• 4-year-old boy dies after being mauled by pit bulls in Detroit
    193 replies, posted
Calling a pitbull a bloodthirsty monster for reacting to a stimulus in the only way it knows how is like saying a grizzly bear is a bloodthirsty monster for doing the same. Like??? It's an animal. If it feels like it's in danger or its dominance is being challenged, then it's gonna act on it. It's a common similarity of predatory animals. Nobody talks about how often cats fuck people up but that sure happens a hell of a lot.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49277572]You're still not looking at the causation of these incidents. Dogs are animals. They're gonna do some fucked up shit sometimes because of circumstances that are due to their instincts or because of a mistranslation in human-to-dog communication. Especially dogs that are just feral??? They are gonna do even more fucked up shit because they're not being trained? Also some of those dogs may not even be Pitbull Terriers. They could be a breed that just looks similar. As I posted earlier, people misidentify "pitbulls" all the time. No one can really say that the breed itself can be absolved of ALL fault because they ARE predispositioned to respond more extremely to certain stimuli but more often than not it's an outside stimuli that they are responding to that has triggered or provoked an aggressive response. Dogs don't attack "just because".[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm sure that 4 year old boy should have been more well-versed in human-dog communication to avoid being mauled to death. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] Maybe he shouldn't have been doing something so aggressive as walking by a fence with his Mother, who knows.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49277601] Nobody talks about how often cats fuck people up but that sure happens a hell of a lot.[/QUOTE] I've had a hormonal cat in heat chase me through my house and tear up my leg in the corner of my room because I imitated a cat noise she found threatening. (I was young)
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49277611]Yeah I'm sure that 4 year old boy should have been more well-versed in human-dog communication to avoid being mauled to death. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] Maybe he shouldn't have been doing something so aggressive as walking by a fence with his Mother, who knows.[/QUOTE] Yes because that is exactly what I said in my post. I'm not responding to the original OP, I'm responding to the wall of text preceding this page.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49277601]Calling a pitbull a bloodthirsty monster for reacting to a stimulus in the only way it knows how is like saying a grizzly bear is a bloodthirsty monster for doing the same. Like??? It's an animal. If it feels like it's in danger or its dominance is being challenged, then it's gonna act on it. It's a common similarity of predatory animals. Nobody talks about how often cats fuck people up but that sure happens a hell of a lot.[/QUOTE] Cats don't generally kill and/or seriously maim people when they attack.
There's a bigger spectrum than [I]"All Pits are angels"[/I], and [I]"All pits are blood demons"[/I] If you take a moment to realize that animal behavior is a well understood thing then maybe we could stop some of the misconceptions.
My point is, dangerous dogs are dangerous because of a reason. Not just because they are an "evil breed". And anyone who says so is completely ignoring context and the fact that, even domesticated, there is always going to be a barrier between human and dog communication. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49277635]Cats don't generally kill and/or seriously maim people when they attack.[/QUOTE] No, but that doesn't make their aggression any more okay.
Oh great a thread of people who've never raised a pit bull acting like the authority of the breed. They're nice dogs. All dogs with poor parenting are poor pets. Proper raising of a dog raises a good pet. Regardless of breed. Pit bulls. Doberman. German shepards. Etc. All vilified breeds. The story changes as people realize stereotypes are based on the dogs who were raised poorly or bought with bad intentions due to the reputation of that stereotype.
I don't understand how someone can claim a whole species is "bloodthirsty." There is no such thing a blood thirsty species. Every animal fights for a reason. There is no such thing as monsters. The sooner people realize this the sooner the use of these dogs as fear tools will end. It's complete and total emotional, fear driven, willful ignorance. Change your [I]fear[/I] into [I]respect[/I], and your worldview will change. Realize that animals are not humans. They don't understand your intentions, and respond heavily to body language and experience. The fact that you can so quickly label every dog under a species as a monster shows a lack of compassion. Compassion is what these dogs need the most. Not bans, or certificates, or muzzles, or genocide.
[QUOTE=OvB;49277689] Change your [I]fear[/I] into [I]respect[/I], and your worldview will change. Realize that animals are not humans. They don't understand your intentions, and respond heavily to body language and experience. The fact that you can so quickly label every dog under a species as a monster shows a lack of compassion. Compassion is what these dogs need the most. Not bans, or certificates, or muzzles, or genocide.[/QUOTE] The breed is responsible for more than half of dog related deaths. It was a breed raised for centuries to be aggressive and deadly. Statistically this breed is more dangerous and that is almost certainly part of that. As of now they're a serious safety concern and something should be done about it.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;49277484]But by all means, do go on keep telling us how 'misunderstood' and 'lovable' puppies they are, while the rest of us are wary of anyone with a pitbull. [/QUOTE] The ironic thing is posts like yours are exactly why they are misunderstood. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49277712]The breed is responsible for more than half of dog related deaths. It was a breed raised for centuries to be aggressive and deadly. Statistically this breed is more dangerous and that is almost certainly part of that. As of now they're a serious safety concern and something should be done about it.[/QUOTE] There are millions of pit bulls in North America. [I]Millions.[/I] If the dogs are so dangerous, why aren't there millions of victims. The dogs are statistically harmless. [I][B]Because they don't kill for fun.[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=OvB;49277719]The ironic thing is posts like yours are exactly why they are misunderstood.[/QUOTE] The stereotype exists for a reason. Let's say that of all the pitbulls alive on the planet, only 1/3rd of them would attack someone, out of the blue. That's still a fuckton of dogs to watch out for.
You people are exactly the reason people are afraid of sharks, snakes, and other statistically harmless animals. How do you even leave the house. Pitbulls are more dangerous than other dogs, yes. That is due to a plethora of reasons not one of them being a bloodlust.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49277640]No, but that doesn't make their aggression any more okay.[/QUOTE] It really does. If I have the choice of being in a room with a violent housecat or a violent pit bull, then you better bet that I'm going to pick the housecat, even if the cat is MORE aggressive. When deciding the danger of something you have to consider both the likelihood of risk, and the amount of harm done.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49277736]It really does. If I have the choice of being in a room with a violent housecat or a violent pit bull, then you better bet that I'm going to pick the housecat, even if the cat is MORE aggressive. When deciding the danger of something you have to consider both the likelihood of risk, and the amount of harm done.[/QUOTE] That just means you would prefer to be hurt less? It doesn't mean an aggressive cat is an okay thing. Any aggressive domesticated animal is not okay, but for some reason, we consider pitbulls [I]evil[/I] because they are just larger enough to do more damage. My entire stance here is that deeming an animal as inherently evil is humanizing their behaviors which is what forces this stigma in the first place. I'm not saying a pitbull isn't dangerous. I'm saying that just because it is doesn't mean that it's a monster. The terminology is what encourages people to buy and breed them because of their reputation and use/abuse them. It's what keeps the cycle rotating and a break in the cycle is required to understand the animal better and figure out ways to solve the problem without just slapping a "BAN" on the breed that will probably do nothing in an area of the world where the breed is already so prevalent in both legal and illegal breeding circles.
[QUOTE=OvB;49277733]You people are exactly the reason people are afraid of sharks, snakes, and other statistically harmless animals. How do you even leave the house. Pitbulls are more dangerous than other dogs, yes. That is due to a plethora of reasons not one of them being a bloodlust.[/QUOTE] Snakes are dangerous and should be avoided, there are thousands of bites a year. Sharks are also dangerous but don't like to be around people and so avoid them, people also avoid them. Pitbulls being dragged through public areas or walking around without leashes are kinda forced to be around people.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;49277727]The stereotype exists for a reason. Let's say that of all the pitbulls alive on the planet, only 1/3rd of them would attack someone, out of the blue. That's still a fuckton of dogs to watch out for.[/QUOTE] Your over blowing the statistic. From your own post you say there's about 20 deaths per year. Lets assume that means 20 dogs have killed. Okay, now if there even just only 1,000,000(the number of pitbulls [I]put to sleep[/I] according to the post you quoted, per year) pitbulls in the US, that represents only [B][I]0.002%[/I][/B] of the breed that has killed each year. Now if the total population was more accurate, in the many of millions, say, that percentage would be a lot smaller. A minuscule number of the breed has killed humans. Definitely all monsters.
Don't dogs have certain parts bred into them, it's like nurture vs. nature, right? I'd like to think the violent part of Pitbull is the nurture part, right? You can raise a Pitbull to be an absolute sweet heart, and at the same time raise a Corgi to be complete aggression.
[QUOTE=PILLS HERE!;49277781] I'd like to think the violent part of Pitbull is the nurture part, right? You can raise a Pitbull to be an absolute sweet heart, and at the same time raise a Corgi to be complete aggression.[/QUOTE] Any breed can be raised into becoming violent but a Corgi isn't exactly that dangerous. The pitbull has an extremely powerful jaw, something that it was bred to have so that it could be used in dogfighting.
Getting killed in an unprovoked animal attack (regardless of what it is) so so significantly unlikely that it's a pathetic shame we allow ourselves to demonize the whole lot of them because of it. Of course there's degrees of danger and Pits are definitely more dangerous because of their power. You're still incredibly unlikely to be killed by one. It's winning the misfortune lottery. Goodnight.
Are there any stats on number of attacks or injuries? Deaths seems like a pretty poor stat to use because most attacks aren't likely to end in death.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49277712]The breed is responsible for more than half of dog related deaths. It was a breed raised for centuries to be aggressive and deadly. Statistically this breed is more dangerous and that is almost certainly part of that. As of now they're a serious safety concern and something should be done about it.[/QUOTE] This has been explained in these threads, every fucking time, but everytime, everyone comes back into the next thread repeating the same thing. The dog that has seen a stereotype of being violent for many, many decades, is used by people who [B]want[/B] a violent dog. That contributes greatly to them being involved in more injuries and incidents. People who [I]want[/I] a dog for violent purposes are going to select a breed with the best reputation for being scary. The people who do this do not raise good pets. People who buy pitbulls for the intention of anything other than having a loving pet are going to create bad pets and bad animals as far as people are concerned. [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49277817]Any breed can be raised into becoming violent but a Corgi isn't exactly that dangerous. The pitbull has an extremely powerful jaw, something that it was bred to have so that it could be used in dogfighting.[/QUOTE] Yes. So? German Shepards are incredibly powerful dogs. Chow Chows are very strong and powerful dogs. Dobermans are bred to kill. Rottweilers are big powerful dogs. Pitbulls are just a trend of "scary" and it's a feedback loop of stereotype informing people who are looking for the stereotype.
I've seen firsthand how good a well-trained and properly cared for Pitbull can be. It's not every day that you see a 45lb+ pitbull that could damn near pull a car let a little girl beat it at tug-o-war. That being said, the breed [i]was[/i] created to be a fighting dog, and as such has traits that are desirable in a fight. But these traits can be reworked through training to make for a very loyal and friendly dog. Also, like the "mass shooting epidemic," the media tends to pick, choose, and exaggerate to get views. If the title of this article was "Labrador Retriever Mauls, Kills 4 year-old Boy," it wouldn't be as controversial (IE, view producing) as it is now.
Fun-fact: More people (200-ish) die from food allergies than dog attacks (5 - 10 ish?) each year. Than again, us modern humans are terrible at threat analysis, which is weird considering how long we've been on Earth. I wonder what people who think we should ban pits think of strict gun control...?
[QUOTE=OvB;49277779]Your over blowing the statistic. From your own post you say there's about 20 deaths per year. Lets assume that means 20 dogs have killed. Okay, now if there even just only 1,000,000(the number of pitbulls [I]put to sleep[/I] according to the post you quoted, per year) pitbulls in the US, that represents only [B][I]0.002%[/I][/B] of the breed that has killed each year. Now if the total population was more accurate, in the many of millions, say, that percentage would be a lot smaller. A minuscule number of the breed has killed humans. Definitely all monsters.[/QUOTE] Gotta love sensationalist made up statements from morons that somehow can't comprehend that most aggressive dogs were raised by terrible people.
[QUOTE=OvB;49277621]I've had a hormonal cat in heat chase me through my house and tear up my leg in the corner of my room because I imitated a cat noise she found threatening. (I was young)[/QUOTE] One of my friends learned a similar lesson when he (against everybody's warnings) plucked a young kitten off of one of our tamed half-feral cats' teat. She was on him before the kitten was even high enough to be hurt by the drop. Her front paws hooked, claws engaged, on the back of his ears and she began to 'climb' on his face as if she were fleeing up a tree inches ahead of a large, aggressive predator. He couldn't dislodge her, and shifting her only caused him more injury. She heard the kitten mewing on the floor and disengaged all of her claws and dropped neatly into the puddle of blood beneath his knees to check on the kitten before whisking it back into the box beneath my bed they had been born in. We looked at each other in shock, him with anywhere between fifty and a hundred and fifty small to deep lacerations and tears in his face and myself slightly spattered in the process. He lost probably quarter of a pint of blood between my house and his. It seemed like a dozen severe nosebleeds, all at once. It was fucking terrifying - however, aside from maybe losing an eye he wasn't likely to die of anything other than a parasitic infection. In response to the thread (unrelated to above post, except for the implicit agreement in the above anecdote regarding animals following internal scripts): Yes: dobermans, huskies, German shepherds, and malamutes may account for more fatal incidents per year. Yes, all large breeds are dangerous under the right (wrong) circumstances and can severely injure or kill if provoked to do so. I personally find a stray of any of those breeds to lie in that uncanny valley between 'potential acquaintance' and 'roving predator.' They make me tense up a little if I'm caught off guard, whisked out of a reverie by a sudden bark or approach, but I feel as if I can tell by looking at them where their boundaries lie, because dog body language tends to be pretty simple, and apparent. I would be able to ascertain if I was being perceived as a threat to be defeated, an intruder to be frightened off, or just something they were looking at while expressing their natural tendency to bark and let others know that they are seeing something. This would inform my actions. I'd walk away, cross the street, or go into fight/flight, depending on the situation. It didn't begin with a charge, it began with a warning - something which indicated that I had in some way committed a transgression against them and should reconsider my next few choices. If I responded right, we'd go our separate ways. I don't feel that sense with Pit-bulls. Familiar ones in comfortable places can be read like open books, but the one thing I've from a young age felt about their body language was that it was guarded. Guarded in a way my young mind associated with the insecure bully who would lash out indefinitely but unpredictably to repair any damage to his ego. When they seem out of their element, rather than becoming extreme or readable, their faces neutralize as they wait for an opportunity to strike. It's a poker face, intended to prevent the threat they perceive from anticipating and countering their first move. I've heard from people who work in the ER (A level-one trauma center) that many witnesses say that they could not tell that it was going to attack. It wasn't snarling, it wasn't backing up: it had just gone still and unreadable. Just enough to perhaps feel a little a little uncertainty as they saw their dog's expression shift to that of a stranger; no longer in the moments before the open, lovable book. And given no warning, their kid kept playing with it's nose, lips, or paws. As they themselves had done before with no complaint from the animal. I've seen it in videos on Liveleak and elsewhere. It isn't always the case, but they tend to approach as if on the hunt. Most dog mauling videos I've seen involve a lot of frantic circling, barking, and snapping. It's shock and awe - scare tactics. Like charging out on the lawn with a bat to scare away someone who is messing with your car, with the implicit message being "I'm going to fuck you up if you keep doing what you are are doing." In those cases, injury to the person seems more incidental than intentional. The result of over-zealotry and an ill-thought approach than outright intent to kill. Pit Bulls tend to practice a tactic that I would be inclined to compare to that of an alligator waiting in a bank of grass. It's more of a snatch and grab, than an angry confrontation with a belligerent. If it's a child, it's snatch and drag. They come in low and silent, with their first grab intended to be their last. Like an American Cop (a little levity for the dark post), they are not known to shoot to injure. ----- Well this has been a hell of a post - I'm gonna leave[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1d_1448733767"] this here[/URL] (HEAVILY UNSETTLING, graphic, gore, et cetera) It's a relatively recent video that I think rather poignantly illustrates my point. Do those look or sound like dogs that are overzealous, like they are trying to protect their owners in some ill-held concept or that they are trying to make that dog go away? No - they are outright murdering it. Trying to pull it through a cast iron gate by the flesh on its back. That's not a characteristic of many other breeds. Doberman and German shepherd attacks tend to have straight, neat puncture wounds, with most of the tearing being the result of the mutual struggle between person and beast. Their teeth are long enough to strike some pretty important stuff, especially in young children, but they are not often trying to rip what they've grabbed off. They'll use it to pull, and then let go and go for another attack or volley of aggressive snaps. The Pit Bull just grabs. Grabs and doesn't let go until what it has grabbed has come loose. It's why those who are mauled by them are so disfigured, usually. And for the disclaimer: I speak a lot about intention in the dogs (hypothetical and anecdotal) mentioned in my post - do not interpret this to mean that I think they possess some great intelligence. They aren't people. However, it is hard to talk about the mind of a non-human, so I chose to do it largely in metaphor. What I am referring to as intention is not in the traditional sense. A more appropriate word would be inertia, but it wouldn't really make sense in the above post. What I am trying to express as I speak of the psychology of the domestic dog is the internal social script that it has learned, and by which it processes the world and their individual tendency to escalate along that script or skip steps. I tend to think of the mind of a dog to be like a list of contingency plans with a smattering of personality. They have scripts for situations, which they follow. This can be out of an authentic social intelligence which results in the desire for affection or security, but doesn't meet the same standards of what would fit on our scale regarding the processing of cause and effect and inductive and deductive reasoning. It's what makes dogs of the same breed unique from one another, and of course accounts for many examples of deviation from what I've described. Many non-pit like breeds have been in cases known to drag and tear. Pit Bulls have snapped and nipped, leaving dozens of neat puncture wounds. There are always outlines in any perceived system.
"I can't read this dog" = "more violent than the statistics would show." Look, I've been around a lot of pit bulls, you can definitely read them.
Dogs typically kill other dogs because of territory/dominance issues. It's still not without reason.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49277964]"I can't read this dog" = "more violent than the statistics would show." Look, I've been around a lot of pit bulls, you can definitely read them.[/QUOTE] Okay, here's [URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c93_1442063398"]a full grown man being dragged on his back by two of them while nobody can stop them[/URL]. Coming back and mauling the man more. Attacking others.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;49277985]Okay, here's [URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c93_1442063398"]a full grown man being dragged on her back by two of them while nobody can stop them[/URL]. Coming back and mauling the man more. Attacking others.[/QUOTE] Okay? Like I'm not disputing their power guy. [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] It's like all the argument can be is "here let me show you a gruesome picture because context is fucking meaningless" [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] The context of how a dog was raised is pretty vital in how that dog turns out. Due to the fact scummy people want scary dogs they go for a breed they know people like to really fucking dramatize. Those dogs aren't raised well. There's no question of their power. People mistreat animals all the time. We really only have outcries like this when it's mostly informed by emotion. [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] As for reading pit bulls, they have tell tale signs so I really disagree at the strongest level.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.