this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
1094 points (94.0% liked)
Comic Strips
14134 readers
2305 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any dog can snap. So why do we see proportionally more news stories about it happening with a pitbull...?
EDIT 2: So. Many. Downvotes. But not a single comment refuting the statistics with facts and evidence... You're not flat-earthers, right? So don't act like them. Use your brain, not your feeeelings! I love dogs. All dogs. And yeah, if my dog was a Pittie, I would be defensive too, but I would also be honest that people need to take extra precautions...
EDIT: You're literally arguing against facts.
https://www.xinsurance.com/blog/dog-breeds-most-likely-to-bite/#%3A%7E%3Atext=1.%2Csevere+injuries+than+other+dogs.
Because if a pitbull snaps, someone is likely to die.
Right which is why they should stop being bred. They are more dangerous.
Dogs should stop being bred for certain features period. Beyond aggressiveness, it's just cruel. It gives them years of health problems. Some of the breeds all have the exact same health problem (sometimes it's an inability to breathe properly because of their head shape).
Purebred dogs should be illegal to intentionally breed.
Every time I have to see a spaniel, I cringe. The publicly available data (and videos on the effects of it for the assholes who have to see this shit to believe it) on their brain and skull sizes means that anyone still breeding them is just an asshole.
Thank you. This was so obviously my point...
...and how many neighborhoods, insurance companies, etc have rules against pitbulls?
There is no way that the full picture of breed ownership is tainted by purposely reporting the breed as one that wouldn't cause the owner to pay more for insurance, get dropped by insurance, kicked out of their rental unit, etc?
Most of the dogs I know have significant amounts of pitbull in their blood. Their owners are not pitbull fanatics - they just rescued a dog from a service and found out it was 50+% pitbull. The one friend who has close to pure (90+%) pitbulls literally rescued them from the streets. Like found the dog with no tags and no chip somewhere near where they live, spent weeks advertising to find its owner, and decided to keep it when no owner surfaced.
EDIT: Sorry, my fault! I thought you were arguing against the evidence, like many here...
Facts & science, please. I swear, I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but you make several assertions without proof. You're saying I don't have the full picture. But also implying we're seeing so many news stories about pits attacking children, data about than being more dangerous because... there's fewer of them? Legitimately not trying to strawman you or put words in your mouth, but that would be exactly opposite the point you're trying to defend.
Sorry, I misunderstood. So many people are having an emotional reaction to my comments...
Since you're using different statistics to compare and come to a conclusion, can I ask what you're getting the "breed numbers" from? @[email protected] has been throwing around the dogbite site but I wouldn't go off that number.
Even all the things I'm seeing online like the American Kennel club don't actually track realistic numbers
It just kinda gets worse from there
So I doubt you're getting accurate numbers since the data just isn't tracked. Just like all of these "facts", it's being heavily skewed and misrepresented. Hell, even EMpricorn's "INSURANCE WEBSITE link" (it's literally a fucking ad for pet insurance) just outright dismisses all this shit with the back and forth word salad
Because their stereotype can attract shitty owners who want a badass dog but can't be assed to train or care for them.
Or they literally abuse, possibly even with dogfights, and abandon them.
Occam's Razor: They are known for being more dangerous because they are more dangerous.
EDIT: So. Many. Downvotes. But not a single comment refuting the statistics with facts and evidence... You're not flat-earthers, right? So don't act like them. Use your brain, not your feeeelings! I love dogs. All dogs. And yeah, if my dog was a Pittie, I would be defensive too, but I would also be honest that people need to take extra precautions...
From the very article you linked in the other comment.
Don't talk facts when your source refutes your claim.
You... think one paragraph voids decades of data they've carefully collected? Lol, I've lost all credibility because this issue (like everything) has nuance...? You believe that source agrees with you?
Okay, fine. Here's some more from statisticians, lawyers, non-profits, and hospitals:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
https://jminjurylawyer.com/dog-bites/the-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-in-america/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Several+factors+contribute+to+why+these+breeds%2Ctheir+owners+also+play+a+key+role
https://www.jacksonbackhome.com/dog-bite-statistics/
https://jnylaw.com/blog/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed/
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/legal-services/los-angeles-dog-bite-lawyer/dog-bite-statistics/
https://care.choc.org/dog-bite-study-shows-youngest-kids-most-at-risk-which-breeds-inflict-the-most-severe-injuries/
https://www.vazirilaw.com/dog-attack-statistics-by-breed-2024
Let me guess: they're all in on the massive conspiracy to... let people know they should be more careful around their pitties?
Uhm... ackshually 🤓 it's two paragraphs.
But in all seriousness, "carefully collected" is a pretty severe misrepresentation of the way the majority of these stats are collected. One source you link says 66%*, but wikipedia says 28%. This is an very large increase.
This discrepancy is caused, in large part, because the police aren't very good at reporting on this kind of data. The article you linked, which I quoted goes mentions this, but it doesn't really go into detail just how bad it is. The police system, particularly in the US has a lot of inherent biases that lead to problematic behaviors and assumptions. Some of them are about race, and some of them are about... dog breeds.
Long story short, I only really trust hospitals for this sort of data. Insurance companies get their info from the police, who aren't reliable. Hospitals can have problems, but aren't going to be problematic as our police system. Interestingly, hospitals also seem to report much lower numbers, like the numbers mentioned in the study mentioned by wikipedia versus the other numbers present. I wonder why that is?
And one of the articles you linked was AI generated slop that claimed 66% but that was actually a hyperlink to wikipedia's claim of 28%. And most of the articles you linked were similar, clearly getting the data from the same place, but not actually linking it and/or having broken links.
Even the best source, the study you linked has issues when it comes to supporting your claims. It acknowledges that which breed has been top of the list for dog fatalities has shifted over time and only now settled on pitbulls. That source also acknowledges how dog breed identification is difficult.
And then of course, I won't deny that pitbulls do bite and kill at higher rates. But you are arguing that that somehow makes them inherently more dangerous, when there is simply no evidence for such a thing.
The problem with this argument is that is is very, very similar to arguing that it's acceptable to be cautious around black people specifically because they are accused of crimes at higher rates. In fact it's so similar that I've seen "pitbull bad" be used as a white supremacist talking point. (which is part of why this argument gets so heated. Usually I just enjoy the popcorn but I finally decided to stop lurking).
But I'm gonna be real, I don't really want to argue with someone who just throws a bunch of slop sources they clearly didn't read at me. Read your damn sources. Use google scholar or similar instead of just a normal search engine, so you don't get AI slop.
And I'll give you some advice: If you want this argument to be well accepted in the future, you should throw in some points that make it clearly, distinctly separate from the white supremacist version of it. Some acknowledgement of the police being bad, or some acknowledgement of pitbull owners or some acknowledgement of how pitbulls don't rank top in bite strength (at least, according to two of the sources you linked). You complained about getting downvoted when you just posted stats but that's because people don't see those stats are an argument about pitbulls, they see someone preparing a setup for "What if I told you some races of people were inherently more dangerous?".
As an endnote, human race isn't real. Perhaps this applies to dog breeds as well, which one commenter noted but you just dismissed it and threw a bunch of slop articles at them instead.
Humans have never undergone countless generations of intentional selective breeding devoid of personal autonomy. There is no reasonable comparison between the constructed human concept of "race" and the undeniable reality of dog breeds as crafted through selective breeding, and everyone should be extremely wary of any attempts to ever conflate the two.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States
Yes..."never..."
Yes, I'm aware that evil exists, but it is still nowhere equivalent to the selective breeding of dogs. There are entire oceans of nuance that separate the particulars of the two (note: nuance is not justification and I have absolutely nothing but complete condemnation for slavery and this sort of human rights violating experimentation; this is evil) and even if you disagree with or choose to ignore that the sheer scale is still so astronomically different as to render any comparison entirely invalid.
Just saying, "never" is pretty strong language when it happened for a few hundred years at least and could have happened to other enslaved populations throughout history that we might not know about as well. Just the existence of the few hundred years alone disproves "never" though.
Because it's contextual. The point is that comparisons between human races and dog breeds are almost never (I hope you appreciate the caveat I made for you here) brought up in good faith ways, and are almost always used disingenuously or to evoke emotional response to manipulate the conversation inernestly.
Can you pedantically pick at the statement? Sure, but not without willfully ignoring the greater point.
If anything, trying to paint this as just "bad owners" is the more race essentialist version of this argument. That argument attempts to place blame on people who own them over the dogs themselves, who likely happen to skew towards lower income folks which implies a race skew as well. But, a "bad owner" would do a lot less harm with a Lab or even a Chihuahua than they would with a pit bull.
It's not just bite strength or temperament, it's that these dogs are intentionally bred to go for the kill when their fight instinct is triggered. Nobody sets out to be a bad owner, or believes they are one, and other breeds don't kill when they bite regardless of who their owner is. Eliminating "bad owners" isn't really a problem that can be solved to reduce dog bite statistics, at least without specific regards to breed, because it is specifically this breed with those "bad owners" that is the issue.
It's a deflection. Dare I say, it's projection.
Okay. So I did a little research since I was truly curious.
https://www.animals24-7.org/2019/10/14/pit-bulls-new-gene-study-shows-it-is-not-all-in-how-you-raise-them/*
Boom. A genetic link between aggression and certain violent behaviors and pitbulls. 15% of their personality. Caused by an aggressive period of selectively breeding them for dogfights.
And now I think we should breed pitbulls out of existence.
@[email protected] (is this how you @ a user?).
1 source. That's all it fucking takes. I don't understand why people who spend so much time on the internet are so mid at arguing. 4 articles of AI slop aren't going to convince anyone of shit. 2-3 other articles that don't actually back up your point have the same issue. But you're prancing all over this thread like you're hot shit. The issues I mentioned in my previous comment still apply, but here's a new source for you to use I guess, you're welcome.
And of course, I have to obligatorily state that no parallels to human behavior can be drawn from this. No, black people were not "bred for strength". No, they are not inherently more aggressive. No, we should not just use eugenics to eliminate certain "races" because human races are a social construct (see above diagram). However, dogs work differently, it seems.
*Edit: actually this source seems to be somewhat problematic since it seems to cover a dispraportionate amount of news related to pitbulls but that doesn't make the study immediately wrong.
Okay researching further I found another scientific article going in the opposite direction.
(Damn, I said I wouldn't argue but now I seem to be arguing with myself. Don't worry chat. Imma win.)
Opens google scholar
Oh shit. It doesn't even mention the word pitbull. Investigating further, many of the claims that article makes, like the ones about certain dog breeds needing no/less training to do certain things, are just straight up unsourced and not mentioned in the study. wtf?!
I am enraged that the article just straight up fucking lied to me and I fell for it. This is why I use google scholar and vet the studies myself, rather than using a search engine normally.
But it seems like we are back to "pitbulls are products of their environments" again.
On a miscellaneous note, google scholar seems to have really enshittified. It's now attempting to show me normal news articles and blog posts, rather than exclusively scientific journals. Eugh.
It's a joy to watch you work in real time, keep it up
Thank you for being awesome
Because most people can't identify one and use it for any mid size dog.
See: Rottweiler, doberman in previous years.
Edit: that includes cops. Same thing applies to police reports. Guess what insurance adjustors use as part of determining insurance rates?
That isn't the slam dunk of info you think it is.
No one said it was a slam dunk? If you won't accept statistics by non-profit organizations trying to provide people with knowledge, facts, and legal info... What would convince you that any one breed of dog is more dangerous than others?
As it does in many other areas, the controversial nature of the discussion poisons the well on sources supporting either view. The days of 'here's a study saying...' being a useful tactic in anything are kind of dead. Most discussions can have reliable-sounding sources to support contradictory points. It gets hard to find the truth about anything without engaging in in-depth meta-analysis, let alone in a place like a comments section under a webcomic.
That is a very poor argument. Non-profit organizations lie about their statistics and their so-called facts all the time.
PETA is non-profit. Autism Speaks is non-profit. Anti-vax groups are non-profit. All sorts of groups dedicated to promoting authoritarian regimes are non-profit. And they all push a lot of bullshit that they claim to be facts and statistics.
Pretty much nothing since that isn't how it works.
There are some breeds that require more knowledge, experience, and time to handle properly. That includes the various breeds colloquially referred to as pitbulls, as well as German shephards, mastiffs, huskies, etc. I'd say most breeds with a job need knowledge and attention.
But the "danger" part is an issue with the owner (or previous owner). The only foster dogs I've ever been concerned about have been abused, whether by ignoring them, not feeding them, physically abusing them, or otherwise.
I can say I have a not insignificant amount of experience with quite a few breeds, and I can also say that blaming a breed is nonsensical.
And the only dog in my home right now is a corgi.
Edit: You're clearly interested only in your opinion and not the reality of dog behavior. So I won't bother further engaging with you, enjoy your day. I will simply note that health organizations such as the CDC note these same issues with statistics, and firmly recommend against breed-specific legislation for a reason. That, of course, may change under HHS Brainworms, but the actual data is quite clear.
Jesus that's sad. Everyone holding your hand trying to walk you down this path of actually learning about how research and science is performed and how to look into a source and you still just decide to spew nonsense.
I hope you learn to walk on your own one day. Don't stop reading and looking into sources just because you found something you like. All of your shit is crappy research that the authors conclude is bad data. It's why the precious dogbite.org focuses on a 1970-99 cdc study, a media review study for statistics slaps forehead.
It's obvious this meme brought in a lot of people who love to classify "undesirables" and a few willing to put up with the misinformation to actually try and teach someone how to do proper research without just "believing" from a few misquoted or misguided articles. I saw at least one person doing the work and realized your links and claims were bullshit so something was accomplished I suppose.
Yes, because it's clear as day that you're a closeted racist. The argument that you're trying to push, the dishonest appeal to statistics, even the language that you use -- you're trying to normalise the idea that some "breeds" are more dangerous than others, but you're too scared to say that even though you're talking about dogs, what you actually have in mind are humans. Go on, don't be shy, show us your twitter alt where instead of fatal attack statistic you post crime rate graphs and pretend that it's evidence that black people don't serve rights.
That is a wild leap to make. Just mind boggling. Dogs are not people, and people are not dogs. If that were not the case, a lot of the behavior and culture around dogs would be alarming, at best.
You're misrepresenting my argument. We both agree that dogs are not people and people are not dogs, and that having a specific opinion about dog breeds is different from having a specific opinion about race.
What I'm saying is that, even if you set aside questions of data reliability, there are dozens if not hundreds of ways to interpret the graph that everyone in this thread keeps posting. What if all dog breeds are equally aggressive, but only some are physically capable of killing a human? What if dog breeds that look more aggressive attract irresponsible owners that train them to be more aggressive and intentionally put them into dangerous situations around other humans? Of all the possible conclusions, that guy jumps to some breeds are just inherently more dangerous than others. This is the same logical leap that a racist follows when confronted with statistics about crime rate vs race.
And it's not just that. Notice their language. Their comment is phrased like a question rather than a statement, a pattern that not-so-pleasant people are notorious for (look up "JAQing off"). The EDIT uses classic catchphrases like "Use your brain, not your feeeelings!". This fits the verbiage of a modern internet racist to a tee.
Look, what I said about the alt twitter account was an exaggeration. Maybe the guy is genuinely not racist. But even if they are, why should I bother differentiating between a racist and someone whose arguments, language, and misuse of logic is functionally indistinguishable from those of a racist? The moment racism starts to enter the mainstream (due to a right-wing government or similar), I expect people like that to put up no resistance.
'Pit bull' doesn't even have a real definition. It's sometimes considered a breed or sometimes a family or class and may include more than a dozen different breeds and their mutts depending on who is counting.
Both the CDC and AVMA say there is no sufficiently reliable source for breed data related to dog attacks.
DogsBite.org literally states their objective is convincing people pit bulls are dangerous and claims they can reliably ID a breed from a photograph.
So go pound sand with that 'facts' horseshit.
Even if we wanted to ignore those problems and take it seriously as a source, it completely neglects the only relevant question of the proportion of dogs within a breed that attack. Without reliable information about the sizes of the populations of included breeds, the chart is useless.
Real research on this exists.
Weird, every researcher seems to use this same term.
Oh, those pesky """"facts""""! You don't like my sources, that's fine. I included 8 more in my other comment, starting with Wikipedia:
https://feddit.nl/comment/15554133
The only reputable org having a likely informed and less biased conversation about real research on that list is the AVMA which states in the link you posted:
Note that the emphasis was theirs.
While I suppose it is possible that one of those lawyers from the other links has done a responsible job of representing the facts and isn't just an ambulance chaser, you clearly didn't read your own sources, so I don't see any reason to waste my time on it either.