this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
347 points (100.0% liked)
196
16449 readers
2106 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess /r/banpitbulls is starting on Lemmy. I'm ok w/ that...
I want to make it but i just don't want to be a mod...
Same. Only thing worse than an a angry pit is an angry pit owner
Someone I know just got attacked by their pit Bull, they are justifying it by saying the dog had brain cancer and didn’t know what it was doing. I personally don’t get the mental gymnastics that you have to go through to say that they are perfectly safe dogs that just get a bad rap when you literally just got your arms flayed off by one.
Apparently almost all Pit Bulls are predestined to get Dementia at an early age, which causes them to basically "snap".
It isn't technically the dogs fault, but akin to French Bulldogs I can't help but advocate for a ban on breeding them.
We need to bring r/banpitbulls to Lemmy.
Maybe they have brain cancer
I feel you, I was a reddit mod for a bunch of subs. Its not worth it.
They nuked me for being a flag bearer for Aaron and highly critical of the direction they were going pre API chaos. 6 accounts perm banned even though I only used two to mod w/ and get mouthy. Now IP banned, I wear that as a badge of honor.
But in seriousness we need to ban pit bulls and my dumbass will mod the sub to get people to see they are a bad breed.
You could always start a banpitbulls community here if you have the time. I would join.
There are no bad dogs only bad owners
This is true, but the damage a badly raised pit bull can do is far worse than other breeds.
No, like with people there are indeed straight up bad dogs. It's not just nature versus nurture, it's nature and nurture, and pits have a bad nature.
Okay but can they make their own community so the rest of us don't have to see it, please and thank you.
You people have worms in your brains.
No, that's pit apologists. The dog breed that accounts for 70% of fatal attacks should be banned, and guess what, that's pits.
We are surrounded by information at all times in our modern era, and as such, we must learn to be critical of the information we consume. Seeing a statistic, and jumping to a single conclusion without questioning it is nothing more than negligence and/or stupidity.
Allow me to disrupt your world view for just one moment with some studies... I know you won't change your mind as a result of this, but perhaps I can plant a seed. And perhaps, some day, you'll realize that this is just a single example in an entire world full of misinformation.
What makes me sad is that statistics much like one you are currently flaunting are used to perpetuate human racism as well. In America, we have a disproportionate number of minorities that exist at or below the poverty line. As a result, these human beings are innately more desperate, and tend to be surrounded by other desperate people in ghettos, projects, and run-down communities. This leads to crime.
Does this means minorities are innately more violent? No... no it does not. At a base level, this just means people who have very little (and/or lack vital necessities) are more desperate, and more inclined to break the laws in a system that is failing them. Despite this, there are a shocking number of people out there that will point to the blunt statistics and try to convince you that these people are simply more violent.
These (racist) people's lives are full of confusion, but they fight that confusion with arrogance and blinders. If that's how you want to live as well, then so be it... but it seems like a rather bleak existence to me. Either way, the choice is yours.
Pitbull info is your source? Yeah, that's not going to be biased at all.
The first link is to a paper where the authors only identified the breed in 45b out of 256 dog attacks, and they concluded breed had nothing to do with the attack? Bullshit, they didn't know the breed 80% of the time, so they could not make that conclusion. Plus abusive and neglectful owners only accounted for 20% of dog attacks, so most attacks are not a result of bad owners.
The second link is to a paper out of Ireland that doesn't include any data about pitbulls, the legislated breeds include German shepherds and rottweilers, but no pitbulls. yet the website is using that paper to defend pitbulls? Absolute bullshit, since they aren't in the paper.
Their third link is to their own website, that horribly misuses the data and statistics, and draws false conclusions, so it's complete bullshit.
Must I go on? That website is just a giant crock of shit designed to fool people.
Here's some data for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
Actual dog attacks, and the vast majority are pitbulls. It has nothing to do with race, pitbulls are responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog attacks. That's the facts.
The people I know that have been bitten by dogs, all pits. And all owned by white people.
Stop trying to tie this to racism, it isn't a dogwhistle. Pitbulls are the most dangerous type of dog there is.
Ironically, your bias against pitbuls has seemingly driven you to dismiss reputable studies from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Irish Veterinary Journal, The Veterinary Journal, the Journal of Anatomy, and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.
The opinion you hold regarding the methods of the first article may have weight to you, but it emphatically does not hold more authority or validity than an in-depth study from the American Veterinary Association.
As for the second study, it was only asserting that breed does not determine a difference in bite severity (size taken into account, of course.) Are you refuting this assertion? If so, please provide reputable studies that back your position.
You ask if you must go on... Yes, I think you must. The burden of evidence is on you, not any of us. I've provided resources from leading veterinary institutions all over the world, and so far you've done nothing but link me to a Wikipedia article listing fatal dog attacks one after another.
I'm tying this to human-derived racism because the logic being used is nearly exactly the same as your supposition... The fact the only "evidence" you've linked here is based on correlation, rather than causation, proves my point. You propose here that pit bulls are inherently dangerous - I'm pulling this from your insistence that they be banned (rather than the owners of violent individual dogs) - all because you've looked at a list, and you've noticed one breed is more common than the rest.
Has it ever occurred to you that if you were a violent and/or insecure person wanting to evoke fear in others, you might go get yourself the breed so many (like yourself) see as the most violent and dangerous breed? Imagine if I wasn't the first one to suppose this, and if it became a bit of a trend. Now imagine that trend spiraling for decades.
When a study fails to identify the breed for the vast majority of attacks, then states breed has nothing to do with the attacks, it is an absolute failure of peer review. Also do you not realize journal editors barely read the papers, they get peer reviewers to do it, and shit does get through (source: I've edited journals and published and reviewed dozens of papers).
But let's dive into the other actual sources.
Source 1, no breed identification = not applicable.
Source 2, once again does not include any pitbulls, so does not apply at all. The website is absolutely idiotic to include it. As for pitbull bites being worse, for all bites that required hospital intervention, 50% were by pitbulls, so yeah worse than other breeds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5682160/
here's another paper showing pitbulls cause more damage with their bites than most breeds, only matched by German Shepherds in severity:
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/wk/prs/2020/00000146/00000005/art00076
Source 3, data only goes up to 1998, and the vast majority of fatalities from a known breed are still caused by pitbulls.
Source 4, breed identification, not applicable given pits are mixes.
Source 5, same as source 4.
Source 6, abstract claims they saw similar aggression between breeds, but the data suggests otherwise. Where 59% of golden retrievers showed no aggression, only 35% of pitbulls showed no aggression. And where only 1.4 percent of retrievers showed significant aggression, 14 percent of pitbulls showed it. So pitbulls are actually more aggressive than golden retrievers. The authors bend over backwards to claim it's because the owners are more stressed, so the animals get stressed, instead of acknowledging the data shows pits are actually more aggressive. Seems it was written by pit apologists, and not by unbiased observers.
Source 7, is a study from the UK, where pitbulls are banned, and does not include any data on pitbulls. So as with source 2, it should not be on the site.
Source 8, includes zero data on pitbulls, but does show bigger dogs have stronger bites. So not exactly in pitbulls favour there.
Source 9, just a summary of how bites are measured, no mention of pitbulls.
Source 10, makes no mention of breeds. Breed specific legislation does not mean that breed can't be found in a region, just that it doesn't reduce bites. Also ticketing works to reduce dog bites.
Source 11, dog population and ownership rate was not in any way mentioned. Bites may have gone up simply because there are more dogs being owned during that period. Without that data this paper is useless (and this data was likely intentionally left out to sell a specific narrative).
Source 12, doesn't include pitbulls, so again fails to act in their defense in any way.
So nope, your, and this websites bias, are causing you to massively misread papers and misinterpret their results.