# Motherfucking idiots in my apartment building **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 9, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282 "2004-07-09T14:26:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/61 "2004-07-09T21:35:42Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > . . . We’ve shown you many geneticists who disagree with you. . . . Bullshit: you’ve shown a few geneticists who start with that as a hypothesis, but you’ve shown me no conclusive evidence yet achieved by any of them. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/62 "2004-07-09T21:36:49Z")
Still no cite from you, I see. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/63 "2004-07-09T21:39:40Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Bullshit: you’ve shown a few geneticists who start with that as a hypothesis, but you’ve shown me no conclusive evidence yet achieved by any of them. …yet that’s far stronger than anything you’ve shown, even if you were right, which you’re not. You haven’t come up with countercites **because they don’t exist**. When you learn to admit you’re wrong, come back. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/64 "2004-07-09T21:42:47Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Dude, come on. I’m the one arguing from science. All your arguments reveal either a profound ignorance of the scientific method, or intentional dismissal of it. All \*\*evidence \*\* presented so far has been either anecdotal or “tradition.” At least we’re making attempts to provide evidence, even though you continually dismiss them. We have yet to see you provide _any_ source that supports your denials other than yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/65 "2004-07-09T21:43:40Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > But since sociobiology has been such a hotbutton topic the last few decades, I’d hope that I’d’ve hear if any such breakthrough had been made. Dude, inherited canine behavioral traits is a hotbutton issue in the same way that “dogs sometimes bark at strangers” is a hotbutton issue. There’s a reason why this isn’t at the forefront of genetic research; there’s a reason why it only tends to get studied as parts of other studies (e.g., studying the dog genome in order to understand inherited diseases): **it’s because it’s not controversial**. Incidentally, before you start, saying “dogs sometimes bark at strangers” is NOT the same thing as saying “black people sometimes bark at strangers.” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/66 "2004-07-09T21:47:56Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Incidentally, before you start, saying “dogs sometimes bark at strangers” is NOT the same thing as saying “black people sometimes bark at strangers.” Except the ones who have Tourette’s or are imitating Curly Howard. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/67 "2004-07-09T22:05:28Z")
Well whaddaya know, I found _one_ cite for **lissener** since he couldn’t be bothered to find any on his own. Problem is, the cite is at [about.com](http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/mean_dogs.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Tikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5daacb/32.png) [@Tikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tikki)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/68 "2004-07-09T22:19:49Z")
Indygrrl, maybe I missed it in one of your posts, but what was the dog’s demeanor when he poked his head in your door? Did he look like he was looking for something to attack or did he look like he was just seeing if there was someone to visit and maybe get an ear scratched? Reacting calmly in either situation would have been preferable to freaking out. All dogs have a sense of territory. Getting up and gently shooing him away would, most likely, have gotten him out of yours. > [@Zabali Clawbane](#): > > Sadly, it’s more often than not due to poor training on the part of the owners that is the pre-cursor to dog attacks. I believe that viciousness is a combination of things, breed/genetic heritage, and how it was raised as a pup, as well as how it’s owner(s) trained it. All of these factor in, and overlap. I agree. My neighbor has a Jack Russell terrier. This breed tends to be extremely territorial. When I first moved here, the dog was unapproachable, even by someone as dog-loving and easy-going as me. Sitting on our building’s common deck, my neighbor always had her on a leash. Making any innocent move, even just moving your foot, would send the dog lunging as far as her leash would let her and barking maniacly. My neighbor finally took her into a training class and I can testify the difference in that dog even after the first meeting! My neighbor just had to learn to tell the dog what she expected of her. A month or so later, several of us went to look at something on one spot of the deck. I looked down and here was the dog happily milling about between us all without a trace of her former aggression. I believe aggressive breeds can be trained to be gentle (with a few exceptions individually) and, unfortunately, gentle breeds can be trained to be aggressive. > [@Indygrrl](#): > > I know all about the jaw strength of a pit bull… True, they are strong, but pound for pound, I’d put my money on a Scottie dog as being even stronger. When I was grooming, we didn’t call them the Arnold Schwartzenegger of dogs for nothing. One managed to get his teeth around the mesh of a muzzle to bite me! Their entire bodies are nothing but solid (Solid!)muscle and I believe they’d make the ultimate guard dog if so trained. They’d be hard to see in the dark, are built low to the ground yet are fast, and have jaws like a bear trap. Yet no one considers them an aggressive breed, do they? > [@Indygrrl](#): > > And how nice are dogs who live their whole lives on a balcony or chained to a porch? We’re not talking about responsible dog owners. We’re talking about idiots who probably have a hard time taking care of themselves, let alone a 70 lb. dog. I actually lived below a guy like this. Only his dog was a small cocker. He just couldn’t be bothered to take him for a walk, so he let him pee over the side of the balcony. The dog was nice though. ---
**Author:** ![Boldface\_Type](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5e925/32.png) [@Boldface\_Type](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boldface_Type)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/69 "2004-07-09T22:32:23Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Dude, come on. I’m the one arguing from science. All your arguments reveal either a profound ignorance of the scientific method, or intentional dismissal of it. All \*evidence \* presented so far has been either anecdotal or “tradition.”(…) > Until then, I’ll stick with science, not individual, untested observations, no matter HOW many there are. Seems that many scientists are hallucinating: For example, van den Berg et al. (2003 Behav Genet 33, 469 - 483) say: “Aggression … is under polygenic control and environmental factors play a role in its development (Enserink, 2000; Mackenzie et al., 1986; Tecott and Barondes, 1996)” (pp. 469) “Because aggressive behavior seems to occur more often in certain … family groups, it is likely that a genetic cause is involved.” (pp. 469) Or, how about Takeuchi & Houpt (2003 Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 33, 345-363): “The influence of hereditary and environmental factors is indispensable as the foundation on which the temperament of an animal is formed”. And how about those drug-addled freaks, Kukekova et al. (2004 J Hered 95, 185-194)? The abstract in full: “The silver fox, a variant of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), is a close relative of the dog (Canis familiaris). Cytogenetic differences and similarities between these species are well understood, but their genomic organizations have not been compared at higher resolution. Differences in their behavior also remain unexplained. Two silver fox strains demonstrating markedly different behavior have been generated at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. **Foxes selected for tameness are friendly, like domestic dogs, while foxes selected for aggression resist human contact**. To refine our understanding of the comparative genomic organization of dogs and foxes, and enable a study of the genetic basis of behavior in these fox strains, we need a meiotic linkage map of the fox. Towards this goal we generated a primary set of fox microsatellite markers. Four hundred canine microsatellites, evenly distributed throughout the canine genome, have been identified that amplify robustly from fox DNA. Polymorphism information content (PIC) values were calculated for a representative subset of these markers and population inbreeding coefficients were determined for tame and aggressive foxes. **To begin to identify fox-specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in the neurobiology of behavior**, fox and dog orthologs of serotonin 5-HT(1A) and 5-HT(1B) receptor genes have been cloned. **Sequence comparison of these genes from tame and aggressive foxes reveal several SNPs**. The close relationship of the fox and dog enables canine genomic tools to be utilized in developing a fox meiotic map and mapping behavioral traits in the fox.” Emphasis added. Yes **lissener** , you are quite correct. We are profoundly ignorant of the scientific method, or we intentionally dismiss it. Just like the scientists working in the field of behavioral genetics. They are also ignorant of the scientific method and they only find links between genetics and aggression because they are spooned out of their gourds on top-quality hallucinogenics. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/70 "2004-07-09T22:37:24Z")
> [@](#): > > [Sociobiology:](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sociobiology) The study of the biological determinants of social behavior, based on the theory that such behavior is often genetically transmitted and subject to evolutionary processes. The general scientific consensus “looks down” upon sociobiolgy, or biological determinism, or inherited behavioral traits: From a [letter](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9017) written by a bunch of Harvard geneticists to the New York Review of Books, protesting the growing popularity of sociobiology: > [@](#): > > Each time these ideas have resurfaced the claim has been made that they were based on new scientific information. Yet each time, even though strong scientific arguments have been presented to show the absurdity of these theories, they have not died. The reason for the survival of these recurrent determinist theories is that they consistently tend to provide a genetic justification of the _status quo. . . ._ > > . . . a major problem exists in Wilson’s emphasis on innate biology: how can genetic factors control behavior if social structure within a group can change rapidly over the course of just a few generations? Wilson, of course, does not deny the enormous flexibility and rapid change in human action. But Wilson admits that according to standard population genetics, this period is far too short for the changes observed > > What Wilson’s book illustrates to us is the enormous difficulty in separating out not only the effects of environment (e.g., cultural transmission) but also the personal and social class prejudice of the researcher. From [The Monthly Review:](http://www.monthlyreview.org/1102lewontin.htm) > [@](#): > > [Stephen Jay Gould] was one of the authors of the original manifesto challenging the claim of sociobiology that there is an evolutionarily derived and hard-wired human nature . . . He continued throughout his career to attack this ideology and show the shallowness of its supposed roots in genetics and evolution. His most significant contribution to the delegitimation of biological determinism, however, was his widely read exposure of the racism and dishonesty of prominent scientists, _The Mismeasure of Man_. . . . From [The New Criterion:](http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/19/feb01/pgross.htm) > [@](#): > > In the summer of 1975, E. O. Wilson, the distinguished Harvard zoologist, published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. This was a work of exemplary scientific scholarship, a weaving together of threads from many biological subdisciplines. In some of those Wilson was himself already a leader: population biology, ecology, evolution, animal behavior. He was the authority on an enormous group of social animals: the ants. His purpose was to show that results and methods were already sufficient for a systematic account of animal social behavior and for expanded new research on the hard science of it. > > Scores of qualified readers quickly gave praise and had no qualms about the closing chapter, in which Wilson extrapolated from his findings to speculate about human social behavior. He was laying out a program for future research, as well as recording achievements. No serious scientist denies that humans are at least animals. This part of Sociobiology was clearly more sowing than reaping, defining what should be meant henceforth by that word. Then, suddenly, came an earthquake of highly public denunciation, spreading from the Harvard epicenter, which only now has been properly chronicled. Ullica Segerstråle’s impressive new book, Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociology Debate and Beyond, [1] gives an excellent account of what has come to be called the “sociobiology controversy.” Although Segerstråle is a sociologist, she has taken the trouble to comprehend fully the science she writes about. It is worth noting, however, that the “battle” she writes about is really a case of academic assassination, not an argument over philosophy of science. > > Segerstråle has attempted to provide “a view through the keyhole” to the inner workings of science and the means by which it changes. This scants the blatant politics of the attack she chronicles, emphasizing instead intellectual conflicts and alliances, opposed epistemologies, and different cognitive styles. But the real battle over sociobiology today is not an intellectual battle. It is a political battle, a moral—or rather a moralistic—crusade. Among the newest victims of this crusade are the late “father of human genetics,” James V. Neel, and the renowned anthropologist Napoleon A. Chagnon. The reason for all human-oriented examples is because, A), no such research has been done on dogs yet; B) if research on mice and rats–and dogs–is relevant to humans, then the reverse is true; C) I feel pretty confident that research conducted on humans would be about as rigorous as it’s possible for a scientist to be. The best research the sociobiologists have is on _ants_. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/71 "2004-07-09T22:50:09Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Well whaddaya know, I found _one_ cite for **lissener** since he couldn’t be bothered to find any on his own. Problem is, the cite is at [about.com](http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/mean_dogs.htm). And note that the writer of that article is a longtime dogtrainer, so if you want to argue with anecdotal evidence, she’d probably be able to shout you down pretty quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/72 "2004-07-09T23:22:18Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > And note that the writer of that article is a longtime dogtrainer… Indeed she is, which makes her opinion on the causes of agressive behavior just as valid as yours. Unfortunately, we’re looking for facts, not opinions and [about.com](http://about.com) isn’t a very good source for either. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/73 "2004-07-10T00:22:00Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Indeed she is, which makes her opinion on the causes of agressive behavior just as valid as yours. Unfortunately, we’re looking for facts, not opinions and [about.com](http://about.com) isn’t a very good source for either. My point was simply that her position is equal, in weight, to _yours_. ---
**Author:** ![BonoVox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@BonoVox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BonoVox)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/74 "2004-07-10T00:31:58Z")
> [@qcomdrj](#): > > Indygrrl, if the dog comes at you with it’s head down. Kill it. If it is growling. Kill it. It is a vicious animal. If it runs up to you barking. Kill it. All of these would be justified. If you see the owners letting it run around free, call animal control. If you want to inflict pain on it, get a slingshot and some rock salt. With luck, you can inflict a stinging, burning wound. It will learn to a)hate you and b)possibly stay away from you. Or make it really mad. In which case you kill it. Pocket knives are small, and if not lockback, dangerous to untrained people. Get one that locks open. That way it won’t snap shut on you. Stab the dog in the chest/neck. Stick your fingers in its eyes. Make its life a living hell. > > All of this only applies if the dog attacks. If you see the owners of the dog trying to retaliate, call the police. If they bring the dog anywhere near you, even leashes, implying that they are trying to do anything, call the police. Just don’t put yourself or your cats in danger. Do not shoot the dog with a slingshot!!! What the fuck? Are you that fucking stupid as to believe that? Do not antagonize a viscious animal. Do Not Carry A Knife to try to take out an out of control animal. Your not an ape or a caveman(woman), use the tools you have availible now. Do you have a video camera? Tape the guy out with the dog, or the dog out by itself. Call animal control, bug your landlord, do what you have to. All this stupid Macho “kill the dog!” bullshit is going to is get you maimed, or arrested, or sued. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/75 "2004-07-10T00:44:13Z")
> [@Boldface Type](#): > > “Aggression … is under polygenic control and environmental factors play a role in its development (Enserink, 2000; Mackenzie et al., 1986; Tecott and Barondes, 1996)” (pp. 469) Interesting statement; I’d be interested in seeing the context, and the data that led to that conclusion. > [@](#): > > “Because aggressive behavior \*\*seems \*\* to occur more often in certain … family groups, it is \*\*likely \*\* that a genetic cause is involved.” ([ibid.] pp. 469) [\*\*Boldface \*\* is mine.] Still in the conjecture stage here. > [@](#): > > Or, how about Takeuchi & Houpt (2003 Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 33, 345-363): > > “The influence of hereditary and environmental factors is indispensable as the foundation on which the temperament of an animal is formed”. Interesting statement; they hold the same opinion you do. > [@](#): > > And how about those drug-addled freaks, Kukekova et al. (2004 J Hered 95, 185-194)? The abstract in full: [\<= That’s pretty funny.] > > “The silver fox, a variant of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), is a close relative of the dog (Canis familiaris). Cytogenetic differences and similarities between these species are well understood, but their genomic organizations have not been compared at higher resolution. Differences in their behavior also remain unexplained. Two silver fox strains demonstrating markedly different behavior have been generated at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. **Foxes selected for tameness are friendly, like domestic dogs, while foxes selected for aggression resist human contact**. [_Has this experiment been duplicated? To overturn scientific consensus I’d expect them to rush to duplicate_.] To refine our understanding of the comparative genomic organization of dogs and foxes, and enable a study of the genetic basis of behavior in these fox strains, we need a meiotic linkage map of the fox. Towards this goal we generated a primary set of fox microsatellite markers. Four hundred canine microsatellites, evenly distributed throughout the canine genome, have been identified that amplify robustly from fox DNA. Polymorphism information content (PIC) values were calculated for a representative subset of these markers and population inbreeding coefficients were determined for tame and aggressive foxes. **To begin to identify fox-specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in the neurobiology of behavior**, fox and dog orthologs of serotonin 5-HT(1A) and 5-HT(1B) receptor genes have been cloned. **Sequence comparison of these genes from tame and aggressive foxes reveal several SNPs**. The close relationship of the fox and dog enables canine genomic tools to be utilized in developing a fox meiotic map and mapping behavioral traits in the fox.” Pretty interesting. I’d like to see where this leads. The skeptic in me asks why they didn’t use dogs instead of foxes? Wouldn’t that have been easier? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/76 "2004-07-10T01:10:23Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > The reason for all human-oriented examples is because, A), no such research has been done on dogs yet; B) if research on mice and rats–and dogs–is relevant to humans, then the reverse is true; C) I feel pretty confident that research conducted on humans would be about as rigorous as it’s possible for a scientist to be. > > The best research the sociobiologists have is on _ants_. Oh, if only your cites had anything to do with dogs, they’d be relevant! So sad, so sad. a) Little research has been done on such behavior in dogs because **it’s bleedin’ obvious** what the results would be: it’s not an interesting question. b) This is laughably bogus. If I discover, through research, that dogs can follow a human’s trail through their sense of smell, does this apply to humans? Of course not. Differences between humans and dogs makes some research on one not applicable to the other. For example, dogs have been the subjects of teleological breeding for millennia; humans have not. c) Totally irrelevant, since the research on humans viz. sociobiology doesn’t apply to dogs. Again, show me **one** geneticist who denies that there’s such a thing as inherited canine behavioral traits. Just one. Note that, while research confirming the bleedin’ obvious doesn’t get much press, research contradicting the bleedin’ obvious does. Remember a few years ago the research showing that sugar **doesn’t** make kids hyper? THat got a lot of press, precisely because it contradicted accepted wisdom. Research confirming the bleedin’ obvious in this case exists, but it’s more difficult to find, because it’s not particularly interesting. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/77 "2004-07-10T01:14:53Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Pretty interesting. I’d like to see where this leads. The skeptic in me asks why they didn’t use dogs instead of foxes? Wouldn’t that have been easier? That’s not skepticism; that’s idle curiosity. Even if they used foxes because Dr. Evil Himself funded their research, in what possible way would that impugn their results? Let me ask you some questions. Which of these statements do you agree with? 1. There are no inherited conditions in humans that affect behavior–including depression and Alzheimer’s. 2. Such conditions exist in humans, but do not exist in canines. 3. Such conditions exist in canines, but humans are incapable of manipulating genetics in order to bring out specific characteristics in canines. 4. Humans are capable of manipulating genetics in order to bring out specific characteristics in canines, but not behavioral characteristics. 5. Humans are capable of manipulating genetics in order to bring out specific behavioral characteristics in canines, but have never bothered to do so. 6. Humans actually have manipulated genetics in order to bring out specific behavioral characteristics in canines, but they have never done so in specific populations referred to as breeds. 7. Other. I really don’t understand how you arrive at your position. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/78 "2004-07-10T01:15:39Z")
**lissener** , didn’t you say you were leaving this thread about 10 posts ago? If you’re wondering why people think you’re an ass, this thread is a prime example. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f07891/32.png) [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Plastic_Ninja)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/79 "2004-07-10T01:50:39Z")
Lissener, are you saying then that golden retrievers have no more or less propensity to violence than bulldogs? I just want to make sure I have you clear here. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282/80 "2004-07-10T02:11:40Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > My point was simply that her position is equal, in weight, to _yours_. No, her position is equal in weight to your own. We have posted lnks to facts, as best we could. She and you both have opinions but where are the facts to back up that opinion? You could at _least_ find someone from the science community who shares the same opinion instead of just repeating there have been no studies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motherfucking-idiots-in-my-apartment-building/254282.md?page=5)