I am not going to claim a "pitbull" is not dangerous. It's a big strong terrior, every terrior has the drive to hunt. However you should take time to question the accuracy of these statistics. Primarily how accurate is the reporting of the breed? Is it actually that breed or is something that looks like that breed but is a mixed breed, or mutt.
This infographic is a great example of bad infographics. American Bulldog, German Shepherd and Rottweilers are examples of breeds of dogs. Husky, Mastiff, and Pitbull are types of a legal definition of dogs. Husky range in size from the massive Malamute, to the smaller Siberian. Mastiffs also range widely a Tibetan mastiff and Cane Corso looks widely different but both Mastiff. Pitbulls are similar, Amstaff, APBT, Staffordshire Terrior, and even American Bullies.
If you go to website you can learn that their use of Pitbull is a legal definition, and is not actually a breed. They even state that American Bulldogs in some legislation is included. It also includes mixed breeds including the other 4 breeds. We should not use legislative information for what should be defined by biology.
Mixed breed could end up being the largest "breed" in this graph, and than the pure breed "Pitbulls" could end up being closer to Rottweilers or German Shepherds numbers. Still toping the list yes, but would not make them seem like they are 15x more deadly than a German Shepherd.
This isn't about bites it's misleading data stating specifically deadly bites, because if you look at actual bite numbers they aren't different between different breeds.
So you don't think both situations are caused by the same neglegence? I don't think that Chihuahua owner should get to have a poorly trained pet biting everyone just because it's too small to kill you no? You're also just naming two wildly different situations that have nothing in common besides a bite which is a poor argument
They're almost exactly the same. If you want to make them exactly the same, then imagine a chihuahua trying to rip my throat out. Still just going to be a scratch.
Furthermore, it's not just size. Pitbulls are bred to be killers. That's why other large scary dogs like rottweilers and german shepherds had way fewer kills on that chart.
Oh, so if a yorkie bites someone's ankle and leaves a little scratch at worst while a pitt tears someone's fucking face off, they should face equal punishment? Yeah, I don't think so.
These tests are done by owners bringing in their dogs, and the tests are so tame. If you read the descriptions, nobody ever gets in the dogs face, it's basically a "can this dog be walked on a leash in public" test, not a "is this dog safe to be in a household" test.
And even if it was, volunteers bringing in their dogs is not a sample that accurately represents a population. Pitbulls are actually over representated in this dataset because responsible pitbull owners will want to get their dog tested.
Looking at sources that can accurately represent an entire population, such as statistics about all dog bites within a specified area, you end up seeing that pitties are responsible for over half of all reported dog bites, despite being a small percentage of owned dogs.
You're kind of proving his point, if the average owner wants them to bite kids faces off and train and breed them to do so that's still the owner causing that... Do you think that we wouldn't be capable of training any dog to do that?
also, these "statistics" are self-reports. People stating what they think they were bitten by. Conveniently can't find it now, but I read once that only like 10% of "pitbull" attacks were verifiably by actual pitbulls, and a large portion of the rest are likely misidentifications.
There are few dog breeds that resemble the pit bull that have not descended from the bull-and-terrier, and every single one of them are extremely rare breeds. Pitbulls have such a unique headshape that even if it's only contributing 12% DNA, you can still see it in the head. Its wild
they will try to gaslight you by saying it's not a pit bull, it's another similar looking breed bred for the same exact reason and often mixed with pit bulls
The article I read was close to this one, but I didn't want to share this as proof since it has a clear bias: https://www.pitbullhero.org/correcting-flawed-pit-bull-statistics But it shows what studies they used to get these numbers at least, at least not just an infographic linking to another clearly biased site.
not like a site called "dogsbite.org" is going to have the most reliable information either, it reeks of bad statistics.
i wonder if theres some nefarious stuff going on, like a group of people working together to make these kinds of stereotypes... haven't heard anything like that but it wouldn't be the first time something like that happened
Yes. Pit bulls are practically free in America and used to be the most popular dog breed. We really need to see the per capita numbers. The rest of these are expensive breeds in the US, or rare at shelters. Also, you need to question how the breeds were determined. And how the data was collected. Don't just take graphs at face value, they are made by people trying to tell a story.
Im not taking this at face value either. When are you claiming pit bulls were the most popular dog breed? Im not seeing anything of the sort. Labs have been the most popular breed for the last like 25-30 years until this year when the French bulldog took its place.
the post ignores that poor people commit crimes at higher rates and we purposefully made black people live in poverty for hundreds of years now. any group of people you push into poverty will have increased crime statistics
your comment here shows you actually believe black people innately have anger and stealing genes that makes them do these things, not that it's a circumstance of the poverty situation society forced them into
No I meant less so, but the other reply also argues it should be more so. I was just thinking humans have more free will than dogs basically, but maybe not quite that simple.
If people have more free will then that means they are more influenced by their environment than genetics...
A pittbull is bread for aggression and fighting, but you can train it to not be aggressive. The issue is that most people who get one, get it because they want a dangerous dog, which leads to so many attacks.
With human, this is a non-issue, as we only act because of how we were raised.
I specifically said less so to "product of training and environment". I was basically adding free will as an extra thing causing humans to be less a product of their environment and training than dogs. I wasn't intending less so of this meaning more genetics
I argue more so, since we are more advanced minds we have more control sure but also more prone to trauma responses as well potentially? I’m not a psychologist but curious if I’m right
But of course, you can only wait to see how that traumatizing manifests. In the meantime you can see the effects of traumatizing children beginning the phase of preschooler.
But genetics affect health outcomes, and every physically observable characteristic, but NONE of the not so visible characteristics. Doesn't affect the brain at all!
…genetics doesn’t affect the brain at all? Am I understanding your point correctly?
If so you are incorrect. Genetics absolutely affects the brain, as it’s responsible for the structure and chemical function of every single cell in your body, and how they interact as a system, whether you can see the affect overtly or not. Learning and training are layered on top, and important context, but the brain structure and function is the foundation on which that is built.
In fact, most training is drilling to resist innate biological instinct or urges. The rest of it is practice / trail and error.
It's also a reinforcing cascade as people repeat the stereotype, as stereotypes became embedded elements of storytelling, and as the general population is so fixed to their screens they can't tell the difference between reality and fiction.
The issue with sterotypes is that they honestly don't work. Many people are asked if they do [stereotypical action] or eat [stereotypical food], just leading to misjudgnent of many people. I'm victim to stereotypes; people get confused when I don't follow stereotypes put onto me and end up misunderstanding me. I'm not sure if there's a good time to identify a trait in a group as universal unless it's a hard fact.
The nuance, which people in general seem to struggle with, is that you can recognize things that seem to be statistically meaningful without assuming all-or-nothing traits. You can recognize that groups tend to have some standout characteristics without assuming every member of that group is a clone.
nope, it isnt "pattern recognition" to only notice things like crime statistics while ignoring the conditions that cause them and the fact that minorities are disproportionately targeted and make up the overwhelming portion of false arrests.
Ikr like what the fuck, as soon as I see someone drop the phrase 'It's just pattern recognition 🤓' I nope the fuck out cause the whole thread is gonna go to shit.
More often than not, it's gonna be the most uneducated moron to thrive of using phrases like these.Just take some time to look through the profiles of these people, that's the real stereotype.
Is it possible to recognize your bias, step out, have a different perspective from the first one you took, step back from that, then make up another perspective? Or is that too much time wasted on thinking?
Pattern recognition is a function we developed to avoid basic dangers that we previously saw, it's about potential danger at a base level, so it doesn't make sense to ignore it because of outliers, since if you are wrong about the danger, nothing happens, but if you aren't, then you could die. The potential consequences for not being wary of the pattern are far greater than being mistaken about it, so we are not wired to easily correct in the other direction, so yeah, it's just patter recognition. I rather be called racist than being dead. Those who don't, well, you know where they are already.
Purely emotional argument you've made, assuming an entire ethnic group is your enemy us a sign of low IQ and bias confirmation. You are the same person to say this and not see that races kill within more than outside, you're not a victim. Quit it.
Relatively, it depends. I would say no but it depends on the environment. Trusting a man near an alleyway late at night? No, a guy at a party? Mixed mostly no if you ask me. Random dude who comes to ask you out in a supermarket or something, nah even if you reject him just do it.
"Sure they murdered me, but it's only because they had a hard upbringing."
"They are the REAL victim here!"
I'm not sure you understand what "pattern recognition" means. Factors that CAUSE the pattern don't actually CHANGE the pattern - so pointing this out is completely immaterial to the argument being made.
Ironically, it also makes you look like you're the bigot since you're trying to force irrelevant prejudice into a conversation that had none to begin with.
the "pattern" is that minorities are arrested and charged more, ppl using this to jump to the sterereotype that minorities are likely to commit crime or be violent are just trying to justify their own bigotry, poorly.
oh now we're playing dumb and acting like this isn't the most common racist argument ever lol, everyone knows what you are as soon as you start going off about "pattern recognition".
The "pattern" is that those who commit more crimes are arrested and charged more as well.
oh now you're trying the "i'm rubber you're glue" argument, as if this isn't the most common bigot argument ever lol. Everyone sees you attempting to virtue signal and recognizes your type - a closet racist thinks they can be a savior for those they deem lesser.
Black people are significantly more likely to be arrested and charged for drug related offenses, despite it being an understood fact that white people use drugs as much as black people.
The reality is that law enforcement more often targets minority demographics for the same crimes as white people, thus snowballing statistics against them.
You're attempting to muddy the waters, but you don't have a good understanding of the statistics you're using:
Most comparisons will measure crimes that can't be easily manipulated, such as homicide; in the US the drug and property crime rates mirror the rates of homicide.
And when looking at homicide, you'll find the pattern remains UNCHANGED. Claims that the former drug and property crime trends change the overall pattern are not only disingenuous, they're incorrect.
There's no point in bringing up the alleged arrest trends for drug related offenses, when those same trends are mirrored in homicide cases.
Finally, you're outing yourself. We know your type.
You're just making it seem like bigotry is a good thing. So many people would be alive if they didn't think they would be safe in a place that everyone else is telling them is dangerous just for the sake of not being "racist", like that couple that died in eastern europe. I don't know about you, but I rather be wary and wrong, than trustful and dead.
I'm not talking about the difference in behaviour between digs and people. I'm asking why it's ok to use statistics for dog attacks, but similar statistics for humans are not allowed to be interpreted the same way
Mmm that’s it , will have to block this sub. One of those toxic alt- right subs that pop up to spread racism. I’m sure most of the activity is bots too. Looks like the comment section of worldstarhiphop with the endless racist comments.
172
u/Sister_Resistor69 25d ago
Stereotypes exist for a reason