• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Are pitbull lovers denying evolution and science?

Both I think. I actually found the studies I was talking about.

Several studies determined that pit bull owners, and owners of other "vicious" or "high risk" breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix), are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study compared owners of "high risk" dogs to owners of "low risk" dogs. "High risk" dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., pit bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked, or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that "high risk" dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions than did "low risk" dog owners. A 2009 study and a follow-up 2012 study generally supported these findings.
Click to expand...

Study 1

Study 2
 
I just want to say that I agree with those talking in opposition to pedigree dog breeding. I think it is almost evil, when we breed maladaptive traits into our animals. My dog, Henry, died at age 9, from kidney failure. He sufferred a bit with arthritis and hip dysplasia. These 3 things are all considered to be genetic heritage of rottweilers; very few of them won't have hip problems and they often get kidney failure. His life may have been longer, at least, if he hadn't be inbred for generations. There is something so callous in humans breeding ugly/cute dogs who can't breathe properly or shut their eyes, just so we can own their lives.

Kittycat5 said:
Wow, those regulations are really strict. I think in a couple of dog generations, for all intents and purposes, they could very well lead to the eradication of Pit Bulls in Victoria. So much of headache to comply I would imagine only the most ardent of supporters of the breed willing to face prosecution and those engaged in illegal activities would be the only ones willing to keep a restricted breed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are strict. Australia is a bit of a nanny state TBH. But I find myself supporting breed-specific regulations if the only other option is mass euthanasia.

I might do some research and see if there is any emprical data on pit bull ownership in Victoria, whether it has dropped off or not. Anecdotally, I feel like I see less pit bull's around, but heaps of "pit bull type" dogs.

Which leads me to one of my main reasons to oppose breed specific legislation. In Victoria, dogs have been seized who were not, in fact, pit bulls. They just looked like one. Its like a specific, stocky body and large jaw is just automatically seen as dangerous. I think that is hugely unjust.

I still feel it is the human and our perception of the breed that lead to the stigmatization of Pit Bulls. Not even counting the enviornment a Pit Bull was raised in, here in America they, for whatever reason, are linked to gangsters, and primarily black ones. I dont want this topic to devolve into a discussion of racism in America, but the fact many people feel this way does nothing to help the situation.
Click to expand...

In Australia, there is no similar association that I know of. I would agree that in the US, people may think of pit bull as part of black culture, but in Australia that doesn't really exist. Maybe an association with criminals/bikies, but I think pit bulls are mainly owned by middle class in Australia, though I have no evidence to support that...

Totally off topic, but I also saw in that link that greyhounds must be muzzled in public spaces. What is the rationale for this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have no fucking idea really. :\ Nanny state. I think there is a perception that greyhounds have hair trigger reflexes to chase fast-moving small living things, like mice or children's faces. But yeah, it seems like overkill.

I used to get slightly appalled at the reactions that Henry would get when I walked him, from time to time. People crossing the street when he approached, tongue out and eyes eager. I remember that people who were unable to escape would just freeze while he menacingly walked past, agressively wagging his tail, angrily seeking pats and belly rubs. We went several years without anyone reading our gas meter because Henry would bar entrance into our yard, by deep barking and joyful and playful whining.
 
Last edited:
willow11 said:
I just want to say that I agree with those talking in opposition to pedigree dog breeding. I think it is almost evil, when we breed maladaptive traits into our animals.
Click to expand...

Agree. Some cities seem to passing laws which specify that pet stores must only sell shelter dogs. I really hope that gains traction. I would love to see a situation where shelter dogs are the only option if someone wants to buy or adopt a dog but I don't know how realistic that would be. Perhaps if there was a law passed that made it illegal to exchange money/application fees/fees in general etc for pure breed dogs. People would still be allowed to give them away for free if they had them, but no money. Not sure how much that would help but I imagine it would reduce breeding numbers quite a bit as it would remove the financial incentive for many people.
 
Last edited:
In the UK it's illegal to own a pitbull, when the law was passed it wasn't so that all pitbulls were put down, just that breeding became illegal and all pitbulls alive at the time of the ban were registered and if they attacked they were put down. I support it and here's why;

1. I've met dozens of pitbulls and yes they were all nasty killing machines that had to be kept under special conditions and all of them wanted to eat me.

2. At the time of the ban I was an advocate that it was wrong as a guy on my street had two that appeared to be lovely dogs, nothing like the stereotype, until one day out of the blue they attacked him and disfigured him.

3. To me it's the same as the bulldog argument, all Bulldogs have health issues and die young, and arguably have a pretty shitty life and that's down to our fault from us breeding them as such. Therefor it's wrong to continue breeding them.

This same argument applies, no not all pitbulls are dangerous but many are, and all have the potential to be. I'm not saying we should put them all down but we should stop breeding them. Humans as a species have fucked up with the breeding of pitbulls and we should call it a day.

Many will find it unfair but as Jim Jefferies once said, humanity can only move at the pace of its slowest individual.
 
Foreigner said:
I greatly dislike tiny, stupid dogs whose brains are so small that they yap at anything that moves. My neighbors on both sides have these micromuts. On top of it, they leave their dogs home all day and don't walk them enough, which only increases their derangement.

At least pitbulls are higher on the intelligence scale. They can be trained to be smarter. I have never met a violent pitbull, but I have seen many different breeds of dogs act out against other dogs and humans because the owners didn't have proper control of them. If you aren't prepared to tell your dog who's boss then you shouldn't have one.
Click to expand...
As long as people control their dogs, I don't care what kind they have. Respect leash laws. Never let them run loose.

In the case of uncontrollable little yappers, many do it because it's in their genes. Shelties are an example. They will bark at their own shadow and no amount of training will silence them. They can't stop yapping even with discipline like shock collars. In that case, the owner needs to have the little yapper debarked. This involves a surgery on the vocal chords. That or have the dog put to sleep.

Obviously a lot of people don't respect these common courtesies and shouldn't be allowed to have dogs. They probably shouldn't be allowed to have children either.
 
I'm confused about why you are anti-pitbull. Weren't you just arguing in favor of unrestricted (as in they are sufficiently strict if they are enforced) gun ownership in another thread? Some of your arguments were that even though guns have the potential to be dangerous, in the hands of responsible owners, they are safe. Irresponsible owners are the problem. Another argument was that banning guns would be taking away a freedom. I got shot in the back of the head with bird-shot when I was 8 years old by a 9 year old because the gun owner liked to leave loaded guns lying around. Yet, I agreed with you.

I apply the same logic to owning pets that might be dangerous. Bad things happen, but when the owner is responsible, they don't. Let people have whatever animal they want. When I was 5, I saw a toddler get ripped apart and his face was ripped half off by a herd of pitbulls the owner had let loose in Miami. The kid nearly died, and then they mauled the people who were trying to save the kid. The owner was a second generation Red Neck who was breeding them to fight. Overall, he didn't get along with people because of his swamp rat manners. When it went to court, this owner and his dogs had a number of complaints and minor incidents before that one.

So in the case of potentially dangerous breeds of dogs, you're flipping. Why?
psychedelicsoul said:
You know, from examining the arguments on both sides, it seems pretty clear who's better at arguing?
Anti-pitbull people argue with science and statistics, while pro-pitbull people argue with catchy slogans.

The way I see it, to claim that a pitbull is only violent because of bad owners and that dogs will not be violent unless their environment makes them that way holds about as much water as creationism or calling homosexuality a choice.
It's a very obvious that dog behavior varies by breed. No matter how good a pet owner you are, there are some natural behaviors that will vary by the breed of dog you have.
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/08/triggers-what-prompts-pit-bull-to.html
It seems like most pitbull supports simply appeal to peoples emotions and use rhyming slogans rather than facts.
http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php
According to this site, pitbulls have evolved to be killing machines through selective breeding.

But I wanna know scientifically. Are pitbulls inherently violent animals that would kill with little to no provacation?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
alasdairm said:
by that logic, you're a potential rapist and murderer and should be incarcerated immediately.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Look I get it, you have a pitbull and you like them.

But come on though don't let emotion cloud your judgement, yes potentially I am, and if I committed such acts I'd have to face the consequences, since I said I support how the UKs ban worked then clearly you'd see that's the closest comparative system we can achieve with an animal. I'm not saying I wanna kill your dog.

Plus it's like damn, we're not talking about the last tigers, we are talking about an animal humans have selectively breed for a couple hundred years for the purposes of fighting. I don't believe the world would have such a strong point against them if some owners could face that fact and accept that however sweet there dog is it is an inherently dangerous animal.

Last thing read up on the science with the relationship humans and dogs share, they don't love you, they simply act in a way that will provide there next meal, but no yeah defend these creatures to the death by all means.
 
Codeine Demon said:
Look I get it, you have a pitbull and you like them.
Click to expand...
i get it. you've met some bad pitbulls and you don't like them.
Codeine Demon said:
But come on though don't let emotion cloud your judgement, yes potentially I am...
Click to expand...
yes. you are.
Codeine Demon said:
I'm not saying I wanna kill your dog.
Click to expand...
no, but you are saying my dog should be treated a certain way because of the actions of other dogs. you are saying my dog should be treated a certain way because she has the potential to be. well, she really doesn't but don't let facts get in the way of your nonsense.

by the same (lack of) logic you have the potential to murder. you're a potential murderer. what should we do with you?

alasdair
 
We have laws to reduce the incentive for humans to commit crimes. I don't think a pit bull would understand laws which restrict its behaviour.

Pit bulls are innocent. They are simply as we made them. Imo denying that they are more dangerous then other breeds is at odds with the science of selective breeding. They don't deserve punishment but, as a powerful animal, they rely on us to protect them. We can do that by educating owners and restricting ownership.
 
Codeine Demon said:
Look I get it, you have a pitbull and you like them.

But come on though don't let emotion cloud your judgement, yes potentially I am, and if I committed such acts I'd have to face the consequences, since I said I support how the UKs ban worked then clearly you'd see that's the closest comparative system we can achieve with an animal. I'm not saying I wanna kill your dog.

Plus it's like damn, we're not talking about the last tigers, we are talking about an animal humans have selectively breed for a couple hundred years for the purposes of fighting. I don't believe the world would have such a strong point against them if some owners could face that fact and accept that however sweet there dog is it is an inherently dangerous animal.

Last thing read up on the science with the relationship humans and dogs share, they don't love you, they simply act in a way that will provide there next meal, but no yeah defend these creatures to the death by all means.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but the science says that dogs behavior being simply a ploy to get food is simply not the whole story.

An fmri study showed that certain regions of dogs brains involved with the expectation of reward were activated more strongly when smelling a familiar human compared to familiar dogs or unfamiliar humans or dogs. And while they cannot completely rule it out, the expectation of reward is not necessarily food as the familiar human scent was one of a family member who interacts with the dog through play and not through feeding.

And a study from just this year showed the more dogs gazed into humans eyes (something alone neither wolves or other domesticated animals do by the way) the more oxytocin can be measured in their urine. Oxytocin is intimately involved in human bonding and love, and an expert in dog neuroscience said that this result needs to be repeated and further investigated as it shows how dogs have hijacked the human bonding system and why they may be so effective as therapy animals.

https://www.rt.com/news/250485-dogs-love-humans-hormone/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635714000473
 
willow11 said:
I love the image of a dog gazing lovingly into owners eyes :)
Click to expand...
warning: nsfw contains image of a nasty killing machine that has to be kept under special conditions and wants to eat codeine demon:

NSFW:
bella02.jpg
:)

alasdair
 
I don't know about pitbulls overall, but my former roommate had a big pitbull and she was one of the most playful & loving dogs I've ever been around. Great dog, definitely not the vicious type I guess.
 
alasdairm said:
warning: nsfw contains image of a nasty killing machine that has to be kept under special conditions and wants to eat codeine demon:

NSFW:
bella02.jpg
:)

alasdair
Click to expand...

Evil incarnate ;) In truth, pit bulls are some of the sweetest and gentlest looking dogs. Those big eyes, that slightly concerned facial expression... Cute. What's her name Ali?

I was thinking that, perhaps in modern pit bulls, the aggressive traits which typified them are atrophying. I'm not sure how many pit bulls now are bred to actually bait bulls, or even fight. I feel like the selective parameters for most modern dogs is their appearance; that is often how a breed is defined. There's no reason to think the breed still contains all the traits they were bred for. But, it would be a denial of science to say these traits are not, at least partially, present as evidenced by some pit bull behaviour. This is not a judgement of the breed but, hopefully, a relatively accurate depiction of the facts. To that end, I think pit bulls do need some extra protection- from a problem created entirely by humans. We owe them that. They didn't ask to exist, we made that happen. We are responsible, not the dogs.

I question by what right we breed pets at all. :\
 
My dog, who lives on in my avatar, lived ten years in London, eight more in sheep-filled rural Wales. He never knew what a lead was his entire life.

He was a Staff/Alsatian mix. Both breeds having a reputation for snarliness/fighting. Max never had a fight in his life.

Just saying.
 
sorry shm. but you are wrong. how can you possibly know your dog better than felonious monk and codeine demon. they've never met your dog but that's irrelevant. they've met other dogs and that's enough for them to know your dog and how he should have been treated better than you.
willow11 said:
Evil incarnate ;) In truth, pit bulls are some of the sweetest and gentlest looking dogs. Those big eyes, that slightly concerned facial expression... Cute. What's her name Ali?
Click to expand...
her name is bella and she is the gentlest creature i have ever met. she is literally scared of a fly - if there's a housefly in the same room, she hops up on the sofa and tries to hide behind me and can't settle until its dealt with :)

alasdair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top