No Black men are not analogous to Pit Bulls. The analogy is between the thought processes - being the misapplication of taking a correlation and making faulty conclusion based on poor understanding of what correlation means.
The issue is always why a particular correlation appears to exist. In both cases some have (yes still do in some circles) assumed that the only conclusion is something genetically inherent to the group. In both case that is a specious conclusion. We all know why for humans and do not need to hijack here. For Pit Bulls the reasons for the apparent correlation are otherwise:
As noted and documented well in this thread - the tremendous overclassification of dogs that attack as Pit Bulls even though they may not have Pit in them at all. This occurs because people assume a scary looking dog with big jaws is a Pit (and often have no idea that all the other breeds and mixes that have similar phenotypes even exist … cane corso?), and because that phenotype is scary looking and is bred for by the scum using whatever material they have to work with, along with breeding for aggression.
Because those scum take those dogs that look something like Pits and sometimes have some Pit in them and sometimes not, who they have bred for aggression, and abuse them in order to create weapons.
I am glad you agree with the major point even if you dislike the poor thinking analogy: the actual breed of American Pit Bull, bred by responsible breeders and raised by responsible owners to be pets, are not scary dogs even though they are very powerful ones. Threads like this one go at cross purposes when posters conflate those dogs with the dogs of roughly Pit phenotype (that may or may not have Pit in them) who are bred and raised to be weapons by scum and state that Pits are dangerous rather than stating that the scum who breed dogs for aggression and then abuse them into weapons are dangerous.
This question doesn’t make sense, because “breed” isn’t a scientific term with a correct and incorrect answer. As I’ve said before, I’m talking about dogs that the owners identify as pit bulls, and I’ve offered a way to Google evidence of those owners’ views, and I’ve offered law enforcement perspective on those owners’ views. I’m not sure what more I could offer.
Ah. But that’s not why I offered the cite. I offered it to show that law enforcement folks encounter breeders who attempt to breed “people mean” dogs.
It would be remarkable if that were difficult to do, given that we’ve bred dogs who, on seeing a duck, have an overpowering urge to stand on three legs and stare at the duck.*
ETA: Nitpick. No dog has ever been used to point at a duck. Ducks fly by, get shot, and then are retreived by a retreiver breed. And pointers don’t use eyesight to locate a bird. They smell them. What is bred into the dog is a heightened sense of smell.
Those are not the identifications I’m talking about, though. I’m trying very hard to be clear on what I’m talking about, and I’m offering cites about what I’m talking about.
If you’re talking about breeders and owners who belong to the AKC, you’re almost certainly talking about a different group of breeders and owners from whom I’m talking about.
Out of curiosity, how many conversations have you had with dogfighters or with folks who have attended organized dogfights? It’s been awhile since I’ve done so, but I used to give classes on animal cruelty at a local rural high school, and I talked with a couple of dozen students over the years who’d been involved in dogfighting and were willing to discuss their experiences with the class. That’s my direct experience; in prep for the class, of course, I did a lot of research.
Again, the dog owners I was researching weren’t the ones showing up at Westminster.
Perhaps if we try to keep the language more precise we can continue towards some common ground - for one group – the dogs that get called “pits” (who do not have too much in common with dogs bred by reputable breeders and called American Pit Bulls) who are bred by scum to be aggressive – there IS a genetic component.
When language is chosen that paints the other group of dogs, the pet population bred as pets raised and by responsible owners, with the same brush because of its imprecision, unintended disagreements appear.
It’s irrelevant, as they offer no support for anything they’re claiming.
No idea what this means.
I have no idea what relevance there is to any of that. Most dogfighters I know are so incredibly stupid that I wouldn’t trust them to tell me if it was raining.
I have totally stopped worrying about pit bulls at our local dog park. I can tell a lot more about how the dog will behave by looking at the owner, and be pretty darned sure after a few minutes watching how the dog interacts with the owner. IME pitbulls are more friendly to people than dogs on average, and are quite playful with other dogs. I have not observed them to overreact when a smaller dog (mine, unfortunately) gets intimidated and snaps at them.
That said, duchebag dog owners are drawn to pit bulls, just like duchebag motorcyclists are drawn to Harleys…a fair amount of overlap in those populations actually. See that guy with the shaved head and the gang tatoos? If he wants a dog, dollars to doughnuts he wants a pit.
But not an American Pit Bull … a generic mongrel bred to look powerful scary and to be aggressive that gets called “a pit.”
And the ironic thing is that breed specific bans can easily ban American Pit Bulls, which are not any significant risk, but it is harder to ban the mixed up muscular mongrel lunkheads that get casually called pits but are actually of unknown heritage.
I immediately thought of two buddies of mine. I’m 55, and they are close in age to me. Both have shaved heads. Both sport ancient gang tats along with more recent work that is not gang related.
Jeff owns a little beagle/pug/something mix, named Banjo. Frank has a Golden Retriever. Her name is either Sandy or something similar, slipping my mind right now.
Great. Do you agree that some people breed dogs in an attempt to increase their predisposition to territoriality, and that some people breed dogs in an attempt to increase their disposition to go get small moving objects and bring them back to their pack leader?
LD, is it the “to people” part that you are reacting to? Do you not believe that aggressiveness is a selectable trait? Do you think dogs’ personalities are blank slates exclusively shaped by how they are raised? What do you think would happen when the most aggressive and easily provoked dogs are mated together over multiple generations? If you believe that some significant fraction of those dogs will have a greater tendency to become highly aggressive than without such a breeding campaign, then do you think that somehow the aggression will not be aimed at humans ever? If so why?
Temperament is a trait with a significant genetic component. Including the tendency of American Pit Bulls raised by reputable breeders to be gentle, playful, and stable dogs.
