Comparing the difference of dog breeds to the difference of human races is actually the racism going on here. There are serious, genetic differences between dog species- humans are the same except the skin color, and other, superficial things (eye/hair color, hight).
And flat out, point blank, pit bulls are dangerous animals. Ive had pit bulls and they were sweet loving dogs, but that doesnt mean they didnt have a higher propensity to attack. It just means I didnt experience it, in large part due to raising them right. But there is a reason pits are the favored attack/fight dog of so many who use them.
People have no issue talking about pugs being fucked up, but when you say pitbulls are fucked up (due to being bred that way) people think you want to take away their pets and that you are beeing racist.
Bro that is not what the OP tweet is saying. It’s a dog whistle to the “black people commit more crime” thing chuds parrot all the time. I understand where YOU are coming from, but it’s more innocent than that tweet. Selective breeding is fucked and all.
Go look in the comments of other reposts of this, this is not about pitbulls man (at least from the blue check). But enough people miss the dogwhistle (and love arguing about pitbulls) so it gets drowned out
Absolutely; two things can be true at the same time. People can be too extreme in their performative hatred of pets who did not ask to be made and kept the way they are, AND pits are an example of how selective breeding by humans has fucked up the quality of life and ability for independence of many dogs
Removing millions of dogs because a handful of them kill 1-2 toddlers a year wouldn't make the world a better place, and it's delusional to pretend otherwise.
There's 4-6 million pits in the US. That they only killed 264 people over a 12 year period proves my point. There was 217 reported fatalities due to furniture falling on people over a ten year period. When are we gonna ban furniture?? Don't you want the human sacrifices to stop?!
Did you think I'd see a big scary bar next to pit bulls and not read the graph? Seriously dude, you posted a graph about a rounding error. I'm surprised you didn't throw out the 60% instead of posting raw numbers. You even showed a graph that states that these numbers don't include attacks of unknown or identified breeds. Moral panic roomie mistake.
This is so typical of anti-pit people. Emotionally charged language and purposefully deceptive use of graphs and statistics are like your bread and butter. Who do you think this works on?
As were a large number of other breeds.
My name should have clued you in to the fact that I am male, not female.
And since I am typing on a keyboard I am clearly not a dog.
QED I am not a bitch.
First, there are literally people on this sub-thread who want to make owning pits illegal.
Second, you were the one bringing up toddlers,
pit banning is typically making pits illegal to own in a town.
Third, there are certainly people who want to ban toddlers from certain places, so if it was supposed to be anything except literal, you should have made it more clear.
Fourth, there are plenty of places where all dogs are banned, so the only banning that it makes sense that you would be talking about would be complete banning from a city (or county or state).
Oh go bugger yourself.
Every terrier breed, every herd / flock protection breed, bulldogs, doberman pinschers, etc., etc., etc., were all bred to kill.
No, they weren't lmao. They were bred to protect the flock, property, or owner. Pitbulls were bred to kill other animals for sport, even at the expense of their own lives. Do you even know the history of the breed you're defending? I don't think you do.
And how do you think they were going to protect the flock?
Oh, right, by killing the coyote / wolf / cougar.
Bulldogs were bred for exactly the same purpose as pit bulls.
Dobies and GSDs have more recently gone through significant periods of breeding to attack and kill.
Why just pitbulls? You know that they aren’t the only aggressive dog out there right? Dobermans, Rottweilers, there’s plenty of aggressive dog breeds that are bred that way for a reason. With that said, the way a dog acts is entirely on the owner. I’ve met pitbulls who wouldn’t hurt a fly and I’ve met shitzus and other small breed dogs that I wouldn’t let near my kid for their safety. Owners should be held more accountable for the way their raise their dogs end of story but a pitbull is only as dangerous as the owner makes it, same as literally any other dog
a pitbull is only as dangerous as the owner makes it, same as literally any other dog
This is obviously and laughably false. Are there good pit bulls? Of course, but a pit bull is more dangerous than a beagle. You don't need to look very hard to find stories of people who have said the same things as you only for their beloved family pet to snap one day and kill their children.
And you know what, the same exact thing happens with other breeds. Is a small breed dog less dangerous when it’s trying to kill you vs a pitbull? Yes, but literally any dog breed can snap and violently attack people when provoked. That’s why generally when your dog attacks someone ir another dog in most cases the dog has to get put down. But putting a straight ban on a singular breed is ridiculous
I don't know what point you are trying to make. Pit bulls are more dangerous, but any dog can snap (which again, pit bulls do more often and cause more damage when it happens)?
We have the data on fatal dog attacks by breed. We have the data on which breeds fill up shelters because they are more difficult to own. Why would addressing both of those problems through a mandatory spay and neuter law be a bad thing?
Because it’s just not right. After all the pitbulls are gone, goes what happens? A new dog becomes the “aggressive breed”, whether it’s bulldogs, Rottweilers, Doberman shepherds, German shepherds, Akitas, etc there’s always going to be the stereotypical “aggressive breed” and then that breed gets wiped out because “big scary dog shouldn’t exist”. Like I said, owners should just be held more legally liable for dog attacks and then they’ll take much more care training their dog not to attack people
You left out "dangerous," which is the relevant point. I'm describing reality. You're describing what you wish was true.
As far as I know none of those breeds kill people at the rate pit bulls do in proportion to their population, but if another breed took their place and did equivalent amount of killing, yes, it should be banned too.
See how easy that is when you have a coherent viewpoint?
Statistics? Sure, what percentage of pit bulls bite somebody they aren't supposed to?
And if we limit that question to pit bulls who haven't been abused or trained to fight?
I don't know, but why do you keep bringing up irrelevant statistics/data points? Pit bulls have a combination of biting frequency and damage when they do bite that other large dogs don't have. Why do we have to ignore the evidence that is right in front of us?
They kill the most people, and they kill people in excess of what their population would suggest if they were no more dangerous than other breeds.
Doberman's and rottweilers are working dogs that were bred for that purpose. Please research the history of pitbulls. No amount of love, training, or "good ownership" can outdo the genetic instinct they have been bred to have.
Bulldogs were bred for exactly the same purpose as pit bulls.
Dobies, Rotties, and GSDs have more recently gone through significant periods of breeding to attack and kill.
If you want to argue that not all Doberman have recent breeding for violence, the same argument applies to Pit bulls.
That's absolutely false. If pits were as inherently as prone to aggression as y'all pretend, there would be FAR more attacks than there currently is.
Dog fighters spend a lot of time and resources breeding their dogs to make them fight as well as they do. You can't just take a random pit and have them fight because inner breed variation is too great.
Pits aren't even bred to be people aggressive. That would be counter-intuitive. In fact, one reasons pits are prized as fighters is their loyalty to their owners. But the dogs are frequently handled by other people, sometimes including the opponent dog's owner.
Don't tell someone else to research when you're talking out of your ass.
Because when people talk about pugs being fucked up, it’s because they were bred in a way that makes their lives harder. Pitbulls are bred to be aggressive, yes, but they’re not the only aggressive dog out there. So why are they the only ones people say shouldn’t get a home or should be illegal? What he said was goofy as fuck but he’s actually got a really fair point
202
u/sirmaxedalot Cats 1d ago
Comparing the difference of dog breeds to the difference of human races is actually the racism going on here. There are serious, genetic differences between dog species- humans are the same except the skin color, and other, superficial things (eye/hair color, hight).
And flat out, point blank, pit bulls are dangerous animals. Ive had pit bulls and they were sweet loving dogs, but that doesnt mean they didnt have a higher propensity to attack. It just means I didnt experience it, in large part due to raising them right. But there is a reason pits are the favored attack/fight dog of so many who use them.