Trans X Pitbull solidarity
Locking the thread bc it’s inviting far too much toxicity.
I don’t really know the answer here.
My family has a pit-bull, we’ve had her since she was a few months old. She has as far as I’m concerned been raised in a loving household by normal people. I would love to tell her she’s a great dog, and that she isn’t an outlier out of the many dogs we’ve had before.
But she is absolutely what I would describe as an “aggressive” dog, not most of the time, but she will probably on average once a week develop some sort of fit of rage (usually barking at the neighbors dog) and if you startle her or walk by her she will absolutely bite some part of you. It’s to the point where she has to be put in her cage whenever someone under the age of like 12 is at our house. (she basically never needs to go in her cage otherwise)
(i do really like this dog btw she’s generally alright though)
I have other experiences with pit-bulls as-well, in secondary/middle school a classmate of mine was attacked by their family dog to the point that they needed to be hospitalized. I happened to know them somewhat closely, and their dog was indeed, a pit-bull, and as far as i know, they were normal people.
Also I think the “this is like on the ethical level of eugenics for humans” is different because most dog breed differences are human creations, and many of the variations probably haven’t been developed with the best intentions. Not sure though.
I’d also like to restate that I don’t know the answer and I’m ultimately conflicted.
The answer is to not breed any more and let them go extinct.
Pro pitbull people getting desperate lol
They are bread to fight and so they aren’t family pets. At least until we breed the instinct out of them again
🍞
Bred*
All dog breeds have the ability to fight. Chihuahuas notoriously test lower on temperament tests than Staffordshire terriers and have chewed the face off of babies many a time.
Yes, and maybe we should ban chihuahuas too. But pitbulls chew random people in public spaces all the damn time.
Dogs in general “chew” random people in public spaces. “Pitbull” isn’t even a specific breed.
ASPCA’s statement on the “pitbull” breed:
"The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive traits. Therefore the responsible ownership of any dog requires a commitment to proper socialization, humane training and conscientious supervision. Despite our best efforts, there will always be dogs of various breeds that are simply too dangerous to live safely in society. We can effectively address the danger posed by these dogs by supporting the passage and vigorous enforcement of laws that focus, not on breed, but on people’s responsibility for their dogs’ behavior, including measures that hold owners of all breeds accountable for properly housing, supervising and controlling their dogs. Breed neutral “dangerous dog” laws, “leash laws” that prohibit dogs from running loose off their owners’ property, and “anti chaining” laws can control the behavior of individual dogs and individual owners and thereby help reduce the risk of harm to people and other animals.
Laws that ban particular breeds of dogs do not achieve these aims and instead create the illusion, but not the reality, of enhanced public safety. Notably, there are no statewide laws that discriminate based on dog breed, and 18 states have taken the proactive step of expressly banning laws that single out particular breeds for disparate legal treatment. Even the White House has weighed in against laws that target specific breeds. In a a statement issued in 2013, President Obama said “[w]e don’t support breed-specific legislation—research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.”
All dogs, including pit bulls, are individuals. Treating them as such, providing them with the care, training and supervision they require, and judging them by their actions and not by their DNA or their physical appearance is the best way to ensure that dogs and people can continue to share safe and happy lives together."
https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls
deleted by creator
At least get all the ones that currently exist fixed
Good luck on that one.
Honestly both chihuahuas and pugs should also be banned. It’s not their faults we bred them to be sick but we should very much like, stop. At least
get all the ones that currently exist fixedstart fining people for having unfixed ones. The phenotypes that cause difficulty breathing are measurable (literally in head length / width ratios) and if anti-pitbull peeps can decide on a similarly objective metric there’s no reason they can’t be added in. The most common ones I hear are mouth shape / bite strength and prey drive / bite tenacity (resistance to letting go), and I must admit that I question the logic of making a terrier that big (there’s a reason large domestic cat breeds prioritize docility / “doglike” behavior, and a terrier is literally a dog bred to do a cat’s job). If they can decide on an objective way to measure those things people can be fined for having one that’s not fixed and there’s plenty of nosy people out there to get it done. They weren’t inbreeding themselves by choice to begin with either so it’s not like we’re fundamentally removing some choice they had by stopping people from continuing to.At least get all the ones that currently exist fixed.
Yeah, that’s not an idea that is going to be successful. How do you propose that actually happens? Should we send in cops to citizens homes to be checking whether their dogs are the right breed and fixed?
Pitbulls tend to be a mixed breed anyway. What does one do with a dog that tests as more of a Labrador but looks like a Pitbull? Does that dog still get murdered for looking like a pitbull?
Should we send in cops to citizens homes to be checking whether their dogs are the right breed and fixed?
People already have to register their pets where I am and pay a small yearly fee. That should be as simple as checking registration databases and mailing out ‘comply or get fined’ notices.
Edit: for clarity, I only support this for breeds that exclusively produce dogs unable to exist a healthy, pain free life. Pugs would be the most unquestionable one to include for me, because I’ve listened to them gasp for breath. No animal should be bred to intentionally exist like that, it’s an act of cruelty.
That might cut down on breeding certain types of dogs, but it won’t eliminate it.
The idea of killing a certain breed of dog en masse is abhorrent. I’m shocked to see the general sentiment here is in favor of such acts.
Many a time huh? I’m sure it’ll be on par with, say, american pit bull terriers then? Or dobermans?
Removed by mod
Ah yes of course the age old argument “you spelled a word wrong so your entire line of thinking is invalid”
It doesn’t completely invalidate their argument, but it’s a red flag.
Various pitbull breeds have been bred for various jobs - not all of them were for fighting.
I upvoted what they’re saying regardless of their spelling because I’m not a fuckhead who thinks an obvious spelling mistake obviates overwhelming statistical evidence that they’re correct.
Unrelated, but I saw an anti-Iran-war protest sign the other day that used the wrong form of “its”; suppose I’m pro-war now.
A look at dog bite statistics over only 5 years in 1 city and they don’t even specify how those dog breeds are identified does not prove what you think it does.
Removed by mod
One issue with studies like this is that people are really bad at identifying dog breeds, and that includes experts like veterinarians.
“Two ancillary findings, however, were that the second (F2) generation of the Cocker Spaniel–Basenji crosses took a “great variety of form and color” and that none of the 72 F2-generation puppies closely resembled either parental breed.”
“More recently, Voith et al compared, for dogs from multiple shelter locations, results of breed identification made on the basis of visual inspection alone with results of DNA analysis of breed. Although the number of dogs was small, the major breed determined on the basis of visual inspection matched the predominant breed identified by means of DNA analysis for only 25% of the dogs. This suggests that there is a high potential that results of visual identification of breed for shelter dogs of unknown lineage will differ from results of DNA analysis.”
So unless they identified them with breed papers or genetic testing, the breed identification is suspect at best. Not to say the results would be wrong, just that it needs more definitive study.
This is definitely the fairest point in favor of pit bulls. That being said, even rampant misidentification toward pit bulls wouldn’t be enough to offset 51% – a straight majority – of identified dogs being the perpetrators when 70% of victims knew the dog. At worst, assuming it somehow did, that would suggest “dogs that most people would perceive as pit bulls are more aggressive than other dogs not perceived as pit bulls”.
In fact, shelters have been found in areas with breed-specific legislation to intentionally misidentify them to make them more adoptable. I’d be totally unsurprised if that applies to places generally where there’s immense stigma around them.
Counterpoint, people are more likely to pick a breed with a reputation for being aggressive if the dog acted aggressive.
And being familiar with the dog doesn’t improve that likelihood they know what the breed is by a whole lot. The only reason I knew what the breed of my last couple of dogs were is because of genetic testing. And one of them was half pit, and I would absolutely have never guessed. He was half pit, half golden retriever and looked nothing like either breed.
Trying to pin down a DNA makeup to blame doesn’t really make sense when people who breed these
pit bullsdogs that are colloquially recognized as pit bulls don’t really care about their DNA makeup.If the genetics don’t matter, then on what basis would you ban the breed? If they aren’t breed conformant, then there is no basis to say they are genetically more predisposed to aggression than any other dog. The paper I posted earlier even says that mixing two breeds results in temperaments and behaviors unlike those of the parents and their distinct breeds.
You’d need to compare it to the number of each type of dog in those statistics. Even then, it wouldn’t tell the whole story because people who buy dogs with bad reputations often buy them for roles where they are more likely to bite like guard dogs. And EVEN then, you also need to consider that dogs who cause worse injuries are more likely to show up in the data because when they do bite it gets reported. I know I didn’t go to the hospital when a Chihuahua didn’t even break skin.
Pit bulls undeniably are dangerous by virtue of their size and strength, but so are other dogs. How inherently dangerous they are based on temperament is harder to determine. I’m always skeptical of breed essentialism because it’s so close to human eugenics and scientific racism. We do not have as much control or understanding over nature as we think we do, and our misplaced confidence in our abilities causes harm and keeps us from actual solutions.
And EVEN then, you also need to consider that dogs who cause worse injuries are more likely to show up in the data because when they do bite it gets reported. I know I didn’t go to the hospital when a Chihuahua didn’t even break skin.
That’s literally the point. Every time someone supporting pit bulls brings up “but chihuahuas are aggressive!!”: yeah, no shit, probably even moreso than aggressive pit bull breeds like the American Bully. They’re little monsters. I used to have a hamster who would make me wear a gardening glove because he would bite my finger every time I tried to hold him. I’d rather have my finger nipped 500 times by a tiny little hamster than have my child mauled to death one time – something the hamster could obviously never do.
You are describing the point. The fact that these bites are severe enough to show up so frequently at the hospital is the problem.
And if that’s what we’re talking about, mastiffs, great danes, and any other big dog should get more attention than they do. The conversation should be refocused from scapegoating specific breeds to handling large and strong dogs. Focusing on breeds derails the conversation every time by inviting in old school eugenics and all the problems that come with it.
Assuming the 282 unidentified dogs were all pitbulls is a logical fallacy.
Assuming I’m assuming the 282 unidentified dogs were all pitbulls is the most batshit strawman you could’ve taken away from what I said.
I don’t even know if “strawman” applies, though; you might be illiterate enough to have actually read it that way. The obvious reading is that I was jokingly preempting you trying to use the 282 unidentified dogs to weasel your way into a “God of the gaps”-style argument to assert some bias against pitbulls in identification so major that it invalidates the argument.
I can only imagine the 282 unidentified dogs were those vicious golden retrievers. They come out of nowhere, and they’re gone before you know what bit you. They’re fucking bloodthirsty, man.
Yeah, crazy how I read your sarcasm as insinuating those 282 unidentified dogs were pitbulls. Gee whiz, I wonder how I could have possibly come to that conclusion?
Theres so much pit bull hate even on the fediverse its insane. “They’re genetically violent” oh so genetics is a fine argument as long as they’re not human?
There are absolutely dogs that have genetic predispositions for all sorts of things. That’s hardly debated, you almost never see a Chihuahua track down lost hikers and you don’t see a Labrador chase down rats. It’s a very basic bit of genetics that makes some dogs much more able to injure or kill a person than other dogs. A Yorkie won’t put someone in the hospital, a Staffordshire will.
And then people get involved. Shitty people will get dogs that have a dangerous reputation. The terrible people raise these dogs terribly, which creates a very poor safety record, which makes terrible people get more of them.
It’s a self reinforcing problem, caused by predisposition and shitty people taking “advantage” of it.
Also, are you claiming there are no genetic differences in human? Because I don’t think anyone would say that basketballers would be exactly as good at basketball if they were all 1.5m, or that Usain Bolt doesn’t have genetic predispositions to being a good runner. Of course humans have genetic predispositions, it’s stupid to claim otherwise.
That’s hardly debated
Individuals having genetic predispositions isn’t debated, but it being tied to breed is. It’s especially less likely for breeds to play a role if they’re more widespread; were the dog’s parents and grandparents bred for dogfights, or just by people who wanted one? There are also no guarantees in genetics, with even genetically identical animals being capable of great variation. Using constructed and arbitrary categories like breed to tie behavior to looks is silly.
Using constructed and arbitrary categories like breed to tie behavior to looks is silly.
They are constructed and arbitrary but they are enforced by the selective breeding process itself no? That’s like the whole point of selective breeding? To select and influence constructed and arbitrary traits in the genetic lineage? Unless the claim is that the concept of selective breeding itself is ineffective, which is definitely not a take I have heard before.
And then people get involved. Shitty people will get dogs that have a dangerous reputation. The terrible people raise these dogs terribly, which creates a very poor safety record, which makes terrible people get more of them. It’s a self reinforcing problem, caused by predisposition and shitty people taking “advantage” of it.
The US’s dog culture is disgusting.
And out the woodwork they come. You even brought people into the eugenics discussion lol
It’s the push to eliminate an entire breed of dog based on genetic predispositions that they’re arguing against.
Are trans people a result of selective breeding or wtf are you trying to say
Apparently… Was not expecting the comment section to blow up here. I thought dog racism was mostly a tumblr/reddit thing.
I tried to warn people that advertising the fediverse on Reddit will just make the fediverse more reddity, but nobody seemed to care. Getting a bunch of frat bros to join the philosophy club doesn’t mean you have a healthier philosophy club because it’s bigger, it means you spend most of your time debating if rape is bad and if there should be age of consent laws because your philosophy club is full of fucking frat bros. (This is an analogy, not a 1:1 comparison)
It’s like this over on Reddit as well. I’m honestly a little surprised that the same sentiment is so strong here.
Well obviously they “shouldnt” exist because the things that caused them to exist were bad, as described by the meme. Pretty self explanatory.
pitbulls are incredibly human friendly. the caretaker has got a to be a real piece of shit to change that for any one of them.
Completely forgetting thier roots as homestead and nursery dogs, as in dogs you leave with your babies on a homeatead so that if they get attacked by wild animals the dog would die protecting your baby.
deleted by creator
