NajaNivea/Michael Vick/boar Hunting/Pitbulls

[NajaNivea]

@magellan01

I thought this Pit thread was coming. Good for you. NajaNivea is simply an apologist. He’s got religion and there’s no penetrating it. But I did find this gem to be almost worth it:

I guess I’ve “seen” the inside of the Oval Office, the Great Wall of China, the Hope Diamond, and Elle McPherson naked. This changes everything.

Oh, and then there’s our bright and shining pal, magellan01, originator of this exchange:

@magellan01

@NajaNivea

No more dangerous than, say, boxers, shepherds, great danes, dobermans, rottweilers, borzoi, various and sundry cur breeds, briards, akitas, shar-pei, chows, rhodesian ridgebacks, American bulldogs, any of the pastoral flock guardian breeds, and so on and so forth. They fall into a class of “medium to large working breed dogs” which necessitate more active management than sedentary breeds or, say, sporting and companion breeds which were selected for soft temperaments and close companionship.

Okay. So, you agree that not all dogs are equally dangerous. That the ones you mention above probably, on average, cause more of a problem than others not on your list. I agree. But I see this is the initial way to slice it. After that, if one breed (any one of them) is bred to fight, selectively encouraging those traits that make it better at killing—both physically and tempermentally—that breed would be become MORE dangerous than if not so bred, wouldn’t it. And, therefore, MORE dangerous than those other dogs. Right?

@NajaNivea

…You do realize, of course, that a fair number of those breeds up there were bred to fight human beings, selectively encouraging those traits that would make them better at killing human beings both physically and temperamentally…right? That several of the breeds are bred to fight wolves, foxes or coyotes, a couple for lions or mountain lions, a whole bunch of them for wild boar…? So yes, I do agree with your statement–that dogs bred for battle-related work duties have stronger temperaments and greater potential for harm if involved in human conflict. As I said, many medium and large working breeds fit the bill, pit dogs no more so than any other.

@magellan01

So, in theory, if one of these breeds were bred to be even better fighters, be even more powerful, and be even more aggressive and unrelenting once they’re involved in a fight, that breed would be on a track to be potentially more dangerous than all the others. Correct?

@NajaNivea

You don’t think a wolfhound is expected to fight to the death? Or a pastoral flock guardian? You think Great Pyrenees breeders are peachy-keen and dandy if their flock guardian takes a powder because he gets concerned about his own skin? What about boar dogs? A hog dog that quits in the middle of a fight gets other dogs and the hunter killed, and you can most certainly bet that dog is going to get a quick bullet in the head if he manages to survive the fight after tucking tail and running.
You don’t think a lion hunting dog is bred to be a relentless killer once engaged?

What about protection dogs? Do you think that working doberman breeders breed dobies who, when they get smacked around a little, pack it up and go home? Any of the eastern European herding breeds (GSD, Malinois, etc), you think people spend fortunes and lives breeding dogs to chase and fight bad guys, but who give up when the going gets tough?

@magellan01

Thanks for not answering my question. I thought as much. But now I can leave you alone again and go debate Young Earth Creationists. My skills are so lacking I need an audience who is more open to reality and more open to the idea that they might be wrong. I’ll leave you to your Benign Pitbullism.

@NajaNivea

Sigh.
Okay, sure. Now, why don’t you go ahead and tell me how this hypothetical applies to a 35-40lb dog bred to fight other 35-45lb dogs, more so than any number of 80-100lb+ breeds bred to fight to the death against wolves, coyotes, lions, wild boar, or human beings?

A question to which, of course, I received no reply.