Opposed to you who never contributes any valuable info. I showed data that states death by doggo bites are very low. Even if the majority are from pitbulls, you have failed to outline how pitbulls are inherently violent animals like bears, lions, and sharks. Which btw is exactly what kerowo tried to paint a picture of.

Seriously, you are all of which you accuse people of.

So how do explain the nearly weekly articles in the real pit bull thread where pits kill people? Is that Fake News?

Lol. What is trump-like is using examples of a pit NOT eating a baby or kitten as proof they are safe. Nobody loves babies more than pits, and nobody is less racist than Trump. Why, here he is standing with Omerossa!!

But even though they are safe, if not safer, if not the safest breed (if the the breed even exists that is) we wouldn't leave the dog with kids. Or walk the dog near people. Or anything like that. We just want it to exist in a world where its safety and the safety of other animals and people are dependant on 100% diligence by us, as opposed to a dog that less likely to cause catastrophic damage because, well, we are, like, soul mates. It's a love other dog owners just can't grasp!

Another fictional post. Go look at deadly dog bites.

wat


You said, "6ix - every one of your arguments has been debunked a dozen times in the OOT thread."

I replied, "Find me just one (instance of that occurring) and I'll donate to whichever charity you want."

And this is meta beyond pitbulls. I'm amazed you're either too intellectually lazy, dishonest or delusional to think that occurred in that thread. If you woulda said, "6ix - every one of your arguments has been debunked a dozen times online somewhere," it'd still be incorrect but at least be slightly less absurd.

Because you didn't respond to my PM mostly. And I was curious what a different set of people thought. If the latter wasn't so alien and maroonic to you,

maybe you wouldn't think the dumb **** you do but, like, maybe you were just bred that way.

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-st...ities-2016.php

Well this site says there were 31 deaths by dog in 2016 (literally 1 in a million), and 22 were caused by pits. So that’s almost one every two weeks.

loooool wait

this is performance art that leaves unchained in the dust

Hmm, Fake News? It is a UK paper talking about Oklahoma..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...days-home.html

Well, she didn't die anyway, so NBD?
http://abc13.com/pit-bull-mauls-4-ye...ouse-/2975486/

Lucky they ran into some mini-ponies before the found any people eh?
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...rse/961077001/

Meh, they were olds, who cares amirite?
http://www.wbir.com/mobile/article/n...n/51-502143967

The pit was "sweet as can be" until the muzzle came off, then **** the groomer!
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/12/2...d-by-pit-bull/

Maybe vicious dogs need a 1 strike rule so they don't maul again?
http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/201...second-mauling

1 year old saved by the dog's owner ****ing killing it. FAKE NEWS!
http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/201...ing-dog-attack

This is from like the last 300 posts in the not full of poor thinkers pit dog thread. Certainly not reason to be alarmed, pits play with babies!

Good job at being an alarmist because you read spooky stories in the media, kerowo. Look at Will's post. Go see if there's an updated on CDC's about this... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm ... The frequency of actual death by doggos is seldom. The most deaths occur in states were there's subcultures of dogfighting. Not sure if there's really any correlation to be made there. But it does seem canine attacks are correlated with how dogs are raised.

Were you one of the people who fueled this as well?

Oh OK we've officially broke on through to the other side. Let me readjust my settings to Bizzaro World.

Hol up let me take five I gotta read the Cooking A Good Pitbull thread in OOT.

Cows are *******s. Those 20 deaths per year are sufficiently avenged though.

In a half dozen posts you're gonna upgrade this to, "Wait, are you dudes joking with/trolling me?"

I have this on the back-burner but it's one of the reasons this thread totally belongs in Politics, imo, so I'll just add that people not believing things about Mexicans or Muslims or Et Cetera unfortunately appears to be a happy accident and a house of cards that is built on a rickety table also made of cards.

Watch as The Prezdident totally DEBUNKS those POOR THINKERS!

hm


well ****

6ix,

The point that pits are the Black people of dogs is not a convincing argument. It would probably be better made that pits are the crack of dogs while German Shepherds (or ? some other strong large non-pit like dog) are the powdered cocaine. But still, dogs were actually bred very strictly. Some very specific tendencies, if not behaviors, are clearly hereditable. Many different breeds demonstrate that. And pits are among breeds were bred for deadly combat with dogs, bears, bulls and such.

Do you claim they are generally no more dangerous (deadly or serious injury) than other breeds?

Would you accept that some large breeds like Golden Retreivers are less liable to be dangerous given the same upbringing.

Which side do you think the burden of proof should be on?

What harm is done by restricting the breeding of certain breeds?

So far I've only seen Paul try any pro-pit evidence (other than dog maulings being generally rare) and it didn't even claim that pits were less likely to be involved in serious attacks, it just asserted that that is possible.

Is it a big part of the argument that these events are so rare, like lightning strikes, that any reaction is an over-reaction? Maybe I could see that, but I think the anti-pit people wonder what this is being weighed against. I'll buy freedom for humans to make somewhat anti-social decisions here, the same as I might for owning a pistol. But if that's the reason, it'd be easier if it were out in the open.

(As I said before, I'm only talking about breeding. Confiscating pits that have shown no sign of aggression would be abominable imo.)

do you have any evidence of how much effect a dogs breed has on its behavior vs its upbringing?

Me? No. Not like a study or anything. I don't know if any have been done that could give a reasonable estimate and it seems unlikely that they have. That's why I asked where one thinks the burden of proof should be. Is it obvious that pitbulls have to be empirically proven to be more dangerous before there are breeding restrictions? Can that action be taken based on a reasonable hypothesis (breeding dogs for combat makes them more dangerous) and evidence over an insufficient sample size/anecdotal evidence?

It is pretty clear that behavior, particularly aggression or its absence can be bred. See the Russian fox experiment. Obviously the physical characteristics of fighting dogs have been the results of selective breeding. I mean, if you generalize the fox experiment to dogs that could lead either you either way in the discussion. On the one hand it shows bred aggression is possible, but clearly pits are not as automatically aggressive as the foxes bred for aggression. But, I don't think that's a QED or anything. It's not all or nothing. Behavior is the result of a mix of factors and some genetic variables just lead to tendencies that don't manifest without environmental triggers or just to an increased likelihood of some behavior.

Pitt bulls - less dangerous than bears

Wait a sec, let's go back to:
Which of those posts I linked to were "fictional" Paul? I guess I should have said bi-weekly posts but no one knows what that means.

Couple things:

First, I didn't yet reply to your or Johnny's posts because I'm in Unchained Mode and you deserve better. Suzzer does too but I couldn't help myself.

Second, the analogy isn't comparing pitbulls to black folks, it's comparing ways of not analyzing data. Climate Change is probably a better analog but goddamn Breitbart had a Black Crime Blog just staring me in my face.

Like, the "5-6% of dogs are pitbulls" figure got thrown around but the OOT thread hit an impasse not when that number was contested but when dudes didn't even grasp why having an accurate number was even important.

I'm not reading all that garbage.

Does 6ix have any point other than - I troll u lol?

It's like the end of your favorite movie the still surprises and delights you every time you watch.

After catching a ban at OOT and then admitting that his Breitbart shtick was a troll, he's in here trolling us with Breitbart derp. Sort of amazing, really.