ban pit bulls

[oops_ur_dead]

pit bulls (aka shit bulls aka shit beasts) should be banned from going in public and mass-sterilized to allow the breed to go extinct. if you own a shit beast you should have to pay extra taxes and any problems your "dog" causes (e.g. property damage, murder, etc.) should be on you as criminal charges

list of common shit beast shill arguments:

"my pibble isn't currently mauling a child, therefore they're all good"
"it's the owner not the breed"
"there's no such thing as a pit bull its impossible to tell"
"they were bred to be nanny dogs"
"look at this photo of a pit bull wearing a flower crown"
"my pit bull who died at the age of 5 before she had a chance to snap and kill a cat was the sweetest dog ever"
"chihuahuas bite more people than pit bulls"
"it's like racism but for dogs, you wouldn't ban black people would you?"

[Helz]

I think they have their uses.

Keeping a dangerous animal around works great for protection but it is still an animal and you always have to keep that in mind. The purpose bread German Shepherds can be pretty terrifying and when trained basically become a fur missile. Having them engage barricaded people can be an effective way to prevent putting human lives in danger.

I do think that chihuahuas are the most 'aggressive' breed there is although it does not matter because they don't really do damage.

[SuperJack]

Pure breeds should be banned.

[oops_ur_dead]

I think they have their uses.

agreed. shit beast uses include:

abortion alternative post roe v wade repeal
taking care of your neighbour's annoying dog
winning illegal dogfights
making people not want to be around you if you have social anxiety

[Helz]

Its usually the people that do not fear for their physical safety that criticize the methods those who do take to protect themselves.

Its certainly a dangerous animal. But some people choose to take them into their lives because they want the protection having a dangerous animal on your side provides. Its sad that people feel the need for protection in this world, but there is a reason so many people take measures others see as unreasonable to protect themselves and those they care about. Invalidating the action equally invalidates the motive imo.

As much as I wish forms of violence did not exist in this world and I see them as very bad things I do respect their utility and that force is needed to protect yourself from force. I may be biased living in a violent place and having had a life that had a lot of violence in it but when you fear for the safety of your family ethical considerations go out the window. I do not see it much different than judging someone who is starving for stealing food. Sure you can call stealing immoral but when your core needs are not met you will get in touch with that very primal thing within you.

I think it hits another level with animals. With a gun or a bomb its a tool you control. An animal has its own autonomy and chooses when and who to be violent against. Recognizing the lack of control that comes with that danger is scary in a way and takes trust. Asking a person to trust an animal they do not know takes a lot; especially if they have not had great experiences with animals.

[oops_ur_dead]

pit bulls are far too retarded to reasonably use as protection, they're just genetically really fucking stupid animals. its like if you wore a suicide vest for self defense

i saw a video of a woman who sicked her pitbull on a guy trying to rob another woman and the dumbfuck shit beast attacked the woman being robbed and then the owner while the mugger dipped. shitbeasts were bred for one thing: to be dropped in a pit and fuck up the nearest living thing as much as possible. if someone breaks into your home and your shit beast goes into nanny mode it's just as likely to kill you or your kid as the person robbing you

[Helz]

pit bulls are far too retarded to reasonably use as protection, they're just genetically really fucking stupid animals. its like if you wore a suicide vest for self defense
I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.

[Oberon]

I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.
I think oops is just trolling

[oops_ur_dead]

I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.

I'm not anti-dog, and this is a variant of "my pibble isn't currently mauling a child, therefore they're all good"

My friend's neighbour had a shit beast that they brought over one evening and all the dumbfuck dog did was slobber all over everything then bite me by accident because it was too excited. It then tried to attack my friend a couple of times and actually did attack the owner's father, it was scheduled for euthanization but unfortunately they managed to smuggle it out of the country before that could happen.


I think oops is just trolling

I am absolutely not trolling, this is in Serious Discussion.

[Archangel]

I wish all pit bulls were exterminated, I think dogs are great, I do not consider pit bulls dogs, they are more like demons. They solely exist to maul people and kill children.

Anyone defending pit bulls is effectively supporting child murder, I have no respect for people who support child murderers, they are part of the problem and should be punished accordingly.

[Helz]

I'm not anti-dog, and this is a variant of "my pibble isn't currently mauling a child, therefore they're all good"

My friend's neighbour had a shit beast that they brought over one evening and all the dumbfuck dog did was slobber all over everything then bite me by accident because it was too excited. It then tried to attack my friend a couple of times and actually did attack the owner's father, it was scheduled for euthanization but unfortunately they managed to smuggle it out of the country before that could happen.
I’m just saying that I disagree that they are dumb animals. Im sure there are plenty of dumb ones out there but just watch a few Florida man videos and you can say the same about people. I don’t own one and very likely never will but I have been around them enough I recognize how intelligent they can be.

Even if you want to say they are savage violent animals they still have their uses but painting them as unintelligent is not justified from my experience.

[Ash]

I think they have their uses.

Keeping a dangerous animal around works great for protection but it is still an animal and you always have to keep that in mind. The purpose bread German Shepherds can be pretty terrifying and when trained basically become a fur missile. Having them engage barricaded people can be an effective way to prevent putting human lives in danger.

I do think that chihuahuas are the most 'aggressive' breed there is although it does not matter because they don't really do damage.

Except German Shepherds are one of the smartest dog breeds, which is why they are a very popular breed amongst K9 law enforcement officers. Officers don't use a shit beast because there's a good chance it'll turn on them.
Even Chihuahuas are smarter.

Pitbulls are responsible for 65% of dog bite incidents. The second highest is Rottweiler at 10.4%. No one in their sane mind is going to use a shitbull to be a "fur missile". If you ever turn on your TV and watch the news and see a dog bite story, it'll likely be a shit beast. I've had friends get bit by shit beasts.


Its usually the people that do not fear for their physical safety that criticize the methods those who do take to protect themselves.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqp9uFGKK-M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kDkQN7AtRQ

They attack their owners, attack children and have a history of attacking horses lol. Not sure how retarded of a dog you have to be to attack a horse. Tried to look for other dog breeds attacking horses but I can only find shit beasts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h59PoLbxKQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0uMpaWLUWA


I’m just saying that I disagree that they are dumb animals. Im sure there are plenty of dumb ones out there but just watch a few Florida man videos and you can say the same about people. I don’t own one and very likely never will but I have been around them enough I recognize how intelligent they can be.

Even if you want to say they are savage violent animals they still have their uses but painting them as unintelligent is not justified from my experience.

Savage means dangerous and uncontrollable, they're not very intelligent if they have a history of attacking their own owners. Look up "dog attack" on any platform and a majority turn out to be shit pitties.

Also as someone from Florida, people are fucking retarded. Not just the locals, but also all the tourist Americanoids that come down here.

[Oberon]

When I was young I heard pitbulls get put down at a certain age because they become too violent. That being said I don't think any of the arguments in this thread point to them being unintelligent. Ted Bundy had an IQ of 130 and was very violent. Aggression has nothing to do with intelligence

[Helz]

Theres some real data out there on their intelligence.
https://thesmartcanine.com/are-pitbulls-smart/#:~:text=The%20Pit%20Bull%2C%20namely%20the,48th%2 0smartest%20dog%20breeds%2C%20respectively.
Apparently its 4 dog breeds categorized as 'pit bulls' stating "The Pit Bull, namely the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier, are average to above average intelligent dogs. For obedience & working intelligence, they’re the 94th and 48th smartest dog breeds, respectively. While this may not impress owners, Pit Bulls tend to have high adaptive IQ, which is the ability to learn for themselves and through past experiences."

I think we could swap out any animal with these talking points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77UWCnmjfPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXeM1VC5bFo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZxFif1PvA
Should I argue how horses are unintelligent dangerous animals that should be wiped from existence now?

Even feral predators have their place with people. Some people put all sorts of predators in areas to deny access. I do not follow the reasoning of 'This animal was dumb so all of its kind are unintelligent and should die'

[oops_ur_dead]

"Pit bulls are so smart they're the 94th smartest dog breed just under fucking wiener dogs" lmao

Horses are at least useful for certain things. Pit bulls have literally no use that a) another dog can't do substantially better without the risk of going nanny mode and wiping out an entire bloodline and b) isn't something barbaric like illegal dogfighting. Your argument is the same as "you should be able to carry around grenades for self-defense".

I also can't find a single instance of a human dying from a horse attack, meanwhile several people let alone tons of cats and dogs die by shit beast every year. In the last week shit beasts have killed 3 people in the US. Not to mention them being responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog and cat attacks.

You seem to be fixated on the "unintelligent" part. My argument is that they're aggressive, but also extremely dumb in a tangentially related fashion, the former of which is the dangerous part. Stop deflecting by nitpicking one comment I made about their intelligence.

[Helz]

"Pit bulls are so smart they're the 94th smartest dog breed just under fucking wiener dogs" lmao

Horses are at least useful for certain things. Pit bulls have literally no use that a) another dog can't do substantially better without the risk of going nanny mode and wiping out an entire bloodline and b) isn't something barbaric like illegal dogfighting. Your argument is the same as "you should be able to carry around grenades for self-defense".

I also can't find a single instance of a human dying from a horse attack, meanwhile several people let alone tons of cats and dogs die by shit beast every year. In the last week shit beasts have killed 3 people in the US. Not to mention them being responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog and cat attacks.

You seem to be fixated on the "unintelligent" part. My argument is that they're aggressive, but also extremely dumb in a tangentially related fashion, the former of which is the dangerous part. Stop deflecting by nitpicking one comment I made about their intelligence.
Sure. The two parts of your argument I take issue with is the claim they are unintelligent and the conclusion they should all be eliminated and have no use. 96th is not bad if they used either the FCI's 360 recognized dog breeds or the AKC's 190 recognized dog breeds. On either that would be average to above average intelligence.

Without even looking I know quite a few people have died from horses. Your talking about a thousand pound animal here that is around people a lot. I have herd plenty stories of a kick to the head from those things ending people.

Something I have been trying to focus on is that other people are not usually unreasonable and irrational. When I see people making arguments or decisions I disagree with I try to understand their thinking instead of assuming they are just dumb or irrational. You see a dangerous animal that you feel should not exist but there are tens of thousands of people out there that bring that dangerous animal into their home and around their family's. Just the fact they are so known for violence makes people cautious around them and offers a form of protection. If a guy is looking to rob one of two houses he may choose the other house because he sees a dangerous animal. I feel like they absolutely have their uses.

[oops_ur_dead]

Something I have been trying to focus on is that other people are not usually unreasonable and irrational. When I see people making arguments or decisions I disagree with I try to understand their thinking instead of assuming they are just dumb or irrational. You see a dangerous animal that you feel should not exist but there are tens of thousands of people out there that bring that dangerous animal into their home and around their family's. Just the fact they are so known for violence makes people cautious around them and offers a form of protection. If a guy is looking to rob one of two houses he may choose the other house because he sees a dangerous animal. I feel like they absolutely have their uses.

Saying there are "tens of thousands" of people who do dumbass shit doesn't justify it. There are tens of thousands of people who decide to kill others because they think they need to do it to avoid eternal damnation, or who drown their kids because they think that the government is going to kidnap and torture them or something. Doesn't make it right or a case for it to be legal, just that those tens of thousands of people are irrational and bad at making decisions, and their decisions and ideas should be condemned and fought against.

Your point is "they have their uses", but my point is "they have their uses but none that outweigh their dangerousness or that another dog can't do substantially better with less collateral damage". Of course you can always imagine any use for shit beasts: you can eat them, use their pelts to make carpets, etc. You could make the exact same self-defense point about carrying around grenades for self-protection, or about booby trapping your home. All these scenarios could lead to substantial collateral damage, but completely satisfy your ideal of using the object for "protection". Rightfully, carrying around grenades and booby trapping your home are widely extremely illegal, while owning a shit beast is not.

Also lmao the only thing I could find when looking for stories of shit beasts stopping a robbery is this: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/man-attacked-by-pitbull-then-robbed-in-woodlawn/

[Helz]

I do not think any other dog has such a reputation which makes it a uniquely effective deterrent in a way no other dog does.

My point was not that 'tens of thousands of people make dumbass decisions' but rather that many rational people do not see this issue like you do. Obviously those people feel the benefits of having that animal outweigh the dangers. While I personally would probably go with a different breed I can see plenty of situations where having a Pitt could be a very positive addition to someone's life.

Something like 8 or so years back my friend had a Pitt and a lab that got after a cracker trying to steal some stuff off his property. He had stolen a bunch of copper wire before so we got a laugh watching the video. Next time I see him I will ask him for it if you want but with a quick youtube search tons of videos came up.

[oops_ur_dead]

Oh man, that one's going in the hall of fame.

"shit beasts are so dangerous and unpredictably aggressive that normal, sane people are rightfully afraid of them, which makes them a fantastic companion to defend your family and home with"

[Ash]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/983887615252115479/991673149177475072/unknown.png

[Helz]

Oh man, that one's going in the hall of fame.

"shit beasts are so dangerous and unpredictably aggressive that normal, sane people are rightfully afraid of them, which makes them a fantastic companion to defend your family and home with"

Its sad that we live in a world where fear and force are things that exist. Its sometimes hard for those who do not fear for their safety and feel the need to have force to protect themselves to understand the reasoning of people who do. But it does not make those people irrational or stupid and if you can not see their perspective you may want to take a moment to understand the limitations of your view.

Again though, if we ignore the arguments and conclusions and cut to the solution how can it be implemented? Are we going to cut to dog breed genocide? Are we only going for pure breeds? Any amount of Pitt DNA at all? If not how much of a mix and how would you test them? How would you enforce any of it and are you ok with showing up to peoples homes and taking dogs from their family's? Is it going to cause more harm to the minds of children for them to have their pets taken from them and murdered? Do we go after the next aggressive breed next if we did remove pits and how many breeds until we stop?

None of that looks workable to me in any way and even taking a stance on where to draw the line is pretty rough.

[oops_ur_dead]

You're misunderstanding me.

I can see the "point of view". It doesn't take decades of living in the Texas boonies to grasp the concept of "i want a scurry dog to bite trespassers on muh property in the keester".

I just genuinely do not give a fuck if your idea of personal protection is to get a dog that a) puts every living thing around you in danger and b) probably puts you in more danger than the lack of protection from not having it. Doubly so when other dogs do the same job but aren't prone to randomly snapping and killing the neighbour's poodle. A perspective existing does not mean I have to respect it or think it's rational.

The solution is simple and I've already stated it: neuter all existing shit bulls (massive fines if someone owns an unneutered one), and massive penalties to the owner if their beast does any injury or damage to a person or their property. If your shit beast kills someone, then you get charged with criminal negligence resulting in death. Easy. As for what we define as a pit bull, that's likely up to the vets, but many countries and districts have already implemented these kinds of bans so it's not an unsolved problem. Probably have it be appearance and traits based, with genetic testing as a fallback.

[Ash]

https://www.live5news.com/2022/07/28/husband-finds-70-year-old-wife-killed-by-family-dog/?fbclid=IwAR1X-T_GXqyY5QEfnhx14DmpQTsEEx5E_Qjwm7-AfGVmJ9rhAqRL0sD-TxY#l6514gp26d6pakcrnfl

Dog will kill your own family then try to kill the police...

[Helz]

You're misunderstanding me.

I can see the "point of view". It doesn't take decades of living in the Texas boonies to grasp the concept of "i want a scurry dog to bite trespassers on muh property in the keester".

I just genuinely do not give a fuck if your idea of personal protection is to get a dog that a) puts every living thing around you in danger and b) probably puts you in more danger than the lack of protection from not having it. Doubly so when other dogs do the same job but aren't prone to randomly snapping and killing the neighbour's poodle. A perspective existing does not mean I have to respect it or think it's rational.

The solution is simple and I've already stated it: neuter all existing shit bulls (massive fines if someone owns an unneutered one), and massive penalties to the owner if their beast does any injury or damage to a person or their property. If your shit beast kills someone, then you get charged with criminal negligence resulting in death. Easy. As for what we define as a pit bull, that's likely up to the vets, but many countries and districts have already implemented these kinds of bans so it's not an unsolved problem. Probably have it be appearance and traits based, with genetic testing as a fallback.

This might interest you https://www.cbsnews.com/news/samuel-cartwright-arrested-after-seven-dogs-maul-freddy-garcia-to-death/
That part of what you want is certainly already a thing. Picked a recent example from Texas sense you referenced it specifically but to my knowledge anywhere in America people are held responsible for damages caused by their animal on both civil and criminal levels.

One aspect of this conversation we have not touched is that it leans very hard towards the 'Nature' side of the 'Nature vs Nurture' argument. Carry that same parallel to people's races and it gets into some very racist territory. I personally believe both parts play a very substantial role but even more dogs are pack animals. They mirror their owners behavior the same as a wolf in a pack mirrors the behavior of their alpha. I feel like a very large contributing factor to so pitts having such high attack rates is that breed is often preferred by a specific kind of person. When I was in Ohio as a kid I even knew a guy that was giving his pit bull steroids.

You could draw the same parallel to any other breed specific behaviors. A dog with a huge drive to hunt is not an uncontrollable beast that runs down and attacks other animals. A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him.

We may just need to agree to disagree but I have trouble accepting the removal of an entire species of dogs. If we are going to start playing god with what species are allowed to exist I feel like we should start by removing mosquitos from existence.

[oops_ur_dead]

This might interest you https://www.cbsnews.com/news/samuel-cartwright-arrested-after-seven-dogs-maul-freddy-garcia-to-death/
That part of what you want is certainly already a thing. Picked a recent example from Texas sense you referenced it specifically but to my knowledge anywhere in America people are held responsible for damages caused by their animal on both civil and criminal levels.

One aspect of this conversation we have not touched is that it leans very hard towards the 'Nature' side of the 'Nature vs Nurture' argument. Carry that same parallel to people's races and it gets into some very racist territory. I personally believe both parts play a very substantial role but even more dogs are pack animals. They mirror their owners behavior the same as a wolf in a pack mirrors the behavior of their alpha. I feel like a very large contributing factor to so pitts having such high attack rates is that breed is often preferred by a specific kind of person. When I was in Ohio as a kid I even knew a guy that was giving his pit bull steroids.

You could draw the same parallel to any other breed specific behaviors. A dog with a huge drive to hunt is not an uncontrollable beast that runs down and attacks other animals. A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him.

We may just need to agree to disagree but I have trouble accepting the removal of an entire species of dogs. If we are going to start playing god with what species are allowed to exist I feel like we should start by removing mosquitos from existence.

Oh shit we've hit another two

"it's like racism but for dogs, you wouldn't ban black people would you?"
"it's the owner not the breed"

How many until we get bingo?

"A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him."

A responsible bomb owner can also own a bomb responsibly and not have it blow up and take the neighbour's family out. Maybe it isn't a good idea to let people own bombs despite that, though.

[Helz]

Oh shit we've hit another two

"it's like racism but for dogs, you wouldn't ban black people would you?"
"it's the owner not the breed"

How many until we get bingo?

"A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him."

A responsible bomb owner can also own a bomb responsibly and not have it blow up and take the neighbour's family out. Maybe it isn't a good idea to let people own bombs despite that, though.

Just because you preempt a point does not invalidate the point.

I very specifically drew a connection to the nature vs nurture conversation because you have to take a stance in order to take the position you are which is untenable when the reasoning is brought to other subjects.

[oops_ur_dead]

It's an extremely absurd and racist comparison to make.

Firstly, we can refute the idea that dog breeds are like human races. Variation between human races (or more accurately, humans from different regions) is significantly less than variation between dog breeds (3.3% compared to 27%). There are numerous studies showing that aggression in dogs is inherited and specific genes linked to aggression have been identified. Furthermore, humans never went through selective breeding. It's very obvious that behaviour can be bred into animals, look at things like the silver fox domestication experiment. Humans were never artificially bred for fighting, unlike shit beasts, so we cannot presume that a specific race is predisposed to such behaviour.

Secondly, even if the presumption about dogs being similar to human races you're making was right, the action of wiping out a dog breed is far more ethical than wiping out a human race because the former has no concept of what's happening to them. If we neuter every shit beast and let the breed go extinct then there's no pit bull society or culture among them that ceases to exist. They'll have literally no idea what's going on and their lives continue just the same. Not so for a human race.

Lastly, you're an extreme that is incredibly bizarrely removed from my argument. You could just as easily say "oh why did we only eradicate smallpox but not cowpox or monkeypox huh?? Would you also only eradicate one specific race of humans?". Or how wolves are illegal to have as pets when they're still basically the same species as dogs, a matter nobody really takes issue with. It's a lazy and racist parallel to draw.

[Helz]

It's an extremely absurd and racist comparison to make.

Firstly, we can refute the idea that dog breeds are like human races. Variation between human races (or more accurately, humans from different regions) is significantly less than variation between dog breeds (3.3% compared to 27%). There are numerous studies showing that aggression in dogs is inherited and specific genes linked to aggression have been identified. Furthermore, humans never went through selective breeding. It's very obvious that behaviour can be bred into animals, look at things like the silver fox domestication experiment. Humans were never artificially bred for fighting, unlike shit beasts, so we cannot presume that a specific race is predisposed to such behaviour.

Secondly, even if the presumption about dogs being similar to human races you're making was right, the action of wiping out a dog breed is far more ethical than wiping out a human race because the former has no concept of what's happening to them. If we neuter every shit beast and let the breed go extinct then there's no pit bull society or culture among them that ceases to exist. They'll have literally no idea what's going on and their lives continue just the same. Not so for a human race.

Lastly, you're an extreme that is incredibly bizarrely removed from my argument. You could just as easily say "oh why did we only eradicate smallpox but not cowpox or monkeypox huh?? Would you also only eradicate one specific race of humans?". Or how wolves are illegal to have as pets when they're still basically the same species as dogs, a matter nobody really takes issue with. It's a lazy and racist parallel to draw.

I absolutely agree with you that there is a massive difference between eradicating a human race vs a dog breed. My point was that if your going to take the stance of absolute Nature over Nurture the thought process does carry over. Removing the concept of race what if we were to identify all genes in people. If we could peg some genetic function that makes the pedophiles, serial killers and rapists what measures would be ethical? Or abstract it to science fiction concepts. Would it be ethical to remove an individuals freedom before they have done anything wrong because they might have a pre-disposition to it?

I disagree on principal with punishing living things without giving them a chance and I believe that there is a balance between nature and nurture; especially when it comes to conditioning an animal you can raise. I am not trying to push a slippery slope fallacy but the ethical reasoning does not translate well unless you invalidate the autonomy of dogs in my opinion. I take a more extreme view than most having a belief that its ok for humans to bend the world around us to our will but if we are going to start eliminating entire species domesticated animals would be very low on my list. It would make more sense to argue gene editing to curve aggressive traits than eradication of a species.

I truly do not want to get into this point but I do believe selective breeding has occurred with humans on a small scale. Its a really nasty subject and I very much do not want to track down some of the stuff I was digging into back then. Your point on the difference in genetic variation is valid regardless.

[oops_ur_dead]

I absolutely agree with you that there is a massive difference between eradicating a human race vs a dog breed. My point was that if your going to take the stance of absolute Nature over Nurture the thought process does carry over. Removing the concept of race what if we were to identify all genes in people. If we could peg some genetic function that makes the pedophiles, serial killers and rapists what measures would be ethical? Or abstract it to science fiction concepts. Would it be ethical to remove an individuals freedom before they have done anything wrong because they might have a pre-disposition to it?

Very simply put: no, because humans are sapient and have an understanding of society which dogs do not have, and dogs already do not have autonomy and agency in the solutions under discussion here. It makes absolutely no difference to the dog's life that shitbeast owners are disallowed from breeding more shitbeasts, or a shitbeast is disallowed from being imported into a country or region. If we say "you aren't allowed to have children because you have gene variant X which predisposes you to violence" then your decisions are being influenced and you are forced to act a certain way. As a dog your decisions are already at the mercy of your owner. A captive dog cannot choose where it lives and whether it breeds. Its autonomy is already at zero, any breed-specific legislation we pass does not change that. Furthermore, unlike the case of genocide or whatever you call your hypothetical, pit bulls are incapable of ever understanding that their own "kind" is being wiped out, and will not feel negatively towards that.


It would make more sense to argue gene editing to curve aggressive traits than eradication of a species.

This is a science-fiction concept that is not actually possible. More practical is specifically breeding out aggression from the breed, which would pretty much require the cooperation of every shit beast owner, which is infeasible.

[Helz]

Very simply put: no, because humans are sapient and have an understanding of society which dogs do not have, and dogs already do not have autonomy and agency in the solutions under discussion here. It makes absolutely no difference to the dog's life that shitbeast owners are disallowed from breeding more shitbeasts, or a shitbeast is disallowed from being imported into a country or region. If we say "you aren't allowed to have children because you have gene variant X which predisposes you to violence" then your decisions are being influenced and you are forced to act a certain way. As a dog your decisions are already at the mercy of your owner. A captive dog cannot choose where it lives and whether it breeds. Its autonomy is already at zero, any breed-specific legislation we pass does not change that. Furthermore, unlike the case of genocide or whatever you call your hypothetical, pit bulls are incapable of ever understanding that their own "kind" is being wiped out, and will not feel negatively towards that.



This is a science-fiction concept that is not actually possible. More practical is specifically breeding out aggression from the breed, which would pretty much require the cooperation of every shit beast owner, which is infeasible.

I feel like that is a very human centric position to take. Again, I am kinda on the extremist fringe here but this absolute position that human intelligence and agency is the only thing that matters or exists comes from our extremely limited understanding. The idea that our very specific ability's are the measure of value is just something I disagree with. Saying an animals autonomy is zero is just something I fundamentally disagree with. On the stupid extreme you can put two toys in front of a dog and they can pick a preference. The fact they have a preference to begin with is a reflection of autonomy.

If you are going to argue they have zero autonomy and are only at the 'mercy of their owner' then the entire issue shifts to the owners. If we are going to pretend an animal is on par with a gun you can not blame the tool for its action unless it has the ability to act as an agent to begin with. If that is the case its just a parallel to the potential of a tool and we can just talk about this issue as a parallel to gun control.

You can make the same comments about children. The fact they can not choose where to live or if they breed does not mean they are not intelligent, capable of hurting others, or that their genetics determine the decisions they make. You would basically have to argue an absolute model of determinism to ethically justify eradication of a creature because of what they are. Application of the same thinking to people is untenable imo and separating the thinking requires a very extreme human centric thought process I disagree with.

[oops_ur_dead]

Jesus christ its almost like you're intentionally trying to miss every point I make.

Let me spell it out for you.

If I create a piece of BSL that says "you are not allowed to breed pit bulls" then I have not removed any autonomy from dogs because they already had absolutely no say over whether they breed or not. I have removed autonomy from humans, which is a point separate to what you're posting about.

"it is a parallel to gun control" yes I think if there was a type of gun that was on the market that occasionally randomly shoots and maims or kills the neighbours kid then there would be a very good case of banning people from owning said type of gun.

The argument about children is genuinely dumb as fuck because children are not a separate species that we can ban or do anything against. It's a complete non-sequitur when we're talking about the topic of legislation against dog breeds and I'm not going to try to entertain it.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

wait wait wait, I got it, we should ban...
...
...
...
you :)

Animals quite obviously do have inherent autonomy (as Helz pointed out, they can make choices) - unless you deny autonomy to everyone, humans included, and argue that everything is strictly deterministic without any free will, but that is another debate. That being said, there is a difference between "we should kill them all" and "we should not let them breed anymore", which feels like a much better solution to violence.

[oops_ur_dead]

We agree entirely. Not sure why the hell anyone thinks I'm trying to argue that animals have no autonomy or free will at all, that's ridiculous.

[Helz]

Jesus christ its almost like you're intentionally trying to miss every point I make.

Let me spell it out for you.

If I create a piece of BSL that says "you are not allowed to breed pit bulls" then I have not removed any autonomy from dogs because they already had absolutely no say over whether they breed or not. I have removed autonomy from humans, which is a point separate to what you're posting about.

"it is a parallel to gun control" yes I think if there was a type of gun that was on the market that occasionally randomly shoots and maims or kills the neighbours kid then there would be a very good case of banning people from owning said type of gun.

The argument about children is genuinely dumb as fuck because children are not a separate species that we can ban or do anything against. It's a complete non-sequitur when we're talking about the topic of legislation against dog breeds and I'm not going to try to entertain it.

I am not trying to misrepresent your points. I apologize if I am doing so.

I still feel like the entire argument of forcing a species to not exist is only justified when you ignore nurture. And if we are going to go down that road why start with a domesticated dog breed? How about people that keep Pythons or poisonous snakes? Or maybe tigers? The fact the animal is potentially dangerous does not mean its incapable of sharing love and affection or that it has no place around people.

And the 'slippery slope' does exist. If we take out one breed why would we stop there? I truly believe if we are going to start removing species from existence a domestic dog should be very far down on the list of priority's.

For the gun control line I was only pointing out that if the animal has zero agency the conversation would shift to them functioning as a tool. I think that we can agree that is absurd but the fact they do make decisions and that they do have intelligence means their behavior can be modified. If you are interested someone I follow is an ex seal named Mike Ritland who trains dogs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqazdEWRgSE

I still feel if we are going to take the position that genetic traits should determine if a creature exists it gets really ugly very quickly. Conditioning and training make a massive difference in an animals behavior and if we are going to ignore that as a factor theres a ton of other animals that should be eliminated.

[oops_ur_dead]

"I still feel like the entire argument of forcing a species to not exist is only justified when you ignore nurture. "

I mean, of course you can try to train the murder instinct out of the dog, but then you just have a dog with a suppressed desire to tear other animals apart. My friends neighbour is a fairly well off guy and had a shit beast that was treated marvellously and given professional training and whatnot. Then it snapped and tried to attack their father.

Given your stance here what is your proposed solution in one sentence?

"How about people that keep Pythons or poisonous snakes? Or maybe tigers?"

Yes I think people shouldn't be allowed to own these as pets either. Nor should humans own wolves for that matter. The difference is that shit beasts are entirely manufactured by humans and not wild so the equivalent process in them would be eradicating the breed.

"I still feel if we are going to take the position that genetic traits should determine if a creature exists it gets really ugly very quickly"

We already determined this when we bred shit beasts into existence.

Out of curiosity, there are dogs such as pugs that are bred with horrific birth defects and live their entire lives in pain. In some areas it is illegal to breed them as well. Do you think that is just as unethical?

[Helz]

"I still feel like the entire argument of forcing a species to not exist is only justified when you ignore nurture. "

I mean, of course you can try to train the murder instinct out of the dog, but then you just have a dog with a suppressed desire to tear other animals apart. My friends neighbour is a fairly well off guy and had a shit beast that was treated marvellously and given professional training and whatnot. Then it snapped and tried to attack their father.
My experience with those dogs has been different. I feel like your issue is more in their ability than their desire. As you pointed out in your first post many people say 'chihuahuas bite more people than pit bulls.' Sure, they are the most protective and aggressive breed from my personal experience but who cares. They are tiny and can not cause much harm; even to a child.
I feel like bringing any animal into your life comes with risks. Bringing an animal with the capability to do harm to you or others has violent risks. With that in mind we could just as easily follow that logic and argue that all large dogs or potentially dangerous animals are banned.


Given your stance here what is your proposed solution in one sentence?
"Do not get a pit bull if you don't want those risks and punish owners when their animal damages others"

An issue I see a lot is the search for a solution when a solution is not warranted. I could argue the massive problems that come from Alcohol consumption. All sorts of violence, health problems, car crashes at an utterly massive cost in lives and damages. But thats the thing about freedom. Giving people to be free and enjoy life the way they want exposes both themselves and the society around them to risks. Restricting that freedom can create protection but it comes at the cost of freedom.
I lean pretty far towards allowing people the freedom to do what they want while holding them accountable for their actions and I feel that is much more ethically appropriate than removing personal accountability and freedom. I feel like this is a core world view difference our society is struggling with on a large number of issues.


"How about people that keep Pythons or poisonous snakes? Or maybe tigers?"

Yes I think people shouldn't be allowed to own these as pets either. Nor should humans own wolves for that matter. The difference is that shit beasts are entirely manufactured by humans and not wild so the equivalent process in them would be eradicating the breed.
This would be a good example of where our views differ. I think repercussions for damages is more appropriate than removal of the freedom to do what someone wants. Private zoos exist where the public can go and enjoy the experience of seeing dangerous animals in a controlled environment with their families. You have terrible ones like that Tiger King who do it unethically but there are many that exercise that freedom at great fulfillment to their own lives while providing a nice service to the society around them.


"I still feel if we are going to take the position that genetic traits should determine if a creature exists it gets really ugly very quickly"

We already determined this when we bred shit beasts into existence.
Thats a fair point. We are talking about an animal that did not come about naturally. Probably would have been better if humans never meddled in creating breeds in the first place. Although it does not change the situation or the line of conclusions that comes from declaring living things unfit to exists based on their genetics.
One of my favorite group of crazies is the Voluntary Human Extinction movement. There is no creature on the planet that is even close to being as dangerous, unpredictable, damaging and overall terrible for every living thing on the planet than Humans. Although their solution is obviously insane their argument is valid and carries the same reasoning as this.
Would the world be better off without people? I absolutely believe so. Should we be removed? Hell no.

Out of curiosity, there are dogs such as pugs that are bred with horrific birth defects and live their entire lives in pain. In some areas it is illegal to breed them as well. Do you think that is just as unethical?
I think it was a terrible decision to create such a breed. It never should have been allowed and I generally have a very strong dislike for 'breeders' as an industry. I could ramble quite a bit about why dog breeders disgust me or why I think its unethical on many levels; but thats a separate conversation. I do not think its any problem to let the dogs mate. Maybe even a good thing if its with another breed to alleviate the issues their offspring would face. (I probably haven't said it yet but I favor mutts over pure breeds and I dislike that pure breeds exist at all)
You could carry the same question to people. Should the severely mentally challenged or genetically defective be allowed to reproduce? From the view of a species its bad and destructive to our gene pool; although you could say the same about the existence of modern healthcare that counters Darwinism from eliminating such traits. From the view of the individual its unthinkable to eliminate someone's existence because of how they were born.

[oops_ur_dead]

"I lean pretty far towards allowing people the freedom to do what they want while holding them accountable for their actions and I feel that is much more ethically appropriate than removing personal accountability and freedom"

Do you also think that it's okay for private citizens to own nuclear weapons?

[Helz]

"I lean pretty far towards allowing people the freedom to do what they want while holding them accountable for their actions and I feel that is much more ethically appropriate than removing personal accountability and freedom"

Do you also think that it's okay for private citizens to own nuclear weapons?
There is obviously a line. Its a question of where the line is for each person.

Nukes?
Functional Tanks or Combat Aircraft?
Artillery/Mortars?
Explosives?
Guns?
Mind Altering Substances?
Smoking?
Dangerous Animals?
Sky diving?
Driving cars?
Flying drones?
Wearing a seatbelt?
The choice to commit suicide?
Allowing individual style in dressing that can make others feel inadequate?

You can chop it up any way you want but at some point you have to make a decision on where you draw the line. I am sure plenty of perverts have used drones to peep on a chick sun bathing or changing but is it worth removing that freedom from everyone to prevent the issue? I think its fine to own a dangerous animal and the protection to society should come from the repercussions of not doing so responsibly. I dislike the push to remove accountability I see happening in some places and I disagree with the push to remove freedoms as a solution to the issues caused by a lack of accountability.

Consider gun control. Huge problem but you have places like New York that refused to prosecute 80% of prohibited possessors while passing laws to decriminalize armed robbery. They actively push to remove accountability while also pushing to remove freedoms to address the issues caused by a lack of accountability. I just feel like its a backwards way of thinking.

Take it to the extreme and we can all just live in isolated bubbles with no ability to harm ourselves or others but that is a life most would not consider worth living. I would rather accept the dangers that come with freedom than sacrifice freedom and I dislike the idea of removing an entire species of animal because of what they are.
There is plenty of confounding factors in the data points you presented. Like I bet the average pit bull owner is more 'rough' or 'dangerous' person than the average Shih Tzu owner. That probably contributes to violent interactions with the breed. Or the fact there are 4 breeds of pit bulls with massively varied intelligence ratings. Or how even within a breed the individual creatures can be so extremely varied. My sister has a German Shephard that was kicked out of training to be a police dog because it refused to be aggressive. Thats a specific breed that is trained because of their aggression.

[oops_ur_dead]

I didn't see an answer to my question.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I think the question here is "why not draw the line at pitbulls" :)

Also, maybe that's a little off-topic, but smoking and producing cigarettes are two different things. Smoking should not be outlawed, but perhaps producing/selling cigarettes should be? I do realize that people who smoke need to have bought their cigarettes somewhere, though, but they're their own victim...

[Helz]

I would personally draw the line at explosives. I don't think a private citizen should have nukes, tanks, weaponized aircraft, Artillery, Mortars or explosives. All of those things have little to no defensive application with massive offensive application.

I feel like there is a right as a human being to do dumb shit. Smoke, skydive, drink, dont wear a seatbelt, do drugs, or kill yourself. It should be allowed because they are actions that affect you. Sure if you die or catch cancer it does cause vicarious harm to those who care about you but its not the same.

Having guns or dangerous animals I see the same as being allowed to drive a car. They do have utility but not everyone should be allowed to do it. Many states have functions to remove the ability to ever own an animal to those who demonstrate they can not do so responsibly the same that you can be denied a drivers license if you demonstrate you do not drive responsibly. Sure it can hurt others but removing that freedom from everyone is less appropriate than establishing controls to prevent those who do not use the freedom appropriately and punishing them when they are negligent or act in bad faith in my opinion.

I think the question here is "why not draw the line at pitbulls" :)
Why stop there?

[oops_ur_dead]

The problem with your argument is that you're applying this slippery slope BS to everyone's statements but your own. "little to no defensive application with massive offensive capabilities" so maybe let's ban sniper rifles which largely fit in that category? How much "harm to others" is okay, can I smoke in public and expose others to secondhand smoke and potentially give them cancer down the line? Can I make a homemade nuclear reactor and expose my neighbours to radiation? Can I remove the catalytic converter from my pickup truck and aggregate other peoples' asthma and pollute the air in my town?

We can sit around and intellectually masturbate all day about how smart we are for being the only people on the planet to figure out that if we do x then muh slippry slope, or we can stop roleplaying as Ron Paul and actually discuss the matter at hand.

[Helz]

The problem with your argument is that you're applying this slippery slope BS to everyone's statements but your own. "little to no defensive application with massive offensive capabilities" so maybe let's ban sniper rifles which largely fit in that category? How much "harm to others" is okay, can I smoke in public and expose others to secondhand smoke and potentially give them cancer down the line? Can I make a homemade nuclear reactor and expose my neighbours to radiation? Can I remove the catalytic converter from my pickup truck and aggregate other peoples' asthma and pollute the air in my town?

We can sit around and intellectually masturbate all day about how smart we are for being the only people on the planet to figure out that if we do x then muh slippry slope, or we can stop roleplaying as Ron Paul and actually discuss the matter at hand.
I have called out that a slippery slope does exist in a lot of what we have talked about but you pretty much agree with me.
How much "harm to others" is okay
Exactly my point. Where do we draw the line because there certainly is one. Taking an absolute position really creates a slippery slope and we have to acknowledge the trade off of us taking a relative position. Freedom comes at the cost of risking that the freedom may be abused. Yes eliminating freedom can eliminate the abuse of freedom but is that the right answer and when should it be allowed?

Its not intellectual masturbation to acknowledge that such a tradeoff exists and connecting a slippery slope to treating the subject in terms of absolutes is appropriate in my opinion.

Im going to treat your questions as rhetorical but if they were not let me know. We could go back and fourth on some aspects; and while I don't think its fair to compare rifles that have functional utility to tanks that really don't, or the idea that a homemade nuclear reactor is remotely possible. We do have the same point that a line has to be drawn 'somewhere' though even if we disagree where that line is or when its ethical to be applied.

[GiskardReventlov]

It's an extremely absurd and racist comparison to make.

Firstly, we can refute the idea that dog breeds are like human races. Variation between human races (or more accurately, humans from different regions) is significantly less than variation between dog breeds (3.3% compared to 27%). There are numerous studies showing that aggression in dogs is inherited and specific genes linked to aggression have been identified. Furthermore, humans never went through selective breeding. It's very obvious that behaviour can be bred into animals, look at things like the silver fox domestication experiment. Humans were never artificially bred for fighting, unlike shit beasts, so we cannot presume that a specific race is predisposed to such behaviour.


I don't think these distinctions are relevant (I've no opinion on the meat of the argument but dropped in to say this).

[oops_ur_dead]

I have called out that a slippery slope does exist in a lot of what we have talked about but you pretty much agree with me.
Exactly my point.

Yes, that's my point, that sitting around talking about muh slippery slope is a great way of deflecting from problems and solving nothing.

It's absolutely intellectual masturbation to "helpfully" point out that a slippery slope exists, just as it does with literally any issue on the face of this planet. It's not only not insightful but it's downright obvious to anyone who isn't a smoothbrain that you can go "b-b-b-but if you ban pit bulls should we also ban german shepherds???", that's not the point and talking about it in this context is a waste of time.

I don't really feel like entertaining this intellectually lazy line of thought anymore. Let's start actually discussing the topic at hand.

[oops_ur_dead]

I don't think these distinctions are relevant (I've no opinion on the meat of the argument but dropped in to say this).

I find it hilarious and not at all surprising that this random dude who popped in just to say that, actually, you CAN compare human races to dogs, ended up being Mag.

[Helz]

It's absolutely intellectual masturbation to "helpfully" point out that a slippery slope exists, just as it does with literally any issue on the face of this planet.I feel like its different to say that one exists vs treating the discussion of 'freedoms vs risk' as an absolute. You have to take a relative position somewhere and accept some loss of freedom and some acceptance of risk.

The 'acceptance of risk' part is specifically why I disagree with this topic. If we are going to treat this as a problem in need of a solution the exact same reasoning carries.

'Why not start with other more dangerous pets?'
'Why stop with just Pitts?'
'Why all pits and not 1 or 2 of the 4 breeds of Pitts?'

At the end of the day your arguing to eliminate the freedom for everyone to own a dog breed and eliminating an entire breed from existing. I very honestly just do not see this as a big priority problem. Yeah, owning animals comes with risks but I think its much more appropriate to focus on punishments for those who do not own one responsibly.

Past that I don't feel like this is an issue that needs addressing. Heres a big anti-Pitt Bull site:
https://banpitbulls.org/what/pit-bull-numbers/

So 3-5 million Pitts in a 9 year time span in America killed 203 people. Those are not 'Holy shit we need to get rid of all these animals now!!!' kinda numbers. Frankly in context to the human and animal populations its barely a number worth even talking about.

Consider drowning. Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1-4 and between 3,500 - 4,000 people drown each year. Still not really that much but thats over 155 times as many deaths per year on the low side or over 177 times as many on the high side. Should we start having conversations about how to solve this 'problem'? With the focus on removing freedom to prevent risk shall we ban swimming pools and get rid of our water parks? I would say no and I suspect most citizens would agree.

3 points there.
1- I do not think its a problem that needs a solution. I feel that the risk is worth the freedom.
2- If it is a problem that needs solving you could probably find hundreds of other issues that kill thousands each year. Less than 30 people a year in a population of hundreds of millions isn't a big deal.
3- Even if you are going to hunt for a solution I do not feel removing freedom is the right way to go. I feel that the risk can be mitigated by addressing those who use the freedom irresponsibly causing harm to others.

[rumox]

There are conversations to prevent drowning. Pools are regulated because of it. Also passing the buck to other problems to be solved is meh. We can regulate pitbulls by removing their jaws

[Helz]

There are conversations to prevent drowning. Pools are regulated because of it. Also passing the buck to other problems to be solved is meh. We can regulate pitbulls by removing their jaws
Think about what you said right there.

Instead of removing the freedom of pools existing measures were put in place for that freedom to be used responsibly. How is it any different? An issue that kills over a hundred times as many people every day we place control's instead of eliminating freedom.

[Helz]

Honestly I am starting to see this 'view' of how to resolve risk to society as a core issue in how people see things differently.

How much freedom do we give up to prevent freedom from being abused and when?
How much do we hold people accountable when they are not responsible with their freedom?

Thats two questions. I have another 10 I am chewing on for another topic. But really neither side is irrational or unreasonable and I think acknowledging that trade off is a start to establishing common ground.

[rumox]

My suggestion isn't eliminating the freedom to own a pitbull at all. My suggestion is you can own a de-jawed pitbull.

[Helz]

The slobbering shit beasts would just kill humanity by spreading disease.

If instead we just kill all the owners of them it would prevent the harm caused by people who give a creature with unfavorable genetics a chance.

[Drizzt]

It comes down to the owner, and their ability to train and socialize the dog. Many German Shepherd owners do not have the ability to discipline and control a GSD, but they have them anyways. Personally, I do not see a purpose of a Pitt Bull over a GSD. My White German Shepherd is more terrifying to people who don't know that a pitbull is more dangerous, so there is the deterrence factor, my boy was highly trainable and was able to become any type of dog you needed him to be. Pitts require a strong owner with a lot of experience, but once trained properly they are just as safe as a GSD. Granted, most owners are not qualified to have a Pitt and raise it to be a fluffy teddy bear, because they get the Pitt for the opposite reason- to be intimidating. So you have a dog that needs, because of its genetic line, discipline, control and lots of socialization, but owners who are either afraid to socialize and train or want the Pitt to be mean and intimidating.

So I say again. There is nothing a Pitt does that a GSD cannot do, and there is a whole lot more a GSD is better for. Need a babysitter, GSDs will keep your kids busy for hours, but....once again, they need socialization and training. Neither of these dogs are for beginners but Pitts are for much more experienced owners and have less overall utility IMO.

If you just want a nice dog, Golden Retrievers or Labs are easy. As are most giant dogs like mastiffs. Personally, I with all my experience with dogs am more likely to be bit by a small dog than a Pitt.

[oops_ur_dead]

You guys realize there is a difference between Brad Pitt and pitbulls right?

Also damn Drizzt hit "it's the owner not the breed" and "chihuahuas bite more people than pit bulls" in the same post, impressive.

[Helz]

You guys realize there is a difference between Brad Pitt and pitbulls right?

Also damn Drizzt hit "it's the owner not the breed" and "chihuahuas bite more people than pit bulls" in the same post, impressive.

Why do you feel that outlining opposing arguments to your contention invalidates them? Calling people out for supporting the common positions you have stated in advance on a contentious subject does not mean that point is invalid imo..

[oops_ur_dead]

Of course it doesn't mean their point is invalid. I'm pointing out common invalid/debunked points that pitbull shills use constantly because it's funny. Kinda like making fun of Trump supporters for the "muh emails" thing.

[Helz]

Of course it doesn't mean their point is invalid. I'm pointing out common invalid/debunked points that pitbull shills use constantly because it's funny. Kinda like making fun of Trump supporters for the "muh emails" thing.

I really don't think those are invalid or debunked points. The easiest of them would be that "chihuahuas bite more people than pit bulls."

Im sure I have been bitten by chihuahuas no less than 10 times in the last 2 years while I have not been bitten by a pit once and I am exposed to both breeds quite a bit.
My personal belief on animal psychology is that initial aggression draws from anxiety. Taking information from reported bites doesn't work well when one dogs bite gets reported because it causes damage while another gets a band aid or some laughs.

I have a certain level of respect for chihuahuas because they are fiercely loyal and have no problem getting very aggressive towards people who are 20 times their size but they also do it when someone just comes into their area. I can make a video of the behavior of some of them in my neighborhood if you want an example but I very much do think they are a much more aggressive breed and depending on the metrics of attacks reported does not tell the story well when its damage that causes reporting. Its worth stating I do not think they are the only small breed this is a pattern for. We just tolerate aggression in small breeds because they dont cause damage.

To the point- If a lot of people make the same point there might be a reason. Calling it 'debunked/invalid' isnt fair imo. Although this entire line of thought does little to contribute to the subject of if pitt bulls should all die I feel like we should have consideration to commonly held arguments instead of declaring them invalid.

[oops_ur_dead]

The chihuahua point is the most low-IQ pro shit bull point of all of them.

Nobody gives a fuck that a chihuahua is more aggressive than a pit bull because if a chihuahua bites your ankle you can just stomp it while shit beasts are purpose bred to fight to the death and they're big enough and have thick ass skulls so you pretty much can't do anything against one unless you have a weapon.

I bring it up because it's genuinely hilarious that people think it's an insightful and relevant point.

[Helz]

The chihuahua point is the most low-IQ pro shit bull point of all of them.

Nobody gives a fuck that a chihuahua is more aggressive than a pit bull because if a chihuahua bites your ankle you can just stomp it while shit beasts are purpose bred to fight to the death and they're big enough and have thick ass skulls so you pretty much can't do anything against one unless you have a weapon.

I bring it up because it's genuinely hilarious that people think it's an insightful and relevant point.

I agree with you. The issue is less if a breed is aggressive and more if its both aggressive and dangerous.

But if someone flatly argues aggression independent of danger it holds bearing and in my opinion is very true.

I just feel like cutting back to points as invalid/debunked without anyone agreeing they are invalid/debunked is a way to invalidate an opposing view without talking about the material. Arguing elimination of a living thing based on its genetics without consideration to its behavior does hold parallels to racial genocide. The conversation also hits on the entire 'Nature vs Nurture' conversation where the conditioning of the animal must be considered and individual experience with the animals does have bearing on the subject.

It doesn't matter very much but there are a few things on your list that I feel have been the subject of conversation for a very valid and appropriate reason. You could break any large contentious subject down to its popular points and some will be baseless; but other commonly hold beliefs that are in opposition to how you view the subject are voiced for a reason.