Motherfucking idiots in my apartment building

[lissener]

Dude, you excised the part of my quote that was meant to demonstrate that I disagreed with you:

@lissener

Again, I flap my arms with the intention of flight; these dogs were bred as weapons. Two equally valid statements of intention. Those dogs were trained to be vicious. [. . . only in the sense that I flapped my arms in an attempt to fly: i.e., breed your dogs for an english accent or a talent for tapdancing, for all I care: the attempt does not prove the result.]

Also, regarding my “agreement” with your statement about chihuahuas and St. Bernards, your proof of which is that I let it slide the first time, again, I’ll explain that since it appeared we were approaching some common ground, I simply let it slide and concentrated on the part of your statement that appeared to be beginning to understand my point. It would probably make for more clarity, and certainly be less embarrassing for you, if you concentrate on what I DO say rather than use, as your entire argument, the inferences you draw from what I DON’T say. Otherwise, your argument becomes pretty transparently lame. At any rate, I feel like this debate is drawing to a close, since neither of you have had anything substantive to say for many posts; your position has been reduced to namecalling and arguing from inference. Have a great weekend.

[1010011010]

@lissener

I’m not going to be cavalier about accuracy when discussing it.

Then discuss it. Reading the other posts in the thread, it’s seems like most people would agree the difference between “X>Y” and “Y<X” is rhetorical. You say it isn’t, feel free to explain how.

[Skywatcher]

@lissener

Dude, you excised the part of my quote that was meant to demonstrate that I disagreed with you

That’s what that was? I thought you were clamoring for attention.

[Skywatcher]

Missed this:

@lissener

your position has been reduced to namecalling

Where?

[Skywatcher]

@1010011010

Then discuss it. Reading the other posts in the thread, it’s seems like most people would agree the difference between “X>Y” and “Y<X” is rhetorical. You say it isn’t, feel free to explain how.

He can’t; his entire defense is based on “because I say so.” We have veterinarians and the entire breeding community to back us up, all he has is himself and another trainer with the “because I say so” defense.

[lissener]

@Jeff Olsen

He can’t; his entire defense is based on “because I say so.” We have veterinarians and the entire breeding community to back us up, all he has is himself and another trainer with the “because I say so” defense.

Your vets and breeders are nothing but “I say so” as well. Where are your scientific studies?

[Skywatcher]

@lissener

Your vets and breeders are nothing but “I say so” as well.

They’re a helluva lot more reliable than you. At least we’ve tried to provide cites, where are yours?

[1010011010]

@lissener

Your vets and breeders are nothing but “I say so” as well. Where are your scientific studies?

What exactly do you think science is? What is the difference between a collection of anecdotes and a study? Suppose the collection of anecdotes is converted into statistical form?

If many people that are experts in their fields are all saying “This breed is agressive”, that sounds suspiciously like independent verification. The sheer volume of data on the subject pretty well compensates for the lack of controls- there’s enough noise to allow signals to stand out.

[jujitsuka]

@qcomdrj

-Rhodesian Ridgebacks. They were trained to fight lions. Still quite mean. Only experienced trainers are recommended for rhodesians.

Just had to pipe in to shoot down this fallacy… can’t have my breed getting such a bad rap.

Despite popular belief, Ridgebacks weren’t bred to fight lions. Rather, they surrounded a lion or other large African game (zebras, etc.) as a pack until the hunters could take a shot.

Cites:
the AKC
*Of even, dignified temperament, the Ridgeback is devoted and affectionate to his master, reserved with strangers. *

Adirondack Humane Society

• However, if they grow up in a home where loving firmness is the rule, they do become what I saw at the dog show: tranquil, dignified and quiet dogs who tolerate, but don’t climb over, strangers, and who enjoy simply being in your company, whether you’re hiking a trail in the woods or watching television on the couch. Oh, and the lions? Turns out they never actually fought with lions. Instead, they surrounded a lion and took turns pestering it until the hunters arrived. That’s my kind of dog: brave enough to fight a lion, and smart enough to know better.*

Rhodesian Ridgebacks: What’s good about em? What’s bad?

Not trying to hijack, but Ridgebacks are not a “mean breed” … they are protective, willful, headstrong, and obstinate… but not an overtly aggressive breed. As always, any dog raised without proper socialization, or with poor genetics, etc. can be a bad seed and end up being aggressive.

I would recommend Ridgebacks for people with the dedication and time to commit to a formal obedience training course, but having to be an experienced trainer is total overkill.

(can you tell I love ridgebacks?)

[lissener]

@1010011010

What exactly do you think science is? What is the difference between a collection of anecdotes and a study? . . .

That you would ask this question explains a LOT.

[Kalhoun]

@Rick

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

And exactly how do you manage to get through life walking around with a baseball bat and a stick all the time? Your solution is impractical, regardless of what you say.

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.

Your reading comprehension is about as useful as your “Walking Tall” solution to vicious dogs. Follow along closely now…use your finger as a guide, if necessary. What I said was, **“A knife can be carried in your pocket or purse and opened when you’re walking in the dog’s vicinity.”**The OP mentioned that the problem arises when she’s coming and going from her home…not while grocery shopping or at the library. She would take the knife out of her purse and open it when she walks from her car to her apartment. See, she may or may not be strong enough to effectively whack the dog in the head while being attacked. A knife in the throat or eye or stomach is infinitely more practical. You stupid prick.

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

Look, you ignorant pinhead. I said I’ve heard of it. The statement does not require a written cite. Get it? If you want to pick a fight, pick it with someone who gives a flying fuck about your macho opinion on how to fight the dozens of attack dogs who’ve been up your ass for 40 years. It may look cool to the rest of the kids on the playground, but from here, it makes you look pretty dumb.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

The reason I work for a humane society? Why, it’s because animals bring out the best in all of us.

Daniel

[Boldface_Type]

@lissener

Your vets and breeders are nothing but “I say so” as well. Where are your scientific studies?

I don’t know how many peer-reviewed cites you need, but you certainly seem to be skating over any I or anyone else provide. Or maybe you just want a cite that says ‘Gadzooks! We’ve found the gene for biting postmen. It’s 3rd from the left, half way down and it’s a light blue in colour’.

That won’t happen, so all we can do is consider the scientific evidence that actually exists. In this respect, all evidence suggests that there’s a genetic component to behaviour in dogs (and humans). The questions at the moment are to what extent do genes influence behaviour - and obviously, what genes or combinations thereof are important.

Anyway, here’s some more scientific evidence for you to ignore, Saetre et al. (2004). [Mol Brain Res 126: 198-206; DOI:10.1016/j.molbrainres.2004.05.003]. Abstracted from the abstract:

‘We compare gene expression patterns in dogs, wolves and a close relative, the coyote (Canis latrans), in three parts of the brain: hypothalamus, amygdala and frontal cortex, with microarray technology. Additionally, we identify genes with region-specific expression patterns in all three species. Among the wild canids, the hypothalamus has a highly conserved expression profile. This contrasts with a marked divergence in domestic dogs. Real-time PCR experiments confirm the altered expression of two neuropeptides, CALCB and NPY. Our results suggest that strong selection on dogs for behavior during domestication may have resulted in modifications of mRNA expression patterns in a few hypothalamic genes with multiple functions.’

From within the paper:
‘The two wild species in our study, the gray wolf and the coyote, had a very conserved pattern of gene expression in this tissue in spite of having diverged millions of years ago [47]. In contrast with this, the pattern of gene expression in the hypothalamus of domestic dogs has diverged markedly in an evolutionarily short time. This suggests that the domestication process of dogs has greatly accelerated the rate of divergence in gene expression in the hypothalamus.’

They also mention:
‘A long-term study on farmed silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in which animals were selected for non-aggressive behavior towards man for more than 40 generations resulted in silver foxes that were docile and friendly towards people.’

This study is discussed in the book The Genetics of the Dog (I think I mentioned it earlier in the thread?) and in Trut et al. (2000) [Genetika 36: 942-946; in Russian, but the abstract’s here].

Anyway lissener, it’s your right to bury your head in a bucket, the bucket in the sand, the sand in a block of glass, and shoot the block of glass into space. None of this will alter the scientific realities.

[lissener]

@Boldface Type

I don’t know how many peer-reviewed cites you need, but you certainly seem to be skating over any I or anyone else provide.

I’ve already addressed this. I’ve read all the cites, and all but one are statements of hypothesis, not of conclusion. The exception is the one you post again above, which I’d already said I was interested in reading. From your extracts, it seems to me to primarily prove that there are indeed genetic differences between dogs, wolves, and coyotes; I’m not sure I’ve ever disputed that. I’m not sure I’ve seen proof that this genetic difference has been proven to carry along with it such traits as fetching or herding. I’ve already offered the model that a genetically strong dog–a mixed breed–is more likely to have strong components of all such traits (in my anecdotal experience, anyway, and according to my understanding of genetics) than an overbred, inbred AKC dog; that my understanding of genetics includes the possibility that a particular breed can be so badly inbred that this trait or that trait may become weakened: selective retardation.

I’ve maintained that model from the beginning.

The model I’m railing against is the eugenic concept that inbreeding IMPROVES such traits; or brings out such traits. NO. It’s an entirely negative process. If a Border Collie is a better herder than most breeds, it’s strictly by default: the Border Collie is not a better herder than the Ur Dog.

If you want to champion dog eugenics–forced inbreeding–as a way to improve this or that trait in this or that breed, then you don’t understand how it works. That’s been the basis of my argument from the get go. I’m not a PETA whacko–had three kinds of meat for lunch yesterday, and I feed mice to my snake–but to my view, dog eugenics should hold almost the same kind of horror as human eugenics. So I will continue to shout BULLSHIT when people say *“Breed A is better at X than Breed B, because they’ve been BRED to better,” * because that statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the destructive, NOT constructive, process of inbreeding.

[Skywatcher]

@lissener

The model I’m railing against is the eugenic concept that inbreeding IMPROVES such traits; or brings out such traits. NO. It’s an entirely negative process. If a Border Collie is a better herder than most breeds, it’s strictly by default: the Border Collie is not a better herder than the Ur Dog.

If you want to champion dog eugenics–forced inbreeding–as a way to improve this or that trait in this or that breed, then you don’t understand how it works. That’s been the basis of my argument from the get go.

And from the get go, you’ve been arguing the wrong point. Everyone else is talking about the removal of “undesireable” traits.

So I will continue to shout BULLSHIT when people say “Breed A is better at X than Breed B, because they’ve been BRED to better,” because that statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the destructive, NOT constructive, process of inbreeding.

Let’s see you put a Pomeranian in the Iditarod. It’s not a matter of Breed A (e.g.: Siberian Husky) being bred to be better at X (i.e.: sled pulling) than Breed B (i.e.: Pomeranian) but rather Breed B being bred to be worse.

[Dead_Badger]

@lissener

The model I’m railing against is the eugenic concept that inbreeding IMPROVES such traits; or brings out such traits. NO. It’s an entirely negative process. If a Border Collie is a better herder than most breeds, it’s strictly by default: the Border Collie is not a better herder than the Ur Dog.

If you want to champion dog eugenics–forced inbreeding–as a way to improve this or that trait in this or that breed, then you don’t understand how it works. That’s been the basis of my argument from the get go. I’m not a PETA whacko–had three kinds of meat for lunch yesterday, and I feed mice to my snake–but to my view, dog eugenics should hold almost the same kind of horror as human eugenics. So I will continue to shout BULLSHIT when people say *“Breed A is better at X than Breed B, because they’ve been BRED to better,” * because that statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the destructive, NOT constructive, process of inbreeding.

Err, what? You make it sound like we should not respect Darwin for his scientific method, but rather despise him for his vicious eugenic experiments on sweet peas. One reason that human eugenics is so repulsive is that it would probably work*; the main one, however, is that it involves the state manipulating who can conceive with whom, and arbitrating who has the right to live. If you feel that private citizens doing the same to their dogs is horrific, fine: become a champion of canine reproductive rights (and good luck with that). It doesn’t, unfortunately, have any bearing on whether selective breeding works whatsoever. What on earth do genes care what your opinion is?

Also, your insistence on mischaracterising the reason selective breeding works is missing the point. No, aptitude for “herding” or “fetching” isn’t directly controlled by any one gene; it’s controlled by a number of much more simple characteristics. Leg length, body mass, bone structure (and yes, temperament) etc. etc. all play a role, and in different combinations are all apt for different purposes, just as a soup spoon’s no good for stirring tea and a teaspoon’s useless for gazpacho. By trying to insist that selective breeders believe there’s a “herding” gene, you’re fallaciously trying to make your point by ridiculing a strawman.

*read: “have an effect”, not “be great”, just in case that wasn’t clear.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I’m actually not sure on what basis y’all are giving lissener’s argument as much credit as you’re giving it.

When someone wants to breed a herding dog, they don’t say, “Let’s find a dog that shows very little interest in retrieving a ball, and breed it with a dog that shows very little interest in protecting its lair, and by suppressing these traits, all that’ll be left is the herding instinct.”

No: they find dogs that express the herding instinct more than the other dogs, and breed them together.

Breeding is very often not a process of suppressing undesired characteristics: it is very often a process of emphasizing desired characteristics.

Of course, there ARE some times that you suppress undesired characteristics: in order to breed a family pet, you might find the least aggressive dogs to breed together. But that’s far from universal.

Daniel

[Boldface_Type]

@lissener

I’ve already addressed this. I’ve read all the cites, and all but one are statements of hypothesis, not of conclusion. (…) From your extracts, it seems to me to primarily prove that there are indeed genetic differences between dogs, wolves, and coyotes; (…) I’m not sure I’ve seen proof that this genetic difference has been proven to carry along with it such traits as fetching or herding.

Fetching or herding were not specifically addressed in the papers I cited. However the move from wolf to dog has led to behavioural and genetic differences, much as the change from Rottweiler to Chihuahua probably has.

Moreover, there are genetic differences between breeds of dog, as established in Parker et al. (2004) [DOI: 10.1126/science.1097406]:

‘Different breeds are genetically distinct, and individuals can be readily assigned to breeds on the basis of their genotypes’

‘Another [group of genetically related dogs] includes Shetland Sheepdog, the two Belgian Sheepdogs, and Collie, and may reflect shared ancestral herding behavior.’

In other words, all the ‘herding’ type breeds share common genetic inheritance! I’m not sure how much more clearly I can get this through to you without nailing Parker herself to your noggin.

I’ve already offered the model that a genetically strong dog–a mixed breed–is more likely to have strong components of all such traits (in my anecdotal experience, anyway, and according to my understanding of genetics)

Anecdotal experience indeed.

than an overbred, inbred AKC dog; that my understanding of genetics includes the possibility that a particular breed can be so badly inbred that this trait or that trait may become weakened: selective retardation.

Traits may be strengthened, traits may be weakened or lost. Works both ways. However, selective breeding does not inherently lead to the loss of certain traits.

The model I’m railing against is the eugenic concept that inbreeding IMPROVES such traits; or brings out such traits. NO. It’s an entirely negative process. If a Border Collie is a better herder than most breeds, it’s strictly by default: the Border Collie is not a better herder than the Ur Dog.

Some points:

• If you had any peer-reviewed literature at all to support your position, it would be nice.

• If the Border Collie is not inherently a better herder than Johnny Randomdog, then what has been suppressed to allow the herding to assert itself so well in the Collie? If you say that the development of a trait must be combined with suppressing of (useful) behaviours, then what are these suppressed traits? In my anecdotal-and-thus-useless experience with cats, distinctive behavioural traits are certainly not twinned with deleterious behavioral traits. I have also found exactly sod-all scientific evidence that a genetic trait can only be expressed because of the suppression or loss of other traits.

• If it is impossible to strengthen traits ‘losslessly’, then how do you explain the fact that it’s possible to selectively breed (e.g.) for disease resistance in animals? Disease resistance is not behavioural, of course, but if you choose to argue this point, what is it about behavioural traits that makes them genetic special cases as compared with purely ‘physiological’ traits?

If you want to champion dog eugenics–forced inbreeding–as a way to improve this or that trait in this or that breed, then you don’t understand how it works.

Sigh. I fear you are a lost cause.

That’s been the basis of my argument from the get go. I’m not a PETA whacko–had three kinds of meat for lunch yesterday, and I feed mice to my snake–but to my view, dog eugenics should hold almost the same kind of horror as human eugenics.

Human eugenics is viewed - rightly - with horror because of the obvious moral concerns, and also because practical eugenics in humans is extremely tricky to carry out (brief overview here ).

So I will continue to shout BULLSHIT when people say *“Breed A is better at X than Breed B, because they’ve been BRED to better,” * because that statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the destructive, NOT constructive, process of inbreeding.

It seems that your moral concerns are blinding you to scientific realities. For better or worse, scientific findings are amoral - alas on this scientific trip, you are simply AWOL.

[1010011010]

@lissener

That you would ask this question explains a LOT.

That you’re unwilling and/or unable to answer explains how much?

I ask that question because people have posted links to published articles, which you dismissed as anecdotal, hypothetical, or some other variety of hand waving. Obviously you’re using some alternative and exciting definition of science with which the rest of us in the thread are unfamiliar.

I also find the “modern dog breeds express a subset of the traits of the Ur Dog” thing interesting. Especially when your supporting argument seems to be that evolution is incapable of innovation. Do you think all other evolutionary mechanisms stop when selective breeding has more impact than natural selection?

[Skywatcher]

@1010011010

I ask that question because people have posted links to published articles, which you dismissed as anecdotal, hypothetical, or some other variety of hand waving. Obviously you’re using some alternative and exciting definition of science with which the rest of us in the thread are unfamiliar.

Or he’s just going “LA LA LA LA LA LA - I can’t hear you!”