Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[Solarcat]

 

Emotional? Yes. Showing just one value(out of many) of a pit bull? Yes.

[John Cuthber]

The video shows some people and some dogs. None of them atack anyone. This is not evidence that neither men nor dogs ever attack people.

I guess I could find a similar video of a man and a different breed of dog so what's your point?

The tag line to the video is "regardless of breed" which proves my point. You couls use another breed of dog that is less likely to attack people and get the same benefit.

 

 

Anyway, this whole thread is going nowhere.

You say these dogs should be permitted in spite of the risk "because you want to" (and that's what the argument from liberty really means) and I can't help thinking it's selfish.

If I were to want to drop bricks of bridges I'm sure I could keep the death toll below 3 per year, but I don't see the police accepting an argument that it would be interfering with my freedom of action to stop me.

[iNow]

Anyway, this whole thread is going nowhere.

Not in terms of convincing each other, I agree. However, there may be others out there struggling to decide for themselves on which side of the fence they wish to land regarding this issue, so in that respect, this thread is quite a useful tool.

 

 

 

You say these dogs should be permitted in spite of the risk "because you want to" (and that's what the argument from liberty really means) and I can't help thinking it's selfish.

It appears communication is still part of the problem here, as that's NOT what's being said.

 

What is being said is that the risk is minimal, and does not warrant a ban.

What is being said is that your identification of type is questionable.

What is being said is that there are several more effective ways to achieve the goals for which you are arguing (safety of others), and that the ban will not achieve that end.

What is being said is that it takes a very narrow and biased view to see this type of dog as nothing more than a killer which should be exterminated.

What is being said is that your argument is weak and rests on appeals to emotion.

What is being said is that it's fine if you don't choose this type of dog for yourself, but the numbers don't warrant your blanket removal of that same ability to choose from others.

[ParanoiA]

Not in terms of convincing each other, I agree. However, there may be others out there struggling to decide for themselves on which side of the fence they wish to land regarding this issue, so in that respect, this thread is quite a useful tool.

 

Exactly. Debating does little for those engaged in it, but serves as part of the critical thinking phase for others observing it.

 

You say these dogs should be permitted in spite of the risk "because you want to" (and that's what the argument from liberty really means) and I can't help thinking it's selfish.

 

We say these dogs should be permitted in spite of the risk, and that aspirin should be permitted in spite of the fatal risks, and that peanut butter should be permitted in spite of the risks - yet all of those things aren't necessary, all of them have perfectly suitable substitutes and alternatives, but it's all "because we want to" - it's the price you pay for objective liberty. Otherwise, cherry picking liberty will erode the republic to an oppressive power. The best guarantee for personal liberty is to define it as objectively as possible.

 

That means no value judgements on what people are free to do, this means they don't have to explain why they want to do something, but rather you have to explain why they shouldn't. It's consistent with the principle of 'innocence until proven guilty'. You're rights end when you or your property harms another or their property. No "preemptive" strikes allowed, like banning breeds of dogs that you think are "scary" or invading foreign countries that haven't done anything to us.

[John Cuthber]

"What is being said is that the risk is minimal, and does not warrant a ban."

At best that's debatable, dead people are usually taken as grounds to act where it's practical.

 

"What is being said is that your identification of type is questionable."

As was pointed out there's little chance that misidentification is the reason for the numbers.

"What is being said is that there are several more effective ways to achieve the goals for which you are arguing (safety of others), and that the ban will not achieve that end."

No other means has been put forward and the ban in the UK has proved effective.

 

"What is being said is that it takes a very narrow and biased view to see this type of dog as nothing more than a killer which should be exterminated."

No, I have fully accepted that these dogs offer some benefits to people. However I do not see why those same benefits could not be gained using a different less risky, breed of dog.

"What is being said is that your argument is weak and rests on appeals to emotion."

No, its based on the desire not to have people killed and to avoid all the greif that comes from that- not least for the dog's owners. Unlike any other argument that has been put forward it is based on the numbers. The other side, with cute pictures of doggies, is the one trying to apeal to emotion.

 

"What is being said is that it's fine if you don't choose this type of dog for yourself, but the numbers don't warrant your blanket removal of that same ability to choose from others."

I have said from the start that it falls to society to make that choice- not to individuals.

 

 

"That means no value judgements on what people are free to do"

We make them all the time. These judgements on good or bad behaviour are called laws. For example, we do not permit people the freedom to drop bricks off railway bridges.

 

 

"It's consistent with the principle of 'innocence until proven guilty'. You're rights end when you or your property harms another or their property. No "preemptive" strikes allowed, like banning breeds of dogs that you think are "scary" or invading foreign countries that haven't done anything to us."

66 dead and a higher incidence of killing is not preemptive. It's acting in response to a known threat.

Essentially none of this post in new material. I have just restated stuff in response to others' postings.

If people are just making the same points again then I don't see this helping anyone anymore.

[ParanoiA]

We make them all the time. These judgements on good or bad behaviour are called laws. For example, we do not permit people the freedom to drop bricks off railway bridges.

 

No, you abridged my statement. Here it is again, this time read the whole thing:

 

That means no value judgements on what people are free to do, this means they don't have to explain why they want to do something, but rather you have to explain why they shouldn't.

 

Quit asking us to provide really cool reasons why we should be allowed to do something - start providing really cool reasons why we shouldn't. IE..it's not up to us to provide redeeming qualities about Pit Bulls - nothing at all.

 

AND, we don't allow people to drop bricks off of railway bridges because that is harming the person or property of another. That fits the qualifier of objective restriction of someone's personal liberties.

 

66 dead and a higher incidence of killing is not preemptive. It's acting in response to a known threat.

 

No, my Pit Bull hasn't bitten you. So banning them would be preemptive. Humans are a known threat too. But we only ban those that actually do harm, to prison. Punish the abusive humans that mistreat and misuse animals, not the animals themselves. Otherwise, you're a victim of your emotion charged by ignorance. (Ignorance in this case being that you have no experience or particular knowledge about Pit Bulls in order to support an analysis of what the problem is - the breed or the people who own them).

[iNow]

"What is being said is that there are several more effective ways to achieve the goals for which you are arguing (safety of others), and that the ban will not achieve that end."

No other means has been put forward and the ban in the UK has proved effective.

 

Actually, other means have been put forward. Most recently, this was done back in post #288.

 

Now, can you support your contention that the ban in the UK has been effective? How many deaths by dog were there annually prior to the ban, and how many after the ban? Now that the ban is in place, what is the "most dangerous" dog out there? Numbers, John... numbers. If you have no such data, perhaps you'll be so kind as to retract your unsupported assertion.

 

 

 

Now, for a quick tutorial on how to use quotes.

 

On the bottom right corner of the post to which you are responding is a button called "Quote." You just push that, and viola!

 

 

 

 

Or, while responding, you can manually wrap the quote tags around the quoted materials like this:

 

Stuff UserName said goes here

Then... Your response.

 

 

 

I know it's really tough, and difficult to figure out, but hopefully my long thought out tutorial here will help!

[SkepticLance]

John Cuthber was right in saying this thread is going nowhere. Nor is an interminably long thread like this one of any likely educational value to others, assuming anyone else has the patience to keep reading. We are not going to agree. I suggest we close.

[Solarcat]

I hope Mr. Cuthber watches these onez.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Since the debate has slumped to one side posting patronising messages and links to sick videos (I can live without the PM's about them too.) I guess it's time to close the thread.

 

As for "Quit asking us to provide really cool reasons why we should be allowed to do something - start providing really cool reasons why we shouldn't."

I still say that I have frequently cited the reason for the possible ban; it's 66 deaths.

Were those 66 people not cool enough?

[iNow]

I still say that I have frequently cited the reason for the possible ban; it's 66 deaths.

Were those 66 people not cool enough?

 

The deaths of those 66 people had zero to do with type of dog, and everything to do with the negligence of the person in their charge.

 

Now, are you able to please support your claim about the bans effectiveness in the UK, or perhaps will you retract that statement if you are unable?

[John Cuthber]

"The deaths of those 66 people had zero to do with type of dog, and everything to do with the negligence of the person in their charge."

That was 66 deaths due to pitbulls. If there were no pitbulls would those people have just mysteriously died anyway?

If their owners had not had the option of getting pitbulls they would probably have got some other dog- they may well have mistreated it too. The point remains that the numbers show that pitbulls are more likely to kill than other breeds.

Sorry, but this really does have something to do with the breeds.

Dogs sometiomes act autonomously so it's not helpful to blame the owners. Anyway, as I have said before we can't ban bad owners..

 

The dogs that are no longer here in the UK do not attack people.

You want me to evince that?

What about deaths due to pixies?

[iNow]

The dogs that are no longer here in the UK do not attack people.

You want me to evince that?

What about deaths due to pixies?

As I outlined in my original request to you, I would like to see total number of deaths per annum caused by all dogs in the UK prior to the ban of "pit bulls," and total number of deaths per annum caused by all dogs in the UK after the ban.

 

However, if you do have some data on pixies, that might be fun to look at as well.

 

 

Either way, you made a claim above that you have yet to support with evidence, and this is now my third request for said evidence. I have no problem if you cannot support your claim, but I'd like you to acknowledge that if this is truly the case.

[John Cuthber]

The data will almost certainly show one of two things, The number has gone up or the number has gone down. Whichever way it goes one or other of us will say it's down to confounding variables. There's not a lot of point looking it up, but feel free to do so if you want. I have looked and it's not obvious where the data can be found.

 

I still say that the pitbulls which are not here are not killing people. I really don't think I need to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't kill people. Anyway, you are asking me to prove a negative which is about as much use as asking me to account for an infinite number of times something didn't happen.

[iNow]

The data will almost certainly show one of two things, The number has gone up or the number has gone down. Whichever way it goes one or other of us will say it's down to confounding variables. There's not a lot of point looking it up, but feel free to do so if you want. I have looked and it's not obvious where the data can be found.

 

<...>

 

Anyway, you are asking me to prove a negative which is about as much use as asking me to account for an infinite number of times something didn't happen.

 

You made the claim. Onus is on you to support it. Fourth request.

 

Show us how many deaths from dog there were in the UK prior to the ban per annum, and how many deaths from dog there were in the UK after the ban per annum.

 

 

the ban in the UK has proved effective.

Let's see the numbers, or you should retract your statement.

[John Cuthber]

I will not retract the statement that dogs that are not present do not cause a problem.

On that basis the ban is clearly effective.

 

This "Show us how many deaths from dog there were in the UK prior to the ban per annum, and how many deaths from dog there were in the UK after the ban per annum."

is your idea of what I meant, not mine so I don't need to answer it, no matter how many times you ask.

 

Incidentally, you seem to have convieniently forgotten that I made the observation that a ban will work in reply to this assertion

"What is being said is that there are several more effective ways to achieve the goals for which you are arguing (safety of others), and that the ban will not achieve that end."

 

OK, you are so red hot keen on getting me to retract something that's a truism (dogs that aren't there don't cause a problem). Perhaps you would care to provide evidence that a ban wouldn't work or perhaps you would care to retract your statement.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

You are being unreasonable. John has said that a dog that does not exist cannot kill people. I find that logic unassailable. The UK had a 'problem' with pit bulls of sufficient intensity to induce politicians to ban them. That is simple truth. The fact that the actual numbers on deaths before and after the ban are not readily available does not change this. Nor does it change the obvious conclusion that a pit bull that does not exist cannot kill someone. We can conclude with 100% certainty that an effective ban on pit bulls will reduce or stop most human deaths due to pit bull attacks. A ban that was 100% effective would stop 100% of those attacks.

 

I have watched a similar debate in the newspapers here in NZ. Because we have a small population, we have not had a lot of deaths from dog attack, but from the very few, it is clear that pit bulls are disproportionately represented. As far as I know, no-one has collated the figures, so don't ask me for them. However, the 'problem' has got bad enough for it to be debated in parliament.

 

I also know that something similar applies in Australia, since I have read of that debate in Australian newspapers when I was in Australia. I suspect you probably have also.

 

So I have a clear indication that a 'pit bull problem' exists in the USA with 66 deaths in 20 years, a big enough problem DID exist in the UK to induce a ban, and enough serious attacks by pit bulls happen in NZ and Australia to induce a debate on desirable action.

 

You are in denial. The data is incomplete, but is sufficient to show that pit bulls as a type, are more savagely aggressive than any other type of dog. If you refuse to accept this simple point, you are behaving like a post modernist rather than a scientist, and denying data.

 

We are not talking about minor attacks. The most aggressive dog in numbers of attacks is probably the chihuahua. However, its bite is insufficient to even break skin most of the time. We are talking about serious attacks, with humans maimed or killed. And in this, the pit bull is king.

 

Here is a nice Australian reference.

 

http://www.edba.org.au/courier.html

 

I quote :

 

"You can have savage Labradors and savage Chihuahuas, but none of them has the potential to maim & kill that a pit bull does.

42% of all dog related deaths in the US are from Pit Bulls - & they constitute 1% of all dogs. 70% of those deaths were children."

[John Cuthber]

SkepticLance,

Thanks for the support but I don't think the sociologists are going to be sending you any Xmas cards this year. Some of them are scientists.

[SkepticLance]

OK. My apologies to all sociologists who might have been offended by the comparison. I have changed the reference to post modernists, and I have no problem with insulting them. However, I repeat that denial of data is NOT the act of a good scientist.

[iNow]

I will not retract the statement that dogs that are not present do not cause a problem.

On that basis the ban is clearly effective.

How is it at all unreasonable of me to suggest that the measure of a ban's effectiveness is the total reduction in death by dog, not total reduction in death by one type of dog?

 

This is silly. I can see the point you are making, but again we disagree on it's relevance.

 

 

Let's ban toe nail clippers too. That way, noboby will be killed by toe nail clippers. Oh, and let's also ban balloons. That way, noboby will be killed by balloons. Good grief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UK had a 'problem' with pit bulls of sufficient intensity to induce politicians to ban them. That is simple truth.

If this truth is so simple, then why can't you justify it with actual data? As it stands right now, you may as well be asserting that purple unicorns were a real problem in the UK until the ban...

 

The fact that the actual numbers on deaths before and after the ban are not readily available does not change this.

Actually, it changes it pretty dramatically.

 

 

You are in denial.

And you are in stupid town, population one. This is helpful, how exactly?

 

 

The data is incomplete, but is sufficient to show that pit bulls as a type, are more savagely aggressive than any other type of dog.

That's very convenient. You've now brought the term "savage" into the discussion, as well.

 

 

<sigh>

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

repeating what my previous reference said :

 

"42% of all dog related deaths in the US are from Pit Bulls - & they constitute 1% of all dogs."

 

Do you still deny that pit bulls as a type are more aggressive and more harmful in terms of attacks on humans than other dog types?

 

If so, you are in denial.

[iNow]

Lance,

 

Get off your little "denial" kick. I conceded long ago that I won't argue with you that based on the numbers shared this type causes more deaths than others.

 

What I am saying is that they cause 3 per year, and yet you toss around words like "savage" and "harmful" and "aggressive" in your appeal to emotion argument. On top of that, you accuse others of arguing weakly, when all you've got is 3 deaths per year. It's funny, really.

 

 

Further, it was stated that the ban was successful.

A measure of success in this case is total number of deaths by dogs.

I asked for numbers, before and after the ban.

 

The response I got? I don't have numbers, but I know the ban was effective. Do you know why the ban was effective? Because an animal that is not around can't cause harm.

 

Well, I want to ban purple unicorns. When you ask me how many deaths that prevents... you know... actual empirical evidence... I'll just tell you, "Well, it prevented all of those deaths that may have been caused by purple unicorns."

 

 

How many deaths by dog per annum prior to the ban?

How many deaths by dog per annum after the ban?

 

 

 

Of fu(king course I know none of them are by pit bull, that's precisely my point!

 

I'd wager a bet that there was no significant reduction in deaths by dog resulting from the ban, but I didn't make that claim. It's John who made a claim, and he claimed that the ban was working.

 

 

Let's see god damned evidence.

 

 

This is supposed be a science forum, right? Or, can I just go around treating hearsay as evidence?

 

Never mind, I'm talking to skepticlance. Heresay here we come!

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

With respect to your denial of being in denial, you said, in post 311

 

"The deaths of those 66 people had zero to do with type of dog, and everything to do with the negligence of the person in their charge."

 

Do you deny that pit bulls are more likely to attack and kill or maim people simply because they are pit bulls?

[Mr Skeptic]

This website has dog attacks (only for dogs of clearly identified breed by a professional) for the US and Canada 1982-2006, excluding dogs trained to attack or guard. Interesting how the number for pit bull terriers compares to that of other pit bulls, and that for rottweilers to rottweiler mixes, to any other dog.

 

dog attacks by breed

 

Truthfully speaking' date=' I do not know how an effective, fair,

enforceable, humane dangerous dog law could be constructed. Any law strong

enough and directed enough to prevent the majority of life-threatening dog

attacks must discriminate heavily against pit bulls, Rottweilers, wolf

hybrids, and perhaps Akitas and chows, who are not common breeds but do

seem to be involved in disproportionate numbers of life-threatening attacks.

Such discrimination will never be popular with the owners of these breeds,

especially those who believe their dogs are neither dangerous nor likely to

turn dangerous without strong provocation. Neither will breed

discrimination ever be acceptable to those who hold out for an

interpretation of animal rights philosophy which holds that all breeds are

created equal. One might hope that educating the public against the

acquisition of dangerous dogs would help; but [b']the very traits that make

certain breeds dangerous also appeal to a certain class of dog owner.[/b] Thus

publicizing their potentially hazardous nature has tended to increase these

breeds' popularity.

[iNow]

With respect to your denial of being in denial

How about you quit with the uninformed, pseudo intellectual, psychoanalysis and address the question put forth.

 

 

I'm still waiting for data on number of fatalities from dogs per annum in the UK prior to the ban on pit bulls and number of fatalities from dogs per annum in the UK after the ban on pit bulls.