a trend going and getting worse, This is really the issue. Not all dogs that are a nuisance do the same physical harm these breeds do. Sure they are all capable to leave a plaster wound, but these dogs leave a funeral or serious scars for life and the real issue is in residential areas and towns where it affects other people. As crime gets worse, more idiots adopt these dogs without taking care of them. Ultimately it all boils down to bylaws that are not enforced anymore, crime that is out of hand, and general lack of care in this selfish and careless culture we have now.

Lots of dogs are capable of maiming or killing, as has been mentioned in this thread, but because they're not in fashion and the media isn't currently latching onto every story they can get, most of those incidents are going unnoticed.

But to the bigger picture, crime is out of control in SA and so people in lower-income areas and areas of informal living where you can't imprison yourself behind an eight foot wall with electric fence are forced to resort to other measures of security like dogs, likely their only security.

As far as the bigger picture goes, it's for the government and local municipalities to sort out, but local municipalities can only do so much with the funds that are allocated to them. If the ANC comrades actually had an interest in running this country and were't embezzling most of taxpayers' money, things might look very different, no?

 

[Carl_Johnson]

Just look at what these cuties done.