I’m not an owner I’m but someone with a lot of friends that own pitbulls. Pitbulls aren’t some magically special, dangerous breed that is prone to random acts of violence.
Yes they are. Pitbulls are unpredictable, reactive, and strong compared to other breeds. They were selectively bred for those traits. They have to be muzzled and registered in my neighborhood.
Ah yes, I see. You have made assertions that align with the typical narrative and stereotype around a breed of dogs, then demonstrated the assertion’s validity by stating it is a belief held in your neighborhood.
I have completely changed my mind and will now ignore all of my own experiences and knowledge on the topic because a random person asserted a stereotype and stated that people believe and act on a stereotype. I guess that’s it. Debate over.
Even if they were psychologically identical to every other dog, they still have bodies that were specifically engineered to fuck up human beings. When a lap dog freaks out, you get a boo boo. If that lap dog had a pit bull’s body, you might be dead.
Sorry you feel personally attacked when someone says pitbulls are dangerous.
Even if they were psychologically identical to every other dog
That’s literally my point - they basically are. I won’t argue that pitbulls are more capable of harming someone due to their physical characteristics. That’s just physics.
Horses are also large, powerful animals and they cause at least a few deaths every year by trampling or kicking humans when provoked, spooked, startled, or whatever - I’m not really a horse person. Obviously, large powerful animals can absolutely cause more damage than lap-sized animals. That doesn’t mean they are the equivalent of a monster from a horror movie that could rip someone to shreds at any moment with no provocation. Not does it mean that anyone who owns one is an irresponsible, naive threat to society.
If you are a responsible owner, the dog or horse isn’t an unreasonable danger.
Sorry you feel personally attacked when someone says pitbulls are dangerous.
I don’t feel personally attacked, but many other people feel personally attacked when someone questions their opinion on pitbulls. I just feel bad for the animals.
I freaking know that’s your point, that’s why I granted it. WTF?
If you are a responsible owner…
That’s a total non-starter with me. If one were a responsible custodian and guardian of animals, one wouldn’t have a pet in the first place. Pet ownership (ie ownership of an intelligent individual for the purpose of companionship) is inherently selfish and self-deluded, and whether you agree with that or not, pet owners cannot be expected to be responsible.
When we want to allow people to perform activities that are potentially harmful to other humans if they are not done responsibly, WE LICENSE THOSE ACTIVITIES.
Pet ownership is inherently selfish and self-deluded,
I can see that perspective and I don’t totally disagree. Dogs and cats (which are devastating to local ecosystems), seeming to be explicitly domesticated animals with no place in the wild, are potential special cases. The only alternative in my mind would be to neuter/spay the lot of them and that seems just as fucked up as owning them… so that’s honestly not really something I care to get into. I haven’t spent much time thinking about that topic.
pet owners cannot be expected to be responsible.
That’s a statement with insanely broad implications. Replace pet owners with “gun owners” or “drivers of cars” or “airline pilots”. It’s a subset of people that are not so special that they cannot be made responsible. Anyone with the capacity to understand and who is of sound mind can be expected to be responsible if society holds them to that standard.
Unless your point is to reiterate your objection to having a pet being irresponsible, in which case… ok.
WE LICENSE THOSE ACTIVITIES
Honestly, I’d be perfectly fine with more strict licensing of pets. Technically, my region does license dogs but it’s more of a system to make sure you vaccinate them and a fee to help fund pet-related efforts like animal and rabies control.
My only concern is that the licensing body needs to be robust and funded well enough to not pass an unreasonable cost onto applicants… which I feel applies to pretty much any licensing system.
Two of my friends that ended up with rescues that were mostly pitbull had to go through a whole process with several visits and interviews and a follow up some time after the rescue was placed in their custody. That was the rescue agency though not a licensing body.
Please tell me you see the fallacy here. “If they aren’t dangerous why are some people scared of them” has been used to hurt way too many people for you not to see the fallacy.
That’s how I see pitbull owners
Congrats you cracked the joke!
I’m not an owner I’m but someone with a lot of friends that own pitbulls. Pitbulls aren’t some magically special, dangerous breed that is prone to random acts of violence.
Yes they are. Pitbulls are unpredictable, reactive, and strong compared to other breeds. They were selectively bred for those traits. They have to be muzzled and registered in my neighborhood.
Ah yes, I see. You have made assertions that align with the typical narrative and stereotype around a breed of dogs, then demonstrated the assertion’s validity by stating it is a belief held in your neighborhood.
I have completely changed my mind and will now ignore all of my own experiences and knowledge on the topic because a random person asserted a stereotype and stated that people believe and act on a stereotype. I guess that’s it. Debate over.
You’re a big wobbly one huh?
Even if they were psychologically identical to every other dog, they still have bodies that were specifically engineered to fuck up human beings. When a lap dog freaks out, you get a boo boo. If that lap dog had a pit bull’s body, you might be dead.
Sorry you feel personally attacked when someone says pitbulls are dangerous.
That’s literally my point - they basically are. I won’t argue that pitbulls are more capable of harming someone due to their physical characteristics. That’s just physics.
Horses are also large, powerful animals and they cause at least a few deaths every year by trampling or kicking humans when provoked, spooked, startled, or whatever - I’m not really a horse person. Obviously, large powerful animals can absolutely cause more damage than lap-sized animals. That doesn’t mean they are the equivalent of a monster from a horror movie that could rip someone to shreds at any moment with no provocation. Not does it mean that anyone who owns one is an irresponsible, naive threat to society.
If you are a responsible owner, the dog or horse isn’t an unreasonable danger.
I don’t feel personally attacked, but many other people feel personally attacked when someone questions their opinion on pitbulls. I just feel bad for the animals.
I freaking know that’s your point, that’s why I granted it. WTF?
That’s a total non-starter with me. If one were a responsible custodian and guardian of animals, one wouldn’t have a pet in the first place. Pet ownership (ie ownership of an intelligent individual for the purpose of companionship) is inherently selfish and self-deluded, and whether you agree with that or not, pet owners cannot be expected to be responsible.
When we want to allow people to perform activities that are potentially harmful to other humans if they are not done responsibly, WE LICENSE THOSE ACTIVITIES.
I can see that perspective and I don’t totally disagree. Dogs and cats (which are devastating to local ecosystems), seeming to be explicitly domesticated animals with no place in the wild, are potential special cases. The only alternative in my mind would be to neuter/spay the lot of them and that seems just as fucked up as owning them… so that’s honestly not really something I care to get into. I haven’t spent much time thinking about that topic.
That’s a statement with insanely broad implications. Replace pet owners with “gun owners” or “drivers of cars” or “airline pilots”. It’s a subset of people that are not so special that they cannot be made responsible. Anyone with the capacity to understand and who is of sound mind can be expected to be responsible if society holds them to that standard.
Unless your point is to reiterate your objection to having a pet being irresponsible, in which case… ok.
Honestly, I’d be perfectly fine with more strict licensing of pets. Technically, my region does license dogs but it’s more of a system to make sure you vaccinate them and a fee to help fund pet-related efforts like animal and rabies control.
My only concern is that the licensing body needs to be robust and funded well enough to not pass an unreasonable cost onto applicants… which I feel applies to pretty much any licensing system.
Two of my friends that ended up with rescues that were mostly pitbull had to go through a whole process with several visits and interviews and a follow up some time after the rescue was placed in their custody. That was the rescue agency though not a licensing body.
They literally are.
Saying this as someone who had a Pitbull growing up who was very sweet. They are naturally prone to violence and very capable of it.
If they aren’t special why do large pet groomers like Petsmart ban them? Seems like a lot of lost money.
Please tell me you see the fallacy here. “If they aren’t dangerous why are some people scared of them” has been used to hurt way too many people for you not to see the fallacy.