Pit Bulls

@Robert Gentel,

... but the discussion cannot be broadened to lightning strikes or for that matter husbands that kill wives and families.

A "pit bull or rottie dog who statistically is shown to be dangerous and might be considered as a loaded weapon. Disproportionately skewed statistics show these dogs are proven (to some of us in society) is a potentially dangerous combination to the elderly and children when combined with a careless or untrained owner. I exclude the mortalities from trained fighting dogs because that is akin to not just a loaded weapon but is like a canon or a machine gun.

RG: out of curiosity, why is that you aren't taking RM to task about his many side-steps in logic and poor rebuttal? I'm not being snarky here. i jsut dont' understand. He doesn't seem to read any statistics posted and continues to argue without listening to some vaild points made.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Everybody seems focused on the few deaths comparatively to the population.

And forgetting the 800 000 people that need medical assistance for dog bites every year in the US (out of almost 5 million bites)..

It's natural that injuries outpace death, what makes you think that is forgotten? I'm familar with the injury statistics (enough to know that over half of the number you cite are not emergency visits, and that number includes things like making sure a small bite doesn't get infected) but still find it absurd to focus on pit bulls.

0 Replies

@Francis,

yes..my point is that..no matter how people judge the size of this number it still remains somerthing that could be prevented. no dogs like the rottie and the pit buull (and their mixes or wolves and wolf-mixes) is so disporoportionare in statisdtic analysis due to their bite severity and mortalities inflicted.

I'm done debating this part of the issue 'cause those who won't see the statistics and glean a logical conclusion in tbhis thread prevent further progress in the debate.

My focus is on what can be done to fix the problem. I ssuggest educating the owners/handlers and regulate the breed so as to prevent those who train them for fighting are put out of business (like Michael Vick). The Fed gov't acted rightly and he lost $50m because he wanted to feed a deadly industry that raised pit bulls to fight. Who knows where those dogs that aurvie can end up? Next door to your child or elderly parent?

Those that train such dogs for guard or defense, are to be tightly regulated. Vigilance over them should be regular as to who they sell dogs to and the humaneness of how the dogs are treated. the issue is saving people from unneeded harm and people from stupid accidents.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

... but the discussion cannot be broadened to lightning strikes or for that matter husbands that kill wives and families.

Why? If we consider lightning to be a freak occurrence then showing that pit bulls are several times less dangerous than lightning is relevant. It shows that the fear that surrounds the pit bull is not entirely objective in nature.

Quote:

A "pit bull or rottie dog who statistically is shown to be dangerous and might be considered as a loaded weapon.

The important part is how dangerous and what redeeming value it has. Everything is dangerous Ragman!

Quote:

Disproportionately skewed statistics show these dogs are proven (to some of us in society) is a potentially dangerous combination to the elderly and children when combined with a careless or untrained owner.

Statistics make a much better case for banning black people than pit bulls. Black people are disproportionately represented in crime just like certain breeds are disproportionately represented in dog attacks. Black people are also statistically much more dangerous than pit bulls.

Now the redeeming value of humans and the obvious racism make this something a sane person will likely reject out of hand but the statistical argument for pit bulls is much weaker.

Quote:

RG: out of curiosity, why is that you aren't taking RM to task about his many side-steps in logic and poor rebuttal?

1) I haven't been reading Bills posts.
2) It doesn't matter.

I get so tired of the "why don't you criticize those guys too" arguments on a2k. There is a name for this kind of argument (tu quoque, or "you too") and it's a weak ad hominem that ignores whether the argument has validity while preferring to try to establish inconsistency in its application on the part of the person who said it.

Quote:

I'm not being snarky here. i jsut dont' understand. He doesn't seem to read any statistics posted and continues to argue without listening to some vaild points made.

Whether or not his arguments are valid have no bearing on whether mine are, and whether or not I choose to respond to them have even less.

Do you get why tu quoque is a pointless red herring? It happens every day here in politics discussions. If someone criticizes Obama someone points out that they didn't criticize Bush for something similar. Sometimes they even generalize that across whole political camps and if a liberal accuses Bush of something years ago they will demand that all liberals criticize Obama for something similar.

It's frustrating because it's a pointless red herring. If the criticism is valid it is valid and it doesn't matter if the person is biased or not or has a personal agenda. Questioning the person's bias instead of addressing the argument happens all the time here, and might well be the most common logical fallacy committed on a2k.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I can't see a logical analysis here. What can we do about lightning strikes? Has it a life or responds to reason or influnce? you have a chance 'cause a dog might respond and a trainer/handler does. It might be a freak occurence but that is the only similarity - a mathematical rarity.

With lightning, you put up lightning arrestors and cross your fingers when you have to be in an open field when lightning is in your vicinity. Uncontrollable act of nature.

Lightning cannot be harnessed but pit bulls and dangerous dogs might be. and the cost of doing so is worth the trade-off.

No everything is not dangerous. That is an absurdist argument. Take cigarette smoking for the moment. US gov't as a whole decided that it's dangerous..and did something about and despite the civil rights issue argument (which I can see BTW), it can be argued that as a group regulators actually stopped some deaths from cigarette smoking. The numbers went down. Debate that as you will, but some lives are saved. Save my child, and I'm eternally grateful for a pit bull or rottie and idjit owner/handler being regualted

2 Replies

@Ragman,

I read a novel once (James Patterson?) where a character was overly frightened of everything. The rule she was to try to live by was to not be frightened of anything less likely to happen than being struck by lightning.

2 Replies

@parados,

conversely, some fears are justifiable. Do not misrepresent my stance here. Peronally, I have no extreme fear of pit bulls or rotties. I have a realistic fear though of idjit owners and dogs uncontrolled or mishandled. I have no fear of traiffc where there's a great chance of daily exposure to death every day. I have no fear of nukes but I don't live near one.

There are reasonable steps to prevent exposure to "preventable" accidents. Lightning is not 100% preventable and has no way of being interacted with using intellect and psyscholgy. Steps that I suggested being taken can be considered by many as reasonable, achievable and their tradeoffs are within the realm of tolerable to the majority.

How are you peronally hurt by my suggested control and regulation of potentially dangerous dogs?

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

I can't see a logical analysis here. What can we do about lightning strikes?

The point isn't that I want something done about lightning (and yes, you can do something about it, including building codes), it's that nobody thinks lightning is a statistical threat, and lightning kills almost 10 times more people than pit bulls a year.

So when they start pulling out statistics on pit bulls it's a useful comparison that shows an inordinate concern for an exotic danger.

But I get that to some extent this is similar to the tu quoque arguments that I criticized.

Quote:

Has it a life or responds to reason or influnce?

If your point is that we can't do anything about it that is not true. I'll elaborate below.

Quote:

you have a chance 'cause a dog might respond and a trainer/handler does. It might be a freak occurence but that is the only similarity - a mathematical rarity.

Well note then that you seem to think lightning is not something worth worrying about and that you are pointing to statistics to drum up concern about pit bulls. Then note that pit bulls are statistically many times less dangerous than lightning.

Quote:

With lightning, you put up lightning arrestors and cross your fingers when you have to be in an open field when lightning is in your vicinity. Uncontrollable act of nature.

I disagree, I think we can reduce lightning deaths more than we can reduce dog mauling deaths by banning pit bulls (banning all dogs is what it would take to make a significant change there). See below:

Quote:

http://weather.about.com/od/thunderstormsandlightning/f/lightningdeaths.htm
Before 1994
In the United States, lightning strikes from 1959-1994 killed 3239 people.

After 1994
And, between 1995 and 2004, another 489 people lost their lives. The reduction in numbers was likely due to increased education about lightning safety.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I read a novel once (James Patterson?) where a character was overly frightened of everything. The rule she was to try to live by was to not be frightened of anything less likely to happen than being struck by lightning.

I find it a useful yardstick as well. Humans tend to be so much more afraid of exotic deaths. We fear airplanes more than cars, ignoring the statistical measures of danger.

I object to government regulations that infringe on personal freedoms when the danger is statistically so small, and the stereotypical freak accident of lightning is a useful tool for me in measuring fears against each other.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Not in agreement here. Either you misunderstand me or I've failed to explain myself well (common occurence).

It's not about numbers..because we agree that numbers are small. You see this is a relativist. I see it as an absolutist. I think it is offensive because I absolutely think that 50 deaths that can be preventable are too much! You say, it's acceptable.

Edit: People can roll out the gun control debate fiasco here. Civil Libertarians will wring there hands and flip out over this! I don't blame them, either. Civil liberties can be enfringwed upon here, but lives can be in the balance.

I say that if you adhere to building codes where you live or build, and avoid berng in harm's way, that's all you can do! Can't ignore the danger. Similarly, with steps to take for prevention of fatal and dangerous dog bites in our society, take all appropriate precautions. Not be hysterical. Don't pass the steps by!

I logically suggest some more regulation, control, enforcement and changes to how some breeders "deconstruct" the dog breed. Are you debating that my steps arer odious or not a good tradeoff? If you do, we will agree to disagree. Isn't that called 'cognitive dissonance?"

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

More on the it not a toaster posting.

My last dog was a small little female name Muffin who life ended with my hands on her at the vet in 1992 from old age. I did everything that I could to extended her life up to blood transfusions and would had cheerfully had make a deal with either god or the devil to trade years of my life span to give to her.

I had never been an owner of a Pitt Bull however I seen nothing in the Pitt Bull breed that would had stop me from forming the same level of emotional attachment to a dog of that breed as I did form with my beloved little mixed breed female so long ago.

Now of the millions of households with Pitt Bulls in this country you are going to run into a small percent of households who love their dogs at this same “irrational?” level numbering in the thousands at least.

I do not know how many people who would be willing to take on a Swat team to defend not having their toaster melted down but there not a question in my mind that any program to seize and kill millions of family pets under the color of law would result be blood running in the street and not from dog bits.

Dogs are not toasters or computer batteries or car tires.

2 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

I logically suggest some more regulation, control, enforcement and changes to how some breeders "deconstruct" the dog breed. Are you debating that my steps arer odious or not a good tradeoff?

Yes. I think that pit bulls are statistically negligible of a threat and that those kinds of regulations won't do much to address the already insignificant threat.

If people don't want to live near dangerous dogs there are private options for this (e.g. private communities that ban large dogs). Big dogs can feel more scary than they actually are statistically so I understand it (I have a small dog and don't like going out on the street to find a pit bull myself) but I don't want any government getting involved if there is no significant threat and if their actions can't really do much other than infringe on individual freedom.

On that last count, at least your proposed regulations, though vague, don't seem to infringe as much as a breed ban would be (and what most of the pit bull debate is focused on).

Quote:

If you do, we will agree to disagree. Isn't that called 'cognitive dissonance?"

No, it's just everyday disagreement. Cognitive dissonance does not refer to two people disagreeing on something.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

with all due repsect, i find your examples quite symapthetic but you continually obfuscate the issue. you know what you want to say, perjaps, I jsut don';t follow your thinking. I like some pit bulls and some rotties too. At the risk of tediousness, I wrote earlier that indivdually I find that their cuddly and lovable.

Hell, for that matter, I can ooh and ahh over a Remington shot gun too, .but I would make sure the safety is on and/or that it's not friggin' loaded. You cannot or will not see the logic behind my interpretation of issue after repeated explanation. I feel that your bringing up unrelated dog stories only serves to obfuscate. Perhaps it's due to cultural or language differences, but I have done what I can to represent these points the best I can. you can bring a horse to water...etc.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I can no longer exhange in debate with you..i'm sorry, my fault but my limitation and patience is reached. Your obscure and obfuscating points about Muffin, toasters, affection for breeds of dogs, and other obscurities defies my ability to comment on. The final straw about killing millions of dogs puts this over the top Take some time ..about 2 minutes and read what suggestions I made. Tell me or anyone else here where you saw me say anything about killing millions or any single dog?

Why particpate in a debate if you will not take the time to read and comprehend what a person writes?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Wikipedia defintion: Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

We hold two contradictory ideas simulataneously. We both showed our logic proposals and and our feelings/atttides and an awereness od each other's behavior...cannot come to agreement, hence the dissonance.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

So isolating the one example you had about reducing lightning deaths through education WORKED? Consequently, a proposal for educating the public, the breeders, owner/handlers about pit bull, rottie and large dog potential dangers is an agreed upon area-- NO? Why not take it one step further and regulate breeders who breed for fighters too?

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

We hold two contradictory ideas simulataneously. We both showed our logic proposals and and our feelings/atttides and an awereness od each other's behavior...cannot come to agreement, hence the dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is when one entity (individual, group etc) holds contradictory ideas, not when two people disagree on something.

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

So isolating the one example you had about reducing lightning deaths through education WORKED? Consequently, a proposal for educating the public, the breeders, owner/handlers about pit bull, rottie and large dog potential dangers is an agreed upon area-- NO? Why not take it one step further and regulate breeders who breed for fighters too?

You didn't say anything about education you said:

"I logically suggest some more regulation, control, enforcement and changes to how some breeders "deconstruct" the dog breed."

This is vague, and no I don't think it hints at anything that would substantially reduce the danger.

Educating the public that kids should never be left alone with large dogs will go a lot further than any pit bull-specific regulation about their breeding. Thing is, I've never said a word against any education on this subject. I'm arguing against a breed ban, and against restrictive legislation.

Quote:

Why not take it one step further and regulate breeders who breed for fighters too?

For one, this "regulation" (without any specifics about what it would purport to do it's like asking me if I support "a new law") is too vague to agree or disagree with. For two, even if I try to think the specifics for you I can't think of anything I'd think was worth making a new law about.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

But why not simply phase out a breed of dog that is statistically more dangerous in unpredictability and the degree of injury inflicted? As an all-time passionate and fiercely protective dog lover--all animals actually--I am certainly not opposing dogs or the people who own them. But we have already posted numerous cases where children and adults were attacked simply walking along a sidewalk or in their own yard. If one particular breed is identified as especially dangerous and unpredictable, is it such an assault on freedom to promote an initiative to stop breeding and distributing such dogs?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

thanks ,foxfyre for picking up the debate. I'm debating not just for the sake of debate (Although I enjoy the repartee). I flopped so I'm firing myself.
RG: You're right about my usage of cognitive dissonance. I looked it up and I had been misusing it for going on 10 yrs. This old dog learned a new trick, but my bite isn't fatal.

Foxfyre is taking this debate further about dangers of breed- specific issues of pit bull and rottie. I'll let him take this baton while I wrap my muddled head around a beer.

the question I have to Foxfyre: how would you phase them out? how long would you take to do it and how would you implement it?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know