stupid first world problems you're dealing with

[caze]

no

[caze]

 

 

there are dogs that are bred to be more aggressive, that's what breeding is about, it's not just about having a puppydog with strong jaw and big teeth, it's about having a fighting nature or a searching nature, or a running nature. Isn't it funny how we can say that it's fine to wipe out all the humans that own these dogs, they are just worthless trash, kill them all and yet feel nothing but compassion for the animal, it's only it's environment that made it that way, it's not a born predator. Perhaps it's the environment that made those people that way too, they'd be on a leash if they hadn't grown up in a ghetto being kicked around, neglected and beaten into the ghoulish form that you now find them in.

 

Or perhaps it's a little of both nature and nurture and we can look at it on a case by genetic make up basis.

 

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.

Edited July 9, 2015 by caze

[Bechuga]

Fuck dogs, they're just posers who wish they were wolves

 

(actually some dogs are OK, corgis are cute ) (yes I know it's not a corgi, suck my lipstick)

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

there are dogs that are bred to be more aggressive, that's what breeding is about, it's not just about having a puppydog with strong jaw and big teeth, it's about having a fighting nature or a searching nature, or a running nature. Isn't it funny how we can say that it's fine to wipe out all the humans that own these dogs, they are just worthless trash, kill them all and yet feel nothing but compassion for the animal, it's only it's environment that made it that way, it's not a born predator. Perhaps it's the environment that made those people that way too, they'd be on a leash if they hadn't grown up in a ghetto being kicked around, neglected and beaten into the ghoulish form that you now find them in.

 

Or perhaps it's a little of both nature and nurture and we can look at it on a case by genetic make up basis.

 

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.

 

 

Evidence: http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2014.pdf

[caze]

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.

[Bechuga]

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.

 

http://www.whyihatedogs.com/

 

You can't refute evidence like this.

[chenGOD]

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.

 

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.

[caze]

what an asshole.

 

lol, not you chen, the ihatedogs guy. you nipped in there before I replied.

Edited July 10, 2015 by caze

[Hugh Mughnus]

Pit bull isn't even an actual, specific breed, it's not recognized by any of the breeders association.

 

It is used broadly to describe (often terriers) dogs that were bred to fight.

 

A quick wikipedia search:

 

Pit bulls were created by breeding bulldogs and terriers together to produce a dog that combined the gameness and agility of the terrier with the strength of the bulldog.^[3] In the United Kingdom, these dogs were used in blood sports such as bull-baiting, bear-baiting and cock fighting.

 

 

Just sayin'...

Edited July 10, 2015 by StephenG

[caze]

 

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.

 

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.

[cwmbrancity]

The common link between certain breeds and biting is they're "trained"by assholes who are looking for a muscular breed to intimidate other humans with.

 

Therefore, theres always going to be a distribution bias.

 

I've re-homed rescue dogs for a good few years and their transformation over a few weeks via consistent training to a new home & active healthy life is 1 of the main reasons i keep doing it. Never been bitten, but been scrammed to fuck plenty of times by cats owned by mates. Now those are some sneaky evil cunts,,,,,,,,

 

 

Haha quality, hardcore nut allergist spaz here and i get that from the peanut lovin missus all the cunting time

[chenGOD]

Pit bull isn't even an actual, specific breed, it's not recognized by any of the breeders association.

 

It is used broadly to describe (often terriers) dogs that were bred to fight.

 

A quick wikipedia search:

 

Pit bulls were created by breeding bulldogs and terriers together to produce a dog that combined the gameness and agility of the terrier with the strength of the bulldog.^[3] In the United Kingdom, these dogs were used in blood sports such as bull-baiting, bear-baiting and cock fighting.

 

 

Just sayin'...

 

Sorry Stephen G - I'll describe them better: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

*punches self in the face. with dick*

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

So you counter with unsourced conjecture of your own?

 

Also the first link says that they specifically excluded attacks from police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight.

 

The common link between certain breeds and biting is they're "trained"by assholes who are looking for a muscular breed to intimidate other humans with.

 

Therefore, theres always going to be a distribution bias.

 

I've re-homed rescue dogs for a good few years and their transformation over a few weeks via consistent training to a new home & active healthy life is 1 of the main reasons i keep doing it. Never been bitten, but been scrammed to fuck plenty of times by cats owned by mates. Now those are some sneaky evil cunts,,,,,,,,

 

 

Haha quality, hardcore nut allergist spaz here and i get that from the peanut lovin missus all the cunting time

 

So all 3,400 plus cases were because the owners were cunts?

[delet...]

so people can be cunts but not dogs and there is no such thing as selective breeding, well that's it then, open your bible to genesis and we'll have to start over.

[chenGOD]

Fucking magnets eh?

[caze]

so people can be cunts but not dogs and there is no such thing as selective breeding, well that's it then, open your bible to genesis and we'll have to start over.

 

i never said anything even vaguely resembling that.

[lala]

my enter key is sticking

Edited July 10, 2015 by lala

[caze]

So you counter with unsourced conjecture of your own?

 

Also the first link says that they specifically excluded attacks from police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight.

 

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.

[chenGOD]

There's a whole lot of weasel words in there. Note that the study you are referring to is from 2001, while the one I first listed is from 2014, and the resultant number of attacks increased dramatically. If we cannot infer from the data that certain breeds of dogs have aggressive traits, then you're basically saying that data collection is useless.

 

I don't have a problem with dogs in general, hell some of my best friends have a rescue doberman, and she's the sweetest dog ever (remember when dobermans were supposed to be falling out of the sky and leaping on children to sacrifice them to the great dog in the sky? - well that was nonsense - and there were only 9 reported fatalities from 1979 - 1998), and we used to own a springer spaniel when i was younger that was great fun to play with, but I would not allow a pit bull (sorry Stephen, an American Staffordshire Terrier) into my house.

 

Anyhow - I think I've derailed the FWP thread enough - sorry everybuddy!

 

My FWP - the temperature outside is not cold enough to warrant a sweater, yet not warm enough to just wear a shirt. I blame global warming.

[doublename]

[Friendly Foil]

Blame it on the owners and not the breed etc. A Rottweiler from a good home is no more "aggressive" than any other dog raised the same way. Saying otherwise is idiotic.

[cwmbrancity]

one thing i dont get is folks who let their dogs lick them all over their faces, when 5mins ago the dog was licking out its own ring-piece

 

and.....

 

[Zephyr_Nova]

Guys, stop dog shitting the fwp thread. Way too much dog shit in here. /my fwp of the day.

[entropi]

stupid first world problem: eating too much lovely-tasting crap, getting fat. boundaries, limits - hard to keep!

[lala]

I havent been able to drink soup for ages without spilling it occasionally

[chenGOD]

I havent been able to drink soup for ages without spilling it occasionally

 

Have you thought about using a straw?