Heh, just saw this. Your well-poisoning, irrational, misrepresentational method of argument, coupled with a terminal case of prolix writing and a repulsive conflation of dog breeds with human races, makes me utterly unwilling to engage with you.
…What? You… don’t consider a woman having her face ripped off a “dog attack”? If a pit bull was “just trying to help” and ripped someone’s face off, would that not be a “dog attack” either?
If the dog doesn’t think it’s doing anything wrong, that excuses ripping a person’s face off? Does that go for a border collie that mauls a kid in the face because it thinks it has the right to correct and school the child for trying to take its toy away?
What do you think your reaction would be, if the situations were reversed, the dog in question was a pit bull, and I was trying to excuse a face being ripped off because “the dog didn’t mean it”?
You can only react to your personal observations and statistics? The CDC’s numbers and advice are meaningless to you, personal anecdotes and observations are more reliable now? Somehow I thought I’d started this thread in GD.
There is no way in hell I would leave a todder alone with any dog, no matter how loveable it appears to be. This is a particular difference between people with lots of experience handling dogs, and the general public, who frequently think a husky couldn’t hurt a flea. Personally, I don’t much care that the dog didn’t “mean” to attack, and only thought it was playing with a toy. I don’t downplay severe and fatal dog attacks just because they’re perpetrated by a PC breed.
You are certainly free to carry an irrational fear of pit dogs, no quibble there, but if you think any breed of dog is de facto “safe” with children, you’re putting your kids at serious risk. By all means, be cautious of pit dogs. Be cautious of all dogs.
Really? You’ve personally been witness to countless severe pit bull maulings? How fascinating. Many many times I’ve seen pit bulls and pit bull mixes not go off, and every time I’m amazed at what nice dogs they are. See how that works?
Continued insistence on urban legend #2 doesn’t make it any more true. That you, personally, are a crappy interpreter of canine behavior doesn’t actually give us any reliable evidence to work on.
And your name-calling and blind inability to comprehend your own argument doesn’t make me any more impressed with your mental capabilities.
Someone once said something about mental schema… what was it…? I don’t remember, something about how hard it is sometimes to break down, but when those breakthroughs happen… man, education is awesome.
Sorry, that first comment was an insult, and this isn’t the forum for that.
Striking that from the record, your name-calling and refusal to engage still doesn’t make your argument any more impressive, or factually correct.
The SDMB can be slanted, and in my years here I’ve come to understand that, if the ratio of posts by one poster vs disagreeing posters exceeds 1:2, the first poster is possibly a crackpot. In this thread the ratio between NajaNivea and all her detractors is around 4:1. She may be a person who knows her topic better than others, but the odds are against it.
That’s interesting. Are you meaning to suggest I’m not what I represent myself to be?
The odds are against it, or the evidence? Do you have any evidence, or any reasonable support for your contention that I’m a liar or a nutcase? Any evidence to contradict anything I’ve said? Because your accusation pretty goddamned offensive.
Look, sorry if my willingness to respond to all comers bothers you, but assuming that we’re here to fight ignorance, and seeing a multitude of it spewing forth on this topic kinda gets me. It’s one I happen to be very experienced in, knowledgeable and passionate about. Do you need my resume?
That others aren’t in here fighting the good fight against ignorance on the matter doesn’t bother me all that much, as I don’t appear to be having much difficulty holding up my end of the debate.
When someone, anyone comes along to refute the CDC and AVMA reports with better, more reliable evidence, or for that matter comes along to refute anything I’ve said as it pertains to canine behavior and aggression with better, more reliable evidence, then I’ll start feeling bad about my willingness to stand behind reason and not let this urban legend bullshit go unchallenged just because it makes me unpopular with folks who want to keep believing it.
Otherwise, just like LHOD, your name-calling doesn’t change the facts of the discussion; it says more about you than me.
Yes, I’ve seen pit bulls go off many times. It was with other dogs and for no apparent reason. The one event I missed seeing firsthand was with a person whom I specifically warned and her arm was shredded in the attack.
As has been posted already, the statistics of fatalities in dog attacks is overwhelmingly due to Pit Bulls and not Dachshunds.
So… all these horrific mauling incidents you were personally witness to, was the “going off” directed at other dogs, or at people? Again, that you are a shitty interpreter of canine body language does not actually provide us with any appreciable evidence to support your claim.
As has been posted already:
Now, if you want to convince me that you know more about dog aggression than the American Veterinary Medical Association, you’re going to need to come up with a better argument then “because I think so”.
Continued repetition does not make Urban Legends #1 and 2 any more true.
And, you know, anecdotes != data. I’ve handled easily many thousands of random-source dogs, a large plurality of them “pit-type”. The dogs that came through our facility were not just “random-source” dogs, but the dogs deemed “unadoptable” by city and county shelters, frequently due to bite histories or aggression complaints against them.
Suffice it to say, my experiences do not tally with yours… but then again, anecdotes != data. On the other hand, I find it easy to believe the AVMA, because my experiences do tally with what they have to say on the subject. That’s a little part of why I find all this so mind-boggling. “Because I think so” or “because everyone says so” as a debate platform usually gets folks laughed out of threads around here.
So many pictures of cute pups. Must resist urge to go home and roll on floor with my Staffies.
I know two “pit bulls” who are getting extra biscuits this afternoon, from my 5 y.o.
My observations coincide with the data listed above showing a relationship between the breed in relation to people killed by dogs.
It has nothing to do with my interpretation of “canine body language”. A dog attacking another dog or a person is not an interpretation, it’s an event.
If you’re referring to canine body language leading up to the event then you must be Dr. Dolittle and know more than the dogs who were attacked because they missed the interpretation too. If you expect people to know more about dogs than other dogs then you’ll have to make a case for it.
You remind me of Timothy Treadwell and his all-consuming passion for nature.
So… I don’t get it.
What about this sentence do you not understand? Are the words too big or…?
Oh, so you* were *talking about dog aggression… which as a trait of pit dogs has never at any point been under contention.
Anecdotes != data
You remind me of Jenny McCarthy, and her all-consuming hatred of vaccines based on her own personal experiences and statistics, the CDC be damned.
Indeed. It’s also an indication that the first poster believes quantity is a fair substitute for quality.
Sometimes, it’s ad nauseum repetition for the benefit of posters who believe urban legends are a fair substitute for fact.
I don’t know about your neck of the woods, where maybe it’s okay to turn to ad hoc in place of reason, but where I come from, that’s a clear indication you’ve got nothing left. Walking away from an argument after being called on bringing up a shyster as “evidence” and then calling me names isn’t exactly a shining recommendation for your own debate style, big guy.
Oh, I’m absolutely not recommending my debate style here: I’m not debating you here, after all. I’ll let my debate style recommend itself elsewhere, when I actually am debating someone. But you called me out here, so I’m responding to that. I don’t consider your “debate” style to be worthy of response: you burned me already with misrepresentational, well-poisoning, irrational, offensive posts in the previous thread, and I learned my lesson there. I’ll save my debates for someone who is going to respond with reason, honesty, respect, and perceptive points.
Really? Maybe you could show me where that happened, here, here and here, because to me it looks an awful lot like you offered unfounded assertions, denied your belief in the same assertions, then continued to repeat the same unfounded assertions. When pressed for clarification, you responded like so: with reference to a shystery dog bite attorney as “evidence”.
My response was to call bullshit on the source, then to ask you for some even remotely plausible theory to back up your assertion: namely that breeding for dog aggression directly equates to an increased risk for harm to children.
I thought I had been a little unfairly dismissive, so I went back and reviewed the shyster’s link, just to be sure I wasn’t doing something magellan01 did earlier, and dismissing relevant data because I didn’t like the source. It looks to me like I offered a pretty reasonable assessment. Maybe you can show me where I was irrational and offensive in response to you in the posts above which burned you so badly you had to walk away from the poisoned well?
Clearly this is a topic that means quite a bit to me, so if you truly do believe I’m arguing from a stance of ignorance and bias, I’d really like to know. After all, I wouldn’t want to go around spouting a bunch of bullshit, even with the CDC and AVMA on my side.
If you would leave a toddler alone with any breed or type of dog, you are playing with fire. Young children should never, ever be left unsupervised with any dog. This is child safety 101.
FWIW, I know three people who were ‘mauled’ by small breeds as toddlers. Thankfully, they didn’t lose a lot of blood and the scarring was minimal. Yes, if the dog had been larger it would have been more serious. This doesn’t mean that larger breeds are more likely to bite people.