Pit Bulls (1 Viewer)

Pit bulls aren't inherently dangerous. Those that are trained by folks who want to be dangerous are. Never blame the dog (for anything); the issue is with the owner/trainer. One needs to be smarter than the dog and have good intentions. Otherwise, the dog looks like the problem.
 
yes all true...but they tore her face off and ATE her.

seriously though, i don't know if i agree that they aren't inherently dangerous. any dog that is capable of that level of damage and is often bred to be aggressive i would consider inherently dangerous. yes the owner has alot to do with it but that women didn't look like the type that raised them to guard a junkyard or drughouse.

and they ATE her...
 
any dog that is [...] often bred to be aggressive i would consider inherently dangerous.
Yes. That's how we have most of the dog breeds we have - people created them. And people have created a breed of pit bull that's only good for killing things. I'm not sure why there's any question about that. "[T]he dogs were gentle. 'They'd kill you with kisses,'" Sure, right up until they decided to take a bite out of your neck and eat you as you bleed out. As they were bred to do.

We're living in that world right now if you think about it. We bred the populace that elected Trump President. He is a natural result of things we did or allowed to happen. A lot of us said, "Oh Trump har har, don't worry about that, those far, far right wing nutjobs are harmless..." And now they are eating us as their parting shot.
 
I missed the story being referred to. I still contend that dogs are very reflective of their owners. I suppose that doesn't prelude the possibility of years and years of training (not breeding, is my take) for violence being reflected in genetic changes in pit bulls because of how their owners have trained them. At the end of the day, it's still not really the dog's fault. It's the fault of humans. Or, if you prefer, sub-humans. Let's call them bipeds.
 
Last edited:
Most ones don't make the press

Lots of dogs bite, few have the awesome power to maul an adult human being -- and most victims are children. I'm just saying that something so powerful does not have a legitimate existence in today's world. Outlaw the breeding, let them fade out of existence, and there will be many less incidents.

But this position is sooo un-PC. I have many lesbian friends and straight female friend who hate me for it, but at the end of the day, these dogs are dangerous -- even if only 1% end up injuring anyone.

I'm a total dog person -- I don't think I've ever lived in a house without one. There are just so many dogs (especially mutts) in the world, that there just isn't a reason to keep these beasts around.
 
I suppose that doesn't prelude the possibility of years and years of training (not breeding, is my take) for violence being reflected in genetic changes in pit bulls because of how their owners have trained them.
A point could be made that "violence" (a human concept, but let's go with it) is inherent in the genetics of every dog on the planet. The root of every dog's genetics is wolf, no matter how far removed from modern wolves they might be. And you won't find many killers that are more clever, systematic and effective than wolves.

I mean, look at this beast!

gemma.jpg
 
I think if you look at the early breeds (like wolfs), those are the ones who came by the campfire, blue-eyed and cautious, and are the really intelligent ones who extended the concept of the pack to include humans. I see a lot of affection in Pit Bulls, but I don't see the intelligence that I see in a German Shepard. Pits seem subnormal -- a less evolved creature with different needs and obligations.

By the way, anyone living in the U.S. in the 1970s knows German Shepards were over bred and got bad reputations as a result. I got bit by one on the wrist when I was 7 while he tried to rip off my winter jacket. But that breed I will always love and never be afraid of.

Thanks for not conditionally reject this thread. I think everyone's responses have been very thoughtful -- even though nothing about this has anything to do with that damn cat lover...
 
in the 1970s knows German Shepards were over bred and got bad reputations as a result. I got bit by one on the wrist when I was 7 while he tried to rip off my winter jacket.
I was bit by a German Shepard around 1968. He bit me on the inside of the thigh. Which strikes me now in retrospect as a kill bite, what with the femoral artery and all.

The bite was my fault though, since the dog was chained up in a backyard and I was taking a shortcut. I just failed at properly estimating the length of the chain.

My mother called the people to say, you know, "wtf, your dog tried to kill my kid," and the woman said, "Calm down! We'll buy him some new pants!"
 
I had to re-think everything I posted and say this: I only defend pit bulls because they are a product of human intervention. They may or not be inherently dangerous by nature, and maybe they are or are not. But some of them are inherently dangerous because of human intervention; either by breeding or by training. Either way, you can't blame the dog/species; one's beef is with the human intervention in the breeding/training process.
 
Last edited:
The thing about the breed that confuses everyone is that they appear so loving until something just kind of snaps out of nowhere. But it always seems to be in pairs. You really don't see many instances of Pit Bulls going 5150 on their own. I believe Stickpin's background is in science, something I am not based in, so I respect his insights. My background was in journalism, so I read a lot of news and collect data/perhaps bias that way. I see a common thread, but that's not necessarily empirical I guess.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top