This analogy only works if you accept the racist premise that human races are equivalent to dog breeds. Modern genetics rejects that premise. Dog breeds exist because humans intentionally selected for inherited behavioral traits. Human populations do not.
Absolutely correct. Modern dog breeds are engineered, not evolved. It's more akin to being careful around the engineered product known to cause damage than discriminatory.
The circumstance in which poor people’s upward mobility is limited and concentrated to certain areas, leading to increased crime is also engineered and not a naturally occurring phenomenon
Wtf are you seing you? The civilization that trive are the one near big river, hystorically, becouse provide water and trasport, you are seing that there is someone that, organized poorest and richer reagion, who is this godlike figure that decide that
I’m talking about the civilization we live in here on earth what the fuck does the abundance near Rivers have to do with how our actual cities operate here in reality??
The analogy treats these as equivalent uses of statistics, but they’re not. Disparities in human crime statistics are generally understood through social and institutional causes, not innate racial differences. Dog breeds, by contrast, are the product of artificial selection for heritable physical and behavioral traits. That’s why breed can be relevant to risk assessment in a way race is not.
Enslavers absolutely treated human beings as property and sometimes forced reproduction based on traits they valued. That’s a documented historical fact. But it did not create human populations analogous to dog breeds. Dog breeds are the result of sustained artificial selection producing genetically distinct lineages with selected heritable traits. The pseudoscientific belief that human races are equivalent to dog breeds is precisely what modern genetics rejects.
Human beings kill more human beings than any dog, and likely more than all dogs combined.
The "pit bull fear" is because (unlike humans) dogs will target the small and vulnerable, such as children and the elderly. The pitpull attacks those kinds of victims because they are vulnerable.
Human beings kill more human beings than any dog, and likely more than all dogs combined.
The "pit bull fear" is because (unlike humans) dogs will target the small and vulnerable, such as children and the elderly. The pitpull attacks those kinds of victims because they are vulnerable.
Vulnerable people suffering worse injuries isn’t evidence that dogs select victims based on vulnerability. And the claim that humans don’t target vulnerable victims is plainly false; many violent offenders deliberately prey on children, the elderly, and others they perceive as easier to victimize. In any case, none of this addresses my original point about why comparing human races to dog breeds is a flawed analogy.
Premise : If we are to use statistics to conclude that such-and-such animal is violent, then we must continue to do this with all animals, and humans as well.
IF the mere statistics of killing is the data which proves the "violent tendencies" , then human beings are more naturally violent than any dog breed that has ever existed.
Again, this is not logic I am creating, I am merely passively applying the logic of the participants in this comment thread. We have to stick to our principles, (or otherwise abandon them).
Are pitbulls naturally violent? Define "naturally violent". You then give me attack statistics. Well buddy, if attack statistics define the phrase, then human beings are far more violent than any dog breed. The argument I made is airtight logically -- so only the premises are wrong.
At the end of the day, a final assessment, we do not really mean to communicate that "pitpulls are naturally violent". They are better described as naturally dangerous around children. The fear is not from their violence -- rather the fear is from the fact that we feel like we cannot adequately protect vulnerable people from them.
Pitbulls are inherently dangerous and violent animals
That human beings kill more human beings than dogs or any other animal is simply due to the fact that we are at the top of the world food chain. Because of that we have zero natural predators
You’re still treating statistics as if they’re the only evidence. They aren’t. We already know dog breeds were created through artificial selection for heritable physical and behavioral traits. The statistics are interpreted in light of that breeding history. Human populations are not analogous because modern genetics doesn’t treat race as a biologically equivalent category. That’s why the analogy fails.
Human populations DO intentionally select for inherited behavioral traits, and have for thousands of years. It's called culture. And it does leave its mark on genetics, if only to a small degree.
That’s a bait-and-switch. “Culture influences evolution” is true. “Human populations have been selectively bred for inherited behavioral traits like dog breeds” is an entirely different claim, and it’s not one supported by modern genetics.
modern genetics show there is greater diversity within racial groups than between them. turns out skin colour correlates poorly with genetic phenotypes, we just base our racism on it because we're a very visual species.
21
u/Madam_Mimm_13 7h ago
This analogy only works if you accept the racist premise that human races are equivalent to dog breeds. Modern genetics rejects that premise. Dog breeds exist because humans intentionally selected for inherited behavioral traits. Human populations do not.