There was a pit bull on a plane with me yesterday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

It's your right to get off the plane, sure. It's not your right to dictate what others can do solely to suit your preferences, princesa.

You do realize that I as a human will always come before your dog, right?

In no universe will a non-paying pit bull trump my rights as a customer on any airline.

I don't know why, but I continue to be amazed by how utterly clueless some dog owners are. Like there should be a medical term and should be deemed a disorder of some sort.

Np. Ignore this poster. She’s deranged. Pp- shouldn’t you be screaming at older moms on the MM chain about Chambray being dated? And yes, I could tell you were also the pit defender on that MM chain by your writing style. To quote your favorite tag line- it’s a ‘you’ problem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

Dp this is what this poster believes. Pits are just misunderstood and the reason is many of them are languishing in rescues eating up all the overhead fees earned by non pit adoptions is simply because people like you and me are dumb and biased. Nothing to do with their aggression, harm capabilities or the fact that pit owners are irresponsible and don’t fix their pets. Nope. It’s your fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

Chihuahuas are definitely aggressive. They suck. Show me how many people have been maimed or killed by them pls.

Pls research your own stats. I have a scar from a chihuahua, so that's at least one. that they're small doesn't mean they're harmless, and this argument that you think is so strong actually works against your point.

People don't train their chihuahuas because they're "just" a chihuahua. Whereas if someone with a "pit bull" behaved that way, you'd probably think them criminally negligent. At the root of this is the exact same problem: poor owner behavior, failure to train, lack of understanding of how to properly handle a dog. What you're trying to do is ban breeds, which will NOT solve the problem. What would is better owner training, including requiring a licensing exam before people could legal own a dog of any breed.

Every time you make it about "pit bulls" (which used to be rotties, which used to be dobies, which used to be GSDs; this is an old-ass argument) you knock us off track from any progress we might make toward an actual solution to dog bite incidents.

You know why people don't care about Chihuahuas? Because they aren't killing people!!!!!!!

But to your credit I would never own a rottie, or dobie or GDS. But I especially wouldn't not own a pittie since they are responsible for the largest number of human deaths.

Baby, i don't want to get bit by anyone's dog. I don't care that it's "not going to kill me".

Baby, I don't want to get bit by anyone's dog either. But you keep ignoring the fact that one can kill me, and the other will require a stitch or two.

It didn't even bark. You have a phobia. There's therapy for that. Seek the professional help you clearly need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

Chihuahuas are definitely aggressive. They suck. Show me how many people have been maimed or killed by them pls.

Pls research your own stats. I have a scar from a chihuahua, so that's at least one. that they're small doesn't mean they're harmless, and this argument that you think is so strong actually works against your point.

People don't train their chihuahuas because they're "just" a chihuahua. Whereas if someone with a "pit bull" behaved that way, you'd probably think them criminally negligent. At the root of this is the exact same problem: poor owner behavior, failure to train, lack of understanding of how to properly handle a dog. What you're trying to do is ban breeds, which will NOT solve the problem. What would is better owner training, including requiring a licensing exam before people could legal own a dog of any breed.

Every time you make it about "pit bulls" (which used to be rotties, which used to be dobies, which used to be GSDs; this is an old-ass argument) you knock us off track from any progress we might make toward an actual solution to dog bite incidents.

You know why people don't care about Chihuahuas? Because they aren't killing people!!!!!!!

But to your credit I would never own a rottie, or dobie or GDS. But I especially wouldn't not own a pittie since they are responsible for the largest number of human deaths.

Baby, i don't want to get bit by anyone's dog. I don't care that it's "not going to kill me".

Baby, I don't want to get bit by anyone's dog either. But you keep ignoring the fact that one can kill me, and the other will require a stitch or two.

It didn't even bark. You have a phobia. There's therapy for that. Seek the professional help you clearly need.

Nope. Keep your beloved pittie at home where it belongs. You don't get to make decisions for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

It's your right to get off the plane, sure. It's not your right to dictate what others can do solely to suit your preferences, princesa.

You do realize that I as a human will always come before your dog, right?

In no universe will a non-paying pit bull trump my rights as a customer on any airline.

I don't know why, but I continue to be amazed by how utterly clueless some dog owners are. Like there should be a medical term and should be deemed a disorder of some sort.

I can see how self-centering you are, and that doesn't make you right. The "pit bull" that was allegedly on this plane, minding its business, was granted access by the company who sold the owner their ticket. you don't get to preempt the service dog because you don't like it and think you're worth more.

That you think that way at all is ableist af.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

It's your right to get off the plane, sure. It's not your right to dictate what others can do solely to suit your preferences, princesa.

You do realize that I as a human will always come before your dog, right?

In no universe will a non-paying pit bull trump my rights as a customer on any airline.

I don't know why, but I continue to be amazed by how utterly clueless some dog owners are. Like there should be a medical term and should be deemed a disorder of some sort.

I can see how self-centering you are, and that doesn't make you right. The "pit bull" that was allegedly on this plane, minding its business, was granted access by the company who sold the owner their ticket. you don't get to preempt the service dog because you don't like it and think you're worth more.

That you think that way at all is ableist af.

Yes, a dog will never be equal to any human. Get that through your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

Dp this is what this poster believes. Pits are just misunderstood and the reason is many of them are languishing in rescues eating up all the overhead fees earned by non pit adoptions is simply because people like you and me are dumb and biased. Nothing to do with their aggression, harm capabilities or the fact that pit owners are irresponsible and don’t fix their pets. Nope. It’s your fault.

It's not a hard argument to make when you listen to what these anti-pit screeds reduce to: "I don't understand dogs, I don't like pit bulls, and I think the world should cater to me."

Pit bulls aren't particularly hard to understand. They're dogs. That's it. They're not some special kind of magical dog that only people who like pit bulls can understand. They operate by the exact same metrics as literally any other breed. If you can train a dog, you can train a pit bull, because a pit bull is a dog. Some of you don't understand that, because you're biased and, yes, at this point in these threads, willfully ignorant. It has nothing to do with the aggression or harm capabilities of a "pit bull" which are the same as any other breed of similar size and strength (and less than many of your favorite breeds, which you'd also understand if you knew what you were talking about).

Yes, some pit owners are irresponsible and don't fix their pets. There should be breeder licenses for dogs of all breeds which, when properly enforced, would solve that problem. But that's never what y'all suggest.

This isn't about the dogs. It's about you hating the dogs. That is the definition of a you problem: the problem is with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

Dp this is what this poster believes. Pits are just misunderstood and the reason is many of them are languishing in rescues eating up all the overhead fees earned by non pit adoptions is simply because people like you and me are dumb and biased. Nothing to do with their aggression, harm capabilities or the fact that pit owners are irresponsible and don’t fix their pets. Nope. It’s your fault.

It's not a hard argument to make when you listen to what these anti-pit screeds reduce to: "I don't understand dogs, I don't like pit bulls, and I think the world should cater to me."

Pit bulls aren't particularly hard to understand. They're dogs. That's it. They're not some special kind of magical dog that only people who like pit bulls can understand. They operate by the exact same metrics as literally any other breed. If you can train a dog, you can train a pit bull, because a pit bull is a dog. Some of you don't understand that, because you're biased and, yes, at this point in these threads, willfully ignorant. It has nothing to do with the aggression or harm capabilities of a "pit bull" which are the same as any other breed of similar size and strength (and less than many of your favorite breeds, which you'd also understand if you knew what you were talking about).

Yes, some pit owners are irresponsible and don't fix their pets. There should be breeder licenses for dogs of all breeds which, when properly enforced, would solve that problem. But that's never what y'all suggest.

This isn't about the dogs. It's about you hating the dogs. That is the definition of a you problem: the problem is with you.

LA LA LAND!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

Dp this is what this poster believes. Pits are just misunderstood and the reason is many of them are languishing in rescues eating up all the overhead fees earned by non pit adoptions is simply because people like you and me are dumb and biased. Nothing to do with their aggression, harm capabilities or the fact that pit owners are irresponsible and don’t fix their pets. Nope. It’s your fault.

It's not a hard argument to make when you listen to what these anti-pit screeds reduce to: "I don't understand dogs, I don't like pit bulls, and I think the world should cater to me."

Pit bulls aren't particularly hard to understand. They're dogs. That's it. They're not some special kind of magical dog that only people who like pit bulls can understand. They operate by the exact same metrics as literally any other breed. If you can train a dog, you can train a pit bull, because a pit bull is a dog. Some of you don't understand that, because you're biased and, yes, at this point in these threads, willfully ignorant. It has nothing to do with the aggression or harm capabilities of a "pit bull" which are the same as any other breed of similar size and strength (and less than many of your favorite breeds, which you'd also understand if you knew what you were talking about).

Yes, some pit owners are irresponsible and don't fix their pets. There should be breeder licenses for dogs of all breeds which, when properly enforced, would solve that problem. But that's never what y'all suggest.

This isn't about the dogs. It's about you hating the dogs. That is the definition of a you problem: the problem is with you.

LA LA LAND!!!!

Where you live, with your fingers in your ears and your enculado head, willfully ignoring any logic that challenges your biases.

Stay there, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

Dp this is what this poster believes. Pits are just misunderstood and the reason is many of them are languishing in rescues eating up all the overhead fees earned by non pit adoptions is simply because people like you and me are dumb and biased. Nothing to do with their aggression, harm capabilities or the fact that pit owners are irresponsible and don’t fix their pets. Nope. It’s your fault.

It's not a hard argument to make when you listen to what these anti-pit screeds reduce to: "I don't understand dogs, I don't like pit bulls, and I think the world should cater to me."

Pit bulls aren't particularly hard to understand. They're dogs. That's it. They're not some special kind of magical dog that only people who like pit bulls can understand. They operate by the exact same metrics as literally any other breed. If you can train a dog, you can train a pit bull, because a pit bull is a dog. Some of you don't understand that, because you're biased and, yes, at this point in these threads, willfully ignorant. It has nothing to do with the aggression or harm capabilities of a "pit bull" which are the same as any other breed of similar size and strength (and less than many of your favorite breeds, which you'd also understand if you knew what you were talking about).

Yes, some pit owners are irresponsible and don't fix their pets. There should be breeder licenses for dogs of all breeds which, when properly enforced, would solve that problem. But that's never what y'all suggest.

This isn't about the dogs. It's about you hating the dogs. That is the definition of a you problem: the problem is with you.

LA LA LAND!!!!

Where you live, with your fingers in your ears and your enculado head, willfully ignoring any logic that challenges your biases.

Stay there, please.

I would live it if you actually presented anything logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

Chihuahuas are definitely aggressive. They suck. Show me how many people have been maimed or killed by them pls.

Pls research your own stats. I have a scar from a chihuahua, so that's at least one. that they're small doesn't mean they're harmless, and this argument that you think is so strong actually works against your point.

People don't train their chihuahuas because they're "just" a chihuahua. Whereas if someone with a "pit bull" behaved that way, you'd probably think them criminally negligent. At the root of this is the exact same problem: poor owner behavior, failure to train, lack of understanding of how to properly handle a dog. What you're trying to do is ban breeds, which will NOT solve the problem. What would is better owner training, including requiring a licensing exam before people could legal own a dog of any breed.

Every time you make it about "pit bulls" (which used to be rotties, which used to be dobies, which used to be GSDs; this is an old-ass argument) you knock us off track from any progress we might make toward an actual solution to dog bite incidents.

You know why people don't care about Chihuahuas? Because they aren't killing people!!!!!!!

But to your credit I would never own a rottie, or dobie or GDS. But I especially wouldn't not own a pittie since they are responsible for the largest number of human deaths.

Baby, i don't want to get bit by anyone's dog. I don't care that it's "not going to kill me".

Baby, I don't want to get bit by anyone's dog either. But you keep ignoring the fact that one can kill me, and the other will require a stitch or two.

It didn't even bark. You have a phobia. There's therapy for that. Seek the professional help you clearly need.

Nope. Keep your beloved pittie at home where it belongs. You don't get to make decisions for me.

Says the person literally trying to control other people so they don't have to confront their bias.

You decide it's not a service animal and you decide it can't be on the plane? You're not that special, sweetie.