Teddy (left), and Sampson (right)

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is bullshit. In more than half of dog bites the breed is unknown. So that’s the end of your line of reasoning. You simply don’t know and cannot say their “nature.”

    They were bred for hunting. Some people used some of them for fighting dogs years after they were first bred and used for decades as hunting dogs. Of the few that were used in fighting, dogs that bit humans were not allowed to fight and so were euthanized

    Edit: abject know-nothings and science deniers downvoting me.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Every study states it itself. There’s always a category for “unknown,” and if for some reason there isn’t such a category, you know the source you are reading is some full of shit organization that at best is misleading people just to collect money and at worst is only talking about dogs so they can push pseudo genetic science including eugenics and blood lible.

        Your narrative from Wikipedia is some hysterical author focusing on one group of dogs. It’s also undeniable that training is an exponentially more significant factor in animal behavior than genetics, so let’s assume they were bred for fighting other dogs at a dog fight, so what? What does that have to do with dogs biting humans in their own homes or at the park? It’s a stupid argument you’re making.

        • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          you know the source you are reading is some full of shit organization that at best is misleading people just to collect money and at worst is only talking about dogs so they can push genetic science including eugenics and blood lible.

          Evidence that this Wikipedia article is any of the things you are rambling about here? Or do you just dismiss all Wikipedia articles.

          It’s also undeniable that training is an exponentially more significant factor in animal behavior than genetics.

          More unfounded statements, again I ask you for evidence. Show me something that indicates that an animal’s nature can be completely overriden by training; then tell that to Siegfried and Roy.

          What does that have to do with dogs biting humans in their own homes or at the park? It’s a stupid argument you’re making.

          You don’t even have an argument, evidence and dare I say it a brain.

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They were bred explicitly for fighting. First fighting bulls in pits, hence Pitbull. That was outlawed. It was deemed unfair to pit different animals against each other in a fight. So pitbulls were then bred to fight other dogs.

      Pitbulls were killed when they wouldn’t fight, or were beat by another dog. The breeders didn’t care about them bitting humans. They wouldn’t keep them as pets as they were for fighting.