The dog of peace spreading love again.

[BelemNole]

I haven't ignored any statistics. I'm merely trying to explain them. Not all pitbulls are evil killing machines. That's a fact.

Some studies show that Pitbulls are less aggressive than Chihuahuas.

Facts:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/pit-bulls-are-chiller-than-chihuahuas/500558/

Now, you can continue to demonize an entire breed because of the stories you read in the newspaper, be my guest, but that wouldn't be logical or fair.

For the record, I don't own any dogs.

Explain them by building straw men. No one claimed that every pitbull was a killer. Just that the breed was too dangerous as a whole to continue breeding them. There's simply no good reason to continue the line.

Whether or not they are "more aggressive" is irrelevant. They are more dangerous.

 

[Lurker1999]

Explain them by building straw men. No one claimed that every pitbull was a killer. Just that the breed was too dangerous as a whole to continue breeding them. There's simply no good reason to continue the line.

Whether or not they are "more aggressive" is irrelevant. They are more dangerous.

People in this thread want to euthanize every Pitbull.

I'm simply arguing against that because many Pitbulls are amazing animals. I have always agreed that some of them are dangerous, mostly due to poor ownership.

Facts won't convince anyone. We live in a post fact world, unfortunately.

I don't believe pitbulls should be bred out of existence. I've simply known too many that were amazing and are much better overall than other dog breeds. Good Pitbulls are more athletic and intelligent and loyal than most other breeds.

Again, I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. No one has ever changed their mind because of an internet debate.

I'm just giving my opinion based on some facts and personal experience.

 

[NoleLizards]

People in this thread want to euthanize every Pitbull.

I don't care much for the guy's "music", but I think euthanizing Pitbull would be a bit extreme.

 

[Lurker1999]

I don't care much for the guy's "music", but I think euthanizing Pitbull would be a bit extreme.

I personally think that everyone that owns a dog should have a license; just like driving a car.

 

[BelemNole]

People in this thread want to euthanize every Pitbull.

I'm simply arguing against that because many Pitbulls are amazing animals. I have always agreed that some of them are dangerous, mostly due to poor ownership.

Facts won't convince anyone. We live in a post fact world, unfortunately.

I don't believe pitbulls should be bred out of existence. I've simply known too many that were amazing and are much better overall than other dog breeds. Good Pitbulls are more athletic and intelligent and loyal than most other breeds.

Again, I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. No one has ever changed their mind because of an internet debate.

I'm just giving my opinion based on some facts and personal experience.

all that we've proven is that facts won't convince you. If you think pitbulls are more athletic and intelligent than other breeds you haven't met many other breeds. They're fighting dogs, not working dogs - for a reason. You don't see them at agility contests or doing anything that requires intelligence/discipline. You want a smart athletic dog get a border collie or an aussie for pete's sake. You want loyal get a beagle or a lab.

 

[Lurker1999]

all that we've proven is that facts won't convince you. If you think pitbulls are more athletic and intelligent than other breeds you haven't met many other breeds. They're fighting dogs, not working dogs - for a reason. You don't see them at agility contests or doing anything that requires intelligence/discipline. You want a smart athletic dog get a border collie or an aussie for pete's sake. You want loyal get a beagle or a lab.

Pit bulls aren't working dogs? That's not true.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wideopenpets.com/6-working-pit-bulls-defying-stereotypes/amp/

The fact that Pitbulls cause more damage when they bite than other breeds is not enough to convince me that they should be bred out of existence, like you want. That doesn't make any sense since most pitbulls do not bite humans.

Again, I know I won't convince you of anything because you've already made your mind up. You already think that Pitbulls as a whole are dangerous. I just happen to disagree because you haven't proven that most are a threat.

Now, I would agree that people should have a license to own a dog. Many dog owners have no clue what responsible dog ownership is.

If you have an open mind, you could go to a reputable Pitbull breeder and be around some of them. You may get some experience that would change your opinion on the breed as a whole.

 

[Lurker1999]

all that we've proven is that facts won't convince you. If you think pitbulls are more athletic and intelligent than other breeds you haven't met many other breeds. They're fighting dogs, not working dogs - for a reason. You don't see them at agility contests or doing anything that requires intelligence/discipline. You want a smart athletic dog get a border collie or an aussie for pete's sake. You want loyal get a beagle or a lab.

Oh and I've been around all those breeds. Labs are generic and they shed everywhere. Beagles are small. Aussies can be hyper and annoying.

Border collies are interesting but they're small, too.

None of those breeds have the athletic ability to do what my friends Pitbull did. He was an amazing animal.

 

[Nolomite]

None of those breeds have the athletic ability to do what my friends Pitbull did. He was an amazing animal.

Does your friend lease a Bearded Dragon? Do you guys meet for coffee on the beach?


Given your "athletic ability excuses criminal behavior" argument, you should change your name to GatorLurker. Are you also an Aaron Hernandez apologist?

 

[Lurker1999]

Does your friend lease a Bearded Dragon? Do you guys meet for coffee on the beach?


Given your "athletic ability excuses criminal behavior" argument, you should change your name to GatorLurker. Are you also an Aaron Hernandez apologist?

Who is a troll?

 

[BelemNole]

Oh and I've been around all those breeds. Labs are generic and they shed everywhere. Beagles are small. Aussies can be hyper and annoying.

Border collies are interesting but they're small, too.

None of those breeds have the athletic ability to do what my friends Pitbull did. He was an amazing animal.

So much stupid in these two posts. No, they are not "working dogs". Working dogs are a real thing - dogs bred to do work and do that work well. Just because you found a few feel good stories doesn't' change the fact that pits are a fighting breed.

Dismissing breeds as "small" when the discussion was loyalty or ability shows you are just another idiot who only cares about how macho you think the dog makes you look.

Claiming that your friends pit was more athletic than an aussie or a border collie shows that your a troll or not very bright. Either way, I bid you good day.

 

[Lurker1999]

So much stupid in these two posts. No, they are not "working dogs". Working dogs are a real thing - dogs bred to do work and do that work well. Just because you found a few feel good stories doesn't' change the fact that pits are a fighting breed.

Dismissing breeds as "small" when the discussion was loyalty or ability shows you are just another idiot who only cares about how macho you think the dog makes you look.

Claiming that your friends pit was more athletic than an aussie or a border collie shows that your a troll or not very bright. Either way, I bid you good day.

Insults. Yawn.

Are you aware of the history of the Pitbull in America? Here. Educate yourself.

http://www.goodpitbulls.com/pit-bull-picture/ww1-pit-bulls/

I already explained to you that I don't own any dog. I don't care about how a dog makes me look. You're making all sorts of assumptions based on your ignorant biases.

The reasons I wouldn't own a small dog is personal preference. I couldn't go jogging with a beagle. They couldn't keep up with me because they're small and not athletic.

My friend's Pitbull could climb trees. He could climb halfway up a tree and bite a tire and hang in the air. Most aussies and border collies can't do that.

He could jog for miles. He was really fast. I thought that was cool. You don't but that's just your personal preference.

You just don't know anything about Pitbulls other than what you see in the media. It shows.

 

[LesClaypool]

Border Collies and Aussies aren’t athletic?

I learned something new.

 

[Lurker1999]

Border Collies and Aussies aren’t athletic?

I learned something new.

Not compared to Pitbulls, they aren't.

 

[Nolomite]

My friend's Pitbull could climb trees. He could climb halfway up a tree and bite a tire and hang in the air. Most aussies and border collies can't do that.

He could jog for miles. He was really fast. .

Yes, pitbulls find that climbing trees gives them more people to kill...it's evolution.

 

[Lurker1999]

Yes, pitbulls find that climbing trees gives them more people to kill...it's evolution.

This dog was amazing. I would throw a stick across the yard and he would get it in two jumps.

 

[BelemNole]

 

[Lurker1999]

It's easy to call someone a troll when you don't know anything about the subject being discussed.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I grew up around fighting dogs. When I was very young, I literally had a Doberman as a baby sitter for a time. I have a German Shepherd, and on one side of my house, I have neighbors with various dogs: chihuahuas, daschunds, labs, etc. On the other side of my house, I have a neighbor who has always had pit bulls. I have known these pit bulls since they were puppies, and they have always been very sweet to me and go everybody else with whom I have seen the dog intersect, except the mailman. Yet, everybody in the neighborhood knows that you cross the street when you get to that house. They share a fence with me, but I don’t ever put my hand through that fence to pet them. Even the neighbor acknowledges that his dogs are risky. He only walks them at times of day when nobody is around.

Despite all of these precautions and all of this awareness, one of those pit bulls, Cookie, was recently put down, because she snatched a kid by the arm who was running down the sidewalk and got too close to the fence. That kid was my neighbor’s granddaughter who had lived with the dogs in the house since birth.

I am quite certain that some pit bulls go their entire lives without biting anybody, just as I am certain that some people live in a house with guns their entire lives without getting shot. For me, the potential for a tragedy far outweighs the benefits of having either in a home.

 

[Lurker1999]

I grew up around fighting dogs. When I was very young, I literally had a Doberman as a baby sitter for a time. I have a German Shepherd, and on one side of my house, I have neighbors with various dogs: chihuahuas, daschunds, labs, etc. On the other side of my house, I have a neighbor who has always had pit bulls. I have known these pit bulls since they were puppies, and they have always been very sweet to me and go everybody else with whom I have seen the dog intersect, except the mailman. Yet, everybody in the neighborhood knows that you cross the street when you get to that house. They share a fence with me, but I don’t ever put my hand through that fence to pet them. Even the neighbor acknowledges that his dogs are risky. He only walks them at times of day when nobody is around.

Despite all of these precautions and all of this awareness, one of those pit bulls, Cookie, was recently put down, because she snatched a kid by the arm who was running down the sidewalk and got too close to the fence. That kid was my neighbor’s granddaughter who had lived with the dogs in the house since birth.

I am quite certain that some pit bulls go their entire lives without biting anybody, just as I am certain that some people live in a house with guns their entire lives without getting shot. For me, the potential for a tragedy far outweighs the benefits of having either in a home.

That's understandable. I have a friend who had a Rottweiler that got loose and bit someone in the neighborhood and was put down.

That doesn't mean I think Rottweilers should be bred out of existence.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

That's understandable. I have a friend who had a Rottweiler that got loose and bit someone in the neighborhood and was put down.

That doesn't mean I think Rottweilers should be bred out of existence.

I understand your stance; I just think it’s really dumb.

 

[Lurker1999]

I understand your stance; I just think it’s really dumb.

How so?

I simply believe that some Pitbulls are dangerous but most do not bite people, therefore, they shouldn't all be euthanized or bred out of existence.

If you have any facts that contradict my position, I'd be interested in reading them.

 

[LesClaypool]

Not compared to Pitbulls, they aren't.

LMAO

 

[FSU_UCLA]

How so?

I simply believe that some Pitbulls are dangerous but most do not bite people, therefore, they shouldn't all be euthanized or bred out of existence.

If you have any facts that contradict my position, I'd be interested in reading them.

Your position is an opinion based on a value judgment. You believe that the value of the breed outweighs the risks; so be it. People are notoriously poor at risk assessment, esp., when weighing risks against things they like. Facts won’t change that.

 

[Lurker1999]

Your position is an opinion based on a value judgment. You believe that the value of the breed outweighs the risks; so be it. People are notoriously poor at risk assessment, esp., when weighing risks against things they like. Facts won’t change that.

I haven't seen any facts presented to the contrary. If you could show me that most Pitbulls bite people, then I would agree that they should be bred out of existence.

Until that happens, I'll stick to my position that it's not logical to judge an entire breed based on the actions of a few.

I wouldn't own any dog because of the risk...I may be the exception to the rule

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I haven't seen any facts presented to the contrary. If you could show me that most Pitbulls bite people, then I would agree that they should be bred out of existence.

Indeed. You have picked a very precise, singular condition under which you assert willingness to change your position. It is a really common bit of rhetoric intended to resolve cognitive dissonance without requiring you to actually assess or change your position in any way. It will serve you well in circumstances such as this.

 

[Lurker1999]

Indeed. You have picked a very precise, singular condition under which you assert willingness to change your position. It is a really common bit of rhetoric intended to resolve cognitive dissonance without requiring you to actually assess or change your position in any way. It will serve you well in circumstances such as this.

Not quite. I personally would never own any dog because of the risk.

You stated that most people are notoriously poor at risk assessment but I may be the exception.

if you disagree, I'd be interested in understanding why. I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I am not trying to prove anything. I am also not interested in facilitating your understanding of, well, anything. You can do that work on your own, if you want.

 

[Lurker1999]

I am not trying to prove anything. I am also not interested in facilitating your understanding of, well, anything. You can do that work on your own, if you want.

I'm simply trying to understand your point better.

Are you claiming that owning a Pitbull is not worth the risk? I agree but I would widen that to include all dogs. Owning any dog is a risk of financial problem or emotional heartbreak when they die or accidents, bites, etc.

I am all about sound risk assessment.

It's one of the main reasons I'm not an atheist; the risk of Hell is just too great. (Thanks Pascal)

 

[seminole97]

If you have an open mind, you could go to a reputable Pitbull breeder and be around some of them. You may get some experience that would change your opinion on the breed as a whole.

Creating a personal anecdote could only change my opinion on the breed as a whole if it was irrationally based on my own limited experience.
Who does that?

 

[seminole97]

I'm simply trying to understand your point better.
...
I am all about sound risk assessment.

In that spirit, can you take a crack at my earlier questions? To wit:
If a dog is 5x more likely to be involved in a fatal attack, is that a factor that should be ignored?
At what point do you ‘listen’?
10x more likely?
Where do you think pit bulls stand in that regard based on the numbers already provided in this thread?

 

[Gonolz]

I'm simply trying to understand your point better.

Are you claiming that owning a Pitbull is not worth the risk? I agree but I would widen that to include all dogs. Owning any dog is a risk of financial problem or emotional heartbreak when they die or accidents, bites, etc.

I am all about sound risk assessment.

It's one of the main reasons I'm not an atheist; the risk of Hell is just too great. (Thanks Pascal)

If you can prove that most non-atheists go to heaven, I will rethink my position.

 

[Gonolz]

In that spirit, can you take a crack at my earlier questions? To wit:
If a dog is 5x more likely to be involved in a fatal attack, is that a factor that should be ignored?
At what point do you ‘listen’?
10x more likely?
Where do you think pit bulls stand in that regard based on the numbers already provided in this thread?

He's already said it. If someone can prove to his satisfaction that more than 50% of pitbulls bite people, he will consider changing his position.

 

[Lurker1999]

If you can prove that most non-atheists go to heaven, I will rethink my position.

I can't.

We all have to make a bet, so to speak, on God.

Risk assessment shows we should believe, because if we're wrong, we lose an finite amount but if we choose not to believe (atheism) and we're wrong, we lose an infinite amount.

Right @FSU_UCLA?

 

[Lurker1999]

In that spirit, can you take a crack at my earlier questions? To wit:
If a dog is 5x more likely to be involved in a fatal attack, is that a factor that should be ignored?
At what point do you ‘listen’?
10x more likely?
Where do you think pit bulls stand in that regard based on the numbers already provided in this thread?

I'm happy to.

I believe that owning any dog and especially a Pitbull is a huge responsibility. I hope you would agree with this.

I have already stated that I believe that a person should have a license to own a dog just like owning a car because owning a dog is a very big responsibility. I also believe that many Pitbulls have bad owners that get them for the wrong reasons and do not raise them correctly.

Poor ownership is a major reason why Pitbulls attack.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I can't.

We all have to make a bet, so to speak, on God.

Risk assessment shows we should believe, because if we're wrong, we lose an finite amount but if we choose not to believe (atheism) and we're wrong, we lose an infinite amount.

Right @FSU_UCLA?

Wrong.

Pascal presented his “wager” precisely with the intention of demonstrating that the choice to believe or disbelieve can not be supported through risk assessment or rational decision analysis. As the choice involves assumptions regarding relative risk that can not be supported on factual premises, the argument can not be resolved without relying upon faith, i.e., belief in the absence of evidence.

 

[Lurker1999]

Wrong.

Pascal presented his “wager” precisely with the intention of demonstrating that the choice to believe or disbelieve can not be supported through risk assessment or rational decision analysis. As the choice involves assumptions regarding relative risk that can not be supported on factual premises, the argument can not be resolved without relying upon faith, i.e., belief in the absence of evidence.

Pascal was using Decision Theory to prove why belief is better than atheism. I believe that's tied up with risk assessment.

Pascal's Wager can be summed up in one sentence: living a deeply religious life one has much to gain and relatively little to lose.

I'm sure you know this based on your profession; the social sciences tend to show that religious people live longer, are happier and have less depression and suicide, etc. than atheists do.

This doesn't even include the argument of heaven or hell that Pascal makes, although we can extrapolate it based on decision theory.

Here's a really interesting book by a Catholic professor I just finished on the wager. I highly recommend it.

Amazon product ASIN 0830851364

 

[divinnole]

A very good friend of mine has owned 4 pitbulls during the 40 years we have been friends. His first 3 were the classic family pet, let the young kids tug and pull on them, friendly with all the neighbors(loose term since we all live in very rural areas) good watch dog but never viscious . All of the dogs came from good families who had both of the dogs parents on the premises. His 4th and the last one he will ever own, came from a good family he has known for years, was never aggressive acting when he was "playing" with the family. One day he came home with his 5 yo grandson in tow, a kid the dog had been around 100s of time. The dog came around the house and immediately darted for the child. Fortunately my friend was close enough he was able to rescue the child after suffering only one bite, although a bad one. While carrying the child in the pit was snapping at him and bit him twice trying to reach the child. By time he got inside and came out with a gun the pit had killed the family's pet border collie that had been raised from a puppy with the pit.

Until that time my friend could have been on this thread with Lurker making many of the same arguments. You will never hear him defend a pitbull again. Four dogs with good breeding history, raised by folks who know pits and enjoyed 3 of them very much, yet one snapped. A story that sounds all to familiar when you hear of a peaceful loving pit snapping and attacking someone.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

You are completely mischaracterizing Pascal. He intended his wager to demonstrate directly and explicitly why traditional decision matrices could not be effectively used to justify choosing to believe in the Christian God. He presented the wager in this manner to highlight the fallacy of relying upon factual reasoning to support a faith-based choice. Your one sentence summary precisely illustrates the fallacy: the relative risks of belief vs non-belief can not be quantified or assessed objectively or reliably. Simply, there’s no way to actually know what one has to gain or lose.

 

[Lurker1999]

You are completely mischaracterizing Pascal. He intended his wager to demonstrate directly and explicitly why traditional decision matrices could not be effectively used to justify choosing to believe in the Christian God. He presented the wager in this manner to highlight the fallacy of relying upon factual reasoning to support a faith-based choice. Your one sentence summary precisely illustrates the fallacy: the relative risks of belief vs non-belief can not be quantified or assessed objectively or reliably. Simply, there’s no way to actually know what one has to gain or lose.

No, I'm not.

If you know anything about Blaise Pascal, you know that he was a deeply religious Christian. He intended his "Pensees" to be a defense of the Christian faith against the rising tide of atheism during the Enlightenment in Europe.

The whole point of the wager is to convince people to be Christian and to believe in God. If you read the book that I linked, you will get a better understanding of it.

There is a very simple way to understand what is to be gained and lost and that's by studying the social sciences that show the benefits of being religious vs being an atheist.

The social sciences are always on my and Pascal's side (Christianity)

 

[seminole97]

I'm happy to.
I believe that owning any dog and especially a Pitbull is a huge responsibility. I hope you would agree with this.

I didn't ask whether you believe owning a dog is a responsibility. I hoped you would address the actual questions I asked.

I have already stated that I believe that a person should have a license to own a dog just like owning a car because owning a dog is a very big responsibility.

I didn't ask whether you believe that someone should have to obtain a license to own a dog.

I also believe that many Pitbulls have bad owners that get them for the wrong reasons and do not raise them correctly.

I didn't ask what you believed to be the reason for people to own pit bulls.

Poor ownership is a major reason why Pitbulls attack.

In your opinion, but I didn't ask your opinion about why pit bulls attack.

Happy to try again?

1. If a dog is 5x more likely to be involved in a fatal attack, is that a factor that should be ignored?
This one is a yes/no, but feel free to expound.

2. At what point do you ‘listen’? 10x more likely?
Here I'm wondering what multiple (100%, 500%, 1,000%) of the typical rate of fatal dogs attacks held by a breed would cause you to take notice?
Put a number on it, and then expound as you see fit. Obviously you have a different threshold than others for what is an 'acceptable' outlier rate for fatalities caused by a specific breed. I'm trying to put it in objective terms.

3. Where do you think pit bulls stand in that regard based on the numbers already provided in this thread?