news Man killed by his own 3 Pitbulls (XL Bullies) in front of son

[Claymore]

9 minutes ago, Miss Show Business said:

Drag me with what? Lies? Misinformation? I'll go ahead and keep believing in what the American Veterinary Medical Association says over Reddit subs like "BanPitBulls"

Weirdo.

[Miss Show Business]

Just now, Claymore said:

Weirdo.

For believing in experts? Okay then, RFK

[Capris Groove]

1 hour ago, Domination said:

People who advocate for owning violent breeds are psychopaths. These animals are bred for their violent tendencies and do not belong in a family home. It's undignified and cruel to the animal to treat them as serotonin slaves that ultimately causes them to display aggressive behavior.

 

Can't stand the trend that began a few years ago to try and sanitize the image of these types of dogs in the name of progressivism as if it is virtuous. The true progressive position is that animals should generally not be kept as pets at all, especially if their needs cannot be met.

And that's the end of that.

[lillavend3r]

3 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

Another pitbull thread? Y'all are weirdos.

 

This is a rare occurrence that seems to be happening all the time only because the media always reports it. Notice how they always report it when it's a pitbull and never when it's a different breed. And don't even get me started on how most of these incidents are actually mixed breeds and the media misreports.

 

If you cannot train your dogs properly, you shouldn't have them. Dogs often have many signs of aggression before something like this would ever occur.

So if the media woudn't report said killings dogs would stop killing? 

[Capris Groove]

1 hour ago, Miss Show Business said:

Drag me with what? Lies? Misinformation? I'll go ahead and keep believing in what the American Veterinary Medical Association says over Reddit subs like "BanPitBulls"

It's not misinformation to point out that the data surrounding dog bites is really, really damning for pit bulls. Overwhelmingly, the majority of pets killed by dogs and the number of people killed by dogs comes from just this one breed which is a small percentage of all dog breeds. Yeah, in theory there are a few breeds in some remote parts of the frontier world that are just as deadly because they were, like, bred to duel wolves or whatever, but the average person is likely to never encounter them. Pit bulls on the other hand have far and away the worst stats of any common breed.

[aadrl1]

That one user here is basically borrowing all the pro-gun logics that are used to defend first amendment rights 

 

"Semi automatic weapons are the sweet sweet sweetest things in the world, it's only the humans who aren't trained to use them at fault"

 

[Capris Groove]

The braindead laugh emoji reactions on statistical facts. About as useful as that breed.

[Comedor]

4 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

If you cannot train your dogs properly, you shouldn't have them. Dogs often have many signs of aggression before something like this would ever occur.

If you have train your dog to not kill you then something is off. 

[Miss Show Business]

52 minutes ago, lillavend3r said:

So if the media woudn't report said killings dogs would stop killing? 

You're already more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to die from a dog attack.

 

Chances of being struck by lightning: 1/15,300, or 0.00654%

 

Chances of dying from a dog attack:

43/334,000,000 or 0.000013%

 

This is a non issue that people afraid of dogs are blowing out of proportion.

[Miss Show Business]

43 minutes ago, Comedor said:

If you have train your dog to not kill you then something is off. 

Dogs have to be trained from when they are puppies. Not because "they need to be taught not to kill you" 🤦🏻 but because dogs need obedience training just like you would start training a toddler. Dogs are literally like toddlers and have the brain capacity of a human toddler.

 

A well trained dog with owners who love their pets will never be aggressive and will always listen to their owners, who they would view as the pack leader.

 

Owners also sometimes have to make the painful decision to euthanize their dogs when they do start showing signs of aggression and it cannot be changed through training. I saw a post of a dog owner who had to do this and guess what? It wasn't a pitbull. In fact, breed has nothing to do with a dogs behavior: "Breed offers little predictive value for individuals, explaining just 9% of variation in behavior."

 

My point is, it's the HUMANS who make mistakes with their dogs, whether it is training them to be aggressive, not training them well, or not acting when they do show signs of aggression.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Miss Show Business

[Loca]

Maybe we should all gift Miss Show Business a pitbull xl 🥰🥰

[Miss Show Business]

48 minutes ago, aadrl1 said:

That one user here is basically borrowing all the pro-gun logics that are used to defend first amendment rights 

 

"Semi automatic weapons are the sweet sweet sweetest things in the world, it's only the humans who aren't trained to use them at fault"

 

This is seriously the dumbest argument I think I'll see today. You're comparing a weapon designed with one purpose, to kill, to an animal that has been bred and domesticated for thousands of years to be human companions. If you think this is a comparable scenario...

[shinyshimmery]

The obsession some people have with owning dog breeds they KNOW are dangerous is way beyond me. 

[AvadaKedavra]

We need more pitbulls. The more pitbulls in the world the better. Theyre angels

Edited December 15, 2024 by AvadaKedavra

[Miss Show Business]

5 minutes ago, Loca said:

Maybe we should all gift Miss Show Business a pitbull xl 🥰🥰

Keep exposing yourselves.

 

I'm posting factual statistics from the CDC, scientific studies, and statements from dog experts.

 

Go ahead and keep showing the world why a majority of Americans read at a sixth grade level.

 

 

 

[Breathe On Moi]

there's the Pitbull threads I was asking about 

 

[chiaroscuro]

the way that one user is TWEAKING out rn 

[AlanRickman1946]

36 minutes ago, Miss Show Business said:

This is seriously the dumbest argument I think I'll see today. You're comparing a weapon designed with one purpose, to kill, to an animal that has been bred and domesticated for thousands of years to be human companions. If you think this is a comparable scenario...

aren't they domesticated for thousands of years to fight bears or bulls or something?

[Comedor]

46 minutes ago, Miss Show Business said:

Dogs have to be trained from when they are puppies. Not because "they need to be taught not to kill you" 🤦🏻 but because dogs need obedience training just like you would start training a toddler. Dogs are literally like toddlers and have the brain capacity of a human toddler.

 

A well trained dog with owners who love their pets will never be aggressive and will always listen to their owners, who they would view as the pack leader.

 

Owners also sometimes have to make the painful decision to euthanize their dogs when they do start showing signs of aggression and it cannot be changed through training. I saw a post of a dog owner who had to do this and guess what? It wasn't a pitbull. In fact, breed has nothing to do with a dogs behavior: "Breed offers little predictive value for individuals, explaining just 9% of variation in behavior."

 

My point is, it's the HUMANS who make mistakes with their dogs, whether it is training them to be aggressive, not training them well, or not acting when they do show signs of aggression.

The essay. Just pick a different breed for a pet.

[awong918]

3 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

You're already more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to die from a dog attack.

 

Chances of being struck by lightning: 1/15,300, or 0.00654%

 

Chances of dying from a dog attack:

43/334,000,000 or 0.000013%

 

This is a non issue that people afraid of dogs are blowing out of proportion.

I'm not going to waste too much of my time on this because quite frankly your argument is idiotic, so here's an AI response.

 

1. Inconsistent Statistics

• The argument compares the chance of being struck by lightning (fatal and non-fatal) to the chance of dying from a dog attack, inflating the lightning risk.
• A fair comparison would be between fatal lightning strikes and fatal dog attacks or all lightning injuries and all dog-related injuries.

2. Faulty Risk Comparison

• Lightning is a random natural event, while dog attacks are preventable through factors like training, responsible ownership, and regulation. Preventable risks naturally attract more public concern.

3. Narrow Focus on Fatalities

• The argument ignores the high number of non-fatal dog attacks, with millions of dog bites reported annually in the U.S., many requiring medical care.
• Focusing solely on fatalities downplays the broader safety and health impacts of dog attacks.

4. Misrepresentation of Pitbull Risks

• The statistics provided don't specify breeds and therefore don't directly exonerate pitbulls.
• Even if dog attack fatalities are rare overall, pitbulls are often overrepresented in severe and fatal incidents, a point the argument avoids.

5. Dismissive of Legitimate Concerns

• Labeling fear of dog attacks as "blown out of proportion" ignores the valid worries of people living in areas with aggressive or poorly controlled dogs.

6. Neglects Preventability

• Lightning strikes are random and unpreventable, while dog attacks are linked to human behavior, which makes them feel more controllable and ethically significant.

7. Manipulative Framing

• By inflating the lightning statistic and downplaying the broader risks of dog attacks, the argument creates a misleading and imbalanced comparison.

[Miss Show Business]

34 minutes ago, awong918 said:

I'm not going to waste too much of my time on this because quite frankly your argument is idiotic, so here's an AI response.

 

1. Inconsistent Statistics

• The argument compares the chance of being struck by lightning (fatal and non-fatal) to the chance of dying from a dog attack, inflating the lightning risk.
• A fair comparison would be between fatal lightning strikes and fatal dog attacks or all lightning injuries and all dog-related injuries.

2. Faulty Risk Comparison

• Lightning is a random natural event, while dog attacks are preventable through factors like training, responsible ownership, and regulation. Preventable risks naturally attract more public concern.

3. Narrow Focus on Fatalities

• The argument ignores the high number of non-fatal dog attacks, with millions of dog bites reported annually in the U.S., many requiring medical care.
• Focusing solely on fatalities downplays the broader safety and health impacts of dog attacks.

4. Misrepresentation of Pitbull Risks

• The statistics provided don't specify breeds and therefore don't directly exonerate pitbulls.
• Even if dog attack fatalities are rare overall, pitbulls are often overrepresented in severe and fatal incidents, a point the argument avoids.

5. Dismissive of Legitimate Concerns

• Labeling fear of dog attacks as "blown out of proportion" ignores the valid worries of people living in areas with aggressive or poorly controlled dogs.

6. Neglects Preventability

• Lightning strikes are random and unpreventable, while dog attacks are linked to human behavior, which makes them feel more controllable and ethically significant.

7. Manipulative Framing

• By inflating the lightning statistic and downplaying the broader risks of dog attacks, the argument creates a misleading and imbalanced comparison.

"Your argument is idiotic"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Here's an AI response"

[MattieB]

7 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

Because a reddit thread from a sub called BanPitbulls is more reliable than actual CDC statistics... Got it

 

Experts literally agree that breed specific bans are useless. If y'all actually cared about people's safety, you would listen to the experts. Funny how y'all can do this when it's other issues, but as soon as it's an issue you can't be bothered researching, or an issue you have a heavy emotional reaction too, it's like all facts go down the toilet no matter how relevant they are.

 

Facts don't care about your feelings. Accept it and move on, and quit advocating for **** you don't even understand.

I knew my post would be a low IQ trap. 

 

In what ways does the sub invalidate the ACTUAL attacks and reports posted on the sub? These are reports just from November. These beasts are doing what they always have, attack and kill. 

How many more attacks before yall dunces will acknowledge there's a pitbull problem? Pit owners are literally just as stupid and blood thirsty as their pets are. 

Imagine saying facts don't care about feelings when there are real life reports of people INCLUDING pit owners losing their limbs and lives on the daily. 

I really can't stand idiot *******

[MattieB]

That reply was so ******* stupid, I can't. 

 

That's like saying corona virus reports are false and/or exaggerated because the data came from a "eradicatecorona" sub

[Miss Show Business]

41 minutes ago, MattieB said:

That reply was so ******* stupid, I can't. 

 

That's like saying corona virus reports are false and/or exaggerated because the data came from a "eradicatecorona" sub

I don't know how to tell you that CDC statistics will always be more accurate and reliable than some random reddit page.

 

Dog attacks are rare, period.

[MattieB]

1 hour ago, Miss Show Business said:

I don't know how to tell you that CDC statistics will always be more accurate and reliable than some random reddit page.

 

Dog attacks are rare, period.

The CDC statistics JUST spoke about how many people are bitten by dogs each and the amounts that receive medical attention. 

Nothing in those stats states less of them are pitbulls. 

Meanwhile I have actual links to direct reports of pit attacks many of which ended fatally. How many danes, chihuahuas, dobermans, German shepards can boast of such numbers?