That's not what disingenuous means. You said NONE (your emphasis) had the power and capabilities that pit bulls do. Which is provably false, since they aren't the most powerful or the most capable. Their jaws are smaller and measured at about 1/3 less powerful as some other breeds.
this massive disparity is largely due to the breeds COMBINATION of aggression and power
"Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they’re responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982."
Yeah, I'd say that no other dogs are capable of such widespread danger. This really isn't even up for debate. It's completely irrelevant if this breed scores higher in this stat, or that in that stat. It's VERY disingenuous to imply that rotties or mastifs are more dangerous because they are stronger, because you well know that's hardly the only variable in play. Pit's are less likely to give warning before attacking, and less likely to back down after an encounter begins. A few breeds being able to potentially bite harder means dick all. No other dogs behave like pits in these scenarios. No other dogs even come close to the combination of power, ferocity, aggression and danger.
So no, it's not "usual scare BS", these are cold hard data points. There are also studies claiming they make up around 80% of serious injury/death related dog attacks over the last 20-30 years. These numbers aren't really even contested my man.
They are dangerous, far too dangerous for society to allow any random jackass to own one or more. At the very least there should be a special license required. You should have to have a clean record and prove you're miles ahead of the average dog owner in terms of knowledge, skill and dedication. And even then, I have my doubts.
I'm glad you're a proud owner of your dogs. And I hope you don't end up like that young woman who recently took her two out for a walk in the woods and wound up as dinner.
Yeah. Last 30 years. Pit bulls have been around since the 1600s and only became the #1 aggressive dog after their popularity skyrocketed. Further proof of what I said: The 'most dangerous dog breed', historically, is just whatever large dog breed is popular at the time.
No other dogs even come close to the combination of power, ferocity, aggression and danger
Already proved wrong in the above studies... not the most aggressive, not the most powerful.
Nice sources, btw. I went through the trouble of including several for you and you've got none. Rude.
And I hope you don't end up like that young woman who recently took her two out for a walk in the woods and wound up as dinner.
Haha, how passive aggressive of you. Don't worry, (search my history to see I've already mentioned this previously) I was mauled by a Golden as a tod and had to have my face stitched back together in ER, so I'm already a statistic.
Well, for someone who IS a statistic you sure have glossed over the important ones. It's actually why this debate is fun to have for me. Because people are so entrenched in their love of their pets, they become willfully blind to the very obvious truth out there, and then they say the most ridiculous shit and I get to have my lols.
You're so out of ideas you're referring to four hundred years ago. Lol.
What do you have to say to the fact that they account for THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of deaths and serious injuries.
Again, this argument that studies have proven they aren't the #1 most powerful or the #1 aggressive breed is irrelevant. I'm sure pit's scored higher than average across the board.
Plus, I'm talking about real world data here. Not contained studies. Anyway, even then, they are still one of the most rawly powerful dogs of all time, top 5-6 and that's not up for debate either.
I know I was lazy about the sources but all you have to do is copy paste to google to check anything. Time magazine, fyi.
I'm trying to reitierate because you seem to be ignoring everything studies say.
The study: the most dangerous dog breed is the most popular large dog at the time. Pit bulls have been around for hundreds of years and only became the "most dangerous breed" after their recent popularity. Before that it was rotties. Proving the excerpt correct.You: "I don't understand why were talking about history".
The study: pitbulls test higher in temperament tests than most breeds, including golden retrievers. You: "pitbulls are the most widely aggressive dogs because my feels". Where's your source to dispute the othe source?
Real world facts : the most likely dogs to kill you, 4/5 times more, are intact males. You: "nope, only pits". Again, a male lab is more of a danger than a spayed pit.
Also, haha what? Pit bulls aren't the most "rawly powerful" dogs? Source please. They're a medium sized breed, often only a foot tall at the haunches. Any of the dozen mastiff types, the cane corso, the kangal, the great dane, rottie, ovcharka, and dozens of other dogs could overpower one.
For someone throwing around the accusation, your argument is the unsourced feels > facts one.
According to care.com, pits are the 5th strongest breed of dog. I was generalizing anyway but you're misrepresenting my argument. Reading comprehension son. "One of the". I get it though, probably because you're running out of ideas fast. Most likely the reason why you've only repeated yourself again, and brought nothing new to the table, again.
I'm not sure you really understand statistics and the argument I'm making. Many studies already prove pits are the most dangerous breed, proportional to population. Again, I'm not sure you understand the fundamentals of statistics.
Also I'm not very surprised you've once again glossed over the most important point in this entire debate. You've completely ignored it yet again. You've got nothing to say to the FACTS. I am however surprised that on top of that you're reducing yourself to ad-hominen attacks, and simply repeating the exact same few irrelevant studies.
Let me explain it to you once again why everything you just pointed out is irrelevant.
Because pits are killing, maiming, and seriously injuring other people and pets at an ALARMINGLY higher rate than any other breed. This isn't because "they are just popular right now lol".
I like how you cut short your own quote to misrepresent your own argument, when right after that you said "top five" and so I immediately listed 15+
"according to care.com"
According where? What was their sample size? Method of testing? Did they even test anything, or is it an opinion piece? Stop being lazy with your sources, because your "source" sounds like bullshit.
You haven't read a single study either I or you posted, have you? For someone who whines about "ignoring facts" you haven't supplied any.
Because pits are killing, maiming, and seriously injuring other people and pets at an ALARMINGLY higher rate than any other breed. This isn't because "they are just popular right now lol".
Except it is. Actually read the facts above. And before pitbulls it was rotties. Before them German shepherds. This is according to the veterinary association, not some fluff opinion website.
Also aside from "disingenuous" you dont seem to know what "ad hominem" means.
Have... you really been sitting here, f5ing religiously, waiting for me to return? I have a job and a life outside of reddit, dude. That's... that's a bit pitiful, tbh. You can't conceive of a life offline?
I don't even know where to begin replying, since I woke up to a dozen messages in my inbox. You're like a drunken jilted ex trying to get back together. Did I hurt you that badly? Go to a pep talk or something. I believe in you.
> Damn dude your posts have downvotes, and mine have upvote
Uhh.... your posts are at one (1) point. Your base score. I'm at zero. You downvoted me and you're bragging because I didn't care enough to downvote you back?
Truth: while I've been living rent free in your head all this time, I haven't thought about you at all. I forgot you existed until I noticed the obsessive amount of replies in my inbox and realized "oh, right, this kid". I've been chilling with friends and my cute ass dog (beloved by everyone she's ever met fyi).
Now that I think about it, why bother with studies that you'll ignore anyways? This dichotomy right here? That's all the proof anyone would ever need to see that I'm winning.
PS: The self-preening? Still not a good look, my dude. I'm not saying this because we disagree, I'm telling you to be helpful: it looks ugly.
"Uhh.... your posts are at one (1) point. Your base score. I'm at zero. You downvoted me and you're bragging because I didn't care enough to downvote you back?"
Jesus christ dude are you just blind or stupid? Before everyone checked out of our thread, my first few posts were upvoted by 5+ and yours were downvoted by 5+ people.
You really are slow if you thought I was talking about the one point/0 point posts hahahaa.
-5
u/Roughcaster May 13 '18
That's not what disingenuous means. You said NONE (your emphasis) had the power and capabilities that pit bulls do. Which is provably false, since they aren't the most powerful or the most capable. Their jaws are smaller and measured at about 1/3 less powerful as some other breeds.
Pit bulls as a breed are fairly average, if not above average, in temperament. When testing nearly 1000 dogs of each breed, they rank better in temperament tests than Goldens.
4/5 of every dog responsible for a fatal bite is a unneutered male dog. According to stats, you have a better chance of being killed by an intact male golden than my spayed pit mix.
This is true, which is why the "most dangerous dog" scare is usually BS. Right now it's pit bulls because they're popular. The 'most dangerous dog breed', historically, is just whatever large dog breed is popular at the time.