55
submitted 11 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Highlights: In a bizarre turn of events last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he would ban American XL bullies, a type of pit bull-shaped dog that had recently been implicated in a number of violent and sometimes deadly attacks.

XL bullies are perceived to be dangerous — but is that really rooted in reality?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I read the article. It’s the same old excuses about “It’s the owner not the breed.” And “Breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behavior in dogs.”

Those statements just aren’t true. Dogs are specifically bred for certain physical and behavioral traits.

There was also a study done that proved breeding aggressive animal lines made their progeny even more aggressive. And docile more docile.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/whos-a-good-fox-soviet-experiment-reveals-genetic-roots-of-behavior

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

This post is idiotic. It's written by someone incapable of nuance or critical thinking.

[-] Forester@yiffit.net -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And there it is people Good old American racism.

I'm certain you've also followed the Russian experiment where they managed to take wild foxes and domesticate them in under 50 generations and now you can adopt one as a pet. So what you're telling me is that a dog that has been with humanity for over 10,000 years and then went through a period of roughly 300 years of pit fighting is irrepidly damaged but the fox that went through 15,000 years of being a fox It's just magically now perfect pet in under 100 years. And you're telling me that it's genetics and not nurturing and raising the animal that has an impact okay...

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 9 points 11 months ago

I mean, to my understanding, those domestic foxes, while tame, are still not quite so perfect of pets as animals that have been bred for longer like dogs are. Though there is no reason it can't be both, while a dog raised to be aggressive will probably be aggressive, and one raised well should be far less likely to be, it's not fair to say that there is no genetic basis for friendliness and aggression, else there would be no need for domestication in the first place. A lot of selective breeding can be done in century, so the past few centuries of what an animal has been selectively bred for probably matter a bit more than the centuries before that, to a point anyway. I doubt anyone is really arguing that pit bulls are irreparably damaged as a whole either, but if an animal has been bred for aggression for awhile, undoing that is going to require breeding for the reverse, or crossbreeding with another line that does not have that trait and selecting offspring that do not display it, or similar.

I'm not really sure what stance to take on pitbulls and similar breeds myself, I've known some people with rather nice ones and it seems to me that any law targeting a specific dog breed is going to be somewhat impractical given that breeds are "fuzzy" categories with ill defined edges, not clear and sharply defined, so determining what animals are close to pitbulls but are not quite, and which are considered to be pitbulls, but barely, is going to be a very difficult line to reliably draw.

[-] noride@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

Sorry, can you clarify what part of OPs post is racism? Genuinely struggling with that connection.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

They didn't even undergo 300 years of pit fighting.

Handfuls of these dogs kept by handfuls of people engaged in pitbull fighting.

The substantial majority of pitbulls out there were just living their life, living amongst families and children, not bothering anyone.

And if they were bred to fight other dogs, so fucking what?

You can read first-hand accounts from people who are involved in dog fight organizing who said over and over that dogs who are aggressive towards humans were banned from competition and often euthanized.

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works -1 points 11 months ago

A lot of domestic animals can go feral, as cats will do as kittens, under one generation. Creating a dog breed requires a lot of intentionality — selective breeding and conformance to some kind of breed standard, like making some specific breed of fox into something that can live in a house.

That’s not what is going on with pit bulls in 2023. Such as they can be defined, they’re usually selected for their capability to protect. And otherwise they’re bred randomly with other breeds and maybe lose that capability, but then they’re not pit bulls anymore. and to be honest nobody really knows what their capabilities are at that point. It’s a total mess, it’s nothing like concentratedly breeding non-aggressive, non-asshole foxes relentlessly until you can tolerate each other indoors.

By the way I heard fox piss is.. unsuitable for human co-habitation, is that still a problem?

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago

https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

From an organization that does temperament tests.

This is the percentage of tested animals that pass their temperament tests.

AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER - 87.6%
AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER - 85.7%

OH NOES! 15% don't pass! How horrific are these beasts?

AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG - 80.2%
AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD - 82.5%
CHOW CHOW - 71.7%
COCKER SPANIEL - 82.4%
DOBERMAN PINSCHER - 80.1%
GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG - 85.7%
GOLDEN RETRIEVER - 85.9%
GREAT DANE - 82.7%
MIXED BREED - 86.6%
ROTTWEILER - 85.0%
WEIMARANER - 80.8%

This is a selection of fairly common dogs and the Weimaraner because I did NOT expect to see that kind of failure rate from those guys. Every one of them I've met has been incredibly patient. I include the chow chow to show an extreme outlier. That's the lowest score I found with around a hundred or more animals tested. In that case it was 99, but that's close enough for comparison.

So what does this show? Clearly, Aussie dogs all need to be destroyed. They're far more temperamental and dangerous than pit bulls. Chow chow? Burn them in cleansing fire.

Incidentally, I included the cocker spaniel because that narrative of them being more dangerous than pit bulls follows my personal biases from my own anecdotal experiences. I've been bitten by three dogs, all cocker spaniels, all injured me to some extent. But nobody reports the cocker spaniel bite, no matter how bloody it is. You just clean it up and get on with your life because you got bit by a cocker spaniel you fucking pussy. On the other hand, I've been aggressively run at by numerous pit bulls and have thus far escaped with only considerable amounts of drool on me after a seriously violent request for pets ended in a belly rub massacre.

Anecdote, however, is not the singular form of data.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

Temperament does not equate to ability and preponderance to cause severe injury or death.

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago

That's literally what it fucking is.

https://atts.org/about-temperament/

“the sum total of all inborn and acquired physical and mental traits and talents which determines, forms and regulates behavior in the environment”

And again, if you're ACTUALLY worried about severe injury or death then you'll be focused on significantly more dangerous breeds such as chows and shar-peis. But you're likely not and just want to say "PIT BULL BAD" because you don't understand how statistics work.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Also, no your link does not say temperament is propensity to attack. A dog can fail the temperament test because it is shy or nervous, as per your own link.

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago

Both of which are indicators that a dog may be fearful and prone to attack if it feels threatened. If you know nothing about dog behavior, why are you here?

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

You are really stretching the words may be a lot here. Most fearful dogs are more likely to run away, and will only attack if cornered with no other way out. Seems you're the one who doesn't know about dog behavior, would explain why your a pitbull apologist.

[-] squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

That's patently untrue. A fearful dog is very likely to be reactive, and that reaction will vary based on many different things, both personal to the dog and to the context of the situation. Fight or flight is a common way of remembering that.

And a dog (or any creature) in a reactive mode is dangerous.

You sound out of your depth here bud..almost reactionary.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

Nope, spent my whole life around dogs. Fearful dogs are very unlikely to attack, they're nothing like aggressive dogs.

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago

My guy, you are nowhere near as smart as your mother told you all those years ago.

Live with it.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

My guy, I really am very smart. 99th percentile or so through my PhD, and into my well published scientific career.

Pitbulls suck and we need to stop breeding them, live with it.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

Let's see, 1 person has been killed by a Chow-chow, and none by shar-peis in recent years, yet dozens killed by Pits. Yes, I see how chows and shar-peis are what I should be worried about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Okay, now learn to divide.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

CDC, the people that actually track this shit, states 468 deaths from dog attacks in the US between 2011-2021.

So about 45 on average per year. The exact number is about to be irrelevant.

You want to lump all pit bull breeds together? Okay, let's say they're responsible for that TERRIFYING 70% of all attacks you pulled out of your ass elsewhere.

70% of 468 is 327.6. OMG SO DANGEROUS! Until you learn to fucking divide.

https://humanesocietytampa.org/pit-bulls-are-2023s-1-breed-in-the-united-states/
"In 2023, pit bulls are the number one breed in the United States, and it is estimated that there are about 18 million pit bulls across the country."

327.6 divided by 18,000,000 means that you have a 0.0000182 chance of a given pit bull being responsible for a fatal attack.

And that's if you're a disingenuous twat and smash all pit bull breeds together, which you would absolutely never do for all breeds with "shepherd" or "retriever" in their name.

There is literally no reason for anyone to fear any dog that is properly trained and not raised by shitheads, and every reason to fear ANY dog that is not.

It's not by coincidence that the only dogs that have ever bitten me were all cocker spaniels. They're almost universally owned by people that see them as cute and fluffy lap dogs despite them being considerable size and ill tempered when not trained properly. Do I like them? No. Would I ever want to ban them? Also no, because I'm not a fucking idiot.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Pitbulls dominate the list of fatal dog attacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks

And yet they only account for about 6% of owned dogs. They are more dangerous than other breeds, vastly more so in fact. And just because dogs only kill a few dozen people each year, there is no reason not to eliminate the majority of that source of deaths.

And I've had friends attacked by "well-trained" and friendly pitbulls. Really nice neck scars they got from that super duper lovely little pibble. Don't know anyone injured by any other breed.

And how many cocker spaniels have killed people? I;m seeing zero on the list of attacks.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Cows kill more people than dogs. That does not mean that cows are more aggressive than dogs.

Plenty of dogs referred to as 'pitbulls' are not particularly aggressive at all. Often they're less aggressive than dogs of other breeds. All dogs were bred to be hunting dogs. They all have a prey drive. They can all hunt small animals. Some of the most aggressive dogs, are also the smallest, but a pekingese is less likely to cause serious damage. Being nipped by a pekingese is unlikely to merit a police report. (I say unlikely advisedly. Even small dogs can be dangerous.)

The whole 'pitbulls are aggressive' line is a dangerous misconception. Here's why:

Predictably, someone encounters a pitbull type. They've heard all about 'pitbulls' being aggressive. But this dog is not even slightly agressive. It is a nice friendly dog. It is especially careful with the children. They go on the internet, and see a video of a child sleeping on a pitbull. The pitbull is incredibly careful with the child.

"People are clearly exagerating how agressive pitbulls are!" "My pitbull is a sweetheart!" "Did you know pitbulls were known as nanny dogs! I read it on the internet."

But large powerful dogs aren't dangerous because they're aggressive. They're dangerous because they're large powerful dogs.

The owner leaves a child alone with a large powerful dog. The dog is entirely unagressive. But then firework goes off, the dog panics, the child is in the way. The child tugs the dogs tail, the dog gives what would be a corrective bite for a dog but is far more serious for a child. The dog grabs onto the child's hand, then doesn't let go because he thinks it's a game.

Obviously, it goes without saying that you can train a pitbull type to be aggressive, just like you can train any dog to be aggressive. But gangmembers don't typically train pekingese dogs to be aggressive just like the police don't typically use a chihuahua to catch criminals. They want a dog that is dangerous because it is powerful and intimidating. They can train it to be aggressive and bite people if necessary.

As a life long dog owner, who actually knows a bit about them, here's how you solve the dangerous dog issue:

  • mandatory registration and chip
  • mandatory insurance
  • mandatory training at a reputable school (which will also inevitably train the human owner out of the 'he wouldn't hurt a fly' nonsense or signal authorities if they notice the owner getting off on his dog being scary/dangerous)

Banning pitbull types? A short term fix which will result in another breed becoming the next aggressive arsehole fashion accessory.

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago

To a child a fucking dachshund is large and powerful. Leaving children alone with any dog is a parenting issue. I've seen my niece and nephew go from 0 to FUCKIN'RUNNIN'ROUNDSWINGIN'SWORDWOOOOOOOOO in .4 of a femtosecond and that shit would scare the fuck out of all but the most passive animals.

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
55 points (65.0% liked)

politics

18863 readers
5795 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS