Don’t have access to your first link. The second link describes the starting hypothesis for experimental work that they plan to do; it states no conclusions. Even though it was . . .
I’d be interested in seeing the results of this study.
I’ll find a copy of that book; seems relevant to this discussion.
Presumably, it would be perfectly acceptable to disallow pitbulls from an aprtment complex with the justification that they aren’t as bad at being agressive as other breeds. You aren’t saying they’re agressive… merely that other breeds are less agressive.
Or am I not understanding the “dog breeds are retarded” reasoning?
It seems to me that that would be easier to prove; it’s still too strong a statement, IMHO, and tradition and prejudice are not given proper weight. Also, there’s no denying the physical characteristics of a particular breed: pit bulls have very, very strong jaws; they’d certainly cause more damage than most other breed if they *are * vicious.
I don’t get it. You didn’t have a problem with “For example, small dogs like Chihuahuas tend to be high-strung and St. Bernards tend to be large, slobbering, and lovable. Am I saying it’s impossible to have a calm Chihuahua and a mean St. Bernard? Hell no.” but now that I’ve added American Pit Bull Terriers, you suddenly have a problem? You’re going to strip your gears by going into reverse so quickly.
No; I’ve said “tends to” is to strongly positive. I restated it in a way that makes more sense to me.
Which you did not do when I used “tend to” in the previous post; this says to me that you thought it was fine in reference solely to Chihuahuas and St. Bernards but automatically became “too strong” with the addition of American Pit Bull Terriers. Face it, you just backpedaled into a position that cannot be reconciled.
Just a guess here, but I would bet you have never been attacked by a dog, or know much about pit bulls.
My buddy owned a very nice and friendly pit bull. One night the police were chasing a bad guy, during the chase they went through his gate, and into his backyard W/O permission. The dog started to bark and approach the officer. The officer panicked, drew and fired his pistol, hitting the dog in the head at a range of about 6 feet. The 9mm slug bounced off the skull of the dog. :eek: It took a couple of hundred bucks at the vets, but the dog was home a few days later. And you are going to take one on with a pocketknife? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Good luck, Can I watch?
The problems with trying to slit the throat of a pit are several. First off the throat of a pit will be at about your ankle level (there are not very tall dogs). Secondly, when the muscles in the neck of the dog are straining, cutting through them will be very difficult to say the least. Thirdly and lastly, you will be in major pain from the dog attacking you. Having been attacked several times over the years, I can tell you that it is not a fun experience. I do not recommend it.
If you are serious about protection against a possibly vicious dog, I would suggest a baseball bat. The object here is to keep the dog from attacking. Using a knife, if the dog is in range of your knife, you are in range of the dog’s teeth, if the object is to keep from being attacked, this is considered to be not a good place to be.
Oh, and the comment about
Got Cite?
Mental note. Do not stab dog in head.
However, I’ve never seen a vicious dog go for the ankles, they go for the head and neck. Maybe a vicious chihuahua. They’re endemic you know.
We are just recommending her to carry one around. It is easier to carry that than a baseball bat.
Oh, and don’t slit the throat. Stab. It is actually much easier. And then stab again. Until the dog decides to leave you alone. Knives are easier to use than bats in close combat situations anyway. Once the dog gets in on you, its quite tough to use the bat. Any weapon is better than none though. Back to the OP, or the teleological sociobiology argument. Either is sufficient.
Would you like to see the scars on my ankle from the TWO German Shepards that gang attacked me? Unless you are A) a midget, or B) live where there is some wierd mutant mmonster pit bulls, or C) the pit bulls where you live have wings; there is no way in hell a pit can get to your neck as long as you are standing up. How does the dog bring you down? simple it bites your ankles. What part of this is so hard to understand? The object here to keep from being attacked. A knife is no good in this regard. A baseball bat, tennis racket, or hockey stick on the other hand, will work to keep a dog at bay.
For someone who’s been attacked repeatedly, it appears your methods aren’t working too well, eh?
Lucky shit happens. There was also a guy who had a railroad spike in his head that survived. The chances of it happening are slim, but yeah, it happens. And, yeah…if you get off on watching a vicious dog get a 4-inch blade plunged in its neck, by all means, pull up a chair. You may learn something about quality knives, as well.
Who said anything about “slitting” a dog’s throat? I said, “stab.” Quite effective.
It might be effective, but not very convenient. It’s difficult to walk around with a friggin’ bat all the time. A knife can be carried in your pocket or purse and opened when you’re walking in the dog’s vicinity. Not everyone wants to look like Joe Don Baker.
My cite is in my statement.
I agree, with one addition: Animal Control officers carry an extensible wand with them, not to beat aggressive dogs, but rather to give them something to focus on. Shove a stick in front of a snarler, and she’ll chomp onto the stick instead of onto your arm.
If I were attacked by a dog, I wouldn’t be trying to beat it to death; I’d be trying to keep a bat or a stick or something in between me and the dog so that it would be trying to eat the stick instead of me.
The dog’s a lot stronger than you. All you’ve got going for you is that you’re smarter than the dog.
Daniel
So. X>Y is reasonable, while Y<X is unreasonable.
“Other breeds are generally less agressive than this breed” is not substantially different from saying “This breed is generally more agressive than other breeds”. There’s obviously a rhetorical difference, but I don’t see much of a case for there being a semantic difference.
Well dogs have been successful in attacking me 3 times when I was a child. I did not know as much then as I do now. since I took some time to learn about dogs, and how they attack, there has not been another successful attack. About another dozen have tried and not succeeded. A stick or even a blast of water from the water bottle on my bike will discourage most if not all attacks. Offhand I would say that my methods work damn near all the time, since I have not had a dog bite me since I learned them (almost 40 years ago) :wally
What I suspect that I will learn is that a certain blowhard know it all will get his ass handed to him by 80 lbs of very pissed off dog. If the dog attacks without warning you will most likely be on the ground long before your knife ever leaves your pocket. A pocketknife, in your pocket, is about as useful as bringing an unloaded gun to a gun fight. In other words not much use at all.
Oh and my favorite line in this crock of shit
You have how many fucking thousand posts on a message board/website dedicated to fighting ignorance, and you expect this to slide by unchallenged? I don’t care if you post that 6=9, that does not mean that all the math textbooks will get re-written on your say so. Prove it, or retract it. And since this is the pit, may I add to that statement the following: Asshole.
:wally
No; the first time you used it was just in the ongoing flow of this discussion. I didn’t feel the need to vet every single syllable in your post; I felt I was responding to its spirit and didn’t want to dwell on any gray areas. Your next use of the word tends was an attempt to sum up a final statement for this whole long debate. As such, I didn’t want to “sign off” on it without vetting it in much closer detail and accuracy.
In discussions of science such as this, I prefer to err on the side of accuracy. When I use such unquantitative words as “less” or “more” I tend to think of them in terms of a general, scientifically arrived at baseline. In this kind of discussion, comparisons between individuals is largely irrelevant. In any case, that little statement that you want to dismiss as “rhetorically” the same thing–give or take, gray area, close enough for government work–is the heart of this whole entire discussion, so I’m not going to be cavalier about accuracy when discussing it.
That load of crap is the best you can come up with? It’s time to get off your soapbox, there’s a martyr who needs the wood.
C’mon. In a scientific discussion like this one, it’s totally acceptable to go by the spirit of the post rather than by what the poster actually wrote. The scientific consensus supports this approach: I refer you to these writings about sunspots as proof.
Daniel
Problem is, the post in question was part of my attempt to bring closure to this mess. Either my statement works or it doesn’t, lissener can’t have it both ways.
I mean, he’s already agreed with my point concerning the Knollers’ Presa Canarios.
He has not disputed that dogs have been bred toward certain goals. His only stance on
is that, in his opinion, it’s not a valid conclusion. If he had a problem with my statement that they have been bred for tenacity and strength, he should have said so. He did not. He said it’s not a valid conclusion that they’d be more difficult to train to be unaggressive. All of a sudden, it is a problem.
BTW: I’m not the only one who’s been having trouble following his wandering line of reasoning.