Forum Replies Created

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: IQ and Income of Pitbull owners #16938

    Well, these posts have been very informative. Just to clarify, I’m not the one who lost a cat. That was another woman who replied. My post was prompted partly by a pre-exisiting curiousity into the reason people gravitate to pitbulls given their danger.

    When I say “danger,” I mean two factors that combine here. One is the likelihood of attack vs other dogs. The other is the severity of the injury if they attack. Any dog owner who loves their dog is going to say their breed is harmless, loving, and the only possible harm is if they ‘just lick you to death.’ Pit owners are no different. Whether pits attack more or not, that’s a matter we can debate all day and never come to an agreement on.

    What concerns me is the how disporportiontely severe a pit attack is vs most, if not all, other breeds. Physically, they’re compact, extremely muscular with tremendous jaw strength. More than just physical traits, they were bred for gamness to fight until death. In addition, their attack characteristics were specifically those that were most lethal, hence the ripping/shaking style of attack and never letting go of their target. They are not bad dogs, but they’re not just dangerous if they bite – they’re dangerous in a way most other dogs are not. We may not agree on the pit bull’s propensity to attack, but I would be stunned we cannot agree on the disproportionate lethality/serious injury potential of pits vs other breeds. 

    Also, just want to make this clear: higher income/iq etc are generally indicate smarter people. Smart people generally weigh risks better than others. People that are better at weighing risks generally don’t pick the option with the greater risk, ie a pet that if it bites, will harm a person or animal far more so than another breed. Seems like an unnecessary risk. Smart people generally do not take unnecessary risks. Do you see why smart people generally do not own pits now.

     As to the doctor/lawyer/scientists owning pits, the same “smart people” logic applies. It’s nice to see a couple doctor examples as exceptions to the norm, but specifically, I’d like to see how many MDs own pits. Taking a wild guess here, but I’m gonna say its just a *tad* less than the general population, given their aversion to taking unnecessary risks with human life. And maybe the best indicator of this group is lawyers. They dissect the risk and liability meticulously for a living in cases far more complex than this pit bull issue.  I’d like to see the percentage of them that own pits. 


    Finally, just google “pitbull owners” and go click on “images.” Scroll down the whole page. You seriously think other dogs have maimed people when you do the same search on them? Or is google images a conspiracy too? If nothing else, those scars/injuries just might start connecting to my point about the severity of their attack compared to other dogs. Long post, I’m good.


    in reply to: IQ and Income of Pitbull owners #16876

    Raisins Mom,


    I respect the honesty in your response.

    My point was not to disrespect any profession or anyone not making a certain amount of money. It’s not about the profession or money.

     I brought up the professions and money example to point out that smart people generally do not own pits because they’ve weighed the risks. Pits are a great example of breeding for specific traits, but those traits are often mortal to others in society and their pets. Moreso than other breeds. How more clear could those risks be if you need to breakstick for a pit? Maybe it’s not a media conspiracy, maybe pits just really are more dangerous. 

    I’ve seen pit owners deal with this ‘more dangerous breed’ question in 2 ways.

    There’s the ‘who gives a damn about others’ attitude” I’ve seen from many pit owners. These are the really low IQ ones who give all pit owners a really bad name. They’re also the ones who own pits because they think it makes them look cool. Or tough. Or whatever. They don’t try to understand their dogs enough to control them or prevent harm. They just morons who own dogs. Extra lack of IQ points to the owners who are oblivious to any risk at all. See sleeved up, drug using criminal lowlife in this category. 

    Then there’s the group who deals with the ‘danger’ aspect through denial. These are usually the smarter pit bull owners. They’re just too emotionally attached to their dog to take an honest look at the danger issue. Because if they did, they might see that they’ve got a duty to protect others and others’ pets from their dog. It hard because it requires cold logic. But that’s the test.

    Finally, maybe your example of a vet who owns pits supports pits not really being dangerous. However, given that her living is made dealing with dogs and her that she has immense education behind her, her decisions are far more informed than the average pit owner. I trust her about a million times more than the average pit owner. I’m sure your pit is a great dog, but you’re one of the few pit owners that really really cares about understanding their dog. If more were like you, we’d all be in a better spot. It’s the rest of the pack I have issues with. I know too many pit owners who are flat out incompetant. Playing with a loaded gun. I’d feel better if it were a requirement to make would-be pit owners take a thorough course before being able to get a pit. 






    P.S. Do any of you bring your pits to a dog park? 







Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)