So sweet
-
If there's a huge gap between pits and other breeds in the statistics, then there's plenty of room to draw a line between them.
Okay then what it is it for you? Do you look only at fatal attacks or attacks more generally? And what would be your comfortable threshold?
I'm not making a point about asking those, I'm genuinely curious. (Pretty much the only point I'm making is that it's been difficult to find others who are willing to articulate this.)
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 04:46 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer I don’t think there’s any value in codifying statistical thresholds and all that. After you notice pitbulls are outliers in the statistics, you name them in whatever controlling legislation. You never have to draw any lines other than the line around pit bulls. Of course in theory a line was crossed by pit bulls at some point, but you never need to be specific about where that line is. Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
-
@Aqua-Letifer I don’t think there’s any value in codifying statistical thresholds and all that. After you notice pitbulls are outliers in the statistics, you name them in whatever controlling legislation. You never have to draw any lines other than the line around pit bulls. Of course in theory a line was crossed by pit bulls at some point, but you never need to be specific about where that line is. Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 06:37 last edited byMaybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
-
Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 09:51 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
Pit bulls are an order of magnitude more likely to kill than all other breeds except one. In engineering terms, that's like normal people saying 'Holy shit, that's fucked up'.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
re we going to assume that it's the breed itself that's dangerous?
I'm profoundly ignorant when it comes to dog breeds.
However, my ignorance has never stopped me from opining.
Border collies have very different behavioral traits from Shelties, from Poodles.
I think it's fair to say that various dog breeds have developed because of selective breeding for various traits. The fact that pit bulls have more than 10X the fatal attacks in the US than German Shepherds and 40 times more likely than a Doberman says something about the breed.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
Pit bulls are an order of magnitude more likely to kill than all other breeds except one. In engineering terms, that's like normal people saying 'Holy shit, that's fucked up'.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 13:48 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in So sweet:
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
Pit bulls are an order of magnitude more likely to kill than all other breeds except one. In engineering terms, that's like normal people saying 'Holy shit, that's fucked up'.
George shared the fatal attack data above. After I mentioned it.
I didn't say I was unaware of the stats or that I disagreed with them.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in So sweet:
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
Pit bulls are an order of magnitude more likely to kill than all other breeds except one. In engineering terms, that's like normal people saying 'Holy shit, that's fucked up'.
George shared the fatal attack data above. After I mentioned it.
I didn't say I was unaware of the stats or that I disagreed with them.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 13:57 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
George shared the fatal attack data above. After I mentioned it.
OK, sorry.
I was PWI. (Posting with Insomnia)
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
I remember the graph you shared illustrating the danger of the breed. Where's the line, though? Is it just pit bulls? Get rid of them and all's fine?
Yep, that's the one, thanks.
So what's the acceptable number? And is it fatalities we should be worried about, or injuries? Regarding either, do we care about how the dogs were raised prior to the attack, or are we going to assume that it's the breed itself that's dangerous?
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 14:19 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
So what's the acceptable number?
I vote 25 deaths should be the limit.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 14:26 last edited by
I'm a dog lover, but I have to say I don't feel comfortable around either pit-bulls or rottweilers, which some people might say is my problem, but it really shouldn't be my problem.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 14:43 last edited by
Rotties I am cautious with, but if I know and trust them, they are wonderful dogs. I’ve never seen good owners have a problem with Rottweilers. Pit bulls? I have seen great pet owners have a problem with a supposedly good pit bull.
We know quite a few dog trainers in Karla’s work. More than a few won’t work with Pit Bulls.
-
Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 16:53 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
The distance in the statistics between put bulls and the #2 most dangerous breed, would qualify as a rough idea of where the line is. Somewhere in that gaping chasm between pit bulls and the next most dangerous breed.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
The distance in the statistics between put bulls and the #2 most dangerous breed, would qualify as a rough idea of where the line is. Somewhere in that gaping chasm between pit bulls and the next most dangerous breed.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 17:24 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
The distance in the statistics between put bulls and the #2 most dangerous breed, would qualify as a rough idea of where the line is. Somewhere in that gaping chasm between pit bulls and the next most dangerous breed.
Assuming the person actually knows those statistics, has seen them and not just heard some TikTok about them, and has decided that those are relevant over others, yes.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
The distance in the statistics between put bulls and the #2 most dangerous breed, would qualify as a rough idea of where the line is. Somewhere in that gaping chasm between pit bulls and the next most dangerous breed.
Assuming the person actually knows those statistics, has seen them and not just heard some TikTok about them, and has decided that those are relevant over others, yes.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 18:25 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
The distance in the statistics between put bulls and the #2 most dangerous breed, would qualify as a rough idea of where the line is. Somewhere in that gaping chasm between pit bulls and the next most dangerous breed.
Assuming the person actually knows those statistics, has seen them and not just heard some TikTok about them, and has decided that those are relevant over others, yes.
Lots of received ideas are based on decent, rational thought, and those ideas catch on and become propagated and received because they're basically coherent. If this one is basically coherent, I'm not going to judge people for not knowing exactly why.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 18:45 last edited by
This isn't exactly a recent problem. The UK banned the breed back in the 90's. I'm too lazy to Google, but presumably other countries have done likewise with no noticeable ill-effects.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
Maybe you’re arguing that it’s incoherent to believe a line has been crossed, unless you can define exactly where that line is. I would disagree with that.
If someone's certain a line has been crossed, but can't explain even roughly what the line is or where it is, then yes, it's incoherent.
I don't expect people to be able to say, "okay, my line is 48 fatal attacks from 2005 to 2017 and if pit bulls had 47 then I'd not consider them a problem."
If someone who has a problem with the breed can say something like, "roughly, the rottweiler number I'm okay with but not the pitt bull number" or "roughly speaking I think pitt bulls and rottweilers are both dangerous because they're kind of outliers with fatal attacks," that at least suggests some understanding of their own threshold. But if someone can't articulate at all, even roughly, where that line is for them, but know for a fact pit bulls and only pit bulls crossed it, then the only coherent conclusion to draw is that they hate pit bulls because of t3h fere.
The distance in the statistics between put bulls and the #2 most dangerous breed, would qualify as a rough idea of where the line is. Somewhere in that gaping chasm between pit bulls and the next most dangerous breed.
Assuming the person actually knows those statistics, has seen them and not just heard some TikTok about them, and has decided that those are relevant over others, yes.
Lots of received ideas are based on decent, rational thought, and those ideas catch on and become propagated and received because they're basically coherent. If this one is basically coherent, I'm not going to judge people for not knowing exactly why.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 23:08 last edited by -
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 23:46 last edited by
@Aqua-Letifer said in So sweet:
If this one is basically coherent, I'm not going to judge people for not knowing exactly why.
Yet that's your MO with the wokes?
It's my MO for any received idea that happens to be a good idea.
-
wrote on 19 Nov 2024, 05:21 last edited by
Lots of pit bulls here in rural AB. Perhaps a preferred breed. That said, and I’m sure I’ve talked of it here before, my kid and I were involved in an altercation with a mastiff when he was 3 yrs old. To this day, I remain scared and avoid most dogs. (To be brief, I avoided the all out mastiff attack by picking my son up with my one arm, holding up and using his tricycle as a shield between us and the dog with my other arm. We retreated me walking backwards a block and a half. I was shaking like a leaf after we got home safe. The dog wasn’t really at fault as he was scared being left alone in a house and broke through a screen window. His owner was charged a hefty fine by Animal Control officers.).
-
wrote on 17 Dec 2024, 01:35 last edited by
No surprise, but the dogs were pitfall type dogs.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 15:05 last edited by
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2kg110vxn3o
An autopsy has confirmed the dog which killed a teenage girl in a fatal attack was an XL Bully.
Morgan Dorsett, 19, from Shropshire, succumbed to her injuries inside a flat in Cobhorn Drive in the Hartcliffe area of Bristol at about 19:00 GMT on 26 February.
Avon and Somerset Police confirmed following the incident that the dog had been sedated at the scene and later put down.
A man and a woman, both in their 20s, have been released on conditional bail they were arrested on suspicion of possession of a prohibited breed of dog.
They were also arrested on suspicion of possession of being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury resulting in death.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 15:17 last edited by
It's become a no win situation for the breed. There are an abundance of Pits in my area and personally, the ones I have encountered have been some of the sweetest dogs you could imagine. But then I also have direct accounts of unwarranted attacks on people for no overt reason whatsoever. From pits that do not have a history of bad owners training them to be mean. A girl I dated, a nurse practitioner, has a permanent scar on her lip as she was sitting at the kitchen table with friends who owned one and out of nowhere it jumped on her and bit a big chunk of her lip right off. 4 plastic surgeries later it is still painfully obvious to see she had some sort of trauma to her mouth and the owners , who were good friends of hers, are now persona non grata, as they promised to cover all her medical expenses and they didn't contribute a dime in the end.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 15:41 last edited by Mik 25 days from now
A very large percentage of dogs available for rescue adoption here are pits or crosses. I would never take one I hadn’t raised from birth.
