Sophie's choice 70s edition

Assholes will get big dogs, abuse ignore and isolate them, then act surprised when they act unpredictably.

Breed specific legislation isn't the answer. The answer is for mandatory training courses predating dog ownership. All dog ownership too. Little dogs can be assholes too.

Breed specific legislation isn’t the answer.
When 1 breed is per capita significantly higher represented... yes it is.
Little dogs can be assholes too.
Little dogs can't kill you.
If we breed a dog to be the size of a hippo... Is that still okay to have? Even if it's only 6x as dangerous as the next breed?
- it's higher because people use pitbulls for dog fights, etc... if you abuse an animal it's more likely to attack someone.
  if you look at stats, getting killed by a rotweiler or a german Shepard isn't that far off.
  which would be the next two "tough dude" cool pets...
  not to mention, pitbulls aren't even a breed, really... there's plenty of pit cousins that would be the new pitbulls... plus half breeds and whatnot...
  my solution is to just require all small children carry revolvers... super simple, and those dogs will think twice before attacking them.
- It's more represented because morons buy that breed more than others. When they get banned it's other breeds that start attacking people.
- The CDC and humane society disagree with you, you know, based on expert opinion. You’re not an expert, so I’ll ignore your comment.
  Edit: I’ll also add the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, the Association of Professional Dog Trainers, the Animal Behavior Society, the National Animal Care and Control Association, etc. also oppose breed specific legislation.
  So, yeah I’ll take their opinion over some silly comment on the internet.
- Little dogs can't kill you
  Even a little dog can bite you right in the throat, breaking your carotid artery so you to bleed to death. Don't underestimate the strength of their bite just because they are smaller than a cat.
- When 1 breed is per capita significantly higher represented... yes it is.
  You could use the same logic to desperage American minorities. I think we can all do a little better here, don't you?
I knew someone who had a badly behaved dog, it attacked their partner so they put it down.
A few weeks later "I'm getting another one and I'm going to train it myself" Meaning they just won't train it, lost their shit when someone called them out as a dog killer. People don't deserve animals, people suck.
A minute of silence for all the people killed by asshole chihuahuas...
- how can you get killed by a chihuahua? it nibbles away your toe and you get an infection?!
Yeah, for real. Pitbulls are the common target because they're the "vicious dog". It's a self-fullfilling prophecy. Talk about how pitbulls are vicious man-killers, people who want vicious man-killers buy them and train them to be vicious man-killers, pitbulls become vicious man-killers. Meanwhile, the people who want a family dog don't get pitbulls because, well, they're "vicious man-killers". The result is that statistics get skewed in favor of the "vicious man-killer" status, leading to people seeing the breed as nothing more than vicious man-killers.
- That combined with the pseudoscience that was spewed by Merritt Clifton, that everyone still quotes today, and you've got yourself some statistical issues.
  In case people don't know who Merritt is
- People who get pit bulls as "family dogs" have the same issue.
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/10/08/2-children-killed-mother-hospitalized-after-tennessee-dog-mauling/8219201001/
  https://winknews.com/2023/07/06/north-port-6-year-old-dies-dog-bite/
- I never thought about that
Behavior is influenced by genetics as well as environment. Certain individual animals are more genetically predisposed towards violence than others. Certain breeds of particular species tend to have more of these individuals than others. So, it is possible to have a breed that is violent in that: if you take a random sample of that breed where the individuals are subjected to an identical rearing process more of those individuals will be more violent than average than the average breed has individuals who are more violent than average. (I realize that sentence is probably difficult to digest, but I'm not going to spend 20 more minutes working on this).
Given the data that we have on pit bulls, I think they're a violent breed. Not all pit bulls are violent, but a pit bull is more likely to be violent than a golden retriever when the two are raised in the same environment.
- But you can train a dog to not act on their instinctual prey drive. Pitbulls are way more likely to be abused than golden retrievers so I don't see how your point is relevant. Why are pitbulls the problem instead of shitty dog owners?
  Edit: you can be damn sure if a golden retriever or any dog grew up the way violent pitbulls grow up, they would be just as violent. Golden retrievers are easier to train though, I'll give you that.
- Using statistics without context is not right. Especially when talking about people or other living things that have unique personalities and life experiences.
I agree from both an animal welfare and public safety perspective that we need far stricter laws and regulations on dog ownership in general. But also I also think that some breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. For the American Bully XL in particular, we are talking a new pitbull-adjacent breed which has been bred for both aggression, intimidation and maximum muscle mass, both to skirt past existing legislation that bans American Pit Bulls, but also because all these traits appeal to the kind of irresponsible owners that just want an attack dog that looks 'aard as fuck.
We're also deluding ourselves when we claim that a dog bred to resemble the canine equivalent of Brock Lesnar is a nanny dog and wouldn't harm a fly, when in actuality losing control of a 145 lb jacked beast has even led to grown adults being mauled to death.
The only dogs to ever bite me are chihuahuas, and I worked as a vet assistant for years.
- Same
And a license to have a dog and a rebate for a year or more of medical care for them, for getting them spayed/neutered
When big dog acts out: "ahh that breed is aggressive! 😡"
When abused purse dogs act out (more frequently and more viciously): "oh isnt he just adorable 🥺"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age_of_consent_laws

Bruh, french guys?
- If only the libertarians knew their dreamland already existed
That’s such a weird situation because I do agree with the criticism of the age of consent being different for gay acts vs straight ones, but also 15’s a bit young there and they think it’s too high. Yikes.
- 16 is pretty normal in both the US and Europe
That gives a whole new meaning to the expression 🤢 Fr*nch "people" 🤮
- Thanks for lumping me and my contemporaries with a small subset of barely famous old weirdos who mostly died before we were even born, I guess

What about French philosophers named Princess?

A lot of them were pedophiles and used their positions as published academics to argue the "philosophy" of "child love". Pitbulls also have a bad wrap around kids.
- Keep in mind that France produces a lot of philosophy in general, and there's plenty of grassroot and intellectual pushback to the ideas.
  You could also just as easily, for example, make this joke about the founders of American "libertarianism," arguably a kind of philosopher.
- Pitbulls also have a bad wrap around kids.
  You mean like this, but with children nearby?

C'mon that's not fair. Conservatives would always rather have their kids dead than literate. It's supposed to be a hard choice for them.
How about. Wear a rainbow Speedo or drink bud light.
Now there's a right wing conundrum.
- What makes you think they aren't wearing the speedo already? It has to be something others will publicly see and shame them for.
- You make a compelling argument.

The pitbull, obviously.

You misspelled Ultra late term abortion machine
- You misspelled humans

That kid's getting fucked up either way.

I would trust the pitbull. Besides, they're not as bad as people make them out to be.

Now you've triggered Lemmy's hate of pitbulls. Be prepared for "they should all be put down" and "they're bred to be vicious, you can't undo that" comment barrage.
I wish you luck.
- Thank you. And honestly, anyone who thinks that doesn't deserve a very special picture.

Pitbull owner: He IS a philosopher and a big ol sweetie

Pitbull is chewing on a person's arm.

Rene Descarte was a drunken fart "I drink therefore I am"

I would definitely choose a french philosopher. I'm sure there are many french philosophers who would make good babysitters

Edit: You know there are more french philosophers out there then just old dead guys? There are many philosophers who are Frech still living today

Should we tell him?

Idgf if you call me a pedophile but they're right with their point that the AOC is too high. Having a multiple-stage system like many advanced countries do, like Germany, where it begins with 14, loosens up with 16 and fully at 18 is good. That's because it acknowledges the development of humans. Development is a process. Humans in reality are not a simplistic lifeform from a philosophical thought experiment, thinking that it should be illegal before one turns 18 and immediately legal a second thereafter is just nonsensical to me. It doesn't cut off like that, there's no such hard barrier or edge where it suddenly turns from morally bad to not morally bad.

I think that if the age of consent is gradual, the age difference allowed should too.
First scenario, two 15 year olds decide to start their sexual life together. They're fully informed. Nobody is taking advantage. It's very different to a second scenario where a 17 year old is dating a 36 year old.
It's funny because the problem is usually described with terms these specific French philosophers used: power dynamics. It is too unbalanced. The adult has way more power than the teenager and that's not healthy, it can even be dangerous.
I would argue that we should be careful with age differences until our early-mid twenties, even if the law gives us a free pass from our 18th birthday. But, anyway, yeah, in the second scenario the teenager is older than the first ones, so we'd assume that if the first ones were okay the second too, but the age difference matters IMHO.

At least the dog will just rip their body to shreds and not their soul.

The pit bull groups of dogs, as breeds, are not the nanny-dogs that people claim they were. They are mastiffs; they were intended to guard, and were used for hunting and war. You can train the shit out of them, and they can still revert to breed characteristics.

A study in the US concluded that greater than 60% of all fatal dog attacks in the US were from pit bulls or Rottweilers, but those two groups don't make up nearly 60% of all dogs in the US. These simply aren't breeds that should be left alone with children.

It depends on who Princess's owner is. Lemmy's hate for Pitbulls is so fucking idiotic.

Don't kid yourself a lot of people outside the internet doesn't have mucho love for the kidprocessor 3000 nany edition.
- What?
Don´t get me wrong, it's humans in the first place who make dogs dangerous and hating any breed is stupid. People who do that have a one sided view. However, let's be real, you have a one sided view too, just a positive one. The bad name of certain breeds has reasons, like the fact that they have been bred to fight and to max out biting power and to have an instinct to not let go when biting. I know Pitbulls are not the breed with the highest bite force but they are still in the top 10.
Today's pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog—a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head.
Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability.
Source: https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls
No matter how sweet your individual Pitbull might be after a loving upbringing, many years of breeding with such goals definitely still affect the gene pool and like it or not, instinctive behavior, especially in stressful situations. Then there is the problem of bad people who get dogs as weapons and abuse them, turning them aggressive.
- You have to be positive while wading through shit if you don't want to drown. I understand everything you said, but your first sentence is all I'm trying to get across. It's shitty fucking people, not dogs.
  Edit: To your main point you were trying to get across to me; dogs can be trained to not act on their aggressive instincts like prey drive. So I still don't see how an aggressive dog wouldn't be it's owners fault.
Honestly if you hate on a breed or really anything because that's the popular thing to do odds are you're probably a cunt.
- It's just another form of "acceptable" racism. I was trying to express that to someone last week but they were so hung up on the fact that racism is for humans so it's not possible to use that word about animals and different dogs were bred for different things so that makes the bigotry "okay"
  One of the reasons english and probably most languages are so beautiful is because you can have an imagination about it and say things that have never been said but people will still understand what you meant. Unless they're a cunt.
The internet loves to hate on pitbulls
- It's a combination of lack of education on the subject while being confident in what they do know. That's pretty much every wrong opinion though.

French philosopher are the founders of most of modern liberal movement in USA.... And woke culture... So...

Someone's read neither :/
French philosophy is also responsible for our country's system of government. Montisquieu argued for separation of powers, natural (inalienable) rights and the right to revolution comes from Locke, the social contract with individual liberties comes from Rousseau. Our constitution is a bunch of French philosophy shoved together into a very (for the time) unique Enlightenment-based government.
true