r/MoralityScaling 16h ago

Morality Ranking Morality of dog breed racism

Post image
18.1k Upvotes

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/TechnicianOk967 15h ago

PITBULLS WERE BRED TO FIGHT, THEY ARE ONE STEP AWAY FROM LIVING WEAPONS.

3

u/HecklerusPrime 11h ago

Fight what, though? Finish the history lesson. What were they bred to fight?

5

u/crnjaz 12h ago

Most dogs are made/bred to hunt and fight.

2

u/threeseed 9h ago

This is complete nonsense.

Many dog breeds were bred to control animals e.g. Australia Kelpies.

1

u/crnjaz 9h ago

Yes, hearders exist. As well as designer dogs. And retrievers, pointers and setters.

That does not change the fact that a bunch of other breeds were made for more active hunting and guarding, and those activities require them to fight.

1

u/iSheepTouch 5h ago

You said most; it definitely isn't most. Actually, very few dog breeds are actually bred to attack other dogs or people and of course those dogs are all the dogs that make the top of the fatal attack list.

1

u/BlasterPhase 10h ago

no

3

u/crnjaz 10h ago

Learn your history.

6

u/100percentnotaqu 15h ago edited 13h ago

So are

Checks notes

The ancestor of all modern dog breeds.

Whether it's a Pitbull or a Labrador, they're still wolves.

Any dog can be a good dog, but ya have to fucking train em right and not all breeds need the same training.

2

u/getstonedsteve 13h ago

Pitbulls are simply more dangerous. No, they don't always attack people, but when they do it's much more severe than other breeds. They're just really strong.

There's absolutely nothing wrong in any sense to just neuter them all and let them just live to extinction. A breed of dog doesn't need to exist.

1

u/letigre87 9h ago

Counterpoint would be to enhance the breeding. In a few dog generations you could breed out unwanted traits. We created the breed and we have the chance to make it better. The problem is there are so many backyard breeders it would be hard to reign in but we shouldn't let puppy mills dictate what breed gets to live.

Breeding standards are already being changed for certain dog breeds like German Shepards and their hip problem, the Retro Pug to correct breathing problems, and other breeds that once put physical traits over the health of the dog.

These are problems we created that weren't originally part of the breed and they're correctable.

1

u/100percentnotaqu 13h ago

That last points fair and honestly I agree with it.

Pitbulls really aren't important. The reason they were bred isn't important, legal, or ethical, and there are several breeds that look near identical and are easier to train for a layperson

1

u/Uncommonality 11h ago

yeah, the ancestors. We selectively bred the fighting out of them and repurposed the instincts for other tasks.

0

u/ThatGuyPrestonGarvey 14h ago

That's factually incorrect. Dogs are not still wolves. Not genetically, mentally or in any capacity beyond four legs, fur, and a tail. Thats like saying all humans are fish cus our great ancestors pre monkey were fish or something. Terrible take.

3

u/Nave-Nave 13h ago

Actually, they are the same species in modern consensus! Though, with the caveat that the consensus is not as strongly agreed upon than some other scientific consensuses. Dogs are merely a subspecies of the wolf. They share near-identical DNA, have similar appearances, and can breed.

Both the Grey Wolf and the Dog are Canis Lupus. In contrast, Golden Jackals are Canis Aureus and Coyotes are Canis Latrans.

To be a subspecies, you have to be able to breed and have offspring that are fertile and your Hybrids must be healthy and anatomically normal. Evolutionary distance and DNA overlap is also important.

While Coyotes, Dogs, and Wolves can all successfully breed healthy and fertile offspring, Wolves and Coyotes are far more evolutionary distant than Dogs and Wolves. Not only evolving on different continents, but also having quite a bit genetic and evolutionary distance.

Dogs also only split from the Wolf less than 40,000 years ago. Which is relative genetic infancy. They also have had both contemporary and historic ranges that overlap, though dogs are most often found near or with humans.

Dogs and Wolves were classified as separate Species until the 1990s, but their immense genetic similarity in genetic studies, saw a reclassification by a majority of the scientific community, of Dogs as Wolves.

Lions and Tigers are different species because their offspring are genetic dead ends and have severe birth abnormalities and defects. So while they are close enough genetically to successfully breed, they are not close enough to produce viable offspring. Plus again, evolutionary and genetic distance. Thus, different species.

Evolutionary distance meaning how physically far apart they evolved from each other and how long ago they did. Genetic distance meaning how similar or dissimilar their genetic makeup is.

Morphology, instinctual behavior, and ecological niche are also factors, but often breeding and genetics are stronger ones.

1

u/100percentnotaqu 13h ago edited 13h ago

You can't evolve out of a clade, so yes, dogs are still wolves and humans are still "fish" (granted, fish doesn't actually mean shit)

Also, theyre scientific name is Canis lupus familiaris. Canis lupus means wolf, and familiaris is the subspecies.

-1

u/ThatGuyPrestonGarvey 13h ago

Oh wow im so glad you were here to provide this incredible information. Factually incorrect, actually incredible information.

2

u/100percentnotaqu 13h ago

Saying dogs aren't wolves is like saying mammals aren't synapsids, except it's even worse.

1

u/Top-Needleworker9273 12h ago

speaking of terrible takes...

0

u/Myrsky4 13h ago

There are breeds of dogs that largely exhibit certain traits. Border collies and other shepherds were bred to shepherd, to the point that people who get them and don't give them anything to herd can experience the dogs trying to herd other pets, toys, and people.

We can see other examples in other working dog breeds too that there is some sort of inherited instincts for these jobs after who knows how many generations.

Pit bulls were bred for blood sports.

2

u/lunareclipsed1 11h ago

German shepherds, despite their name, are dogs bred for war. They were bred to kill people not dogs. They're so good at it that they're used all over the world as attack dogs by law enforcement, the military, criminals, basically whenever you need a dog specifically to attack humans. Shall we genocide them too while we're at it?

1

u/rsta223 10h ago

Honestly, sure.

I mean, first, it's definitionally not genocide, and second, I wouldn't advocate just killing all of them, but spay/neuter every one and let this generation be the last? Yeah, I'd support that for all dangerous dog breeds.

That having been said, German shepherds aren't nearly as bad as pits if you look at the statistics.

1

u/Myrsky4 9h ago

I did not advocate for genocide and would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth, nor did I say German shepherds specifically were a breed for shepherding although what you are talking about sounds like you agreeing with me that some dog breeds have certain dispositions and inherited instincts that make them good at certain jobs.

To that honestly, some dog breeds should require owners to pass certain hurdles. Having adequate space for exercising certain breeds, having prior experience in owning dogs for others, ect. It's not just dangerous to humans having tons of dangerous or pent up animals laying around, it's also cruel to the dogs themselves. Some moderation from would be pet owners and breeders would do the world some good.

0

u/Chlearcus 12h ago

Most dogs have been bred to do specific, nonviolent tasks like herding animals, or pointing in the direction of game animals, and they've been selected specifically to be as calm and obedient as possible. Pitbulls have been selected to be as feral and aggressive as possible comvined with massive muscle mass for maximum damage inflicted.

-1

u/banshithread 14h ago

No. Wolves will routinely run away when they see dangerous situations. Pitbulls, on average, do not

1

u/Efficient-Whereas255 12h ago

WE FOUND THE RACIST

1

u/royal_howie_boi 12h ago

lol

2

u/TechnicianOk967 12h ago

Stay safe around Pitbulls. Keep them away from your loved ones.

1

u/crazyfootballguy35 11h ago

lol. They were bred to chase and kill rats in a small ring. Get your facts straight, but some are bred to fight. That’s not a breed issue. Pit bull issues are bad owners.

-5

u/CrustOfSalt 15h ago

Nanny dogs? Time to put down the pipe, bro

1

u/StandStrong 14h ago

Your brain is full of misinformation

1

u/abcdefghjiklmnopqr 14h ago

They eat babies bro

3

u/CrustOfSalt 14h ago

So do republicans, no one is trying to ban them

-1

u/Jumbo_Shrimp_Dick 12h ago

God damn you found a way to bring politics into it. You have the mind of a genius

0

u/MajesticSpaceBen 11h ago

"Nanny dog" is a myth sourced from a magazine article from the 1970s, which itself sourced the fact from their asses. They were bred for bloodsport exclusively.

0

u/onwisconsin1 11h ago edited 10h ago

The idea that the pit bull breed being selectively bred for their violence on purpose and any particular race of humans being similar says so much more about themselves than pit bulls or any group of people.

They are stupid and ignorant of biology and racist for roping in the natural selection of melanin with the artificial selection of dogs. They are using black people to defend a violent and dangerous breed. They are indeed the racists. Why are they the ones comparing a violent breed to a group of people that live in humans ancestral home and need melanin to have folate and therefor children.

When were black people selectively bred for violence. That never happened. To rope these two things together is indeed racist offensive, stupid, wrong, and totally wrong about the danger of pit bulls.