• Alto@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Would you look at that, pitties pass at a higher rate than GSDs, Goldens, and most other highly popular dogs besides labs.

    Yet somehow they’re inherently evil or something asinine like that

    • FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think a lot of the problem is two things:

      • A certain aggressive portion of people DO think that pitbulls are violent dogs, so they take them on and train them to be aggressive dogs

      • Pitbulls are strong as hell, so when they do act aggressively they cause a lot of damage

      The real answer is to do something about the bad owners, because they give the whole breed a bad reputation. Continually saying that pitbulls are not a problem ignores this point.

      • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The real answer is to do something about the bad owners, because they give the whole breed a bad reputation. Continually saying that pitbulls are not a problem ignores this point.

        Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. If the bad owners are giving the breed a bad reputation, then the problem isn’t the breed. It’s the owners. What point does that miss?

        • FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m clearly saying that the owners are the problem. I’m not sure if you read it clearly.

      • Odusei@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It’s not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says “in the face of a threat.” Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.

        • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn’t step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren’t able to save them from injury.

          • Odusei@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.

          • Odusei@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You didn’t even quote a full sentence, so yes it’s out of context. That’s how quoting things out of context works.

              • Odusei@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.

                  • Odusei@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s one sentence. Just read the entire sentence you snipped those four words from. You come to a completely different conclusion with that full context.

      • overlyanxious@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog’s handler in various ways without the dog reacting> Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.

    • Hillock@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the results are a bit skewered because based on what I could find out these tests are done voluntarily by the owner. And obviously, if you own a “dangerous” breed and they are misbehaving you aren’t going to take the test.

      I highly doubt 95% of randomly selected Belgian Malinois would pass the test. They require a ton of training and without that they wouldn’t pass.

      With Golden Retrievers you will have more people undertake the test without undergoing proper training of their dog. Because they seem fine in daily life.

      Pitbulls are the most abandoned dog breed. Without proper training they are a danger to others. German shepherds are similar and many people underestimate them but Golden Retrievers are most often fine even with suboptimal training.

      The reason many of us want to ban pitbulls is because there are too many bad owners. It’s the same reason many of us want to ban guns. There are too many people who shouldn’t own guns or dogs. And ofcourse compromises are welcome, such as requiring certificates to own certain dog breeds. I think it would even be ideal to require it for every breed.

      • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I honestly had assumed most of the ban pit peeps were conservatives. Interesting to see so many on the left supporting this.

    • IMongoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pointer: bred to point, naturally will point birds with 0 training

      Heeler: bred to corral, naturally tries to corral things with 0 training

      Retriever: bred to retrieve, naturally compelled to retrieve with 0 training

      Terriers: bred to kill small animals, will go sicko mode on rats with 0 training

      Pitbulls: bred to fight dogs, oh it’s just how they are raised little hippo would never ever oh no why is there blood everywhere who could have foreseen this

      • saigot@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Pittbulls were bred to fight bulls and other large animals for sport or hunting. This required quite a lot of special training. The infamous locking jaw is an adaptation to allow them to hold onto a bucking bull. The dog fighting happened after baiting large animals was outlawed long after the breed was established.

        • IMongoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So after they weren’t bred to fight bulls and bears, what were they bred to do?

          • saigot@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Depends on what type of pitbull you are talking about (there are multiple pitbull breeds). Ratting is a big one, which is where their terrier parts come from. In frontier America they were used as all purpose dogs for hunting boar, ratting, guarding and herding. In the early 20th century they were primarily bred for companionship as they were seen as a breed that encompassed American values and were largely seen as a mascot for America up until around ww2. You’ll see pitties as a very common occurrence in most 19th and early 20th century american media, from ww2 properganda to little rascals to the personal pets of Helen Keller, Roosevelt, Mark twain and Edison.

            In the 70’s and 80’s was when their reputation for fighting dogs emerged following its illegalization in America and how common the dog was as a stray (because they were the popular “all american dog”). But since it was already illegal it wasn’t exactly the best breeders doing the breeding, so they weren’t really very good at selecting for specific traits, nor did it really last long enough to really take off. Breeding a dog to be a dog fighter is a little like breeding a horse for the glue factory, its not really something a serious dog breeder would waste their time on.