Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[SkepticLance]

If this argument was based entirely on the two points below, it could be rational and sensible.

 

1. The right to choose for yourself. ie. Liberty.

2. The suggestion that 66 human deaths in 20 years is trivial.

 

Sadly, we get other arguments such as :

 

1. The numbers are wrong.

2. My pit bull is cute and wouldn't hurt a fly.

 

On the first erroneous argument, we need to consider scientific error factors. All data in science is subject to error. All data outside of science is subject to even more error. The other difference is that in science we try to quantify error. In the case of the pit bull killings of humans, what is the error? The silly argument that : "the numbers are wrong", or.. " the reports misidentified the breeds" fails to identify error factors.

 

The second worst offender in the statistics was the rottweiler, with just over half the killings. If we were to suggest enough error in the numbers to make the comparison invalid, we would have to assume an error factor of plus or minus at least 40%. Sorry, I cannot believe that. It is not credible to suggest that official death statistics are that far out.

 

More likely that the error is closer to 2 or 3. Assuming double that, it would mean that the killings of humans by pit bulls over 20 years was 60 to 72. That would be credible. It would also show that pit bulls are the worst offenders by far.

 

And if you cannot see the flaw in the second argument, there is no hope for you. (Not referring to you, iNow. I know you are smarter than that.)

 

What about the two valid arguments.

 

1. Liberty. OK. That is a good argument. The real issue is where you draw the balance line between greater good for the greater number (banning pit bulls) and the right to individual choice (allowing pit bulls). That is an argument that cannot be won since everyone has a different subjective view.

 

2. Value of 66 lives. For me, the value of a human life is very great. If we can stop the preventable deaths of 66 people over 20 years, we should. Again, that is my subjective opinion and that argument cannot be won either, because everyone else will have their own subjective opinion.

[iNow]

If this argument was based entirely on the two points below, it could be rational and sensible.

 

1. The right to choose for yourself. ie. Liberty.

2. The suggestion that 66 human deaths in 20 years is trivial.

 

Sadly, we get other arguments such as :

 

1. The numbers are wrong.

2. My pit bull is cute and wouldn't hurt a fly.

 

Here's another argument.

 

The problem you've described is with the people, not the dog. It's not the type of dog causing the problems you seek to ameliorate, but the owners. Your ban will not stop the problems you've described.

 

Further, your post above left out my primary argument. It must be judged on the basis of "what percentage of this dog type is violent," and this is remarkably trivial. Please discontinue from strawmanning my position, as if I'm somehow suggesting that life itself is trivial.

 

 

Treat the cause, not the symptom.

[truckrazy]

here is something in defense that these dogs have no value

 

http://www.lawdogsusa.org/home.html

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I have no argument with the fact that bad owners often make bad dogs. However, there is no reason to believe that this 'bad owners' factor is so incredibly breed specific. There are bad owners for all breeds, but pit bulls are still the biggest killers of people, and especially children.

 

I doubt you could 'bad owner' the average golden labrador into being a people killer, no matter how hard you tried. Maybe if the golden lab was genetically meaner than the average to begin with?????

[iNow]

I have no argument with the fact that bad owners often make bad dogs. However, there is no reason to believe that this 'bad owners' factor is so incredibly breed specific. There are bad owners for all breeds, but pit bulls are still the biggest killers of people, and especially children.

Yeah, all three per year.

 

Peanut butter kills more.

Bathtubs kill more.

Countless other things kill more.

 

The emotion in this argument is yours, sir. It's blindingly clear in the rhetoric you're forced to use in support of your weak attempts to convince others of the merit of your position.

 

 

I doubt you could 'bad owner' the average golden labrador into being a people killer, no matter how hard you tried.

I will take that bet! All it takes is one, and your argument crumbles. Can I train the dog myself?

 

Shit. What's the nicest animal you can possible think of? I'll train THAT to kill people.

 

 

Also, care to define genetically "meaner?" I know you cannot, so I'm rather curious why you are using this as a point of argumentation.

[truckrazy]

I know this wasn't towards me, but there are bad owners and dogs that attack people, as is well known, but the difference is that pit bulls get more publicity. If another breed attacks or kills a human, it may be mentioned in a local newspaper or the local news. But if a pit bull attacks or kills someone, then it is astatewide, and sometimes a nationwide media spread. that is the difference. So in reality, pit bulls are no worse than any other breed. What makes them seem that way, is that some little 35 pound dogs have the strength to pull a car (some of them). these are extremely strong dogs for their size. Plus they have the reputation they do because of ignorant people.

[iNow]

The truth of the matter, truckrazy, is that even otherwise highly intelligent people seem to be falling prey to these weak arguments and emphasis on the propaganda. What is frustrating is how they believe their position so blindly that they dismiss all of the otherwise logical arguments made by the rest of us as somehow "emotional" and "irrational."

 

It's almost like arguing global climate change with a denialist or evolution with a creationist. I'm slowly starting to lose hope as pertains to convincing SkepticLance, John Cuthber, and others who support the pro-breed-specific ban position that they are no better than racists on this issue.

 

Oh well. Maybe we can ban them.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

You do not need to apply the "all three per year" argument against me. I have already conceded that it is a valid argument, and falls upon the subjective decision on whether that price is too high to pay for the freedom to choose breed of dog. As I said - a subjective decision.

 

Truckrazy

 

You last post devolves on the argument that the numbers are wrong. Not an argument likely to win much support on a science forum, since a true scientist considers numerical data as a very solid foundation.

[iNow]

You do not need to apply the "all three per year" argument against me. I have already conceded that it is a valid argument, and falls upon the subjective decision on whether that price is too high to pay for the freedom to choose breed of dog. As I said - a subjective decision.

 

I apologize, then. It appears I've mischaracterized your position above.

 

I just don't understand then, if this truly is your position, why you post the way you do on this issue?

[truckrazy]

no. I don't think we should. I can say something but am choosing not to. I was in their shoes once before. I hated pit bulls and thought they should all be wiped off the face of the earth. Then I started actually researching the breed. What I found is all of the statistics that they have been talking about, but the statistics I found were not verified, or very reliable. Then I got one, fell in love, then another, fell in love, then another and fell in love. That is what changed my mind. I actually got to see what they were really like, not necessarily what the media has made them out to be, which is the reason behind the hatred that people have towards the breed. They just don't know. I could be really mean and outright rude about this. Yes this a little bit of a touchy subject for me. I am one of those who hate people who pass judgement without educating themselves first. And by that, I mean they don't need to research one side of the subject, they need to look at both sides. It's just plain ignorant to make a decision on something when you only know parts of the data. Besides, I have found on here that their decisions are based on quantitative data, and that is it. In my opinion with a subject like this, you also need to be looking at the qualitative data. Am I right. I know that you never would have thought to hear something like that from me, because of the conversation we had a few days ago. But I do know a little bit about science.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Thank you for the apology. Whenever someone apologises or admits being wrong, my opinion of them rises. It takes more than average character to apologise and that makes you look to be a strong person.

 

My reasons? As I said before, I think this whole thread is quite absurd. The topic is trivial, and I know I should not even be arguing. I cannot resist, though, since so many of the arguments are so silly, and scream to be destroyed. That is not a dig at you. Your arguments are among the better ones.

 

If you want to know what I mean, look at the recent post by truckrazy who admits that his/her position is based on love of a dog. That is, an emotion. This is the science forum, and those kinds of arguments do not belong.

 

Personally, I have no emotional stance on pit bulls. I do not love or hate them. I just think that, with hundreds of breeds to choose from, why choose the one that kills more people than any other?

 

If this thread was based on the two arguments I said were valid, I would probably stop contributing, since the position then becomes totally subjective, and either argument then becomes unwinnable. However, while silly arguments are used, they can be shot down.

[truckrazy]

yes, ny opinion is based on my love of the dog, however you are only aking bits and pieces of my comments and using them against me. My stance is not solely based on the love of my dogs, but also on research pertaining to both sides of this argument. thank you for calling me silly, and that my argument screams to be destroyed. Feel free to shoot me down. Bring it. Bring some qualitative data to the table. Support the data that has been brought already. Most of the sites that have statistics on dog bites say on the site that the validity of the statistics is based on the stories that are covered. That to me says that the statistics are not very reliable. Shoot me down, go ahead.

[iNow]

Thank you for the apology. Whenever someone apologises or admits being wrong, my opinion of them rises. It takes more than average character to apologise and that makes you look to be a strong person.

Just to make it clear to people who are only paying minimal attention, I apologized for being wrong about your position, where I suggested you were pro ban... A suggestion which seems warranted based on your posts. I did not, however, suggest I was wrong regarding the main subject of this thread, and I stand by my contention that a ban is not only silly, but ineffective, and a faux solution to a real problem.

 

It's the people, not the breed.

 

 

Personally, I have no emotional stance on pit bulls. I do not love or hate them. I just think that, with hundreds of breeds to choose from, why choose the one that kills more people than any other?

Again, my problem is with the way you're framing the issue.

 

Here's a great article I found while researching the topic. I have shared one quote below from that article which will direct you to some real numbers on the issue. They are quite illuminating.

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact

A Georgia-based group called the American Temperament Test Society has put twenty-five thousand (25,000) dogs through a ten-part standardized drill designed to assess a dog’s stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in the company of people. A handler takes a dog on a six-foot lead and judges its reaction to stimuli such as gunshots, an umbrella opening, and a weirdly dressed stranger approaching in a threatening way.

 

Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund. “We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-bull-type dogs,” Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the A.T.T.S., says. “I’ve tested half of them. And of the number I’ve tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies.

 

They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with children.” It can even be argued that the same traits that make the pit bull so aggressive toward other dogs are what make it so nice to humans. “There are a lot of pit bulls these days who are licensed therapy dogs,” the writer Vicki Hearne points out. “Their stability and resoluteness make them excellent for work with people who might not like a more bouncy, flibbertigibbet sort of dog. When pit bulls set out to provide comfort, they are as resolute as they are when they fight, but what they are resolute about is being gentle. And, because they are fearless, they can be gentle with anybody.”

 

 

And there is also more here regarding the ineffectiveness and misguidedness of breed specific legislation, as well as potentially more effective alternatives:

 

http://www.pbrc.net/breedspecific.html

 

1. Stronger enforcement of existing dangerous dog laws. If they are not already in place, lobby for protection from untrained and unsupervised dogs of any breed or mix. This is a broad-based effort that protects all citizens as any dog can bite and be a nuisance when owned by an irresponsible owner. Those who would deliberately train a dog to act aggressively towards people or other animals, or to use dogs in the commission of a felony or misdemeanor should face additional penalties.

 

2. Encourage local animal rescue and welfare agencies to provide responsible dog ownership seminars and canine safety education. The American Kennel Club has a free education program created for elementary school children.

 

3. Protect the rights of all citizens with nuisance ordinances such as anti-barking, pooper scooper regulations and leash laws.

 

 

Once you've banned this type of dog, there will be a precedent for banning another type of dog, and sooner before later the doberman will be gone... the german shepherd.... the rotweiller... all because people thought it was the dog that was the problem and focussed their efforts there... instead of on the people in their charge.

[SkepticLance]

To truckrazy

 

I have not called you, personally, silly. And I have no problem with you loving your dog. What I think is wrong is to use emotional logic in arguing this (or any other) issue on the science forum. The argument should be based on facts. If they are based on emotion or subjective opinion, you should be prepared to state that and accept that it weakens your argument drastically.

 

To iNow

 

As I said, I have no major opinions against pit bulls. What I object to, is people using irrational, emotional, or just plain wrong logic in this forum. Denying data is a good example of that kind of wrongness.

 

My own personal opinion is that any avoidable deaths to humans should be prevented, even where the number of deaths is small. If this is accepted, then we also accept that selecting pit bulls over other breeds is to increase the risk, and this should be avoided. However, I freely admit that this is my own subjective opinion, and there is not clear cut, scientific data to point to a right or wrong answer.

 

I also think that avoiding human deaths takes precedence over small freedoms. Thus, I agree with the New Zealand government regulations that require people in cars to wear seat belts, and people on motorbikes and bicycles to wear creash helmets. When these regulations were introduced and enforced by traffic police, the death toll on the roads dropped substantially. Many lives were saved, and that justifies (to me) a small loss of freedom. Again, that is my own subjective opinion, and there is no clear cut, scientific, right or wrong answer.

 

Where issues are so subjective, individuals have to make up their own minds. This includes politicians who are legislating new regulations.

 

iNow, if you or others wish to use these subjective views to argue, that is fine. My big objection is people using faulty logic and trying to put it across as if it was valid or good science. it is not.

[truckrazy]

 

Like I have said I don't know how many times, my opinion is not just based on my love of the dog. It is also based on my experience, and the experience of others. I would like to see some qualitative data to support a questionable quantitative data.

[SkepticLance]

To truckrazy

 

I do not want to be offensive in what I say to you. However, I have to be truthful. This is the science forum, and only scientifically acceptable evidence should be offered. A video showing pit bulls acting in a loving way does not change the basic facts that all of us who face reality already know.

 

Pit bulls can make wonderful pets and I am sure most of them do. So what? It is the minority that carry out the lethal attacks on children.

 

I am 59 years old. I have known literally thousands of people and interacted with them over 59 years. I have never witnessed a murder. Can I conclude that all humans are loving and non violent? Obviously not. There is a small minority who are capable of killing other humans, and do. Ditto for pit bulls. We remove humans who murder from society and sometimes execute them.

 

No one here has suggested that all pit bulls are killers. It is a small minority, just like human murderers. That small minority has killed 66 people over 20 years in the United States - almost double the deaths caused by rottweilers, who are the second most lethal.

 

To deny this basic fact about the breed is to be unscientific. Pit bulls are the biggest killers of humans of any dog breed. Full stop!

 

Of course, what we do about this fact is subjective. My personal opinion is that human life is special and needs protecting, even at the cost of sterilising and ultimately removing an entire breed of dog. However, that is merely my opinion, and is not something that can be proved scientifically. So you are entitled to disagree with me.

 

What I find irritating is people who try to distort the truth, in this case about pit bulls. I am quite happy for your subjective opinion to be different to my subjective opinion. However, when you disagree with the basic data, that is something that should not be a part of a science based discussion.

 

If you agree with the fact that pit bulls are the biggest killers of human of any dog breed, then we can disagree in an amicable way on subjective matters of opinion.

[truckrazy]

the video is in my opinion considered a part of qualitative data showing that these dogs are not all bad, like you have agreed to. My problem is far from being with you. My problem is with people who say that this breed should be banned for the few dogs that do attack. While points that have been brought up may be valid, it is all based on solely questionable data. Numbers can be disputed, especially when these numbers are not verified with qualitative data, as I have been trying to say. I have tried to express my point. I know for a fact from talking to a lot of people that many people lump many breeds, such as Amstaffs, Staffordshire Terriers, Boxers, and breeds such as these into being a pitbull. I may not be a science whiz, but I do know that there is sometimes mistakes in a theory. I am trying to merely pointthat out. That is why I have repeatedly asked for someone to show me qualitative data, with the numbers. That is all I am trying to do. I do not think that there is research done on the situations of these attacks and deaths. It is just like an irresponsible parent. If a parent leaves a young child at home by themsleves all day, or leaves their child in a locked car with the windows up, it is irresponsible, right? If an owner let's their dog roam free, or on the other hand, if someone taunts a dog, is that not being irresponsible? The irresponsible parties should be punnished, right? Why should the child be punished for the parent's irresponsibilty, or why should a dog be punished for their owner's irresponsibility?

[Mr Skeptic]

It's almost like arguing global climate change with a denialist or evolution with a creationist. I'm slowly starting to lose hope as pertains to convincing SkepticLance, John Cuthber, and others who support the pro-breed-specific ban position that they are no better than racists on this issue.

 

Ex-creationist here. But that is an important topic. It is unlikely that anyone would devote much time to a single piece of legislation that might or might not be passed and would likely have no noticeable effect anyhow.

[iNow]

It has not been proven that banning this type of dog will result in fewer deaths.

It has been shown that the problem is with the owners and not the dog type.

It has been shown that the appropriate measure is within breed violence, not percentage of death by breed.

It has been shown that the breed identification is in question.

It has been shown that there are more good qualities than bad.

It has been shown that approaches other than outright ban would be more effective, and other approaches have been proposed.

Faults in the ban logic have been demonstrated both by posters in this thread and the links shared within.

 

For all this talk of arguing on science, Lance, I wonder if you realize how little you've shared and how much you seem to be ignoring. Also, actions speak louder than words, and I'm having a very hard time accepting your comments that you are neutral on the idea of ban. My arguments have been very logical, very rational, and non-emotional, yet you continue posting as if the only arguments against banning are emotional. That is a misrepresentation of this thread, and specifically my posts, and I humbly request that (if you truly believe only emotional arguments against ban have been raised) that you review this thread in it's entirety before replying again.

[ParanoiA]

I agree. There have been some emotional posts, but the "emotional" charge leveled against the pro pit bull crowd has now morphed into rhetoric. iNow has brought up several logical points that have yet to be refuted by logical arguments.

 

I would like someone to tell me why we need to jeopardize our principles of liberty for something that kills 3 people a year. We have other liberties that cost us thousands per year and just as easily arguable for restriction. It makes no logical sense to prioritize this matter when it's way down on the list of preventable human death.

 

So, why do people go to so much trouble to restrict liberty for low cost damages over restricting liberty for high cost damages? Emotion. This is how the emotional charge works against you Lance.

[Mr Skeptic]

It has not been proven that banning this type of dog will result in fewer deaths.

It has been shown that the problem is with the owners and not the dog type.

It has been shown that the appropriate measure is within breed violence, not percentage of death by breed.

It has been shown that the breed identification is in question.

It has been shown that there are more good qualities than bad.

It has been shown that approaches other than outright ban would be more effective, and other approaches have been proposed.

Faults in the ban logic have been demonstrated both by posters in this thread and the links shared within.

 

I was about to make a list like yours. In addition, I wanted to add:

 

The burden of proof is on the people who want to implement the ban. If you did not understand this, no doubt you saw many posts by the no-ban crowd as unfair. The pro-ban crowd needs to demonstrate that not only would a ban be a good thing, but that it is worth the restriction on freedom that it entails.

 

There is also the possiblility that most of the problem with pit bulls, if it exists, may be due to public perception. Because they are percieved as dangerous and aggressive, owners who want a dangerous and aggressive dog are more likely to get a pit bull and train it to be aggressive. Also due to public perception, people are more likely to show fear in the presense of pit bulls, which will also trigger aggression. Again because of public perception, people are more likely to identify an aggressive dog as a pit bull (though John Cuthber did a decent analysis of this in #268). In any case, whatever is due to public perception will shift when a different dog becomes the "most dangerous" dog.

 

The repeated denial that pit bulls have no value has got to stop. Again, it is the pro-ban crowd that have to show that pit bulls have no value over any other dog. But here are some examples as to how they might be valued. As more powerful dogs, they would have more value as protection. They also have an emotional value. Before I said that it is hard to quantify the emotional value, but now I suggest that you consider the economic costs of owning a dog and that the emotional value is more than that. Since people are willing to pay significant amounts for purebred pit bulls, they are at least more valuable than mongrels. Pit bulls also likely have higher costs in food and vetrinary care than mongrels. The emotional value of the dogs is higher than the costs of ownership.

[truckrazy]

I know that ome of my posts have been emotional, However, it is not just because of the fact that I love my dogs. There are many people that know what I know about these dogs. While most of what has been said since my last post is true. There is a lot of emotional value. Just as with any dog. I was also trying to add some viable prof as to that these dogs do have something "special" over some other dogs. These dogs have been given a bad reputation by ignorant people. But if you have looked at the law dogs website, you will see something that people who want to ban or eliminate the breed have no clue about. If someone is going to make a decision they need to make sure it is an educated one, and they need to weigh many different types of research. Quantitative is not always the most reliable form of research. When it is something that someone does not agree with, and challenges, then the data needs to be able to be backed up with qualitative research. That is where this "experiment" has failed. Since the quantitative data has been challenged, there needs to be qualitative data researched to validate that the numbers are in fact actual pitbulls, and attacks, not just what someone says about it. This is all this thread comes down to. I and a few others disagree with the thought that these dogs should be banned. And most of them have given up. However, a wise person can see both sides of the fence so to speak. They are the ones who know the facts of both sides and base their decisions on that. A wise person is open-minded to reseach and find evidence for both arguments.

 

All it boils down to is public misconception. It is clear that how many people have not had any experience with the breed??? How can they pass such a judgement on anything without actually researching both sides. It;s like saying cars should be banned because this number of people are killed each year. And the everyone should ride public transportaion, and work schedules should go by this schedule

[John Cuthber]

"I can't see how this gives you the required justification to remove choices from others."

Because your free choice might kill me.

 

"Also, "most dangerous" is some interesting rhetoric considering we are talking about 3 deaths per year."

Would you be happier with "most likely to kill"? Most is simply a superlative; it tells you that there is no other breed of dog more likely (based on the evidence) to be responsible for a human's death. It's not rhetoric, it's simply a reiteration of the fact.

 

3 deaths a year is 3 too many.

 

"Not relevant. You're trying to take away a freedom. The onus is on you to prove that they have no "saving grace," not on us to give examples of some."

You are taking a risk with my life without my permission. The onus is on you to justify this. YOu have yet to do so and have repeatedly said that you don't intend to try.

 

I particularly like "Each one of us kills more people than that every day with the cancers caused by the exhaust of our cars. If you were truly looking out for "the people," you'd focus on other issues with greater impact."

If each of us killed 66 people a day then the following day there would be no people.

If you want to say that we harm the environment then fair enough. Please remember that providing dog food also uses the earth's resources.

You also assert

"Your numbers are weak."

Feel free to find better ones, At least I put some effort into trying. Are you scared to do this for fear that you will be forced to conclude that fewer than a third of US dogs are pitbulls and that I have a point?

 

 

 

"You are misframing the question."

I repeated your question about relative probabliities of attacks by different breeds and I answered it.

 

"Your subjective interpretation of their worth is nonrelevant."

My interpretation is that all dogs have the same intrinsic worth. I have asked for evidence to gainsay this and none has been produced. I therefore say that the breed that is no better than the others in any way but is worse in another way isn't a good choice. In particular, since this ill advised choice might kill me I want to see that risk eliminated.

 

"You are trying to remove a freedom."

You do not have a blanket freedom to put my life at risk; society measures up the risk and benefits and comes to a conclusion. Sometimes we accept the risk (cars are usually cited as a case in point) sometimes we don't- in much of the civilised world guns would be an example. We don't generally permit people to make their own explosives- that's the removal of a freedom but it's the choice society made.

 

"You need to do better than 3 deaths per year as your basis."

Ask the victim's families.

 

"Here's another argument.

 

The problem you've described is with the people, not the dog. It's not the type of dog causing the problems you seek to ameliorate, but the owners. Your ban will not stop the problems you've described."

It did. It worked in the UK (give or take a few people who have broken the law. They get prosecuted and the dog's destroyed anyway). I grant you that getting a better class of owner would be better. I have said before that, since we can't ban stupid people, we have to ban the dangerous dogs.

 

 

"Yeah, all three per year.

 

Peanut butter kills more.

Bathtubs kill more.

Countless other things kill more."

Stop strawmanning.

Cardiovascular problems kill more people than murder; should we permit murder?

 

Also, as I have pointed out several times, the things you mention have a benefit. That's why they are permitted. Show me the benefit fort this particular breed of dog and I will accept that you may have a point.

If you can't then at least do us all a favour and don't wheel this nonsense out again.

 

"The emotion in this argument is yours, sir. It's blindingly clear in the rhetoric you're forced to use in support of your weak attempts to convince others of the merit of your position."

From the man who just rehashed the " other things kill more" so called argument....

 

" but the difference is that pit bulls get more publicity"

We are countig corpses, not newspaper inches.

 

"So in reality, pit bulls are no worse than any other breed. What makes them seem that way, is that some little 35 pound dogs have the strength to pull a car (some of them). these are extremely strong dogs for their size. Plus they have the reputation they do because of ignorant people."

I'm not talkking about 35 lb dogs. I'm talking about dogs that are typically twice that.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450529&in_page_id=1770

 

(OK That paper is hardly the best of accurate sources but the figures quoted for the weights of that dog are not 35 pounds).

 

"It's almost like arguing global climate change with a denialist or evolution with a creationist."

I see what you mean; the thing is we both think we are right, but I'm the one with the numbers and I'm the one trying to stop people getting killed (even if it's not a lot of people).

 

" I'm slowly starting to lose hope as pertains to convincing SkepticLance, John Cuthber, and others who support the pro-breed-specific ban position that they are no better than racists on this issue. "

Of course you won't convince me that trying to avoid getting people killed is no better than racism. The question is why would you try. Anyway, as I have pointed out before the different races of people were not deliberately bred so it's a different question even before you consider that people really do outrank the other animals.

 

"I was in their shoes once before. I hated pit bulls and thought they should all be wiped off the face of the earth."

Whose shoes are those? I don't hate pitbulls or any other dog. I just don't think they have the right to kill children. Since the dog's are not in a positioon to make the decision I'm stuck with the idea of getting rid of the dogs. That doesn't mean I like it, just that I see it as a practical way to reduce the human death toll.

 

"Once you've banned this type of dog, there will be a precedent for banning another type of dog, and sooner before later the doberman will be gone... the german shepherd.... the rotweiller... all because people thought it was the dog that was the problem and focussed their efforts there... instead of on the people in their charge."

No, there really is a difference between "maybe 50 times more likely to kill" and barely "distinguishable from the average". Only one of those would be any reason to ban the breed.

 

"It has been shown that the appropriate measure is within breed violence, not percentage of death by breed."

How? Anyway, I took the trouble to calculate the statistic you asked for. The question is what do we do about pitbulls. To look at that we need to compare pitbulls on a dog for dog basis with other breeds. Pitbulls turn out to be more dangerous to humans than other breeds.

Anyway, I'm late meeting some people for a beer.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I don't think I have said I have no position. My position is that 66 people in 20 years is too many. People are important, and human lives, even a small number, are important. Compared to most other causes of human death, this is trivial - but trivial is a relative term. 66 deaths is still too many.

 

I would rather, of course, the government put effort into stopping smoking than an equivalent amount of effort into stopping pit bulls, since that would save more lives. However, an effort that saves a few is still better than no effort.

 

However, as I said, the real reason I continue to argue is simly a distaste for silly 'logic', and there has been a hell of a lot of it from the pro-pit bull camp. For example : the argument that the numbers are wrong due to breed misidentification. As I said before, this may change the figures a bit, but not change the overall picture. If the number of pit bull generated deaths is plus or minus 15 (an extreme case) due to some breed misidentification, that means 51 to 81 human deaths over 20 years. Pit bulls are still the worst, and I get a bit annoyed with those who try to deny the numbers to make their case. Denial of data is most unscientific.

 

I do not have a problem with other people having their own subjective opinion. Just a problem with them arguing in an irrational and non scientific way on the science forum. We should be better than that.

[iNow]

There have been some emotional posts, but the "emotional" charge leveled against the pro pit bull crowd has now morphed into rhetoric. iNow has brought up several logical points that have yet to be refuted by logical arguments.

I agree, and appreciate your public recognition of my attempts. I've offered multiple arguments, none of which have been refuted.