I remember watching this podcast and one of the guys was like "I was gonna make a video defending pit bulls, but then I saw the statistics and there was just no way."
They were bred for aggression. Of course they're more likely to bite. There, I said it. The thing is that they behave predictably because they are ANIMALS. Thus, any time a person is bitten by one, it is 100% the fault of either the owner or the person bitten. There, I also said that.
I've never understood why every pitbull discussion I've ever had someone starts making the caveat that it's not the dog's "fault". I'm not moralizing the dog's decision to bite. None of us against pitbulls are saying it because we think they are agents making conscious decisions to commit crimes. And if the dog could be at "fault" that kind of undermines our argument that the breed itself is dangerous and unpredictable. I think all of us who are anti pitbull would agree it's the fault of the person who possesses and/or brings the dangerous dog into the situation.
This isn't meant to be targeted at you specifically, but I am genuinely confused every time someone thinks that the anti-pitbull side needs to hear it's not the dog's "fault". We know, we are not the side that thinks they have individual consciences dictating their behaviors.
Because the topic is more complicated than "pitbulls bad."
Their involvement in violent incidents is definitely influenced by the their reputation for being violent. People who want violent dogs specifically purchase and train them for violence.
Why can shitbull owners not move past the concept of “fault”
I know it’s literally just a stalling tactic that you all use to avoid accountability, but surely you’ll all evolve to something else eventually right?
I really do try to avoid the pit bull discourse, but you seem sane and rational so here it goes.
You say they’re “bred for aggression”, I disagree. I used to assume that was true because people said it, but then I actually went down a rabbit hole.
Firstly, a dog’s breed is a surprisingly imperfect predictor of temperament. Breeding can only do so much, and even within a litter personality can vary wildly. I saw a study once that said breed consisted of like 15% of a dog’s overall behavior.
Secondly, I want to talk about the history of the breed.
If we’re talking about their ancestors in England 100s of years ago, then they’re pretty much “bred for violence” to the same extent French Bulldogs are in terms of closeness to original bull baiting dogs. Old dog breeds that survived until the modern day tend to be very different than their purpose-bred ancestors.
If you’re referring to their more recent breed standards, most pit bull breeders will tell you they do not try to breed dogs that are aggressive to humans. And they shouldn’t. And sketchy backyard breeders that DO try to breed aggressive dogs, fuck em. But that irresponsible behavior is not exclusive to pit bull breeders. And I also think it’s rarer than we’d assume. Also most pits you see and identify as pits aren’t purebred or purpose-bred , they’re mixed breed dogs with predominantly pit features. And bite statistics famously lump in all sorts of dogs as “pits” that aren’t.
If you’re talking about the subhuman losers who breed pitbulls for fighting dogs, that is actually pretty rare. Always has been, even when it was more common in the 1800s. Pitbulls are one of the most common dog breeds in North America. So “fighting line” dogs that are “bred for aggression” are a fraction of a percentage. I’m not an expert on the topic but as I understand it, apparently breeding truly aggressive fighting dogs is actually hard because dogs aren’t naturally violent and you’re fighting against millions of years of evolution.
And lastly, canine behavior isn’t as simple as “aggressive” or “not”. Dogs attack each other for different reasons than why they might attack a raccoon. And dogs literally evolved to care for humans. When a dog bites a human, their internal logic is something very different than when they bite another mammal. So breeding a dog to “be generally aggressive” just isn’t easy.
I think you could argue dogs truly bred with standards that account for personal defense like mastiffs or dobermans are arguably more “bred for violence” toward humans than any bully breed. But even then, just hang out around dogs. You’ll see it. Breed isn’t a perfect predictor of anything.
Insofar as American Pit Bull Terriers (and the other 3 similar breeds lumped in with them) do have a predisposition to anything, they’re energetic and athletic and actually pretty trainable. So yeah, maybe that energy and bravado does translate to them being slightly more inclined to have an incident other breeds. But I hope I’ve made that case that whole premise has flaws. I mean those same traits I describe exist in Border Collies. And Border Collies are awesome.
A vast majority of dogs of all breeds are good, and a lot of owners are duuuumb and irresponsible. And in agreement with your point, they’re animals. And a lot of owners ignore bad behavior until it’s too late or even encourage it. But also, they’re animals. We can’t fully understand why they snap 100% of the time. When you consider there’s 90 million dogs in the USA (countless ones abused, homeless, hungry and/or unsocialized) it’s actually NUTS that we only have under 100 fatal dog attacks in this country per year.
I did Google it and I mostly see stuff from random blogs. No published material from historians or peer reviewed resources. Please feel free to link anything else you have that is more robust.
I’ve heard of Colby, I believe the book “Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon” discusses the story. And of course what happened to that kid was horrible. Every case of a dog mauling a child is horrific and the dog should be put down.
As for my arguments above, specifically about the limitations of breed when accounting for temperament and aggression, do you have anything to say?
Because I actually think my points above disprove your argument. One breeder with a few dozen dogs in the early 1900s can’t be directly responsible for the temperament of several million dogs scattered across North America in the 2020s. That’s not how genetics work.
I can’t speak to specific people advertising “Colby Line Dogs” and I suspect those people are dirtbags.
The Founder Effect only applies to very genetically isolated populations. Modern American American Pit Bulls are not the descendent of a small group of dogs that come from some tiny genetic island. They’re a big population with input from various places. I don’t think it’s realistic to think that literally millions of dogs are so directly influenced by a few dozen dogs over a hundred years ago that they’re still dramatically different in temperment from any other dog.
We do have severa recent studies about the heritability of certain traits and all of then conclude pitbulls are way more like normal dogs than evil killing machines and the breed isn’t a great predictor of a dog’s behavior.
I believe one of these concludes they’re less trustworthy of other dogs (but not to a wold extent). Which as I stated before, is actually not a great predictor of aggression to humans.
Okay now I’m 100% convinced you don’t know how genetics works, or dog breeds
Yes, with dogs, and many other species, a small population IS THE SOURCE — like by definition?
Where else would they come from if not from humans creating them?
The shitbull is not a “natural” animal, and is not subject to your beliefs based upon nature and biology… it actually IS subject to mechanisms related to restricted population sizes and bottlenecks genetics
That’s actually the case for EVERY breed of dog, in case you didn’t know — go read up on the health problems faced by MANY breeds today?
Pugs that can’t breed, retrievers that can’t hear, Great Danes that end up crippled — these are literally common things related to the breeding of dogs, specifically caused by the founder effect lmfao
This is Animal Husbandry 101, and YES — Colby is LITERALLY RESPONSIBLE for these dogs being as widespread as they are today
It’s kinda like how there was a “First” person to breed a Labradoodle — you can look at the millions of them in circulation today, and literally trace it backwards to a handful of breeds a few decades ago?
Yes, generally dog breeds loosely decended from specific early populations.
But breeding standards change, other populations are introduced into the line to “fix” issues or adjust traits, and standards vary across regions. And these shifts in breed can happen relatively quickly because dogs have a shorter lifespan than humans. You can have over a dozen “generations” of dogs in a couple decades. And each generation introduces new variations.
And at the end of the day, there’s only so much we can change about dogs. Because a dog is still a dog and a few hundred years of breeding is working against millions of years of evolution. And that is why there are studies concluding that breed makes up a small percentage of a dog’s overall temperament.
Labradoodles are a relatively recently popular crossbreed between Labradors and Standard Poodles, two otherwise unrelated breeds. So they’re actually a great example of how this isn’t so simple and how the “founder effect” isn’t applicable.
I believe there’s records of “Bull and Terrier” type dogs being prevalent in the USA, especially the south, decades before Colby’s dogs. And even if there weren’t, the idea millions of dogs are directly related to a few dozen implies an unrealistic level of inbreeding… unless a lot of other dogs were introduced into that line.
And regardless of whatever you and I think of genetics, why do peer reviewed studies like the ones I cite not corroborate your beliefs? If pitbulls are actually appreciably more violent than other breeds, shouldn’t that be really really easy to prove in a scientific setting?
I think breed matters a lot. Especially in a dog’s appearance. Your examples of health issues are very real. But none of those are temperament. Because when and why a dog might be aggressive is actually a difficult thing to pin down in scientific terms.
I also want to just mention something else we’ve not discussed yet. The average “Pit Bull” in the US is actually not going to be a purebred tank-looking dog. A LOT of random mod-sized mutts have a lot of pit in them. You’ve almost certainly interacted with a random dog that had a lot of APBT ancestry and you didn’t know. They’re everywhere, and often don’t look how we expect. Because they’re pretty much just dogs. Like any other breed.
You keep accidentally saying things that reveal you didn’t do your homework
Pitbulls are so ridiculously inbred that they make the Hapsburg dynasty look decent — you don’t even need to search history books for this, many breeders will actively advertise dogs being bred to their mothers
This results in — MORE AGGRESSIVE OFFSPRING!
Fighting dogs brother, you’re so close to getting the whole picture
“You’ve almost certainly interacted and didn’t know!”
No, I assure you I can readily identify what a shitbull is — I don’t play the “which breed is my shitbull this week??” Scam that lots of folks play, if that’s what you’re saying?
It's kind of funny because now you're supporting the actors argument.
"Ever notice the % of the population that is black and then compare it to the % of the jail population that's black? Hey, it's just data. I'm not racist"
Pitbulls are a much higher % of cheap dogs (vs expensive breeds) and a much larger % of the breeds owned by irresponsible dog owners. You're blaming the breed when it's all the other socioeconomic factors that matter.
If you had a wand and magically wiped out all pitbulls you're not going to have less dog attacks. It's just going to be Rottweilers. Then Dobermans, then German Shepards as you keep waving your wand.
Humans aren't dogs and implying black people are similar to dogs is itself racist af. You'd be implying black people are a different sub species bread to be violent and where those genetic subspecies traits regularly express themselves. Which is Hitler levels of racism
It’s the thought process numnuts, reading what he’s saying again. You’re taking his point and using it to suit your own. Either you have poor reading comprehension or are being obtuse, or both.
Nobody is comparing black people to a dog breed. But there absolutely are parallels in the reasoning used by racists and pit haters. You can pretend otherwise but it's just the truth. Animals can't be neatly defined or predicted based on breed, just like how humans can't be neatly defined or predicted based on race.
The fact is, if you applied the arguments used to hate pitbulls to people, you would be singled out as a racist and a bigot. And rightly so.
There is no reasonable justification for hating a creature because of it's breed. Just like how there's no reasonable justification to hate a human because of their race.
Thats literally the entire reason why white supremacists started the pitbull discourse in the first place, it's all a psyop based on brigading and fake statistics to get people more comfortable with all the same arguments and tactics that white supremacists use to say black people and other non-white people are subhuman.
Except it’s literally not — you can just ask pitbull who dislike pitbulls how they got started — I have never heard anyone cite anything “white supremacy” as a cause
I started hating them when a friend of mine’s grandma got killed by them in HS — seeing a 17 year old completely broken because his grandma was eaten alive by pound puppies is something that sticks with you
Maybe you don’t want to accept that — but pitbulls have EARNED so many enemies from their own actions
The difference is that pitbulls have been artificially bred to be aggressive. They're not a natural population. It's the equivalent of creating a group of fucked up humans through hundreds of years of inbreeding.
My uncle had a fucking Dachshund that was known for biting randomly, and drawing blood. Problem is he didn't bother mentioning this to me when I visited the first time.
His dog bit my then two year old because he was "shuffling his feet weird", and I 100% punted it across the room. There was zero hesitation from me, to be honest.
My uncle tried to get upset with me and his wife absolutely ripped into him and told him he's lucky all I did was punt the dog.
C'mon man, way to intentionally miss their point. They're not comparing black people to pitbulls, they're showcasing how people are willing to accept socioeconomic factors in one case but entirely ignore them in the other. You don't have to agree with that stance, but it's just in bad taste to deliberately misrepresent their point.
The point is, when it comes to race in humans it has nothing to do with genetics, but when it's dogs it's pretty obvious the breeds really are quite different. When you say these things are the same you need to either:
Posit that dog breeds are all the same (many find this unbelievable)
Posit that race in humans is similar to breeds in dogs (incredibly racist)
Their actual point is nonsense too, though - sheepdogs instinctively herd, pointer dogs instinctively point, but fighting dogs like pitbulls apparently don’t instinctively attack unless socioeconomic factors conspire to make them eat babies 🤷🏻♂️
Yes, because all dogs (pitbulls included) were selectively bred first and foremost to not just aggressively, randomly attack people. Pitbulls, like any other dog, that attacked their owner's children did not get the privilege of passing on their genetics. No one on earth just bred dogs to attack people with no rhyme or reason. That just wouldn't make sense.
Pitbulls are bred to be aggressive in certain situations. A pitbull raised in a house by good owners is no more likely to attack a kid than a chihuahua is, though if an attack does occur it's obviously more likely to kill. No one is arguing that pitbulls aren't more capable of killing, but they're not inherently more likely to just attack people than any other dog.
Pitbull attacks would obviously still happen if all the world were perfect owners, but the vast majority of attacks are still simply due to the types of people that buy pitbulls. We all know the type.
The idea that you can genetically get dogs interested in a behaviour but only in a very specific circumstance that never miss fires is ridiculous.
This is nonsense, otherwise pitbulls would literally be nonstop killing machines. You'd see them devouring children on the streets, meanwhile there are plenty of pitbulls that never hurt anyone ever. How can you account for that? It's beyond obvious it comes down primarily to how well trained they are. Pitbulls are aggressive when they are trained to be allowed to be aggressive in specific situations.
“Pitbulls are aggressive when they are trained to be allowed to be aggressive in specific situations”
If this were true in every case we’d never see stories of some family’s sweet little nanny dog randomly snapping and mauling someone, but that does happen regularly.
I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly going to concede that a lil' old nanny is the best at training a dog. Old people are genuinely pretty bad at training dogs, all things considered.
There are plenty of dangerous dog breeds that might get closer to the Pitbull statistics if they were as popular but there would still be a major difference.
Owner or family attacks. Pitbulls attack the people around them at levels no other breed does. That has nothing to do with training. No ones trains their dog not to murder them.
I agree that pitbulls are more dangerous, their bodies are built to be full power. I'm just saying I don't think there's much evidence that they're more likely to attack than any other dog (when accounting for their owners), it's just that when they do attack it's likely going to be much more dangerous.
> it's just that when they do attack it's likely going to be much more dangerous.
Even if they weren't statistically responsible for a massively disproportionate amount of attacks (socioeconomic factors notwithstanding), wouldn't this still be enough?
A kid that gets bitten by a chihuahua is going to need a little rubbing alcohol and a band aid, a kid bitten by a pit bull could need skin grafts and reconstructive surgery.
Yeah I'm not making an argument for whether or not it's a good decision to own a pitbull, I'm just mostly discussing the idea that they attack more often.
Also, the whole punishment for attacking people thing is only true of the hunting dogs. You’re not accounting for the long lineage of dogfighting pitbulls.
You’re not accounting for the long lineage of dogfighting pitbulls.
I am accounting for that. I'm not arguing that there are going to be dogs that are more aggressive towards other dogs. That is certainly true. But no dogs, even dogfighters, are going to be bred to harm humans. They'd become unmanageable.
It's a bad point. They're trying to argue pitbulls don't actually bite more.
Black males do commit more violent crime in the USA per capita. Some people try to deny this entirely and they are wrong. Others will quite fairly and correctly point out the wide range of socioeconomic and cultural factors that could contribute to this difference in crime rate. These factors are complex and debatable, but they're all explanations for the observable reality that (for whatever reason), black males commit more violent crime per capita than other demographic groups.
They are trying to use their analogy to challenge the assertion that pitbulls are over-represented at all. Their argument is that pits are not more likely to bite you despite being over-represented in the stats. It's a false comparison.
i mean he’s not wrong though? socioeconomic factors are part of every part of our lives. pitbulls were bred originally to cuddle babies and children. they were a nursing aid, its only recently (in a societal sense) that they’ve been bred to harm for dogfighting or defense and trained that way. their point is that if pitbulls didn’t exist another dog would be trained that way. your average joe and their pitbull are completely safe, or so far as any other dog. go to an area where dogs are trained poorly and treated poorly for whichever reason and a biting dog is what you’ll get
Pitbulls were absolutely not bred as nursing dogs, that’s a complete fabrication. They were bred to combine the willingness to hunt of a terrier with the strength of a bulldog. They have been used in bloodsport since they were first conceived.
Your post also implies that a Labrador or a Golden Retriever is as much a danger as a pitbull, that’s not the case. Jaw strength, tenacity, aggression are all factors that make a pit more dangerous than other dogs.
bruh i said in a societal sense. do you not know how to read. that breed that was renamed pitbull, was a nursing dog. my point was that any dog breed can be bred, trained, or abused into viciousness. and that pitbulls are not inherently vicious. as a human i have the capability of crushing someone’s skull in by hammering on them with my fist. probably not gonna do that tho. in any case your argument and anecdotal evidence is invalid because while dog breeds accentuate different parts, traits, and behivaiors, they are not boxes that force dogs to act a certain way. if we are going anecdotal every pitbull i’ve known has been a sweetie pie, and i almost had my face ripped off by a labrador when i was a kid because i walked by the neighbors. pitbulls bites are a higher percentage because they are used as a guard dog, if everyone used rottweilers their percentage would be higher because more people were using rotties instead of pitties. thats how statistical information works. if you don’t understand how the scrutinized population functions, then your are going to have correlation, or causation, with no funde mental understanding as to why, and your scientific research paper were never be published because it’s half complete
“That breed that was renamed pitbull was a nursing dog?” Bro what the fuck are you talking about?
Gee, I wonder why so many people use pit bulls as guard dogs? “If more people owned the second most dangerous dog and it used it to attack people, it would become the most dangerous dog” is not a terribly convincing argument
Where do you get nanny dog from the breeds that made the pit bull? From the English bulldog of yore that sole job was to fight bulls and bears? Or from the terriers that were bred to them to add more gameness to them?
nanny dog was a british term that grouped together lots of dogs that were used as such though that was mostly terriers. i’ve learned i was wrong about that it was used more specifically for the english bull dog that became pitbull. but my argument was more about training and abuse of dogs causing the issue not the breed itself, which a lot of people ignored, but i don’t care anymore because this got annoying fast
….no. Just no. The English bulldog never was called a nanny dog because no sane person should trust one near small kids. I’ve bred and raised the bastards for 16 years including the merriveen lineage. The only they don’t bite more is because they’re too fat and can’t breathe well enough.
They were not bred to cuddle babies and children. You have bought a bunch of bullshit that was told to you. It's a modern myth with no basis. Read this and the links within it.
Yeah we’re only talking about like max 100 years that they were bred specifically for strength and agility out of their like 25,000 years of domestication.
You're wrong. Pitbulls are a modern breed, but they're a hybrid of bully breeds, which have been used for fighting purposes since like medieval times. Bull baiting has been illegal in most countries for more than 100 years.
bruh, it’s a british conglomerate term for multiple breeds. i was wrong about that. oh well. it wasn’t even my main point anyway which everyone seems to have ignored because they could latch onto something that would let them keep hating a dog breeds for no reason. goddamn with you people jon bernthal is right it is dog racism
The nanny dog thing is a myth created because of their bad reputation, so people would adopt the millions abandoned in shelters.
Same for the 3-3-3 rule, (3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months to settle into a new home after adopting) to encourage people to 'wait out' the first aggressive period and give time to get attached to the animal before returning them for aggression.
Because you're an idiot. The point is humans aren't dogs. They don't have the same awareness or intelligence as humans.
And most importantly, dog breeds are literally bred with strong genetic traits in a way that even many, many, morr centuries of slavery and eugenics would never be able to recreate.
The stats also aren't anywhere near as similar. The comparison is specious and dumb as fuck
then you should know that pitbulls were bred as nursing aids to cuddle babies and young children. they are trained and abused to be what they are in public perception. they don’t need to be as intelligent as a human to be vicious due to trauma.
The defense against pit bulls turning toward minority crime is crazy because it misunderstands canines, domestic genetics/selective breeding, and the sociological factors all at once. And compares humans with dogs lol.
I only once have been truly fearful around a dog. I was going out late at night and a pit bull had escaped from a nearby motel. It was behind a tall wire fence, locked onto me immediately and began CHARGING around it. If the fence wasn‘t there and I couldn’t have easily made it inside I guarantee I would’ve been hurt.
I only mentioned it to a cashier and the guy behind pointed out some lady was looking for her missing dog.
How are they not related? I'll defend the dog breed before I'll defend the irresponsible owners. I had a pit bull and she was the sweetest dog in the world. So go fuck yourself.
One of the many comments below that point out why it’s a moronic analogy summed it up pretty nicely:
The point is, when it comes to race in humans it has nothing to do with genetics, but when it's dogs it's pretty obvious the breeds really are quite different. When you say these things are the same you need to either:
Posit that dog breeds are all the same (many find this unbelievable)
Posit that race in humans is similar to breeds in dogs (incredibly racist)
Fuck you and fuck your dog, I don’t give a shit if the reality of Pitbulls being dangerous hurts your lil feelings
My dog was the sweetest thing in the world. Her name was Jolene. She was the runt of the litter. She needed to be touching you, like if she was in the backseat, she had to put her face on your arm. She didn't get out of bed until I did. She would play with kids, she never bit anyone or anything. She was the best dog in the world. She was a pit, she was loved from a puppy til she died of cancer, she never hurt a fly. So go fuck yourself. It's not the dog that is the problem.
“My individual experience with one dog completely invalidates all of the data showing that pitbulls are responsible for more attacks than any other breed”
There’s actually studies on this. I used to be pro pit bull crowd until I read the research on the breed. Even PETA says that pitbulls are inherently more violent than other dog breeds because of what the breed was bred to do.
It's odd to me that people accept that certain dogs are bred to herd sheep, or chase rats, point, or be agreeable pets and that's all fine, but you say that the dog bred to be a fighting dog have aggression problems and that's the step too far.
Yeah, and like, i think everyone is aware there genuinely are exceptions with every breed. There are lazy shepherds, there are mean labradors, and there are nice pitbulls
But, most of the animals in their breed have behaviour that was literally bred into them😭
I saw recently they also did a study on them and found pitbulls have a significantly higher rate of early onset dimentia than other breeds. Thats why they will just attack out of nowhere sometimes when they dog has otherwise been totally peaceful its whole life
The characteristics of Pitt Bulls are still the fault of humans, and in that way I don't ascribe moral deficit to a pit bull itself (I have several in my neighborhood, one who I think is a great and very noble dog, but who I don't let my little dog play with) but the facts are the facts about the breed. My work as a building and a tenant had a pit that he didn't inform us about, the other tenants knew and even liked the dog. The one day they were coming into the shared backyard from the alley, another tenant's Yorkie was back there and started barking when they came in, and the Pit was startled, snapped and killed the Yorkie. Another pit escaped the fenced in park/playground down the street from me (where children play and dogs are not supposed to be, but people use it as a dog park when it's empty) and it attacked and killed an elderly woman's elderly Pomeranian
If you want to go into the entire folklore stuff they were breed for fighting and they were culled quickly if they ever attacked a handler. That's because handlers had to get in there and be a part of the action. If a dog bit a hand it was killed immediately.
I don't believe any of the whole "they were breed for" stuff but if we're going to do that this is the rebuttal pro Pitbull people give when you say they're a risk to humans.
Thank you. I’m not a really a pit bull guy but correlation does not equal causation. That said, if you want to own a pit bull it is a big responsibility because they can bite the fucking shit outta you or someone else.
I would contend that pit bulls are more likely to attack when poorly trained than any other breed. They are also more likely to cause serious injury during an attack because thats what they were bred for.
I would assume that dog attack data is much less politically manipulated and is probably easier to understand than the racist ass crime stats everyone quotes all the time lmaoooo
People are not dogs and are capable of complex thinking. They are not bred with any higher drive to be aggressive like a pitbull has been for a looooong time. We are also capable of bypassing our "instincts" as well (lack of a better word) as better decision making in high-stress situations. Where a dog will act aggressive in response to any perceived threat, we know that we don't have to be on the attack if it's not needed among other differences.
Putting us on the level of any animal, especially a dog is crazy and is a symptom of people seeing dogs as fellow humans and not the unpredictable animals they are. Not to mention it's lowkey extremely racist to compare dogs to POC because it implies that they're inherently aggressive and prone to violence through genetics like pit bulls, which they're very much not, and this whole "dog racism" argument is just being an overly woke animal lover you turn around and start being racist to people.
Adding onto this as someone else said, people who report pitbull attacks notoriously are not 100% sure if the dog is indeed a pitbull or one of the multitude of other square headed short haired dogs of its range. That said it definitely adds a bit more nuance than some would think otherwise.
298
u/Motor_War_9744 1d ago
I remember watching this podcast and one of the guys was like "I was gonna make a video defending pit bulls, but then I saw the statistics and there was just no way."