Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.

  • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    because you care about violent dogs designed to kill

    As I pointed out in another comment, we don’t know that this is how this works. Nature vs nurture isn’t some no brainer just because it’s about something you don’t like.

    But regardless, no thank you. I don’t want any animal to be artificially driven to extinction because people are horrible and thus raise them horribly.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Claiming ignorance to avoid solving a problem is weak or deceptive.

      These dogs are bred to be strong. To kill. They don’t belong in homes and society near children. They should never have been bred in the first place nor imported, but that happened, so gotta deal with it.

      People buy these dogs to be intimidating. Compensating for something, I expect. If people are licensed and can prove training, fine, keep them, but if they have already been raised bad, it’s probably too late and too risky. A school girls runs past, and bam, disfigured.

      • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Claiming ignorance?? Are you saying that you, despite hundreds of years of debate, have solved the problem of nature vs nurture? Wtf?

        These dogs are bred to be strong. To kill. They don’t belong in homes and society near children

        And as I said in another comment, so were some slaves. Should their descendants not be allowed in homes and society near children? That’d be insane. That’s not how anything works. Breeding can affect your physical attributes, but we have no idea how much it affects individuals psychologically.

        People buy these dogs to be intimidating. Compensating for something, I expect

        Exactly, so those people raise them to be viscous. So they end up being viscous. If they were raised in a loving household this wouldn’t be the case, but because of their reputation they’re far more likely to end up in abusive households, or raised to be attack dogs. It’s a viscous cycle.

        • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To save dogs, you would advocate killing the children of slaves? The lengths you’ll go…

          I know the debate about nature vs nurture and it’s relevant in some debates. Not this one. People do not have lions and tigers as pets. Some zoo owners probably feel they’re passive with the right ownership. Doesn’t make owning them good and sensible. If people cannot act sensibly (and they won’t), legislation has to kick in.

          It is a viscious cycle, and I dont disagree that owners are part of the problem. Shrugging and going “ah well” doesn’t fix the problem. Doing nothing gives owners almost the legal freedom to use their dogs to kill folk and get away with it.

          • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            To save dogs, you would advocate killing the children of slaves? The lengths you’ll go…

            …wtf are you talking about? I’m saying that if we follow your logic then that’d be what we’d have to do. I literally called it insane. Maybe reflect on it.

            Not this one

            That’s literally what this entire debate is about, whether selective breeding can actually affect a living thing psychologically enough to turn them into a killing machine. There is no argument more relevant here than nature vs nurture. Are you trolling?

            Shrugging and going “ah well” doesn’t fix the problem

            You’re right, we need a solution. Maybe for more powerful dogs people would need to get a license. But if I had to guess lots of people aren’t immediately looking for solutions because they’re so busy trying to stop an entire breed of dog from being wrongfully put down.

            Do owners currently get jailed for their dogs actions? If not, they should. That may help deter people from getting “attack dogs”, at least a little.

            • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Your logic was insane and misplaced. We weren’t talking about descendants. It was a weird logical reach.

              This whole debate is about an 11 year old girl and 2 men that got mauled after she ran past a dog and got attacked. This debate is about safety and whether these dogs should be allowed as pets. You may want to shift the debate and move the goalposts, but no way is it justifiable.

              If the people defending the breed of dogs aren’t going to bother coming up with solutions, their views won’t be taken seriously. A young girl got attacked here. A 10 year old got killed 2 years ago. A middle aged lady a few months ago in the UK. Dog attacks in Britain have quadrupled and this breed of dog is the largest perpetrator. If you are advocating maintaining the status quo, you are advocating for more deaths.

              I agree they should be jailed and dog owners of many breeds should be licensed.