Comments on "But other dogs bite too!"
What's a more intense phrase for jumping the shark? Pit Bulls on SLOG have done it.
"Witnesses said the two dogs, named Popeye and Brutus, savagely mauled the man, tearing his limbs, before a neighbour, Mr Reginald Bell, grabbed a knife, scared the dogs off and called police. 'They ate him,' Mr Bell later told reporters, adding: 'They consumed this man.'”
Meanwhile, lovable pugs Olive Oyl and Wimpy were content with mere kibble from a bowl.
PITS ARE THE PITS! BAN THEM NOW!
Mmm, free bites!
Hmm, none of those stories yet say whether those dogs were fixed--although the NY Times story about how they wandered the neighborhood menacing people doesn't make it sound like the owner would have been the type to neuter his dogs.
does poodle attack resulting in loss of face count? Then every 6 or so years is your answer.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_396850.html
ban poodles.
Obviously someone who would name the 2nd dog "Brutus" instead of "Bluto" is a moron. Yep. Um.
Conclusive evidence that 90 year olds are at least as delicious as slim jims.
I'm not sure why anyone has dogs at all, other than duck hunters, sheep ranchers, or volunteer fugitive trackers.
(And I do have one, so I know firsthand; responsible dog ownership is a pain the ass.)
Well, the 90 year old DID vote for Bush both times....
chet,
you are beyond stupid! The injuries that occured in that attact are nothing compared to what a pit bull would have done.
What is frustrating about these attacks is that the only justice that is possable is in a civil court. The statin island man faces a charge of having a dog off a leash while a man lays in a hospital in dire condition. The charge in a case like this should be much more severe.
It's interesting that they're likely to attack elderly people. That they attack children makes sense. Children don't know how to behave around dogs and are often loud and unpredictable. But the elderly? When's the last time an elderly person emitted an ear piercing squeal while yanking a dog's tail?
"Children and elderly people were almost always the victims."
I'ma get a pit bull and name him Darwin.
Until we arm our nation's toddlers and really old people with machine pistols to deal with the pit bull threat, we will never truly be safe.
Lock and load!
Fuck pitbulls, I'm worried about nutria.
When will this filthy menace end? Dan, do you have room for a new obsession or is the Slog just going to degenerate into your pitbulls killing students in Italy with Charles Mudede crying about Amanda Knox being framed and Erica Barnett's theories about how anti-Clinton misogyny led to it all?
Fuck, these posts are just phoned in.
@5
Umm, they didn't say he lost his face, he was just bitten. Had it been a pit bull, then he might have lost his face.
And I think the pit bulls are just like other bullys. They go after children and the elderly because they are weaker, or perhaps, those become the really brutal attacks because the victims are not able to defend themselves against the animals.
14 you forgot about parodies of the Last Supper, evil parents, clergy and Hillary Clinton.
While I'm not a fan of pit bulls, I must say that the ONLY time I have ever been bitten by a dog, it was a toy poodle. I hate small dogs. Well, anything smaller than say, a Jack Russell.
My cousin had a wolf hybrid for a while and I was just waiting for a call telling me his (cousin's) face had been chewed off. That thing was NOT NICE.
Just wait until Natalie Merchant gnaws off Charles Mudede's leg. Then the SLOG will really hit The Dan.
@6: More innocuous sock puppetry!
I've nothing add about pitbulls, so...
Whether it's dogs or humans, every time a heinous crime takes place, news outlets find someone to say, "I knew him, and he didn't seem like the type that would do such a thing." HE OBVIOUSLY IS THE TYPE TO DO SUCH A THING YOU DUMBSHIT!!! It just happened!
I think Dan is unable to backup his earlier thesis that Pitt Bulls are more likely to bite when factors such as socio-economic status of the owners, and whether the animal is neutered are controlled for. So he is switching to the argument that when they do bite, they do more damage. He challenges us to cite an example of another breed "resulting in the loss of three limbs". Well, I don't have that, but how about a Labrador eating off someone's face?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Cosmetic/wireStory?id=3991217
But perhaps he is right, though I disagree that Pitt Bulls are innately more inclined to attack, I'd agree that they are more likely to do serious damage than many other breeds. But there are a lot of things that society accepts, despite being associated with some increased risk to society as a whole. For instance, I doubt Dan would argue that alcohol should be banned outright, even though alcohol consumption is associated with many traffic accidents. Shouldn't we ban alcohol? Of course not! Dan can see the relationship between the risks a society tolerating alcohol use, personal responsibility, personal freedoms, and punishing the guilty (drunk drivers, not all drunks). Why can't he see the same about dogs? The reason is, that he has made up his mind, and logic or reason is no longer the issue. The issue is HE IS RIGHT, and all you "apologists, enablers, accomplices, useful idiots, etc" are WRONG. And since he is an expert in sex, he has confused his deep knowledge in the fields of cock-sucking and how pussy looks like canned ham, and confused that with the idea that he is an expert in whatever field he has an opinion in.
@17: Jack Russells are terriers, and are notorious for their crappy temperaments (only recently have I met any that NEVER bite, and being involved in Flyball and Agility, I meet a lot of JRTs/PRTs). Terriers were traditionally bred for "gameness"--they don't give up and will work through pain--which is a lot more of a problem than "jaw strength" (pit bulls don't have stronger jaws, necessarily, than any other breed).
A herding dog in prey drive may nip. My Sheltie, at four months old, nipped the nose of a ram that challenged him. No blood was drawn, and the ram was compliant for the rest of the session. A terrier in prey drive will attack and won't stop (they're also bred to ignore traditional "submission" signals).
I think, personally, that breed bans won't work. And I also think that breed bans won't take the dogs away from the people who shouldn't have them, while people's perfectly nice (and I've never met a bad one, even intact males) Staffordshire Bull Terriers (related to the pit bull and the American Staffordshire Terrier) will be caught up in the breed bans, and that would be sad. But breed bans seem to be the way things are moving.
did you guys see the accompanying article about the brklyn guy who unleashed his 2 pitbulls into a room with 5 children?? But nothing too serious the toddler, he ONLY lost part of his ear....
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/World/STIStory_254170.html
but at least in brooklyn the man is charged with assault, and criminal possession of a weapon.
Remember, pit bulls don't savagely attack people, it's just in your head ... unless the pit bull chewed your eyes out.
I tend to agree they should be banned. But absent that, strict owner responsibilty laws. Insurance companies must be forced to cover a pitbull and owners must be forced to pay what the companies demands.
Bravo Cedar - especially the canned ham smackdown
Here's the deal have no problem debating the issue once we have clearly defined the issue as to potential to inflict harm. (Pitbulls are well equipped!)
but then again Poodles, Labs and others have potential to inflict harm to I say ban all dogs!! (except mine of course)
Ultimately Vince has the answer. It's a dangerous world folks.
I'm sure the pit bull ban weenies probably support handgun bans despite the clearly greater physical damage done by a 12 gauge shotgun over a .22 caliber pistol.
Yet nobody says to ban shotguns. Just handguns. You can't have it both ways!
@10, Heftier charges can be brought in these cases. Things like negligent homicide if someone dies for example, or even higher if the owner had knowledge for the dogs temperament, and put them in a situation were it was highly likely they would harm.
What I find funny is that people readily understand you can breed dogs to herd, retrieve, track, etc, but deny that you can breed a dog to be aggressive. Dogs are not people, are not breed the same as people, and are governed by the biology to a much greater degree.
YES!!!! @ 21!!
yes yes yes yes yes
Of course a strong dog will do more damage than a smaller dog when it bites...duh.
Ever hear of a Standard Poodle? They are quite large and can do a great deal of damage when they bite. 2 Golden Doodles(Poodle/GoldenRetriever) killed a little Westie at Magnuson Park last year. Oh..never mind those were probably just pit bulls in Halloween costumes.
So, how does this make you NOT a breedist?
If nothing else can come from these comments, we can agree that POODLES SUCK.
@30: I'm sorry, I started giggling when you said "Golden Doodles" and haven't been able to read the rest of your comment yet.
More fuel for the fire: 3 year old seriously injured in Brooklyn
Julie Russell #30: Okay, I'll bite (ha! See what I did there?) A "breedist?" Explain to me why I shouldn't laugh and laugh and laugh when I hear this term.
Extra points if your explanation deliberately conflates human behavior with that of dogs in a hilariously inappropriate fashion.
@34, Hell I would be happy if she could just explain why my Aussie feels the need to try and herd everything that moves. I mean, it cannot simply be that he was breed to do that, that would be breedist.
Dan, just google "dog kills child" if you want evidence that lots of other breeds can be just as dangerous (when owned by rotten people) as pit bulls. I couldn't post the links here because of restrictions on the comments, but in five minutes, I found dozens of articles about dobermans, pomeranians, chow-mixes, bulldogs, and a variety of other breeds that have killed children or infants.
My personal favorite, though, was this one: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jBqUBq3fMsrNppklpyQiHcgI6tew
Guns don't kill people! DOGS kill people (with guns!)!
ANY breed of dog can seriously hurt a human being if they feel threatened, are abused, are starving, etc. etc. etc. It really IS all about training and responsible ownership. To me, talking breed bans makes about as much sense as Prohibition -- it's not actually going to make a difference, and, in reality, is likely going to do more harm than good.
By the way, Staffordshire bull terriers DO get lumped in with breed bans on pit bulls,
Whoops, my computer decided to hit "Post" before I was done! I was trying to say that Staffies do get lumped into breed bans, and that's out of sheer ignorance about that breed. Staffies are known as "nanny dogs" because of their gentle nature, especially with children. My sister owns a Staffie and he's the gentlest dog I've ever encountered.
Ignorance -- feh!!
Keep laughing...all new concepts are initially scoffed at. (Ask Schopenhauer:)
Breedism- A belief or doctrine that differences among breeds of dogs deem some breeds superior to others, while fostering disrimination against others.
Boxers and bulldogs, for example were bred for identical purposes as pit bulls: Bull baiting and hunting rodents.
BREEDISM (the belief that Pit bulls are the lesser dogs here) leads some to feel they are deserved of being banned, while bull dogs and boxers don't face that same stigma.
Yes, I know that Pits make the papers more often than these other breeds. This is for several reasons IMHO
1)They, like ALL breeds do attack
2)The media likes a good pit story
3)Readers love a good pit story
Yes, I am up to date on the current bite stats. Can't wait till the new Seattle ones are available:)
Yes, MANY idiotic people own pit bulls...So do many highly intelligent ones.
There are many more points to add, but I doubt anyone even got this far.
@38, Would you agree, as a baseline, that behavioral traits can be breed for, just like size, coat, etc? Would you also agree that, as the species doing the breeding, some traits are more desirable to us, either as individuals or as a society then others?
I am not sure I favor a ban on pit bulls, but I would favor steps to end the breeding of dogs to be aggressive.
Of course traits can be be bred for. Did they discover a violence gene I am unaware of?
Pits, boxers and Bull dogs were all selectively bred for the same reasons. My point is that Pits are unfairly targeted as more violent than these other dogs of a similar genetic background...and as more violent than most other dogs.
The traits that were selectively bred into these dogs are size and structure traits. There is no "kill mechanism" in the brain of a dog. Please share if you feel this is a false statemnt.
@40, I am not sure there is a kill gene, any more then a herding gene. However it is clear nonetheless that a dog can be bred to herd, or in the case of pits an others, to be more aggressive and territorial.
For example dogs have a range of responses when a person enters their territory. Some do nothing and some charge at the intruder and kill them. Through training on can alter that, but even absent training on will see such a range. Now we take the most aggressive ones and breed them together and do so for a few generations and we can pretty quickly breed a dog who will, all things being equal attack anyone who gets near.
If that dog is small and weak we have a nuisance, if that dog is big and strong we have a serious problem.
I do not think only pits can be violent, but they are a type of dog, that, all things being equal, is more likely to inflict harm. Not saying they should be banned, but it something we need to deal with.
Breedism- A belief or doctrine that differences among breeds of dogs deem some breeds superior to others, while fostering disrimination against others.
Wait, so 'breedism' is exactly like 'racism,' but with dogs? That's pretty much exactly what I thought you meant. And yup, I'm still laughing.
Get this, comedienne: Dogs aren't people. For you to compare dog breeds to different hues of human would be incredibly insulting if it weren't so patently ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? We are all animals.
Humans haven't been selectively bred the way dogs have, for one. So it's not a valid comparison.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.