Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 02-03-2013, 10:16 AM   #221
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arby911
It's not what I'm choosing, it's what you directly implied.

I implied nothing of the sort. You simply chose to 'assume' that I implied that to give yourself something solid to argue against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arby911
You asked if the numbers could be correlated to "the sheer number of pit bulls out there" and given that well over half of the fatal dog attacks are pit bulls said correlation would mean that to allege a statistical norm they must make up over half of the canine population, making them the most popular breed by a magnificent margin.

Except that they aren't.

You're reading far too much into it. I merely stated that pit bulls are 'a very popular breed', which means they exist in larger numbers to many other breeds, which in turn means that more attacks will be attributed to them than lots of other breeds.

As you've just said, over half of the "fatal" dog attacks are attributed to pit bulls but fatalities are not a measure of how 'naturaly aggressive' a dog breed is, it's a measure of how 'powerful' a dog is.
As I said earlier, a dachshund is usualy far more 'naturaly aggressive' than a bull terrier, but a bull terrier will always be able to do much more damage to you than a dachshund. Remember, this thread and debate is about the 'natural aggression' of pit bulls, not how many pit bulls have been 'conditioned' to be aggressive.

Y'see, even though over half of the "fatal" dog attacks are attributed to pit bulls (which I haven't checked, but I'll take your word for it) far more 'unfatal' attacks are attributed to other breeds than pit bulls. We measure a dog's aggression by how likely it is to attack in the first place, not by how likely it is that it's attack will result in a fatality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arby911
Look, I know you can do basic statistical analysis and we both know your population apologetic was ridiculous, so why continue to push it? There are plenty of more rational variables that we might consider to explain the disproportionate numbers, why would you even allege such a patently false one?

You are patently misunderstanding what I said.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 02-03-2013 at 11:00 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 10:19 AM   #222
LostLegion
resurrected
 
LostLegion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
It's the owner. Some dogs are just more stronger and better at attacking than others which is why they garner a reputation for it.
__________________
LIVERPOOL F.C.


LostLegion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 12:25 PM   #223
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
 
Arby911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
I implied nothing of the sort. You simply chose to 'assume' that I implied that to give yourself something solid to argue against.

You're reading far too much into it. I merely stated that pit bulls are 'a very popular breed', which means they exist in larger numbers to many other breeds, which in turn means that more attacks will be attributed to them than lots of other breeds.

As you've just said, over half of the "fatal" dog attacks are attributed to pit bulls but fatalities are not a measure of how 'naturaly aggressive' a dog breed is, it's a measure of how 'powerful' a dog is.
As I said earlier, a dachshund is usualy far more 'naturaly aggressive' than a bull terrier, but a bull terrier will always be able to do much more damage to you than a dachshund. Remember, this thread and debate is about the 'natural aggression' of pit bulls, not how many pit bulls have been 'conditioned' to be aggressive.

Y'see, even though over half of the "fatal" dog attacks are attributed to pit bulls (which I haven't checked, but I'll take your word for it) far more 'unfatal' attacks are attributed to other breeds than pit bulls. We measure a dog's aggression by how likely it is to attack in the first place, not by how likely it is that it's attack will result in a fatality.

You are patently misunderstanding what I said.



It was a reasonable inference, given your claims. If I was indeed misunderstanding what you said, perhaps you said it poorly.

And while the overall thread has been about inherent aggression, the post that predicated this particular dialog was that of VanTheKraut where he discussed the stigma attached to Pit Bulls, to which I responded that perhaps the disproportionate number of fatal Pit attacks may contribute to said stigma.

In any case I find your contention of my misunderstanding particularly unusual given the following quote.

or could the percentage of people being killed by pit bulls corelate to the sheer number of pit bulls out there?

If you meant to correlate attacks instead of fatalities, perhaps you shouldn't have used "killed"?
__________________
The man who holds to a belief because of tradition, or hides it because he fears he may be shown to be wrong, does not love the truth but manifests a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices.
Arby911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 12:28 PM   #224
StewieSwan
Play my dudelsack
 
StewieSwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The lake
A pitbull broke into my friend's house and murdered 2 of her dogs.
__________________
wait, are sigs back?
StewieSwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 03:53 AM   #225
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arby911
It was a reasonable inference, given your claims. If I was indeed misunderstanding what you said, perhaps you said it poorly.

And while the overall thread has been about inherent aggression, the post that predicated this particular dialog was that of VanTheKraut where he discussed the stigma attached to Pit Bulls, to which I responded that perhaps the disproportionate number of fatal Pit attacks may contribute to said stigma.

In any case I find your contention of my misunderstanding particularly unusual given the following quote.

or could the percentage of people being killed by pit bulls corelate to the sheer number of pit bulls out there?

If you meant to correlate attacks instead of fatalities, perhaps you shouldn't have used "killed"?

Yes, maybe I should have corrected your inflection rather than using it there, but it really wouldn't have made any difference, my point would still have been the same anyway, and that point would have been that regardless of whether we are talking about fatalities or just attacks, the fact that there's a LOT of pit bulls out there simply means that we are going to get a certain percentage of pit bull attacks on people, just like the fact that there are a lot of Dachshunds out there means that there are going to be a lot of Dachshund attacks on people, only difference is, the pit bull attacks will make the news because a pit bull bite does a lot more damage than a Dachshund bite. Pit bulls really don't have any more of a 'naturaly aggressive' nature than any other dog breed, it's just that they tend to do more damage than other breeds when they are aggressive.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 02-04-2013 at 05:54 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 06:41 AM   #226
ErikLensherr
Star-Splitter
 
ErikLensherr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington, DC
It's 100% bad owners. I had a pit bull as a kid and he was a sweetheart.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
No joke that's how I feel

edit: unless that's a gay thing
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazysam23_Atax
I am fairly cliterate with my hands and mouth.
ErikLensherr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 06:57 AM   #227
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikLensherr
It's 100% bad owners. I had a pit bull as a kid and he was a sweetheart.

Totaly agree.

Owing a dog like a pit bull is a big responsibility. There's no denying that they can be dangerous when they are out of control, as many other breeds are, which is why pit bull owners should have a responsibility to make sure that their dog is well trained and conditioned enough to ensure that it doesn't get out of control.
Of the several pit bulls and other bull terriers that I've owned and of the several similar breeds of dogs kept by my friends that I've known, it would seem to me that their 'natural' temperament is one of loyalty and playfulness. They can be a bit headstrong but that's something that can easily be sorted with the right training.

If I had my way, people who keep dogs above a certain size would go through a vetting system to see if they are capable of responsibly training and conditioning them.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.