Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
drummindiver

Punish the Deed-Not the Breed?

Recommended Posts

On 2016-12-12 at 9:32 AM, bcsapper said:

Why doesn't the MSM ever report on the Labs that attack, or kill people? 

I posted a link showing the fact Golden Retrievers and American Pitbull Terriers have the same score in temperament testing. 

This is true,  yet we gave this issue. It proves imo it is a people problem not a dog problem. Almost every expert states this

Edited by drummindiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

I posted a link showing the fact Golden Retrievers and American Pitbull Terriers have the same score in temperament testing. 

This is true,  yet we gave this issue. It proves imo it is a people problem not a dog problem. Almost every expert states this

Well, there's no reason your link should be any better than mine.  If we aren't trusting media, I mean.

I know it is a people problem.  Like gun deaths.  It takes a person as well as gun.  Some guns are worse than others, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, there's no reason your link should be any better than mine.  If we aren't trusting media, I mean.

 

What I posted wasn't media, it was stats from scientific testing and their results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drummindiver said:

What I posted wasn't media, it was stats from scientific testing and their results.

What I posted was stats too.  Granted, it was Wikipedia, but I pay them, I ought to be able to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

 Some guns are worse than others, that's all.

A despite probably not understanding the differences you will of course want to decide which of those you would allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

What I posted was stats too.  Granted, it was Wikipedia, but I pay them, I ought to be able to use them.

Wikipedia isn't the best source, although better than Breitbart or Canoe.   Maybe as good as Snopes, which I used.  Direct quoting from experts trumps wikipedia, imo.  

As for your earlier question about what media I use, its a variety.  If I see an interesting bit of info that surprises me, I try to look up the original, find more reliable sources and try to find backup from experts.  Sometimes I can, but sometimes not. The hardest part is finding non-biased info, but I'm getting better.  Other than what shows up on my FB feed, most of which I ignore, I have very little exposure to MSM, no network news at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, poochy said:

A despite probably not understanding the differences you will of course want to decide which of those you would allow.

I understand the differences between guns.  I've fired a few.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dialamah said:

Wikipedia isn't the best source, although better than Breitbart or Canoe.   Maybe as good as Snopes, which I used.  Direct quoting from experts trumps wikipedia, imo.  

As for your earlier question about what media I use, its a variety.  If I see an interesting bit of info that surprises me, I try to look up the original, find more reliable sources and try to find backup from experts.  Sometimes I can, but sometimes not. The hardest part is finding non-biased info, but I'm getting better.  Other than what shows up on my FB feed, most of which I ignore, I have very little exposure to MSM, no network news at all.

Not me.  If it's on the BBC, NPR, The Independent, the CBC, The Guardian, etc, I tend to believe it until I see otherwise.  Even if some of those sources are not leaning in the way I generally do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not me.  If it's on the BBC, NPR, The Independent, the CBC, The Guardian, etc, I tend to believe it until I see otherwise.  Even if some of those sources are not leaning in the way I generally do.

When I'm doing any research I trust those sources, except the NPR because I don't know it well.   If you trust it, than I'll look into it more.  Thanks.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dialamah said:

When I'm doing any research I trust those sources, except the NPR because I don't know it well.   If you trust it, than I'll look into it more.  Thanks.   :)

It's radio, but I find when I'm on the road I listen to it more than the BBC World Service.  I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I understand the differences between guns.  I've fired a few.

 

There is a difference between media and non media sites so I'll post this again. Golden Retrievers and APBTS score the same. GRS are bigger and have a stronger bite. Again,  you are responding to media hype.Are you always so easily lead?. 

http://atts.org/breed-statistics/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

There is a difference between media and non media sites so I'll post this again. Golden Retrievers and APBTS score the same. GRS are bigger and have a stronger bite. Again,  you are responding to media hype.Are you always so easily lead?. 

http://atts.org/breed-statistics/

 

So you're saying that when Pit Bulls kill someone the media reports it, and when Golden Retrievers kill someone, they don't?  And they basically kill at about the same rate?

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So you're saying that when Pit Bulls kill someone the media reports it, and when Golden Retrievers kill someone, they don't?  And they basically kill at about the same rate?

I'm saying that dogs are dogs. Love em all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though Pitt Bulls may be raised to be fine dogs. When they aren't raised well, they are far more dangerous than other breeds. 

And the irony would be that the type of person that would seek to own a Pitt Bull would tend to be the type of person that won't raise it well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

Though Pitt Bulls may be raised to be fine dogs. When they aren't raised well, they are far more dangerous than other breeds. 

And the irony would be that the type of person that would seek to own a Pitt Bull would tend to be the type of person that won't raise it well. 

Yes,  Helen Keller, several presidents as well as a host of sports and other celebrities are the type.

https://www.cesarsway.com/about-dogs/pit-bulls/pit-facts

 

Michael Vick tried as hard as he could to turn these dogs into killers. After he was busted, 49 were seized from his back yard. Of those,  1 was deemed too agressive and had to be euthanized. 

October 1, 2007 The Federal Case – Dogs Evaluated

A team of animal behavior experts selected by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals analyzed the 49 seized dogs and then recommended whether they were suitable either to be adopted by families, trained as police dogs, placed in a sanctuary, or should be euthanized. Only one dog was recommended for euthanasia because of extreme aggression. The others were deemed suitable to go to sanctuaries or foster homes for socialization training.

http://aldf.org/resources/laws-cases/animal-fighting-case-study-michael-vick/

You can thank Sports Illustrated and the gangster culture as well as self serving media hysteria. 

http://crypticphilosopher.com/2012/07/where-pit-bull-prejudice-began/

Edited by drummindiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

Though Pitt Bulls may be raised to be fine dogs. When they aren't raised well, they are far more dangerous than other breeds. 

Can you explain this comment? 

Did you see the video showing size of dog equates to bite strength and that scientific brain tests show APBT as stable as Golden Retrievers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Yes,  Helen Keller, several presidents as well as a host of sports and other celebrities are the type.

https://www.cesarsway.com/about-dogs/pit-bulls/pit-facts

 

Michael Vick tried as hard as he could to turn these dogs into killers. After he was busted, 49 were seized from his back yard. Of those,  1 was deemed too agressive and had to be euthanized. 

October 1, 2007 The Federal Case – Dogs Evaluated

A team of animal behavior experts selected by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals analyzed the 49 seized dogs and then recommended whether they were suitable either to be adopted by families, trained as police dogs, placed in a sanctuary, or should be euthanized. Only one dog was recommended for euthanasia because of extreme aggression. The others were deemed suitable to go to sanctuaries or foster homes for socialization training.

http://aldf.org/resources/laws-cases/animal-fighting-case-study-michael-vick/

You can thank Sports Illustrated and the gangster culture as well as self serving media hysteria. 

http://crypticphilosopher.com/2012/07/where-pit-bull-prejudice-began/

That example is anecdotal at best. People wouldn't use Pitt Bulls to fight if they didn't . . .you know. . . fight. There are no Labradoodle Fighting rings that I'm aware of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Can you explain this comment? 

Did you see the video showing size of dog equates to bite strength and that scientific brain tests show APBT as stable as Golden Retrievers? 

http://dogs.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Which_Dog_Breed_Has_the_Strongest_Jaw

Why are people seeking dogs, as human companions that all have the strongest bite forces? 

Unless you're "that guy" why is it such an important feature in a breed? 

You can breed any trait into dogs, that's why hybrids are so popular. Why would a pure bred dog with a top 5 bite force be a desirable trait for a family companion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drummindiver said:

Have you read this thread? The point uis  msm have painted them w these super powers. I've been showing this to be false.

It's not false. If it was false, the effort to breed out the aggressive traits of these breeds would be pursued. 

I'd go further though, Rotweillers, German Shepherds and Dobermans are breeds should not be pursued as family pets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Boges said:

That example is anecdotal at best. People wouldn't use Pitt Bulls to fight if they didn't . . .you know. . . fight. There are no Labradoodle Fighting rings that I'm aware of. 

What is anecdotal? 

Not yet. All these dogs do. Should be paint all thee dogs with that broad brush and eradicate them all?.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_fighting_breeds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

What is anecdotal? 

To say that Michael Vick's surviving dogs were able to be rehabilitated is evidence that the breed isn't inherently violent

 

Quote

 

Not yet. All these dogs do. Should be paint all thee dogs with that broad brush and eradicate them all?.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_fighting_breeds

 

Well not eradicated but there should be regulations on how they're breeded and have that breed much different than they are now. This happens to many breed. 

Also few of the breeds on that list are common, except for the Bulldog. I would also ban the breeding of Bulldogs as the AKC's standard highlights because they've been turned into grotesque mutants that can't breath. Ditto with the Pug. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

To say that Michael Vick's surviving dogs were able to be rehabilitated is evidence that the breed isn't inherently dangerous.

That's actually the opposite of anecdotal.

You take x amount of dangerous dogs. 

48 are deemed rehabilitatable. 

1 is deemed.

Therefore 99.08 are rehabilitated.

.02 are deemed are deemed unable to be rehabilitated. Pretty god damn incredible.

Remember these dogs have been horrifically abused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drummindiver said:

That's actually the opposite of anecdotal.

You take x amount of dangerous dogs. 

48 are deemed rehabilitatable. 

1 is deemed.

Therefore 99.08 are rehabilitated.

.02 are deemed are deemed unable to be rehabilitated. Pretty god damn incredible.

Remember these dogs have been horrifically abused. 

Not exactly a representative sample. AND it's super small. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...