You're viewing part of a thread.
You... think one paragraph voids decades of data they've carefully collected? Lol, I've lost all credibility because this issue (like everything) has nuance...? You believe that source agrees with you?
Okay, fine. Here's some more from statisticians, lawyers, non-profits, and hospitals:
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
-
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf
-
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/legal-services/los-angeles-dog-bite-lawyer/dog-bite-statistics/
-
https://www.vazirilaw.com/dog-attack-statistics-by-breed-2024
Let me guess: they're all in on the massive conspiracy to... let people know they should be more careful around their pitties?
think one paragraph voids decades of data they’ve carefully collected
Uhm... ackshually 🤓 it's two paragraphs.
But in all seriousness, "carefully collected" is a pretty severe misrepresentation of the way the majority of these stats are collected. One source you link says 66%*, but wikipedia says 28%. This is an very large increase.
This discrepancy is caused, in large part, because the police aren't very good at reporting on this kind of data. The article you linked, which I quoted goes mentions this, but it doesn't really go into detail just how bad it is. The police system, particularly in the US has a lot of inherent biases that lead to problematic behaviors and assumptions. Some of them are about race, and some of them are about... dog breeds.
Long story short, I only really trust hospitals for this sort of data. Insurance companies get their info from the police, who aren't reliable. Hospitals can have problems, but aren't going to be problematic as our police system. Interestingly, hospitals also seem to report much lower numbers, like the numbers mentioned in the study mentioned by wikipedia versus the other numbers present. I wonder why that is?
And one of the articles you linked was AI generated slop that claimed 66% but that was actually a hyperlink to wikipedia's claim of 28%. And most of the articles you linked were similar, clearly getting the data from the same place, but not actually linking it and/or having broken links.
Even the best source, the study you linked has issues when it comes to supporting your claims. It acknowledges that which breed has been top of the list for dog fatalities has shifted over time and only now settled on pitbulls. That source also acknowledges how dog breed identification is difficult.
And then of course, I won't deny that pitbulls do bite and kill at higher rates. But you are arguing that that somehow makes them inherently more dangerous, when there is simply no evidence for such a thing.
And yeah, if my dog was a Pittie, I would be defensive too, but I would also be honest that people need to take extra precautions…
The problem with this argument is that is is very, very similar to arguing that it's acceptable to be cautious around black people specifically because they are accused of crimes at higher rates. In fact it's so similar that I've seen "pitbull bad" be used as a white supremacist talking point. (which is part of why this argument gets so heated. Usually I just enjoy the popcorn but I finally decided to stop lurking).
But I'm gonna be real, I don't really want to argue with someone who just throws a bunch of slop sources they clearly didn't read at me. Read your damn sources. Use google scholar or similar instead of just a normal search engine, so you don't get AI slop.
And I'll give you some advice: If you want this argument to be well accepted in the future, you should throw in some points that make it clearly, distinctly separate from the white supremacist version of it. Some acknowledgement of the police being bad, or some acknowledgement of pitbull owners or some acknowledgement of how pitbulls don't rank top in bite strength (at least, according to two of the sources you linked). You complained about getting downvoted when you just posted stats but that's because people don't see those stats are an argument about pitbulls, they see someone preparing a setup for "What if I told you some races of people were inherently more dangerous?".
As an endnote, human race isn't real. Perhaps this applies to dog breeds as well, which one commenter noted but you just dismissed it and threw a bunch of slop articles at them instead.
Okay. So I did a little research since I was truly curious.
Boom. A genetic link between aggression and certain violent behaviors and pitbulls. 15% of their personality. Caused by an aggressive period of selectively breeding them for dogfights.
And now I think we should breed pitbulls out of existence.
@Empicorn@feddit.nl (is this how you @ a user?).
1 source. That's all it fucking takes. I don't understand why people who spend so much time on the internet are so mid at arguing. 4 articles of AI slop aren't going to convince anyone of shit. 2-3 other articles that don't actually back up your point have the same issue. But you're prancing all over this thread like you're hot shit. The issues I mentioned in my previous comment still apply, but here's a new source for you to use I guess, you're welcome.
And of course, I have to obligatorily state that no parallels to human behavior can be drawn from this. No, black people were not "bred for strength". No, they are not inherently more aggressive. No, we should not just use eugenics to eliminate certain "races" because human races are a social construct (see above diagram). However, dogs work differently, it seems.
*Edit: actually this source seems to be somewhat problematic since it seems to cover a dispraportionate amount of news related to pitbulls but that doesn't make the study immediately wrong.
Okay researching further I found another scientific article going in the opposite direction.
However, our community sample of Pit Bull-type dogs showed they are not more aggressive or more likely to have a behavioral diagnosis than other dogs. This does not support reliance on breed-specific legislation to reduce dog bites to humans [23
(Damn, I said I wouldn't argue but now I seem to be arguing with myself. Don't worry chat. Imma win.)
Opens google scholar
- Racism can also happen against dog breeds
- Professional Vets seems to be against breed specific legislation
- Uh oh. The source the first article I linked doesn't even mention pit bulls as a breed
Oh shit. It doesn't even mention the word pitbull. Investigating further, many of the claims that article makes, like the ones about certain dog breeds needing no/less training to do certain things, are just straight up unsourced and not mentioned in the study. wtf?!
I am enraged that the article just straight up fucking lied to me and I fell for it. This is why I use google scholar and vet the studies myself, rather than using a search engine normally.
But it seems like we are back to "pitbulls are products of their environments" again.
On a miscellaneous note, google scholar seems to have really enshittified. It's now attempting to show me normal news articles and blog posts, rather than exclusively scientific journals. Eugh.
It's a joy to watch you work in real time, keep it up
Thank you for being awesome
As an endnote, human race isn’t real. Perhaps this applies to dog breeds as well, which one commenter noted but you just dismissed it and threw a bunch of slop articles at them instead.
Humans have never undergone countless generations of intentional selective breeding devoid of personal autonomy. There is no reasonable comparison between the constructed human concept of "race" and the undeniable reality of dog breeds as crafted through selective breeding, and everyone should be extremely wary of any attempts to ever conflate the two.
If anything, trying to paint this as just "bad owners" is the more race essentialist version of this argument. That argument attempts to place blame on people who own them over the dogs themselves, who likely happen to skew towards lower income folks which implies a race skew as well. But, a "bad owner" would do a lot less harm with a Lab or even a Chihuahua than they would with a pit bull.
It's not just bite strength or temperament, it's that these dogs are intentionally bred to go for the kill when their fight instinct is triggered. Nobody sets out to be a bad owner, or believes they are one, and other breeds don't kill when they bite regardless of who their owner is. Eliminating "bad owners" isn't really a problem that can be solved to reduce dog bite statistics, at least without specific regards to breed, because it is specifically this breed with those "bad owners" that is the issue.
It's a deflection. Dare I say, it's projection.
Humans have never undergone countless generations of intentional selective breeding devoid of personal autonomy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States
Yes..."never..."
Yes, I'm aware that evil exists, but it is still nowhere equivalent to the selective breeding of dogs. There are entire oceans of nuance that separate the particulars of the two (note: nuance is not justification and I have absolutely nothing but complete condemnation for slavery and this sort of human rights violating experimentation; this is evil) and even if you disagree with or choose to ignore that the sheer scale is still so astronomically different as to render any comparison entirely invalid.
Just saying, "never" is pretty strong language when it happened for a few hundred years at least and could have happened to other enslaved populations throughout history that we might not know about as well. Just the existence of the few hundred years alone disproves "never" though.
Because it's contextual. The point is that comparisons between human races and dog breeds are almost never (I hope you appreciate the caveat I made for you here) brought up in good faith ways, and are almost always used disingenuously or to evoke emotional response to manipulate the conversation inernestly.
Can you pedantically pick at the statement? Sure, but not without willfully ignoring the greater point.
-