1160
No bad breeds, only bad owners
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
1160 points (100.0% liked)
Comic Strips
16695 readers
2352 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Any dog can snap. So why do we see proportionally more news stories about it happening with a pitbull...?
Because their stereotype can attract shitty owners who want a badass dog but can't be assed to train or care for them.
Or they literally abuse, possibly even with dogfights, and abandon them.
Occam's Razor: They are known for being more dangerous because they are more dangerous.
From the very article you linked in the other comment.
Don't talk facts when your source refutes your claim.
You... think one paragraph voids decades of data they've carefully collected? Lol, I've lost all credibility because this issue (like everything) has nuance...? You believe that source agrees with you?
Okay, fine. Here's some more from statisticians, lawyers, non-profits, and hospitals:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
https://jminjurylawyer.com/dog-bites/the-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-in-america/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Several+factors+contribute+to+why+these+breeds%2Ctheir+owners+also+play+a+key+role
https://www.jacksonbackhome.com/dog-bite-statistics/
https://jnylaw.com/blog/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed/
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/legal-services/los-angeles-dog-bite-lawyer/dog-bite-statistics/
https://care.choc.org/dog-bite-study-shows-youngest-kids-most-at-risk-which-breeds-inflict-the-most-severe-injuries/
https://www.vazirilaw.com/dog-attack-statistics-by-breed-2024
Let me guess: they're all in on the massive conspiracy to... let people know they should be more careful around their pitties?
Uhm... ackshually 🤓 it's two paragraphs.
But in all seriousness, "carefully collected" is a pretty severe misrepresentation of the way the majority of these stats are collected. One source you link says 66%*, but wikipedia says 28%. This is an very large increase.
This discrepancy is caused, in large part, because the police aren't very good at reporting on this kind of data. The article you linked, which I quoted goes mentions this, but it doesn't really go into detail just how bad it is. The police system, particularly in the US has a lot of inherent biases that lead to problematic behaviors and assumptions. Some of them are about race, and some of them are about... dog breeds.
Long story short, I only really trust hospitals for this sort of data. Insurance companies get their info from the police, who aren't reliable. Hospitals can have problems, but aren't going to be problematic as our police system. Interestingly, hospitals also seem to report much lower numbers, like the numbers mentioned in the study mentioned by wikipedia versus the other numbers present. I wonder why that is?
And one of the articles you linked was AI generated slop that claimed 66% but that was actually a hyperlink to wikipedia's claim of 28%. And most of the articles you linked were similar, clearly getting the data from the same place, but not actually linking it and/or having broken links.
Even the best source, the study you linked has issues when it comes to supporting your claims. It acknowledges that which breed has been top of the list for dog fatalities has shifted over time and only now settled on pitbulls. That source also acknowledges how dog breed identification is difficult.
And then of course, I won't deny that pitbulls do bite and kill at higher rates. But you are arguing that that somehow makes them inherently more dangerous, when there is simply no evidence for such a thing.
The problem with this argument is that is is very, very similar to arguing that it's acceptable to be cautious around black people specifically because they are accused of crimes at higher rates. In fact it's so similar that I've seen "pitbull bad" be used as a white supremacist talking point. (which is part of why this argument gets so heated. Usually I just enjoy the popcorn but I finally decided to stop lurking).
But I'm gonna be real, I don't really want to argue with someone who just throws a bunch of slop sources they clearly didn't read at me. Read your damn sources. Use google scholar or similar instead of just a normal search engine, so you don't get AI slop.
And I'll give you some advice: If you want this argument to be well accepted in the future, you should throw in some points that make it clearly, distinctly separate from the white supremacist version of it. Some acknowledgement of the police being bad, or some acknowledgement of pitbull owners or some acknowledgement of how pitbulls don't rank top in bite strength (at least, according to two of the sources you linked). You complained about getting downvoted when you just posted stats but that's because people don't see those stats are an argument about pitbulls, they see someone preparing a setup for "What if I told you some races of people were inherently more dangerous?".
As an endnote, human race isn't real. Perhaps this applies to dog breeds as well, which one commenter noted but you just dismissed it and threw a bunch of slop articles at them instead.
Okay. So I did a little research since I was truly curious.
https://www.animals24-7.org/2019/10/14/pit-bulls-new-gene-study-shows-it-is-not-all-in-how-you-raise-them/*
Boom. A genetic link between aggression and certain violent behaviors and pitbulls. 15% of their personality. Caused by an aggressive period of selectively breeding them for dogfights.
And now I think we should breed pitbulls out of existence.
@Empicorn@feddit.nl (is this how you @ a user?).
1 source. That's all it fucking takes. I don't understand why people who spend so much time on the internet are so mid at arguing. 4 articles of AI slop aren't going to convince anyone of shit. 2-3 other articles that don't actually back up your point have the same issue. But you're prancing all over this thread like you're hot shit. The issues I mentioned in my previous comment still apply, but here's a new source for you to use I guess, you're welcome.
And of course, I have to obligatorily state that no parallels to human behavior can be drawn from this. No, black people were not "bred for strength". No, they are not inherently more aggressive. No, we should not just use eugenics to eliminate certain "races" because human races are a social construct (see above diagram). However, dogs work differently, it seems.
*Edit: actually this source seems to be somewhat problematic since it seems to cover a dispraportionate amount of news related to pitbulls but that doesn't make the study immediately wrong.
Okay researching further I found another scientific article going in the opposite direction.
(Damn, I said I wouldn't argue but now I seem to be arguing with myself. Don't worry chat. Imma win.)
Opens google scholar
It's a joy to watch you work in real time, keep it up
Humans have never undergone countless generations of intentional selective breeding devoid of personal autonomy. There is no reasonable comparison between the constructed human concept of "race" and the undeniable reality of dog breeds as crafted through selective breeding, and everyone should be extremely wary of any attempts to ever conflate the two.
Because most people can't identify one and use it for any mid size dog.
See: Rottweiler, doberman in previous years.
No one said it was a slam dunk? If you won't accept statistics by non-profit organizations trying to provide people with knowledge, facts, and legal info... What would convince you that any one breed of dog is more dangerous than others?
As it does in many other areas, the controversial nature of the discussion poisons the well on sources supporting either view. The days of 'here's a study saying...' being a useful tactic in anything are kind of dead. Most discussions can have reliable-sounding sources to support contradictory points. It gets hard to find the truth about anything without engaging in in-depth meta-analysis, let alone in a place like a comments section under a webcomic.
That is a very poor argument. Non-profit organizations lie about their statistics and their so-called facts all the time.
PETA is non-profit. Autism Speaks is non-profit. Anti-vax groups are non-profit. All sorts of groups dedicated to promoting authoritarian regimes are non-profit. And they all push a lot of bullshit that they claim to be facts and statistics.
Pretty much nothing since that isn't how it works.
There are some breeds that require more knowledge, experience, and time to handle properly. That includes the various breeds colloquially referred to as pitbulls, as well as German shephards, mastiffs, huskies, etc. I'd say most breeds with a job need knowledge and attention.
But the "danger" part is an issue with the owner (or previous owner). The only foster dogs I've ever been concerned about have been abused, whether by ignoring them, not feeding them, physically abusing them, or otherwise.
I can say I have a not insignificant amount of experience with quite a few breeds, and I can also say that blaming a breed is nonsensical.
And the only dog in my home right now is a corgi.
Facts & science, please. I swear, I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but you make several assertions without proof. You're saying I don't have the full picture. But also imputing we're seeing so many news stories about pits attacking children, data about than being more dangerous is wrong because... there's fewer of them? Legitimately not trying to strawman you or put words in your mouth, but that would be exactly opposite the point you're trying to defend.
Sorry, I misunderstood. So many people are having an emotional reaction to my comments...
Since you're using different statistics to compare and come to a conclusion, can I ask what you're getting the "breed numbers" from? @Empricorn@feddit.nl has been throwing around the dogbite site but I wouldn't go off that number.
Even all the things I'm seeing online like the American Kennel club don't actually track realistic numbers
It just kinda gets worse from there
So I doubt you're getting accurate numbers since the data just isn't tracked. Just like all of these "facts", it's being heavily skewed and misrepresented. Hell, even EMpricorn's "INSURANCE WEBSITE link" (it's literally a fucking ad for pet insurance) just outright dismisses all this shit with the back and forth word salad
...and how many neighborhoods, insurance companies, etc have rules against pitbulls?
There is no way that the full picture of breed ownership is tainted by purposely reporting the breed as one that wouldn't cause the owner to pay more for insurance, get dropped by insurance, kicked out of their rental unit, etc?
Most of the dogs I know have significant amounts of pitbull in their blood. Their owners are not pitbull fanatics - they just rescued a dog from a service and found out it was 50+% pitbull. The one friend who has close to pure (90+%) pitbulls literally rescued them from the streets. Like found the dog with no tags and no chip somewhere near where they live, spent weeks advertising to find its owner, and decided to keep it when no owner surfaced.
Yes, because it's clear as day that you're a closeted racist. The argument that you're trying to push, the dishonest appeal to statistics, even the language that you use -- you're trying to normalise the idea that some "breeds" are more dangerous than others, but you're too scared to say that even though you're talking about dogs, what you actually have in mind are humans. Go on, don't be shy, show us your twitter alt where instead of fatal attack statistic you post crime rate graphs and pretend that it's evidence that black people don't serve rights.
That is a wild leap to make. Just mind boggling. Dogs are not people, and people are not dogs. If that were not the case, a lot of the behavior and culture around dogs would be alarming, at best.
You're misrepresenting my argument. We both agree that dogs are not people and people are not dogs, and that having a specific opinion about dog breeds is different from having a specific opinion about race.
What I'm saying is that, even if you set aside questions of data reliability, there are dozens if not hundreds of ways to interpret the graph that everyone in this thread keeps posting. What if all dog breeds are equally aggressive, but only some are physically capable of killing a human? What if dog breeds that look more aggressive attract irresponsible owners that train them to be more aggressive and intentionally put them into dangerous situations around other humans? Of all the possible conclusions, that guy jumps to some breeds are just inherently more dangerous than others. This is the same logical leap that a racist follows when confronted with statistics about crime rate vs race.
And it's not just that. Notice their language. Their comment is phrased like a question rather than a statement, a pattern that not-so-pleasant people are notorious for (look up "JAQing off"). The EDIT uses classic catchphrases like "Use your brain, not your feeeelings!". This fits the verbiage of a modern internet racist to a tee.
Look, what I said about the alt twitter account was an exaggeration. Maybe the guy is genuinely not racist. But even if they are, why should I bother differentiating between a racist and someone whose arguments, language, and misuse of logic is functionally indistinguishable from those of a racist? The moment racism starts to enter the mainstream (due to a right-wing government or similar), I expect people like that to put up no resistance.
Jesus that's sad. Everyone holding your hand trying to walk you down this path of actually learning about how research and science is performed and how to look into a source and you still just decide to spew nonsense.
I hope you learn to walk on your own one day. Don't stop reading and looking into sources just because you found something you like. All of your shit is crappy research that the authors conclude is bad data. It's why the precious dogbite.org focuses on a 1970-99 cdc study, a media review study for statistics slaps forehead.
It's obvious this meme brought in a lot of people who love to classify "undesirables" and a few willing to put up with the misinformation to actually try and teach someone how to do proper research without just "believing" from a few misquoted or misguided articles. I saw at least one person doing the work and realized your links and claims were bullshit so something was accomplished I suppose.
Can you identify a pitbull?
Because pitbulls are often associated with Latinos
Yeah, people think pitbulls are dangerous because of racism. 🙄
Yeah, people think black men are dangerous because of racism. 🙄
That's what you sound like, smh.
Disclaimer: I've not vetted the statistic I posted but seen similar numbers before.
This tracking who died, not who fired the shot.
Jep, like I said did not look too closely into it. Anyway, the point is that taking statistics in a vacuum can lead to strange conclusions.
Btw the gist I was going for, that statistically black men make up a disproportionate chunk of the homicide perpetrators in the US is a fact.
Still misleading on its own as it does not give insight into the cause of the discrepancy. Racists use this all the time to justify bigotry.
The gist you actually provided was "you are doing a bad thing and I'm disappointed in you, smh" and then proceeded to do something very similar followed by a non-apology.
I actually agree with your point but it's still a shitty way to do it.
How do you know you have a weak argument? You post "evidence" that has no relevance to the discussion because you're so focused on your feeeelings you ignore facts and statistics.
Yes, I did not look too closely into the statistic in the picture but see my other comment where I provided a more relevant statistic.
You're getting downvoted but you're right, if it was a wealthy white people dog it wouldn't be banned everywhere.
Not a ton of latinos in the UK, and they're banned there.
Right that's why I phrased my comment the way I did. Depending on the area it might be perceived as a trailer trash dog, a dog poor black people have, or a Latino dog. Either way, plenty of other breeds just as risky, if not more risky, that people don't perceive the same way.
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?
Do any of them meet the classic stereotype when it comes to like licking infants’ faces n stuff? No offense to your buddies of course!
The trope would be something like:
(Of course it’s just a different risk tolerance like we all have with all kinds of things)
None of them have kids, but I've spent a lot of time around my friends and their dogs. They are just dogs. Many of them are extremely affectionate. When I was a kid my family had a German Shepherd with showdog lineage and my mother had a lifetime of experience of owning and training dogs. Our shepherd exhibited substantially more aggression than any of my friends' pitbulls.
Yes, big, strong dogs can do more harm than smaller dogs and pitbulls can be big and strong. That does make them capable of being more dangerous if something goes wrong. I can't argue with that. However, the mentality is that pitbulls are inherently violent or behave violently by natur is what I call bullshit on.
Pitbulls are regarded as dangerous and vicious. They are also abused and subjected to fighting by their owners because that is their reputation. It's so fucked up. Then, bad owners want a scary dog, treat it poorly, don't train it and when it acts like any mistreated, traumatized animal would the world declares it inherently violent. There is such a thing as a self fulfilling prophecy.
Hell, one friend has a pit mix that is like < 30 lbs, full grown. I've never seen it do anything any other dog wouldn't do. Still, he's extremely careful with it because of the prejudice people have against the breed. Once I was hiking with him and another man with his own dog crossed our path. My friend stepped off the path and kept the dog seated and on a short leash in an attempt to reassure the guy well before he got close to us. The guy immediately asked my friend if his dog was a pitbull and berated him as he passed, furious that my friend would be irresponsible enough to own a pitbull.
Many of the people in this thread remind me of that man.
Another story. One of my coworkers paid thousands of dollars in vet bills for their neighbor in order to stop them from trying to get my coworkers dog put down (and it wasn't one of those "scary" breeds). All because the neighbors small, aggressive dog charged the bigger dog. In its attempt to get away, the bigger dog scrambled and accidentally stepped on the smaller dog and injured it. A poorly trained, off leash small dog almost cost a perfectly average dog it's life because the owners didn't bother to restrain it... but the bad owners made out in the end.
One last story. I was hiking with the tankiest, strongest pitbull of all the ones I know. This guy doesn't want anything to do with other dogs. It's not aggressive - it's frightened. We came across another hiker with their dog... the hiker said his dog was friendly and my friend immediately stated that their dog wasn't interested in making new friends. The hiker ignored the statement and let go of their dog's leash, letting the dog rush the pitbull tank barking and running circles around it. The pitbull panicked and couldn't get away and my friend had to try to keep the other dog away from the pitbull for the pitbull's sake. No harm was done beyond a poor, stressed out pitbull and a pissed off friend.
Should pitbulls exist? I'm indifferent, especially when it comes to purebreds. That doesn't mean that I want them exterminated or left to rot in shelters. Just let dogs be dogs. Try to make sure puppies come out healthy and worry less about whether they look the way you want them to.
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.
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.