caze
-
Posts
5,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by caze
-
I'm not the one compiling a report here, just giving you the benefits of my personal experience. The 42% number looks bad when you give it without any context, but it actually says this: (emphasis mine) "Pit bull-type dogs, although not necessarily biting more often or being inherently more aggressive than any other breed, are overrepresented in the population of dogs inflicting fatal bites and those causing serious trauma. Forty-three of 101 (42%) dog bite-related deaths reported between 1979 and 1988 involved dogs identified as pit bull-type. Dogs identified as pit bulltype were involved in 4 of 10 incidents where an infant was pulled from a crib. A high proportion of stray dogs (37%) identified as pit bull-type have been implicated in dog bite-related fatalities.50 For no other breed is this scenario true, indicating that when we examine data for pit bull-type dogs, we need to understand their demographics. Unowned free-ranging dogs may be more likely to come from an environment that promotes, enhances, or accepts aggression, whereas owned dogs may have a completely different history.36,57 In other words, there may be > 1 population of pit bull type dogs, and if so, the data from these groups should be analyzed separately" It also says this: "Current information about factors affecting dog bites may be biased, because most data used to assess these factors have been obtained from bite incidents that required medical or surgical treatment. The nature and magnitude of this bias is, of course, unknown. Usually, the age of the victim, the type of dog, the ownership status of the dog, and the type of human injury sustained are recorded, but information about canine and human behaviors surrounding the bite is rarely included. When such information is available, it is seldom recorded in a manner that allows critical comparison" Also, you should probably read the section titled "Breeds, perceptions, behavior, and bites", and you'll see other limitations in the data, and why it's not possible to draw any conclusions with regard to breeds. For example: "On the basis of these data, bites from pit bull type dogs receive disproportionate attention when compared with bites from other breeds. Newspaper accounts from which many data are collected may not be reliable." This report seems to back up everything I'm saying basically.
-
i never said anything even vaguely resembling that.
-
What controls would you like? In a study of attacks by dogs, pit bulls were by far and away the most likely breed of dog to attack. What unsourced conjecture - they clearly state where they get their numbers. But fine here's another study, from a non-biased group: https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_218_12_1923.pdf Where 42% of dog bite-related deaths were caused by pit bulls. And another: https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_217_6_836.pdf Where more than half of dog bite-related fatalities were from pit-bulls or Rottweilers. Yes - other dogs can bite. This is an obvious fact. Yes, environment can play a role in a dog's behaviour. But to deny that there is something in the breeding of these dogs is willful ignorance. I'm not disputing the numbers, but they don't prove anything about innate prevalence of breeds to violence. if you don't control for the environmental conditions then the numbers are completely meaningless wrt breeds. breeds like pit bulls and rottweilers, due to their physical characteristics, and reinforced by their reputation, are far more common as guard dogs, fighting dogs, drug dealer's dogs, dog's of general assholes, all situations that reinforce violence from day one. plant a golden retriever into any of those situations and the likelihood of violence would be just as great as with any other breed. the unsourced conjecture I was referring to was with the descriptions of the dogs behavioural traits at the end btw, not the numbers.
-
what an asshole. lol, not you chen, the ihatedogs guy. you nipped in there before I replied.
-
that's not evidence of shit. where are the controls? it's also filled with unsourced conjecture. unsurprising, as it's from an advocacy group. show me something unbiased.
-
No, dogs aren't bred to be more aggressive, there are just certain owners who mistreat their dogs and train them to be assholes, and they tend to favour certain breeds of dogs. It wouldn't be impossible to breed dogs for aggressiveness actually, would only take a handful of generations (Russians did an interesting experiment with foxes that proves this), but that isn't what's happening here, you kick most any dog around and train him the right (wrong) way and they'll end up the same. Is it the same with humans? Probably to a degree, the assholishness is probably innate, but how it finds ways to express itself will vary wildly depending on circumstance. lol have you had a dog at some point in your life, methinks perhaps that there are as yet undiscovered dog born amoeba effecting dog owners, we must get the word out, this could be big, explain much. Also, the russians were replicating domestication and tamed the fox by selective breeding. Which then interestingly caused changes in fur colour and many of the things we see in dogs, like curled tails, etc. Nwae, to suggest that something called a fighting dog hasn't been bred to be such, not just in physical form but temperament is to be rather an odd thinker. There are many examples from the media of these types of dogs being seen as good family animals, going nuts when a small child strays into their garden. What is probably happening to cause your assessment is that a good owner is conditioning a naturally aggressive animal to be less so. Veering it's core nature towards a more sensible direction. What they should have done instead is buy something less stupid, or a cat. the russians did two experiments with foxes, one was to breed tameness, another to bread aggressiveness. so, while I am saying it's possible to do, I'm also saying it's not actually being done. unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary? your example of random dog attacks proves nothing with respect to dog breeds, as it happens with all kinds of dogs, from small yappy feckers to big dogs. any dog can attack a human, for a multitude of reasons, their is no correlation between dog breed and innate violent behavior. you, my friend, are a dog racist.
-
no
-
remind him that rednecks set up the kkk to persecute the irish.
-
No, dogs aren't bred to be more aggressive, there are just certain owners who mistreat their dogs and train them to be assholes, and they tend to favour certain breeds of dogs. It wouldn't be impossible to breed dogs for aggressiveness actually, would only take a handful of generations (Russians did an interesting experiment with foxes that proves this), but that isn't what's happening here, you kick most any dog around and train him the right (wrong) way and they'll end up the same. Is it the same with humans? Probably to a degree, the assholishness is probably innate, but how it finds ways to express itself will vary wildly depending on circumstance.
-
-
there are some great sequences though, like the one where they nip into town end up hooked on smack
-
ha, you're fucked no matter which one you choose. literally.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fRaorPQIhA
-
Finished watching Bloodline last night, was pretty good. Wasn't a fan of the flash-forward bits, ending would have been a lot better without it I think. Ben Mendelsohn was great in it, the rest of the family good too. Not sure they needed to wring another season out of it though, works well as a standalone little story.
-
yeah, there's no such thing as a dangerous dog breed. just asshole owners.
-
good stuff. small bug: I selected 10 tracks for the most loved, then un-selected one from the left-side list, but the entry on the right-side list remained selected.
-
Spring. Interesting and original. Dragged a bit towards the end, and a bit sappy as well. But mostly pretty happy with it, good job! They used their helicopter budget well.
-
Tag & Rename is what I use, but after an hour tagging shit and you realise you've still done fuck all it gets a bit disheartening. It requires a discipline that I lack.
-
eventually we'll be able to train google's acid-bot to correctly tag our music for us, but until then we're fucked (I have nearly 90,000 mostly unorganised files, so I feel your pain).
-
peacefully? does that include when they're torturing and killing other animals? dogs are far more chill once they've been trained, which earns them some bonus points I feel.
-
how are u watching it when its not even aired yet? nah, that's not fair. 30 rock wasn't your usual paint-by-numbers network sitcom. maybe not paint by numbers, but still more generic networky than shows like Malcom in the Middle which fox was airing decades previous first two episodes of R+M have leaked. Malcom in the middle was generic network bulshit, 30 rock was a good bit more subversive, even if it wasn't hugely subversive objectively speaking, I would put it in a different category...
-
cats are assholes. they're alright though, but never > dogs.
-
yeah, thanks to someone else in this thread (can't remember who, sorry) I tried various ways of speeding up the cheetas, works well. I think in the end I settled on time-stretching about 10% without changing the pitch, sounds great (there's an arpeggio at the end that sounds silly if it's any faster than that).
-
nah, that's not fair. 30 rock wasn't your usual paint-by-numbers network sitcom.
-
that was alright, basically the same jokes from 30 rock, but with different characters.
