8 ms·

I only mentioned pit bulls because OP said that shelter had 130 unadopted pit bulls. Whether or not they're statistically more aggressive than other dogs of th

I only mentioned pit bulls because OP said that shelter had 130 unadopted pit bulls. Whether or not they're statistically more aggressive than other dogs of the same size and socialization, that's a debate that'll get me a ton of downvotes here regardless of how I answer, so I'll pass on that one.

michaelmrose 6y ago
You would get less down votes if you make substantial arguments as people will be more apt to engage in discussion instead of down voting and moving on.
- sn_master 6y ago
  I shared a YouTube link with hundreds of videos of pitbull attacks caught on camera. Watching one or two of those videos should constitute a substantial argument if someone has an open mind. From experience, I can spend a solid hour writing arguments and I'll get downvoted anyway by all the SJWs here who refuse to accept anything differing from they believe in. Even if one person decides to watch any of those videos and changes their mind about getting a pitbull I'll be happy for saving a life and I don't give a damn about downvotes.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    there are almost 80 million dogs in america. linking a video with hundreds of pitbull attacks is not much better than just saying your neighbor has one and it's mean. the margin for error is probably higher with a lab or golden retriever, but it's irresponsible to own any large dog without committing to proper training and socialization. any large dog can maim or kill a human if provoked.
    - sn_master 6y ago
      There is a reason BSLs exist. Scientists in those countries have decided pitbulls in particular are statistically more dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation Please be cautious before getting a pit bull yourself or for a loved one. I don't see this discussion moving forward regardless of whatever evidence I present. God bless, have a great holiday.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Breed specific legislation depends on the argument that certain breeds are more dangerous. It's illogical to posit this is so because the legislation exists its circular.
        sn_master 6y ago
        What are you even saying? Scientists use statistics from hospitals. They find that 90% of brutal gruesome deaths are caused by one breed or variation of such breed, they ban that breed from being adopted. Result? 90% less gruesome bloody murders of innocent children and elderly -> success, the law is here to stay! Where is the "illogical" or "circular" part? I don't understand what those words have to do here. Do you like to allow poisonous snakes and tigers to be owned by the general population without any special license and guards too?
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        Surely you could provide some studies that show that in areas with breed bans the rate of gruesome violent deaths are down 90%, or you could if that were real. Outside of fantasies pushed by a professional victim there isn't such proof and on net the number of people killed by dogs is about 1/10 of the number that drown in bathtubs and you could do more for the world by demanding grab bars be installed in every bathroom.
        sn_master 6y ago
        Why are you comparing apples to oranges and claiming to care about science at the same time? We're comparing the violent and fatal attacks of one breed of dogs with violent and fatal attacks of other dogs. How or why are you comparing that with bath-tub drowning? Might as well compare it with car accidents too. Even if I come to entertain your train of thought, drowning in a bath tub isn't the same as watching your own four years old child's limbs get torn one after the other, and bleeding to death infront of your own eyes while being helpless against the beast (one example, hundreds more exist clicks away if you choose to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI) Plenty of people provided scientifically backed links in this thread of evidence that pitbulls, as commonly understood and anyone can define with their own eyes, are responsible for the majority (over 70%) of fatal and violent attacks. You've chosen to ignore all of those and provide a SINGLE case of a "professional victim", while at the same time laughing and telling us multiple anecdotes mean nothing when we gave you hundreds of videos of dead children, dead elderly and horribly wounded adults and pets, all with their full names, locations and exact circumstances proving the animal was a pitbull. I don't even understand where is your passion coming from. By banning their adoption, those dogs won't get hurt. The existing ones will live in their homes for the duration of their natural life and the shelters won't have to resort to tricking people into adopting them (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-dogs-mislabeled-pit-bulls/stories/201203180054 https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...). What's the harm to society if the US adopts the same UK regulations? Or what's the good to society by keeping these dogs around for adoption? Me and others here for the BSL, are doing it after experiencing or hearing about horrifying experiences from these very strong dogs and what they can do to a child, elderly or even a strong adult. Are you trying to somewhat equate this to racism or something? Because it is not. All humans adapt and become civilized and equal to one another through education and parenting regardless of race. That's not the same for animals. A snake will remain a snake, and a tiger will remain a tiger. A wolf can become a dog, but only after many many generations of select breeding. A pit-bull with violent history killing pets won't become a fluffy playful doggy just because you're smiling at it.
  - perardi 6y ago
    Define a “pit bull”. Go right ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
    - sn_master 6y ago
      No one is going to confuse a German Shephard, Huskey or a Chihuahua for a "pit bull". If you insist, there are DNA tests that exist and can "define" the aggressive genes very precisely.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > I shared a YouTube link with hundreds of videos of pitbull attacks caught on camera. Which proves nothing about innate traits. That pit bulls have a reputation that makes them prized with people that want to train dogs for aggressiveness (a culturalnrole in which they displaced doberman pinschers in a fairly sudden phase transition despite no change in the underlying innate traits of either breed) is not controversial.
  - TwoBit 6y ago
    While a bunch of videos don't prove that pit bull breeds are inherently more dangerous, maybe there's an argument that pit bull physiology makes them more dangerous when they are inclined to be violent. That's a more concrete assertion at least.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    So which dog breed do you like? If I send you one or two videos of that breed involved in a bad fight, will you have an open mind and be persuaded? For that matter, do you drive a car? I could show you a number of videos that demonstrate the danger of cars. And so on. Maybe folks are down voting you because a collection of videos isn’t a good argument. Maybe they have a pitbull in their life that they love. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a closed-minded SJW. If you are open-minded yourself, you must accept that maybe they disagree with you because they don’t find your argument compelling. I get why you are passionate about this. I understand you want to keep people safe. I am sure if we could discuss this over a beer, we could find common ground.

michaelmrose 6y ago

You would get less down votes if you make substantial arguments as people will be more apt to engage in discussion instead of down voting and moving on.

sn_master 6y ago
I shared a YouTube link with hundreds of videos of pitbull attacks caught on camera. Watching one or two of those videos should constitute a substantial argument if someone has an open mind. From experience, I can spend a solid hour writing arguments and I'll get downvoted anyway by all the SJWs here who refuse to accept anything differing from they believe in. Even if one person decides to watch any of those videos and changes their mind about getting a pitbull I'll be happy for saving a life and I don't give a damn about downvotes.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  there are almost 80 million dogs in america. linking a video with hundreds of pitbull attacks is not much better than just saying your neighbor has one and it's mean. the margin for error is probably higher with a lab or golden retriever, but it's irresponsible to own any large dog without committing to proper training and socialization. any large dog can maim or kill a human if provoked.
  - sn_master 6y ago
    There is a reason BSLs exist. Scientists in those countries have decided pitbulls in particular are statistically more dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation Please be cautious before getting a pit bull yourself or for a loved one. I don't see this discussion moving forward regardless of whatever evidence I present. God bless, have a great holiday.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Breed specific legislation depends on the argument that certain breeds are more dangerous. It's illogical to posit this is so because the legislation exists its circular.
      - sn_master 6y ago
        What are you even saying? Scientists use statistics from hospitals. They find that 90% of brutal gruesome deaths are caused by one breed or variation of such breed, they ban that breed from being adopted. Result? 90% less gruesome bloody murders of innocent children and elderly -> success, the law is here to stay! Where is the "illogical" or "circular" part? I don't understand what those words have to do here. Do you like to allow poisonous snakes and tigers to be owned by the general population without any special license and guards too?
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        Surely you could provide some studies that show that in areas with breed bans the rate of gruesome violent deaths are down 90%, or you could if that were real. Outside of fantasies pushed by a professional victim there isn't such proof and on net the number of people killed by dogs is about 1/10 of the number that drown in bathtubs and you could do more for the world by demanding grab bars be installed in every bathroom.
        sn_master 6y ago
        Why are you comparing apples to oranges and claiming to care about science at the same time? We're comparing the violent and fatal attacks of one breed of dogs with violent and fatal attacks of other dogs. How or why are you comparing that with bath-tub drowning? Might as well compare it with car accidents too. Even if I come to entertain your train of thought, drowning in a bath tub isn't the same as watching your own four years old child's limbs get torn one after the other, and bleeding to death infront of your own eyes while being helpless against the beast (one example, hundreds more exist clicks away if you choose to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI) Plenty of people provided scientifically backed links in this thread of evidence that pitbulls, as commonly understood and anyone can define with their own eyes, are responsible for the majority (over 70%) of fatal and violent attacks. You've chosen to ignore all of those and provide a SINGLE case of a "professional victim", while at the same time laughing and telling us multiple anecdotes mean nothing when we gave you hundreds of videos of dead children, dead elderly and horribly wounded adults and pets, all with their full names, locations and exact circumstances proving the animal was a pitbull. I don't even understand where is your passion coming from. By banning their adoption, those dogs won't get hurt. The existing ones will live in their homes for the duration of their natural life and the shelters won't have to resort to tricking people into adopting them (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-dogs-mislabeled-pit-bulls/stories/201203180054 https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...). What's the harm to society if the US adopts the same UK regulations? Or what's the good to society by keeping these dogs around for adoption? Me and others here for the BSL, are doing it after experiencing or hearing about horrifying experiences from these very strong dogs and what they can do to a child, elderly or even a strong adult. Are you trying to somewhat equate this to racism or something? Because it is not. All humans adapt and become civilized and equal to one another through education and parenting regardless of race. That's not the same for animals. A snake will remain a snake, and a tiger will remain a tiger. A wolf can become a dog, but only after many many generations of select breeding. A pit-bull with violent history killing pets won't become a fluffy playful doggy just because you're smiling at it.
- perardi 6y ago
  Define a “pit bull”. Go right ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
  - sn_master 6y ago
    No one is going to confuse a German Shephard, Huskey or a Chihuahua for a "pit bull". If you insist, there are DNA tests that exist and can "define" the aggressive genes very precisely.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I shared a YouTube link with hundreds of videos of pitbull attacks caught on camera. Which proves nothing about innate traits. That pit bulls have a reputation that makes them prized with people that want to train dogs for aggressiveness (a culturalnrole in which they displaced doberman pinschers in a fairly sudden phase transition despite no change in the underlying innate traits of either breed) is not controversial.
- TwoBit 6y ago
  While a bunch of videos don't prove that pit bull breeds are inherently more dangerous, maybe there's an argument that pit bull physiology makes them more dangerous when they are inclined to be violent. That's a more concrete assertion at least.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  So which dog breed do you like? If I send you one or two videos of that breed involved in a bad fight, will you have an open mind and be persuaded? For that matter, do you drive a car? I could show you a number of videos that demonstrate the danger of cars. And so on. Maybe folks are down voting you because a collection of videos isn’t a good argument. Maybe they have a pitbull in their life that they love. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a closed-minded SJW. If you are open-minded yourself, you must accept that maybe they disagree with you because they don’t find your argument compelling. I get why you are passionate about this. I understand you want to keep people safe. I am sure if we could discuss this over a beer, we could find common ground.