politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's a fair point, but "pit bull" being comprised of several sub-breeds isn't even kind of the same sort of umbrella as "literally every dog that isn't a pure bred"
And your neighbor being an idiot really doesn't have any relevance on the discussion
They are not sub-breeds, they are breeds, and I never said it was the same. I simply pointed out that pit bull is not itself a breed. It would be closer to a classification than a breed.
Comparing and banning mixed breed dogs makes as much sense as comparing and banning pit bulls if you don’t actually define what breeds are intended by using “pit bull”. That’s why many statutes in the US specify breeds in the legislation.
Language is important, especially when you’re talking about legislation used to restrict or ban something. Particularly if your primary determinant is visual appearance since, unless the animal is a registered purebred or DNA tested, you’re relying on what the dog looks like.
I used my neighbors situation as an example of how “pit bull” is not a proper identifier by itself.
I don't disagree that specific language will need to be used when drafting laws with regards to what breeds (or what traits of which breeds) you'll be regulating the breeding of. Of course it would have to, otherwise any such law is unenforceable - not sure what in my previous comments would make you think otherwise.
In an online discussion though (which is to say, not a court room) I'd argue that you're more derailing the discussion by getting worked up over terminology as opposed to the actual issue.
Do you take issue with how the study were discussing, or the AKC define "pit bull"? Did you even read either study/census to see how they did so before just going "oh they aren't even defining it right so their data is nil". Or did you just decide that your neighbor being an idiot meant the entire scientific community was too?
I took issue with this because pit bull isn’t a breed either. You used a poor word choice, had it pointed out to you and now you’re getting defensive.
And for some reason you’re hung up on the neighbor anecdote.
You know what makes me think you don’t value the importance of language? Getting rudely defensive about mixed breeds it being a breed but using pit bull like it is.
I’m derailing the discussion? The topic is about dog breed bans and you’re using terminology that doesn’t refer to a dog breed.
I was trying to help you understand because it’s a common mistake but now it seems like you just want to be a dick.
I maintain that there is a world of difference between the grouping of breeds commonly referred to as Pitbull and the grouping of literally every single dog that isn't a purebred. You are correct that "Pitbull" doesn't necessarily refer to a specific breed, and I concede that point, I don't however see how that at all negates my point that targeted regulation of the breeding of dangerous, and cruel (see the Pug) breeds is a good practice, let the people who are far more knowledgeable about canine biology than either of us draw the specific lines of how and when that threshold is passed.
My frustration is that you're getting hung up on terminology while bypassing the actual points being made. I acknowledge (again ,because I already did so in my last comment) that when drafting actual legal documents, precise and correct language will be very important. For internet disucssions, a highly common, well understood shorthand for a group of breeds seems perfectly sufficient.
And if your core point is that perfectly docile breeds might be getting lumped in the "pit bull" category on these dog bite studies, let's run some hypothetical numbers on that. Let's say that half of the dogs reported as pitbulls are not actually belonging to any of the breeds known to have a tendency towards violence - because hey, as you point out, some people are stupid and will completely misreport dog breeds. That still makes them 5x more likely to bite than a mixed dog (per the math in my previous comment). Let's say only 20% of the reports accurately describe the attacking dog as a pitbull. Frankly, that's a ludicrously low assertion for the reporting accuracy, but hey - let's be generous. That still makes them 2x more likely to bite than a mixed dog.
If any of those estimates are the case it certainly raises questions about the safety of German shepards, but that's not really a surprise to anyone who knows the breed. Police and military all over the world don't use them as attack dogs for no reason.
I'm specifically talking about pitbulls, because that's what this thread is about, but I don't have anything against pitbulls specifically - I just think that we should be regulating the breeding of dogs more closely to prevent dangerous or cruel breeds from proliferating unchecked. You're welcome to disagree, but unless you have some study to disprove my core point here, I don't see you changing my mind on this point here anytime soon, and I agree with you that this conversation has gone sour, so I'm signing off.
I’m not reading your wall of text. You want to argue so badly you’re fabricating some stance I have on the issue of banning breeds.
The only issue I took was you telling someone mixed breeds aren’t a breed while you also are not referring to a breed.
That’s it. Go back and read my first reply to you. I corrected you, explained the correction, and added an anecdotal experience about “pit bull” being used to describe a dog of Boxer breed.
Might be time for an internet break.
Aight bud, have a good night lol