this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
606 points (100.0% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
7601 readers
252 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/[email protected] - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/[email protected] - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ofcourse you can breed aggression, its so absurd to claim that you cant.
We have bite statistics. Every year, pit bull and pit mixes far outnumber every other breed for human bite attacks, consistently, and always make up far more than half (to the tune of ~70%) of all total bites, by breed. Every single year.
Yet people ignore statistics and are eager to jump on the pibble defense train. “My little angel would never bite anyone!”
Maybe. But numbers don’t lie. Just stop breeding them. It’s cruel to people, and it’s cruel to the dogs themselves, that the breed continues to be perpetuated. Breed-specific behaviors are visceral and strong, whether you have a retriever, a pointer, a herder, or a throat mangler. The breed behavior can be invoked at any time, relatively easily.
A friend of my wife and I got a pit bull a couple months ago. She was going on and on about how sweet he is and how he would never hurt anyone. Last week, it mauled her roommate. Nearly took his hand off while he was changing into his work clothes. His career is likely over and she's still defending the dog.
I think that dog is legally required to be put down no?
I have no idea. I know the city animal control has it now. She is trying to get him released, though.
I guess it depends on where you live yeah...
Lets hope it doesnt get to hurt anyone again.
And even with this personal evidence, you get defenders downvoting the story - not because it doesn't add to the discussion, buy because it doesn't suit their narrative.
I hope the roommate is able to find a good surgeon and get the help he needs, that sounds terrible if it could call for a career change.
I think you and I have different ideas about what the word "evidence" means. A story told by a random user about something that happened to their friend's roommate is not really something I consider or weigh heavily when evaluating things. There could be relevant details omitted from the story, or it could be invented whole cloth, in any case, it isn't statistically significant.
So you've never heard the term "anecdotal evidence" then. I said it adds to the discussion and doesn't deserve downvoting by pitbull white knights, not that it needs to be booked into evidence for the supreme court case to decide the fate of all pit bulls.
Yes, I have in fact heard that term, which is exactly why I know that anecdotal evidence is not valid.
What does invalid evidence add to the discussion, exactly?
There are people in this thread who are arguing for legislation restricting ownership of pitbulls. We are in the court of public opinion, which may be less formal than the supreme court, but still has the capacity to influence public policy. So it seems reasonable to apply a very basic standard of evidence, above that of stuff that random people claim happen to their friend's roommate.
As I recall, it is generally brought up to point out how worthless it is in any particular debate.
But, go on....
Not really commenting on the claims made in this argument, but this is anecdotal evidence. Meaning that someone who claims all pitbulls are sweet and docile because of their personal experience is just as valid of an argument as someone saying all pitbulls are bad because of their personal experience.
I don't really care about pitbulls one way or the other, but I find it worrying that a lot of the times the debates against the breed follow similar argument structures to those utilized by racist pulling up FBI crime stats about black people.
Personal evidence is anecdotal, I never said it wasn't? There is nothing wrong with someone sharing a personal story to add to the discussion was my point.. Which I thought I made clearly.
Ah yes, 'being cautious about dog breds bred over a hundred years of more for violent traits is much the same argument as being cautious about black people' false equivalence again.
Right, but you were dismaying people who refute your anecdotes "because it doesn't fit their narrative", which is a perfectly valid thing to do with anecdotal evidence, as it is itself an attempt to build a narrative.
Racist would often say the similar things about black people in America. Slavery lasted well over a hundred years and slave owners would often have slaves who were brought up to be prize fighters.
The word you're looking for is anecdote
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
This is only said by people who've never actually taken a class about statistics.
Numbers may not lie, but they also don't make assertions. People suck at interpreting data and that fact is constantly utilized to mislead people.
I'm not saying this to defend pitbulls, just that bite statistics don't really tell us anything about innate aggression in dog breeds. Just like FBI statistics don't tell us about innate criminality in ethnicity.
Those bite statistics don't make any attempt to rule out misleading variables. It could be that pitt bull bites are reported more often because of the extent of harm they cause. It could be that people who gravitate towards breeds who are thought to be more aggressive are wanting and are training for aggression.
Statistics is hard, and can generally be used to shape opinions on just about anything.
This. It's not neccessarily the breed itself. Look at who is likely to own the breed and what they are likely to do with it.
Yeah that's the point, chihuahuas are assholes too with wrong owners but due its size its not gonna maul children.
I rather give an dumb toddler a spoon than a tec9
We also don't really have bite statistics. Almost every citation I see for the data that gets posted over and over again traces back to one of two sources. One was a paper done in the 90s which both asserts that its methodology is inadequate to infer breed related risk and inexplicably combines rottweilers and pitbulls into a single category, a point which never gets carried through into other discussions. The other is that dogsbite site which openly states it is an advocacy site seeking the elimination of pit bulls and frequently gets its "data" from facebook stalking victims of dog bites for pictures of dogs they spent time around recently and then attempting to guess the breed involved from said picture. This is some real clown level shit, especially if you've ever read reports about even veterinarians trying to guess the breeds of mixed dogs that are their patients.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
I understand the bite statistics but you have to keep in mind how those are reported too.
No one is reporting their neighbor's chihuahua taking a bite at their boot. Bites from smaller breeds mostly go unreported.
It does give a point as to why pit bulls and other large breeds are dangerous though. Whether they are more common or not, they certainly are far, far more serious when it happens.
Responsible ownership has always been an issue with pitbulls, as irresponsible people tend to adopt and breed them.
This massively differs per country. Pitbull bites are generally nastier than other bites so they're overreported. It's also partially the public image of pitbulls being nasty dogs that gets them reported more often.
Historically the "most dangerous breed" has changed quite a bit. For a while Great Danes were the worst, then it was Dogo Argentinis, Malinois, German Shepherd, Akitas, Labradors, Jack Russells, etc...
In France for example pitbulls only rank 12th for most bite incidents.
Research on it has been mixed, with studies focusing on nature finding that the breed matters surprisingly little when it comes to aggression. It seems more likely that there's a certain group of owners that handle their dogs irresponsibly, which tend to popularize specific breeds. This seems more likely because places that banned 'dangerous' breeds don't see a decrease in bite attacks; the owners of the dangerous breeds mostly get new dogs, which then just bite people again.
Black people aren’t bred for crime.
All domestic dog breeds enjoy the same material conditions as other breeds. Pit bulls aren’t living with poverty, scarcity, lack of opportunity, and systemic injustice compared to other dogs.
I don't think MotoAsh was ever comparing people to dog breeds.
As I understood, they were using that comment as an example of how statistics can provid a skewed view about a certain topic.
To your comment though, pit bulls do tend to see different living conditions to some other breeds. Irresponsible ownership is a real problem for pit bulls.
They are strong and hard to train. I don't think they should all be put down, but I do agree that not just anyone should raise one.
With humans, there is literally no genetical study that could suggest this. Also, black people have existed for millenniums, and have by nature developed something called empathy
However, dogs are just not as genetically advanced. Them not being totally hostile is something that developed a couple thousand years ago when humans started domesticating them (and that's something you can look up from non Eugenics based papers.)
So the same way we can make people into monsters, we can also make dogs into those, but way easier. And with Pitbulls, you can do those super easily since they just haven't evolved because breeders bred them that way
We do have bite statistics, and the people most qualified to interpret them disagree with you
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
It's not that pits are more likely to bite, it's that their bite is way more damaging. If a retriever (bred for a "soft mouth") bites me, I am way less likely to need medical attention than if a pit bites me. Even biting at lower rates than many other breeds, pits come out on top of medical reports because each bite is more damaging.
They literally did the opposite with foxes. Some guy kept breeding the nicest ones until he got a "breed" that wouldn't want to murder you on sight. I'm pretty sure levels of aggression absolutely are something innate in some animals.
"Some guy"
Come on now, let's not buzzfeed our facts here!
Dmitry Belyayev is the guy, though work continued long after his death
The program has been quite successful, although you still have a high-energy animal with a strong odor. I'd still like to have one, tho.
So, indeed, "some guy."
A specific guy whose name is not a mystery
Thanks for adding the credit where it's due!
I had just gotten to work and was browsing Lemmy before I had to actually get started so I didn't spend the time to look up who actually did it lol
Russian silver fox im pretty sure
Also he did it both ways. On population selected for nice behavior became dog like. One population selected for aggression. The second population goes insane when someone enters the room trying to attack through the cage door.
Exactly. I mean, dogs are wolves that were bred to be less aggressive and more suitable to be companions to human. Of course it can go the other way.
Science and the American Veterinary Medical Association would love to have a word with you. But I guess you do love the literal pitbull hate community so who cares what you think on the matter.
Do you have a source for that? Because everything I've read says completely the opposite. The 'science' I'm aware of says that genetic tendency to aggression is very much a thing, even in humans.
It is a thing, but most controlled studies haven’t found pitbulls to be inherently more aggressive than other breeds, just more dangerous if they happen to attack. Any dog that is poorly socialized will probably attack someone sooner or later, they just weren’t bred to latch on and shred things with their jaws like pitbulls were. So maybe there is a discussion to be had about “dangerous” breeds, but it’s not a genetics one.
Can you cite any sources?
Isn't that the issue? From what I've heard, the big issue isn't just that they attack, but they lock on and it's hard to get them to release their target. Like, a small dog can absolutely bite you, but will it kill you? Is it going to rip a limb off? If you give it a good hit, is it still going to be holding on for dear life? You say other dogs just "weren't bred to latch on and shred things with their jaws like pit bills were." That sounds an awful lot like a dog that was bred to be aggressive or, at the very least, cause maximum damage when triggered. That's something that needs to be considered when adopting or breeding a pet that's supposed to not just be around people, but in the home.
I think another factor is the owner. Usually people who want agressive murder dog with the same name as the whitest rapper get it for a reason and don't train the dog.
Its often low income people wearing tracksuits and man purses.
It's both. It's insane to me someone can watch animals instinctively display insanely complex behaviors untaught (e.g. herding by australian shepards) and the scientific research to reduce aggression in a related species before coming to the conclusion that there is no way whatsoever that nature is a significant component. Oh, and just completely ignore breeds bred for traits and behaviors seemed desirable for every domesticated animal.
Nature has no place at all it's only nurture. Sure.
Really? "Science"? Hahaha
The "nature/nurture" debate is a question of how much influence each has - it's not a binary question, but a continuum.
And if the AMVA is saying aggression is solely taught, then they lack any credibility whatsoever - that's an utterly unscientific perspective.
I say this having worked with vets, competed in obedience trials, and trained numerous dogs (with the assistance of very successful trainers). Each dog is different, but there are very clear traits in breeds, achieved by... breeding for those traits.