theres been multiple stories posed in here that show that they do snap for no reason and its not even a rare thing. but you people ignore all evidence that makes your precious tough vanity dogs look bad so whats the fuckin point
theres been multiple stories posed in here that show that they do snap for no reason and its not even a rare thing. but you people ignore all evidence that makes your precious tough vanity dogs look bad so whats the fuckin point
Please research canine behavior before posting this nonsense. ---
"If you want to move fast, practice slowly...if you want to move like lightning, practice in stillness."
theres been multiple stories posed in here that show that they do snap for no reason and its not even a rare thing. but you people ignore all evidence that makes your precious tough vanity dogs look bad so whats the fuckin point
No there hasn't. They show that the people involved most likely couldn't read the signs of aggression in a dog. A lot of what dogs do are misinterpreted by people. When they are "smiling" it isn't a sign of happiness it means they are tired or anxious.
If you want to talk about ignoring evidence, hey let's talk about what you believe it takes for something to be safe. 99.9% of pit bulls don't attack anyone. What percent of them not attacking anyone would it take for you to believe they are safe for the most part? If anything else was 99.9% safe it would definitely be considered to be safe. ---
Sure, let's use the data in this chart to see what we can learn. In 2018, about 600 people were attacked by pit bulls. Again, let's be generous and say every one of those was by a separate correctly identified pit bull. With 3.5 million pit bulls in the country, that means 0.016% of pit bulls attacked someone that year. 1 in 6250. Hell, here are some more statistics. In 2018, 26 people were killed by pit bulls. 26 people in a country of 325 million people. You literally have a better chance of getting killed by fucking lightning (49 average deaths per year) than a pit bull.
You say that pit bull owners are afraid to admit that they don't care about kids getting mauled to death, but why the hell should anyone care about such insignificant numbers? If we have to start caring about every single minuscule cause of death in the country, there are thousands of much much more likely things to worry about than dog attacks. Every year, 41 kids are killed by falling TVs. Every year 40 people die while skateboarding. But I don't see anyone saying that people need to license their TV's and skateboards to protect the children.
Here we go. Thank you, I like your post. I'm going to keep referring to this one when the pit bull-phobic people keep ignoring the whole picture and only want to look at one statistic.
Regulate all TVs they are square terrors that must be dealt with. If you disagree to the regulation and restriction of purchasing tvs you are saying you don't care about the deaths of all of those children. More deaths than the pit bull people are ignoring.
What an utterly stupid and idiotic comparison. Imagine thinking this nonsense is a valid counter argument lmfao ---
Formerly known as Genocet_10-325 Conservatism is a plague on society.
Sure, let's use the data in this chart to see what we can learn. In 2018, about 600 people were attacked by pit bulls. Again, let's be generous and say every one of those was by a separate correctly identified pit bull. With 3.5 million pit bulls in the country, that means 0.016% of pit bulls attacked someone that year. 1 in 6250. Hell, here are some more statistics. In 2018, 26 people were killed by pit bulls. 26 people in a country of 325 million people. You literally have a better chance of getting killed by fucking lightning (49 average deaths per year) than a pit bull.
You say that pit bull owners are afraid to admit that they don't care about kids getting mauled to death, but why the hell should anyone care about such insignificant numbers? If we have to start caring about every single minuscule cause of death in the country, there are thousands of much much more likely things to worry about than dog attacks. Every year, 41 kids are killed by falling TVs. Every year 40 people die while skateboarding. But I don't see anyone saying that people need to license their TV's and skateboards to protect the children.
Here we go. Thank you, I like your post. I'm going to keep referring to this one when the pit bull-phobic people keep ignoring the whole picture and only want to look at one statistic.
Regulate all TVs they are square terrors that must be dealt with. If you disagree to the regulation and restriction of purchasing tvs you are saying you don't care about the deaths of all of those children. More deaths than the pit bull people are ignoring.
What an utterly stupid and idiotic comparison. Imagine thinking this nonsense is a valid counter argument lmfao
Says the person who uses the same methodology as racists.
Sure, let's use the data in this chart to see what we can learn. In 2018, about 600 people were attacked by pit bulls. Again, let's be generous and say every one of those was by a separate correctly identified pit bull. With 3.5 million pit bulls in the country, that means 0.016% of pit bulls attacked someone that year. 1 in 6250. Hell, here are some more statistics. In 2018, 26 people were killed by pit bulls. 26 people in a country of 325 million people. You literally have a better chance of getting killed by fucking lightning (49 average deaths per year) than a pit bull.
You say that pit bull owners are afraid to admit that they don't care about kids getting mauled to death, but why the hell should anyone care about such insignificant numbers? If we have to start caring about every single minuscule cause of death in the country, there are thousands of much much more likely things to worry about than dog attacks. Every year, 41 kids are killed by falling TVs. Every year 40 people die while skateboarding. But I don't see anyone saying that people need to license their TV's and skateboards to protect the children.
Here we go. Thank you, I like your post. I'm going to keep referring to this one when the pit bull-phobic people keep ignoring the whole picture and only want to look at one statistic.
Regulate all TVs they are square terrors that must be dealt with. If you disagree to the regulation and restriction of purchasing tvs you are saying you don't care about the deaths of all of those children. More deaths than the pit bull people are ignoring.
What an utterly stupid and idiotic comparison. Imagine thinking this nonsense is a valid counter argument lmfao
Says the person who uses the same methodology as racists.
You can keep spouting this false equivalency all day it doesn't make it any less stupid ---
Formerly known as Genocet_10-325 Conservatism is a plague on society.
judge judy is generally an intelligent, well grounded person but she is ignorant in this case. a pit bull is as good as its owner. an aggressive pit bull is only aggressive because of its shit owner. thats the only reason. pitbulls with good owners aren't aggressive. end of story
So are you just ignoring research findings now? Pit Bulls are dangerous. End of story.
Sure, let's use the data in this chart to see what we can learn. In 2018, about 600 people were attacked by pit bulls. Again, let's be generous and say every one of those was by a separate correctly identified pit bull. With 3.5 million pit bulls in the country, that means 0.016% of pit bulls attacked someone that year. 1 in 6250. Hell, here are some more statistics. In 2018, 26 people were killed by pit bulls. 26 people in a country of 325 million people. You literally have a better chance of getting killed by fucking lightning (49 average deaths per year) than a pit bull.
You say that pit bull owners are afraid to admit that they don't care about kids getting mauled to death, but why the hell should anyone care about such insignificant numbers? If we have to start caring about every single minuscule cause of death in the country, there are thousands of much much more likely things to worry about than dog attacks. Every year, 41 kids are killed by falling TVs. Every year 40 people die while skateboarding. But I don't see anyone saying that people need to license their TV's and skateboards to protect the children.
Here we go. Thank you, I like your post. I'm going to keep referring to this one when the pit bull-phobic people keep ignoring the whole picture and only want to look at one statistic.
Regulate all TVs they are square terrors that must be dealt with. If you disagree to the regulation and restriction of purchasing tvs you are saying you don't care about the deaths of all of those children. More deaths than the pit bull people are ignoring.
What an utterly stupid and idiotic comparison. Imagine thinking this nonsense is a valid counter argument lmfao
Says the person who uses the same methodology as racists.
You can keep spouting this false equivalency all day it doesn't make it any less stupid
It's not a false equivalency. You are using the same irresponsible method of analyzing statistics as they do.
Sure, let's use the data in this chart to see what we can learn. In 2018, about 600 people were attacked by pit bulls. Again, let's be generous and say every one of those was by a separate correctly identified pit bull. With 3.5 million pit bulls in the country, that means 0.016% of pit bulls attacked someone that year. 1 in 6250. Hell, here are some more statistics. In 2018, 26 people were killed by pit bulls. 26 people in a country of 325 million people. You literally have a better chance of getting killed by fucking lightning (49 average deaths per year) than a pit bull.
You say that pit bull owners are afraid to admit that they don't care about kids getting mauled to death, but why the hell should anyone care about such insignificant numbers? If we have to start caring about every single minuscule cause of death in the country, there are thousands of much much more likely things to worry about than dog attacks. Every year, 41 kids are killed by falling TVs. Every year 40 people die while skateboarding. But I don't see anyone saying that people need to license their TV's and skateboards to protect the children.
Here we go. Thank you, I like your post. I'm going to keep referring to this one when the pit bull-phobic people keep ignoring the whole picture and only want to look at one statistic.
Regulate all TVs they are square terrors that must be dealt with. If you disagree to the regulation and restriction of purchasing tvs you are saying you don't care about the deaths of all of those children. More deaths than the pit bull people are ignoring.
What an utterly stupid and idiotic comparison. Imagine thinking this nonsense is a valid counter argument lmfao
Why isn't it valid? Most of the argument here is that they arent safe based on the pure number of attacks. Pure numbers say they are less likely to kill someone than lightning or a falling tv.
Do you not care about children being crushed by tvs? Are you just going to ignore the facts because your precious wittle tv would never hurt anyone? That's what all tv owners say, until their vicious square terror kills an unsuspecting toddler.
Hey since we bumped into eachother here, what percent of pit bulls not attacking people would you need to exist before you would concede that they are safe? Because currently the number is 99.9% of them. ---
theres been multiple stories posed in here that show that they do snap for no reason and its not even a rare thing. but you people ignore all evidence that makes your precious tough vanity dogs look bad so whats the fuckin point
No there hasn't. They show that the people involved most likely couldn't read the signs of aggression in a dog. A lot of what dogs do are misinterpreted by people. When they are "smiling" it isn't a sign of happiness it means they are tired or anxious.
If you want to talk about ignoring evidence, hey let's talk about what you believe it takes for something to be safe. 99.9% of pit bulls don't attack anyone. What percent of them not attacking anyone would it take for you to believe they are safe for the most part? If anything else was 99.9% safe it would definitely be considered to be safe.
even if most of them are okay it doesnt change the fact that they kill far more then any other breed. there are safer breeds that offer the same things as pitbulls (aside from the tough intimidation factor you people go crazy for, i guess thats why you wont consider a tamer breed)
Sure, let's use the data in this chart to see what we can learn. In 2018, about 600 people were attacked by pit bulls. Again, let's be generous and say every one of those was by a separate correctly identified pit bull. With 3.5 million pit bulls in the country, that means 0.016% of pit bulls attacked someone that year. 1 in 6250. Hell, here are some more statistics. In 2018, 26 people were killed by pit bulls. 26 people in a country of 325 million people. You literally have a better chance of getting killed by fucking lightning (49 average deaths per year) than a pit bull.
You say that pit bull owners are afraid to admit that they don't care about kids getting mauled to death, but why the hell should anyone care about such insignificant numbers? If we have to start caring about every single minuscule cause of death in the country, there are thousands of much much more likely things to worry about than dog attacks. Every year, 41 kids are killed by falling TVs. Every year 40 people die while skateboarding. But I don't see anyone saying that people need to license their TV's and skateboards to protect the children.
Here we go. Thank you, I like your post. I'm going to keep referring to this one when the pit bull-phobic people keep ignoring the whole picture and only want to look at one statistic.
Regulate all TVs they are square terrors that must be dealt with. If you disagree to the regulation and restriction of purchasing tvs you are saying you don't care about the deaths of all of those children. More deaths than the pit bull people are ignoring.
What an utterly stupid and idiotic comparison. Imagine thinking this nonsense is a valid counter argument lmfao
Why isn't it valid? Most of the argument here is that they arent safe based on the pure number of attacks. Pure numbers say they are less likely to kill someone than lightning or a falling tv.
Do you not care about children being crushed by tvs? Are you just going to ignore the facts because your precious wittle tv would never hurt anyone? That's what all tv owners say, until their vicious square terror kills an unsuspecting toddler.
Hey since we bumped into eachother here, what percent of pit bulls not attacking people would you need to exist before you would concede that they are safe? Because currently the number is 99.9% of them.
TVs arent living beings known for being aggressive to human children and dogs ---
Formerly known as Genocet_10-325 Conservatism is a plague on society.
Sure, let's use the data in this chart to see what we can learn. In 2018, about 600 people were attacked by pit bulls. Again, let's be generous and say every one of those was by a separate correctly identified pit bull. With 3.5 million pit bulls in the country, that means 0.016% of pit bulls attacked someone that year. 1 in 6250. Hell, here are some more statistics. In 2018, 26 people were killed by pit bulls. 26 people in a country of 325 million people. You literally have a better chance of getting killed by fucking lightning (49 average deaths per year) than a pit bull.
You say that pit bull owners are afraid to admit that they don't care about kids getting mauled to death, but why the hell should anyone care about such insignificant numbers? If we have to start caring about every single minuscule cause of death in the country, there are thousands of much much more likely things to worry about than dog attacks. Every year, 41 kids are killed by falling TVs. Every year 40 people die while skateboarding. But I don't see anyone saying that people need to license their TV's and skateboards to protect the children.
Here we go. Thank you, I like your post. I'm going to keep referring to this one when the pit bull-phobic people keep ignoring the whole picture and only want to look at one statistic.
Regulate all TVs they are square terrors that must be dealt with. If you disagree to the regulation and restriction of purchasing tvs you are saying you don't care about the deaths of all of those children. More deaths than the pit bull people are ignoring.
What an utterly stupid and idiotic comparison. Imagine thinking this nonsense is a valid counter argument lmfao
Why isn't it valid? Most of the argument here is that they arent safe based on the pure number of attacks. Pure numbers say they are less likely to kill someone than lightning or a falling tv.
Do you not care about children being crushed by tvs? Are you just going to ignore the facts because your precious wittle tv would never hurt anyone? That's what all tv owners say, until their vicious square terror kills an unsuspecting toddler.
Hey since we bumped into eachother here, what percent of pit bulls not attacking people would you need to exist before you would concede that they are safe? Because currently the number is 99.9% of them.
TVs arent living beings known for being aggressive to human children and dogs
And pit bulls are only known for being aggressive to human children because cowards keep spreading the lie. ---
Yes I'm sure every one of the thousands of news stories about pits ripping children's throats out is a complete lie made up by a secret society of pitbull haters. ---
Formerly known as Genocet_10-325 Conservatism is a plague on society.
Behaviour based on two aspects; nature vs nurture.
I really think that dogs bred for fighting/killing/etc like pit bull breeds should require special licensing/care. Yes, they can be sweet dogs, but they are naturally more aggressive and violent. They need to have that learned behaviour reinforced. ---
Yes I'm sure every one of the thousands of news stories about pits ripping children's throats out is a complete lie made up by a secret society of pitbull haters.
Considering that only 15 kids were killed last year by ANY breed of dog, the lie is that there are "thousands of news stories" in the first place. ---
Behaviour based on two aspects; nature vs nurture.
I really think that dogs bred for fighting/killing/etc like pit bull breeds should require special licensing/care. Yes, they can be sweet dogs, but they are naturally more aggressive and violent. They need to have that learned behaviour reinforced.
Sorry, some behavior is just genetically encoded. I don't care how many hugs you give a Pit Bull, you're a fucking idiot if you put it around your child. ---
Behaviour based on two aspects; nature vs nurture.
I really think that dogs bred for fighting/killing/etc like pit bull breeds should require special licensing/care. Yes, they can be sweet dogs, but they are naturally more aggressive and violent. They need to have that learned behaviour reinforced.
They were breed to be more aggressive towards other dogs. They were dog fighting dogs, not people eating dogs.
They are naturally less aggresive towards people than most other breeds.
But the issue isn't how many other dogs are being attacked, it is the people.
But it is definitely true that dog owners in general are too uninformed. And even if they are informed, it is hard to always do the right thing even though you know what it is. On top of most other people not wanting to listen to the people who are actually informed. ---
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light. ---
Oda break tracker 2019- 6 (4) | THE Ohio State: 2-0 | Oakland Raiders: 1-0 Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
Just because they don't understand how dogs show aggression doesn't mean the dog snapped. Imagine if you went up to your brother and pushed your face right against his and started rubbing and grabbing his head. He would tell you to fuck off in human language which we easily understand. But people will do the same thing to a dog and not understand when the dog tells them to fuck off because they don't know how to tell when the dog is letting them know to back the hell off.
If I ran up to you and started grabbing you and rubbing your head you would get pissed off too. And if you told me to fuck off and I didn't listen and then you fucking decked me one, that would be understandable. There definitely is a point that pit bulls and all dogs shouldn't be considered to be always super nice and loving no matter what. A lot of what we think they love about us they just tolerate. For the most part dogs don't like having their head patted or being hugged. Hugging to a dog is a display of dominance, you are grabbing them and holding them in place and showing them that you can literally stick your face in theirs and stop them from moving away and they just have to sit there and deal with it.
The biggest issue is ignorance, and that exists with all animals.
But hey. Since we just happened to brush against each other in passing again, let's stop the anecdotal evidence because we could both come up with as many stories supporting our side as we want. I would love to hear what you believe it takes for a group to be considered safe. If they are 99.9% safe, is that safe enough? Because 99.9% of pit bulls dont attack anyone. If 99.9% of them just deal with people holding them in place and shoving their face against theirs, then to me that sounds like they are pretty kind and accepting towards people.
What is the exact percent of pit bulls who dont attack anyone that it would take for you to consider them to be safe? Really if you have to ignore the rest of my post and just answer that. I would really appreciate it if just once someone answered that question instead of changing the subject. ---
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
It's either one of two things. A conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe, it's reported more because it happens more. Oh but that just a ridiculous notion. ---
Oda break tracker 2019- 6 (4) | THE Ohio State: 2-0 | Oakland Raiders: 1-0 Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
Just because they don't understand how dogs show aggression doesn't mean the dog snapped. Imagine if you went up to your brother and pushed your face right against his and started rubbing and grabbing his head. He would tell you to fuck off in human language which we easily understand. But people will do the same thing to a dog and not understand when the dog tells them to fuck off because they don't know how to tell when the dog is letting them know to back the hell off.
If I ran up to you and started grabbing you and rubbing your head you would get pissed off too. And if you told me to fuck off and I didn't listen and then you fucking decked me one, that would be understandable. There definitely is a point that pit bulls and all dogs shouldn't be considered to be always super nice and loving no matter what. A lot of what we think they love about us they just tolerate. For the most part dogs don't like having their head patted or being hugged. Hugging to a dog is a display of dominance, you are grabbing them and holding them in place and showing them that you can literally stick your face in theirs and stop them from moving away and they just have to sit there and deal with it.
The biggest issue is ignorance, and that exists with all animals.
But hey. Since we just happened to brush against each other in passing again, let's stop the anecdotal evidence because we could both come up with as many stories supporting our side as we want. I would love to hear what you believe it takes for a group to be considered safe. If they are 99.9% safe, is that safe enough? Because 99.9% of pit bulls dont attack anyone. If 99.9% of them just deal with people holding them in place and shoving their face against theirs, then to me that sounds like they are pretty kind and accepting towards people.
What is the exact percent of pit bulls who dont attack anyone that it would take for you to consider them to be safe? Really if you have to ignore the rest of my post and just answer that. I would really appreciate it if just once someone answered that question instead of changing the subject.
So those stories about pitbulls jumping fences and straight up mauling children playing outside, I guess the child merely existing was them showing "dominance" and the pitbull had no choice but to go rip the child's throat out. Jesus the mental gymnastics pitbull apologists come up with lol ---
Formerly known as Genocet_10-325 Conservatism is a plague on society.
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
It's either one of two things. A conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe, it's reported more because it happens more. Oh but that just a ridiculous notion.
No, it doesn't have to be one of those two things. How shortsighted can you be? Have you considered the irresponsible way that humane societies pushed pit bull rescues onto owners following Michael Vick's exposure? Something that the graph you love so much suggests? Have you considered the flood of pit bulls into the market onto unprepared owners, who then give up their dogs, creating a vicious cycle of pit bull-like breeds who grow up to be anti-social as a result? Have you considered how this may have lead to a negative reputation, which may have then attracted less scrupulous owners to buy later generations of the dogs for these reported negative qualities, which they then reinforced through how they raised them? Creating even more anti-social pit bulls that then inevitably get sent right back to humane societies?
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
It's either one of two things. A conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe, it's reported more because it happens more. Oh but that just a ridiculous notion.
Who said it doesn't happen more? More is relative. If I have more pizza than Todd, and Todd has a crumb with a bit of pepperoni grease on it that doesn't mean much.
You know what happens more than pit bulls attacking and killing someone? TVs falling and killing someone. If that's what matters, the exact number of deaths, why don't you care about the spree of deaths caused by the square terror? Do you think that children dying is okay? Are you going to make fun of this instead of actually reasoning against it? Is it funny when people die? ---
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
It's either one of two things. A conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe, it's reported more because it happens more. Oh but that just a ridiculous notion.
Who said it doesn't happen more? More is relative. If I have more pizza than Todd, and Todd has a crumb with a bit of pepperoni grease on it that doesn't mean much.
You know what happens more than pit bulls attacking and killing someone? TVs falling and killing someone. If that's what matters, the exact number of deaths, why don't you care about the spree of deaths caused by the square terror? Do you think that children dying is okay? Are you going to make fun of this instead of actually reasoning against it? Is it funny when people die?
Again, TVs aren't a living being that has a propensity for being aggressive towards other living beings ---
Formerly known as Genocet_10-325 Conservatism is a plague on society.
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
It's either one of two things. A conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe, it's reported more because it happens more. Oh but that just a ridiculous notion.
Who said it doesn't happen more? More is relative. If I have more pizza than Todd, and Todd has a crumb with a bit of pepperoni grease on it that doesn't mean much.
You know what happens more than pit bulls attacking and killing someone? TVs falling and killing someone. If that's what matters, the exact number of deaths, why don't you care about the spree of deaths caused by the square terror? Do you think that children dying is okay? Are you going to make fun of this instead of actually reasoning against it? Is it funny when people die?
What about all the people missing digits, limbs, or have fucked up faces for life because of pitbull attacks? ---
Kids in the back seat cause accidents, accidents in the back seat cause kids.
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
Just because they don't understand how dogs show aggression doesn't mean the dog snapped. Imagine if you went up to your brother and pushed your face right against his and started rubbing and grabbing his head. He would tell you to fuck off in human language which we easily understand. But people will do the same thing to a dog and not understand when the dog tells them to fuck off because they don't know how to tell when the dog is letting them know to back the hell off.
If I ran up to you and started grabbing you and rubbing your head you would get pissed off too. And if you told me to fuck off and I didn't listen and then you fucking decked me one, that would be understandable. There definitely is a point that pit bulls and all dogs shouldn't be considered to be always super nice and loving no matter what. A lot of what we think they love about us they just tolerate. For the most part dogs don't like having their head patted or being hugged. Hugging to a dog is a display of dominance, you are grabbing them and holding them in place and showing them that you can literally stick your face in theirs and stop them from moving away and they just have to sit there and deal with it.
The biggest issue is ignorance, and that exists with all animals.
But hey. Since we just happened to brush against each other in passing again, let's stop the anecdotal evidence because we could both come up with as many stories supporting our side as we want. I would love to hear what you believe it takes for a group to be considered safe. If they are 99.9% safe, is that safe enough? Because 99.9% of pit bulls dont attack anyone. If 99.9% of them just deal with people holding them in place and shoving their face against theirs, then to me that sounds like they are pretty kind and accepting towards people.
What is the exact percent of pit bulls who dont attack anyone that it would take for you to consider them to be safe? Really if you have to ignore the rest of my post and just answer that. I would really appreciate it if just once someone answered that question instead of changing the subject.
So those stories about pitbulls jumping fences and straight up mauling children playing outside, I guess the child merely existing was them showing "dominance" and the pitbull had no choice but to go rip the child's throat out. Jesus the mental gymnastics pitbull apologists come up with lol
So are you going to actually try to comprehend what he posted or are you going to continue to be uninformed with no effort to want to be informed, and continue to be snarky? ---
"If you want to move fast, practice slowly...if you want to move like lightning, practice in stillness."
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
It's either one of two things. A conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe, it's reported more because it happens more. Oh but that just a ridiculous notion.
Who said it doesn't happen more? More is relative. If I have more pizza than Todd, and Todd has a crumb with a bit of pepperoni grease on it that doesn't mean much.
You know what happens more than pit bulls attacking and killing someone? TVs falling and killing someone. If that's what matters, the exact number of deaths, why don't you care about the spree of deaths caused by the square terror? Do you think that children dying is okay? Are you going to make fun of this instead of actually reasoning against it? Is it funny when people die?
What about all the people missing digits, limbs, or have fucked up faces for life because of pitbull attacks?
They don't give a fuck about those people. They only care for their aggressive little terror dogs ---
Formerly known as Genocet_10-325 Conservatism is a plague on society.
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
Just because they don't understand how dogs show aggression doesn't mean the dog snapped. Imagine if you went up to your brother and pushed your face right against his and started rubbing and grabbing his head. He would tell you to fuck off in human language which we easily understand. But people will do the same thing to a dog and not understand when the dog tells them to fuck off because they don't know how to tell when the dog is letting them know to back the hell off.
If I ran up to you and started grabbing you and rubbing your head you would get pissed off too. And if you told me to fuck off and I didn't listen and then you fucking decked me one, that would be understandable. There definitely is a point that pit bulls and all dogs shouldn't be considered to be always super nice and loving no matter what. A lot of what we think they love about us they just tolerate. For the most part dogs don't like having their head patted or being hugged. Hugging to a dog is a display of dominance, you are grabbing them and holding them in place and showing them that you can literally stick your face in theirs and stop them from moving away and they just have to sit there and deal with it.
The biggest issue is ignorance, and that exists with all animals.
But hey. Since we just happened to brush against each other in passing again, let's stop the anecdotal evidence because we could both come up with as many stories supporting our side as we want. I would love to hear what you believe it takes for a group to be considered safe. If they are 99.9% safe, is that safe enough? Because 99.9% of pit bulls dont attack anyone. If 99.9% of them just deal with people holding them in place and shoving their face against theirs, then to me that sounds like they are pretty kind and accepting towards people.
What is the exact percent of pit bulls who dont attack anyone that it would take for you to consider them to be safe? Really if you have to ignore the rest of my post and just answer that. I would really appreciate it if just once someone answered that question instead of changing the subject.
So those stories about pitbulls jumping fences and straight up mauling children playing outside, I guess the child merely existing was them showing "dominance" and the pitbull had no choice but to go rip the child's throat out. Jesus the mental gymnastics pitbull apologists come up with lol
Aww, I thought I was asking so nicely too. I feel like purposefully ignoring what I wrote is pretty big mental gymnastics. No one is saying that it isn't terrible when a dog hurts or kills someone.
I would be very appreciative if you just once didn't deflect to an anecdotal story of fear. And since we just happened to stumble upon eachother in here, I'll ask again. I guess since you are so passionate about the subject I could see how you might skim over some of the points I make and questions I ask. I feel like I have asked this a few times already, but what do I know? If 99.9% of pit bulls are fine and don't attack anyone, does that not mean that they could be considered to be mostly safe? What percentage of pitbulls have to be safe for you to consider the breed itself to be safe? 99.99%? 99.999%? Does it have to be 100%? ---
They don't give a fuck about those people. They only care for their aggressive little terror dogs
Y'all just thrive on emotional arguments and sensationalism. I'd be more than willing to discuss canine behavior, responsible ownership and training if you'd stop being snarky for one second. ---
"If you want to move fast, practice slowly...if you want to move like lightning, practice in stillness."
*Pit bull in loving family snaps and disfigures family member*
Pit bull nutters: "Well they should have seen the signs"
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
It's either one of two things. A conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe, it's reported more because it happens more. Oh but that just a ridiculous notion.
Who said it doesn't happen more? More is relative. If I have more pizza than Todd, and Todd has a crumb with a bit of pepperoni grease on it that doesn't mean much.
You know what happens more than pit bulls attacking and killing someone? TVs falling and killing someone. If that's what matters, the exact number of deaths, why don't you care about the spree of deaths caused by the square terror? Do you think that children dying is okay? Are you going to make fun of this instead of actually reasoning against it? Is it funny when people die?
Again, TVs aren't a living being that has a propensity for being aggressive towards other living beings
And even if we did agree with your dishonest claim that they have a propensity for being aggressive, why does that matter? The end result is dead kids in both scenarios. TV's aren't necessary for modern living, but they enrich our lives. Dogs aren't necessary either, but millions of people's lives are improved by their pets. So why exactly does it matter? If it's not dead kids that has you outraged and terrified, what is it? ---
@MrNintendo1213 You claimed most attacks are caused by people showing "dominance" by hugging them, patting their head, etc when lots of the attacks you hear about are of pitbulls jumping fences and just killing children minding their own business. ---
Formerly known as Genocet_10-325 Conservatism is a plague on society.
@MrNintendo1213 You claimed most attacks are caused by people showing "dominance" by hugging them, patting their head, etc when lots of the attacks you hear about are of pitbulls jumping fences and just killing children minding their own business.
Define "lots" because it seems to me like it is a handful of incidents. They are terrible things that should never happen. But that doesn't make what I said less likely to be true. I admit I wasn't there for every time a pit bull attacked someone, but neither were you. So both of us can't argue fairly over this exact aspect. I was just explaining a possibility. A possibility that to me seems fairly likely in most cases. But sure. In that exact case where a pit bull jumps out of its fence to attack someone unprovoked, I would be willing to bet good money that dog had been abused to be so aggressive towards people. That same thing could happen with any type of dog.
But since this exact argument is founded in feelings and anecdotes for the most part, I would rather discuss the parts we have facts and data about.
You seem to love talking about data when it comes to just the flat numbers of pit bulls hurting people. But TVs hurting people doesn't seem to matter to you. Does the intention of what killed someone matter more than how they were killed? You seem to think I don't care about the people who got killed by pit bulls, but I have directly stated the opposite. I think that is terrible and I wish it would never happen.
The numbers however say that the square terror kills more people than pit bulls. Do their deaths not count to you because you don't have an animal to be mad at? You specifically said that people like me only care about our tiny terrors who are killing people. Well I have just said I do care. I care that people are being killed by dogs and would very much like it if we could take steps to stop that from happening. Such as keeping people more informed about how to handle their pets properly. And if need be, taking pets away from abusive owners.
Do you not believe me? Am I lying when I say I care about those poor people getting maimed? I am not being sarcastic I truly think it is terrible.
And anyway, since we are here again, I think I might as well ask again. What percentage of pitbulls not hurting anyone would it take for you to concede that they are safe enough for people to own? Because currently the number sits around 99.9% of them. I'll ask again, if you made it to this point in my post, just let the rest of what I said rest for now. I really really would love it if you could answer this question without bringing up any other aspect of the situation, especially the emotional parts about how you don't think pit bull owners care about people getting maimed. Just focus on the percentages. How safe is safe enough? Being honest, 99.9% sounds pretty safe to me. That is safer than using a condom. But please dont start talking about condoms now. I would completely honestly love to know the exact percentage, or even rough estimate of a percentage that it would take for you to consider pitbulls to be safe companions. ---
There are bad owners and then there are uninformed owners.
Bad owners encourage bad behavior, while uninformed owners do things that trigger dogs without knowing it. The latter happens with a plethora of dog breeds. If you want some anecdotal examples; my father was mauled by a german shepherd when he was a kid. I was attacked by a mastiff rescue when I was a kid.
The fact is that all research into pit bull behavior demonstrates that they are not wildly different from any other dog. They are relatively not people aggressive, but have a higher propensity for being dog aggressive overall.
And yet there are clearly many more reports of pit bull attacks than other breeds. So maybe instead of continuing with your piss poor analytical methodology, you instead realize that maybe there's a bit more behind these numbers.
Ah yes, it's a huge conspiracy by the media conglomerate to paint these dogs in a bad light.
...really? Conspiracy? That's what you jump too?
When people tell you to look at all the facts, that doesn't always mean they're saying "media conspiracy." You know that, right?
It's either one of two things. A conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe, it's reported more because it happens more. Oh but that just a ridiculous notion.
Who said it doesn't happen more? More is relative. If I have more pizza than Todd, and Todd has a crumb with a bit of pepperoni grease on it that doesn't mean much.
You know what happens more than pit bulls attacking and killing someone? TVs falling and killing someone. If that's what matters, the exact number of deaths, why don't you care about the spree of deaths caused by the square terror? Do you think that children dying is okay? Are you going to make fun of this instead of actually reasoning against it? Is it funny when people die?
Again, TVs aren't a living being that has a propensity for being aggressive towards other living beings
And even if we did agree with your dishonest claim that they have a propensity for being aggressive, why does that matter? The end result is dead kids in both scenarios. TV's aren't necessary for modern living, but they enrich our lives. Dogs aren't necessary either, but millions of people's lives are improved by their pets. So why exactly does it matter? If it's not dead kids that has you outraged and terrified, what is it?
once again pitbulls offer no more enrichment than safer breeds do. they offer zero extra utility or value. except of course that aura of having a big tough vanity dog that so many seem unwilling to give up. but hey fuck everyone thats been maimed and killed at least they have a cool pet
once again pitbulls offer no more enrichment than safer breeds do. they offer zero extra utility or value. except of course that aura of having a big tough vanity dog that so many seem unwilling to give up. but hey fuck everyone thats been maimed and killed at least they have a cool pet
Except how unsafe they are is wildly misunderstood.
