Racism is bad because it denies the humanity of some people and takes away their human rights.

Dogs have no humanity or human rights to lose, so "sub-speciesism" doesn't present the same evils.

ya that was pretty amazing. I almost made the same response but as a joke. and then, there it was.

I dunno tho, this whole thing is dumb. cant we just do some studies and look at the numbers? the numbers thus far are in no way convincing that so-called pitbulls need removed.

Did you read that essay?


I came across it when looking for more specifics about this bananapants statement:

I told you how I got my dog, right?

(well, former dog to be precise, he passed away a little while ago)

tbf I named my dog Harvester Of Sorrow but still

I did read the gamedogguardian essay, if that's what you mean. Just because the terminology is similar doesn't mean that being anti-pitbull is linked to racism or bad like racism.

I also read the entire book (mentioned in the article) by Bronwen Dickey. The parts of the book which linked racism with being anti-pitbull were very unconvincing. The book even documented earlier dog panics, including the one about about a dog which was favored by older rich white society ladies at the time (I think Spitz but might be remembering the breed wrong). I don't think that panic implies there was racism against older rich white ladies.

Personally I have a fear of all larger dogs because I was terrorized by them several times when I was young. They roamed my fenceless (mostly white) suburban neighborhood, and I never knew who their owners were. I have also been bitten by dogs several times as an adult, by dogs large and small, all of whom were owned by whites. When I hear about larger dogs of any sort attacking people it greatly upsets me.

At this point it would depend on the exact measure, but I would probably support more restrictions on pit bull ownership. I would also support restrictions on ownership of German Shepherds, Rottweilers, and maybe some other larger dogs. And it has nothing to do with racism.

Edit: thanks for your honesty on your dog's name, lol. I may be off on the 90% figure, but it definitely far more than 50% of the names of contemporary pit bulls given in the book sounded scary.

I think so, but I won't remember any details without prompting. Sorry to hear that.

This is good.

Also, I sincerely want story hour about how you got your dog. Sorry to hear about losing him.

The answer is affirmative with high probability.

Problem is most people are *******s regardless of dogs.

So I have been led to question some previously accepted beliefs on this.

I was always amazed and puzzled that the pointing behavior was observed in hunting dogs without any training. The explanation that they have hightened vision that triggers the pointing rather than an inate desire to do it, while other dogs explore stimulus by sniffing and approaching etc makes more sense to me.

This translating to the grab and shake being more of a capability with some dogs rather than a bred behavior also makes sense as I have seen other dogs do it to stuffed animals.

As far as game, there could also be a physical explanation for it.

All of this has led me to be unsure that the conclusions I reached previously are correct. I explained the alternate argument, as I understand it, to a few people I know irl and it is difficult to explain away when you separate all the bull****. (Still would have enjoyed the convo much more had 6ix just laid out his pov without all the drama, but I survived I suppose.)

Such a strange topic. The only others I can think of that get so out of control so quickly are gun control, abortion, and partisan politics.

It makes more sense to you even though it contradicts basically all research and studies on this topic. Cool story bro.

Cite.

Pretty sure the onus is on you if your going to claim that the behavior of pointing, herding, and retrieving dogs hasn't been influenced by centuries of selective breeding.

No. I didn’t claim “basically all research and studies” back up my thinking. He did.

Also, I didn’t claim that the behavior of pointing, herding and retrieving hasn’t been influenced by centuries of selective breeding. I don’t believe that claim so I wouldn’t make it.

Look, it was incredibly difficult to ignore the bull**** to get to the meat of what was actually compelling in this discussion. I didn’t do that so I can switch “teams” and defend a bunch of **** I don’t believe. My point is that some of what I assumed and accepted may be flawed—not even that it is wrong for sure, just that it is built on some assumptions I didn’t question previously. If that makes me a dumb ass in your eyes, I’ve lived with worse.

Frankly the number of things I am concerned with in this argument are not the same as most people, anyway.

Are you sceptical of the idea that selective breeding can influence aggressiveness? Hint: no one you know owns a pet wolf.

Before I engage with you on this, you cool to have an actual discussion on it? Like, maybe we open up a bit and try to challenge ourselves instead of just each other? I don’t think you have read much of what I have said previously when you are using arguments I have made myself itt.

I think you are a pretty smart poster, even when we don’t agree fully, and we usually do anyway. I’m not really looking to get in a chess match over this though.

If so, to start, I’d like to know what you mean by aggressiveness? Are wolves aggressive? High prey drive? Defensive? Kill excitement? Do they fight with each other? What are we talking about exactly?

I mean, wolves don't get along very well with people and make terrible pets. they behave totally differently from dogs. The usual explanation is that thousands of years of selective breeding turned wolves into domesticated dogs, but since the pit-tards insist that's impossible and behavioral genetics is a racist lie, it's a bit of a quandary.

I agree with wolves making bad pets. I also still think that pit bulls and other similar breeds are not good choices for pets, and that goes for multiple other breeds for different reasons.

I don’t really know what 6ix thinks about whether it is impossible for behavioral genetics to be valid, but what I got from his argument was that accepting it as a truth in the pit bull debate is questionable at best. I have begun to see that as a possibility. That said, I don’t really care if the reason it is harder to get a pit to stop attacking once it starts is because of physical or behavioral genetic differences. I still don’t want them around my little dog, little kids, or little wife.

I also am okay with admitting my thinking on the “why” was flawed and maybe missinformed previously. That’s all.

The racist thing is tough but I’ll be ****ed if I’m not getting something more nuanced than “people who don’t like pits are just like eugenic promoters” when I let myself get past the knee jerk reaction of dismissing it. There are some pretty interesting parallels. The incredulity I feel at being lumped in with racist over this topic made it seem like a weapon, and maybe that’s how it was/is intended, but when that aspect, and the obvious absolute differences in both purpose and history of the positions are swept away the similarities are actually interesting to think about.

Just keep asking dix and he'll keep telling you pit haters are racist.

If pitbulls are such nice cuddly dogs why do so many betas who want to appear masculine own them?

get a load of these triggered simpletons

wat about two socks in dances with wolves? The wolf is responsible for john dunbar's Sioux indian name being changed from John Dumb Bear to dances with wolves.

chessmate

Yeah, but that's not the current prevailing theory and even your tag team partner suzzer kinda sorta conceded the point. But goddamit Trolly is planting his flag, he ain't learning new ****. No sir, not today.