haha I have no pity for coal burners. None. Too bad he didn't throw her off a balcony. I bet he found out she fuck his cousin and friends. hahahaha nasty skank
Shut the fuck up you stupid niggerkike. Get on a live stream with me you fucking bitch shill or get the fuck out of here. You name the terms you kike fuck
Why would I waste my time talking to a jewish shill? lol Go suck big bearjew daddy's dick. Did you not notice that Jimbob is also a little goblin jew who makes jewelry and drives a fucking Prius? hahaha smh He and HIS ASIAN WIFE were big porn fans too.
Black men don't understand covert narricist women and white women don't understand low iq black men.
This white woman was being a covert narricst gaslighting the nigger and throwing low tier insults at him and slowly trying to destroy his soul. The black man realized it and was like what what! Bitch you gonna get yo ass beat!
You're on the losing end of the 'pitbull' argument. It is only in the past twenty years that the umbrella term pitbull has come to represent a problem. When the nigger lost interest in the Doberman Pincer in the nineties, after the Sports Illustrated article, the pitbull became fashionable. THAT is when the number of violent and fatal attacks skyrocketed.
Before this time, the American Pitbull terrier did not represent twelve+ different breeds and was considered 'America's Dog'. It was a blue collar working man's dog. It was a family dog. It served with distinction in the US military. Indeed, the America pitbull terrier ranks second only to the Labrador Retriever in the American Temperament Test in terms low low aggression, panic, and avoidance behaviors; see link.
"Between 1965 and 2001, there have been 60 lethal dog-attacks in the United States involving a Pit Bull. Compared to most breeds, that figure is indeed quite high. There were only 14 lethal attacks involving Dobermans, for instance. But taking into account the overall populations of each breed measured, the rate of aggression among Pit Bulls is comparatively quite normal. Even low. During that 36-year period, only 0.0012 percent of the estimated Pit Bull population was involved in a fatal attack. Compare that to the purebred Chow Chow, which has a fatal-attack rate of 0.005 percent, and consistently ranks as the least child-friendly dog breed on the market. Why don’t media reports of attacks involving Chows eclipse those involving Pit Bulls? Because there are only 240,000 registered Chow Chows currently residing in the United States. And frankly, the broad-skulled, wide-mouthed Pit Bull makes for a more convincing monster than the comically puffy Chow.”
Indeed, the America pitbull terrier ranks second only to the Labrador Retriever [...] in terms [of] low aggression
Ah, yes, just think of all those many cases of blood frenzied Chihuahuas tearing people's faces off and gutting them alive. Apparently, they're so aggressive they didn't even make the list. Clearly, they must be far more dangerous than pitbulls and labs.
Garbage statistics like this are worse than useless. All they do is glaze over reality and provide excuses to justify delusions. It's the same kind of shit that is used to pretend niggers are poor little misunderstood victims and ignore the all damage their presence does.
Useful dog breed attack statistics would, at bare minimum:
- Include non-fatal attacks - Group by injury severity - Exclude or isolate insignificant injuries - Exclude or isolate justified attacks (home invasions, service dogs obeying orders, etc) - Normalize by breed population size
To my knowledge no such statistics exist. I'd love to see them, if they do.
That's a good deal of work you seem to expect from a forum interaction. I can source what is readily available and not what is written by effete leftist faggots. I can point to data I have at my disposal. One such datapoint, as previously posted, is from the American Temperament Test Society. It exists, and is recognized for its merit; it does not fall to me to defend it. If you take issue with their conclusions, you should register it with them, or the AKC. I will say there are a number of excellent books written on the topic, if you'd like to read them. This is an excellent place to start. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307961761/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Once you've worked through that, let me know.
I don't expect any work from you. I'm only pointing out what would be required to draw any kind of conclusions about how dangerous or safe a dog breed really is, along with an example of why anything short of that is useless.
That adequate data doesn't exist is not my fault. Nor is it yours. What is your fault, however, is that you are drawing the conclusions you WANT to draw, BECAUSE you WANT to draw them, in spite of not having said data. And so is the fact that you're pretending the garbage data you do have in any way justifies this. You ought to know better.
Now hold on. That's not what is happening here. I've read a large amount of information on the topic but I have not academically recorded it. I know there IS data out there, but I cannot readily source, thus counter your statements directly. I can provide you places I KNOW data is present. And I have. But I did not start at a conclusion and find data to support it. I started from a perspective of aprehension and then read my way to a position of understanding, and eventual resistance to the nigger defined shitbull narrative. These dogs simply are not numerically dangerous. The statement: "During that 36-year period, only 0.0012 percent of the estimated Pit Bull population was involved in a fatal attack." Is not bad data. What it is, is data without comparative context. Even without that context, and absent the nigger factor, is a statement that if you owned a properly bred animal, you would face a 0.0012% risk of a fatal attack. There are non-fatal numbers as well. The problem becomes mixed breeds and uneducated record keepers in law enforcement and media. For example, I own a Dogo Argentino; she is a Mastiff but because of her appearance, she is labeled pitbull, which is a Terrier. They're not even remotely the same... But they look it, so it is. We live in a fear based society based on willful and aggressively pervasive ignorance. I'm not asking you to be a believer. I'm asking you to acknowledge the possibility that public hysteria on the topic is as inaccurate and misplaced as it is in virtually every other regard. I'm asking you to acknowledge that it is possible, perhaps probable, that the nigger connection has merit. For example, most urban breeders of these dogs are nogs, who don't give a single fuck about breed standards, animal stability, or genetic purity; thus most urban rescue dogs are poorly cultivated crossbred animals. The majority of attacks involve uncut dogs, most frequently mixed with Rottweiler, a very popular ghetto choice because of it's enhanced displays of aggression, Where and how did the family source them? It's not nuance, it's foundational to the resulting outcome. And I'm saying that if you're curious, I can help show you where to look in order to determine if your preconceptions are accurate or not.
Have you seen what Pitbull attack survivors look like? Death would be a mercy in many cases. Compare to Chihauhua "attack" "survivors" for contrast. This is why statistics counting only fatal attacks, or frequency of bites, are bad data.
Death is not the only danger. And one bite does not equal another. These are misleading metrics. The extent of damage done MUST be considered. The circumstances that led to the attack MUST be considered.
I have no preconceptions. I have no reason to be biased. I'm merely going by what I'm seeing.
Training matters, certainly. But so does nature. And the nature of this breed is that it was bred to pit fight against bulls. Hence the name. Hence why they go into a frenzy at the smell of blood, and sometimes even just at the sight of weakness. Hence why they go for limbs and throat, and latch on, and tear into the flesh, and refuse to relent even when ordered or injured. They were bred for carnage and death. These are fighting dogs, not family dogs. Niggers favor them because of their violent nature, not the other way around.
Ignoring their origin and consequent nature, and pretending it's all just because of how they are raised, is foolish and dangerous.
It is exactly the same as pretending nigger behavior is all just because of "socioeconomic circumstances", and not vice versa.
Yep, I have. I'd wager everyone on this forum has seen the videos people like you jerk off to. It's irrelevant to my argument. Further, you keep discussing Chihuahua's... No one cares... You're the only one trying to have that conversation. You're not responding to the data I've presented and you're selectively arguing points that you feel safe defending. You surely are biased - this entire conversation is you ignoring my time and efforts to have a discussion so you can repeatedly harp the same points. You know your perspective is unchangeable, I know it is unchangeable... No one is buying what you're trying to sell. No one is discussing training... That's still just you. They were not bred for carnage and death, I've unlimited data illustrating exactly what they were bred for, when and where. They're working dogs. They're European dogs. They're blue collar, white, family dogs. So no, don't ignore their origin, look at it directly. Don't ignore their nature, examine it empirically. Stop pretending anything you're saying is true, I've literally provided actual sources that wholly disprove your faggotry. You didn't read any of my posts or you couldn't make any of the stupid claims you're making - I never argued any of the bullshit you're shoveling. You're a waste of my time and good will. We're done here.
Ask the husband of the woman who's two pitbulls killed their 4 and 6 year old and almost killed the mom. They were gud boys for 8 years never did do nuffin
[ + ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic
[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 2 points 2.3 yearsMar 3, 2023 22:34:38 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior -3 points 2.3 yearsMar 4, 2023 01:27:05 ago (+0/-3)
[ + ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic
[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 1 point 2.3 yearsMar 4, 2023 12:29:14 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 1 point 2.3 yearsMar 4, 2023 01:25:54 ago (+1/-0)
This white woman was being a covert narricst gaslighting the nigger and throwing low tier insults at him and slowly trying to destroy his soul. The black man realized it and was like what what! Bitch you gonna get yo ass beat!
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 1 point 2.3 yearsMar 3, 2023 23:32:32 ago (+1/-0)
It is only in the past twenty years that the umbrella term pitbull has come to represent a problem.
When the nigger lost interest in the Doberman Pincer in the nineties, after the Sports Illustrated article, the pitbull became fashionable.
THAT is when the number of violent and fatal attacks skyrocketed.
Before this time, the American Pitbull terrier did not represent twelve+ different breeds and was considered 'America's Dog'.
It was a blue collar working man's dog.
It was a family dog.
It served with distinction in the US military.
Indeed, the America pitbull terrier ranks second only to the Labrador Retriever in the American Temperament Test in terms low low aggression, panic, and avoidance behaviors; see link.
https://post.bark.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Screen-Shot-2022-01-31-at-12.21.42-PM.png
"Between 1965 and 2001, there have been 60 lethal dog-attacks in the United States involving a Pit Bull. Compared to most breeds, that figure is indeed quite high. There were only 14 lethal attacks involving Dobermans, for instance. But taking into account the overall populations of each breed measured, the rate of aggression among Pit Bulls is comparatively quite normal. Even low. During that 36-year period, only 0.0012 percent of the estimated Pit Bull population was involved in a fatal attack. Compare that to the purebred Chow Chow, which has a fatal-attack rate of 0.005 percent, and consistently ranks as the least child-friendly dog breed on the market. Why don’t media reports of attacks involving Chows eclipse those involving Pit Bulls? Because there are only 240,000 registered Chow Chows currently residing in the United States. And frankly, the broad-skulled, wide-mouthed Pit Bull makes for a more convincing monster than the comically puffy Chow.”
https://psmag.com/environment/tragedy-americas-dog-pit-bull-75642#.u4itawfj3
Niggers destroy everything they touch. These dogs do not deserve to be one of them.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons -1 points 2.3 yearsMar 4, 2023 06:33:35 ago (+0/-1)
Ah, yes, just think of all those many cases of blood frenzied Chihuahuas tearing people's faces off and gutting them alive. Apparently, they're so aggressive they didn't even make the list. Clearly, they must be far more dangerous than pitbulls and labs.
Garbage statistics like this are worse than useless. All they do is glaze over reality and provide excuses to justify delusions. It's the same kind of shit that is used to pretend niggers are poor little misunderstood victims and ignore the all damage their presence does.
Useful dog breed attack statistics would, at bare minimum:
- Include non-fatal attacks
- Group by injury severity
- Exclude or isolate insignificant injuries
- Exclude or isolate justified attacks (home invasions, service dogs obeying orders, etc)
- Normalize by breed population size
To my knowledge no such statistics exist. I'd love to see them, if they do.
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 2.3 yearsMar 4, 2023 07:09:31 ago (+0/-0)*
I can source what is readily available and not what is written by effete leftist faggots.
I can point to data I have at my disposal.
One such datapoint, as previously posted, is from the American Temperament Test Society.
It exists, and is recognized for its merit; it does not fall to me to defend it.
If you take issue with their conclusions, you should register it with them, or the AKC.
I will say there are a number of excellent books written on the topic, if you'd like to read them.
This is an excellent place to start.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307961761/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Once you've worked through that, let me know.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons -1 points 2.3 yearsMar 4, 2023 11:38:59 ago (+0/-1)
That adequate data doesn't exist is not my fault. Nor is it yours. What is your fault, however, is that you are drawing the conclusions you WANT to draw, BECAUSE you WANT to draw them, in spite of not having said data. And so is the fact that you're pretending the garbage data you do have in any way justifies this. You ought to know better.
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 2.3 yearsMar 4, 2023 17:12:47 ago (+0/-0)*
That's not what is happening here.
I've read a large amount of information on the topic but I have not academically recorded it.
I know there IS data out there, but I cannot readily source, thus counter your statements directly.
I can provide you places I KNOW data is present.
And I have.
But I did not start at a conclusion and find data to support it.
I started from a perspective of aprehension and then read my way to a position of understanding, and eventual resistance to the nigger defined shitbull narrative.
These dogs simply are not numerically dangerous.
The statement:
"During that 36-year period, only 0.0012 percent of the estimated Pit Bull population was involved in a fatal attack."
Is not bad data.
What it is, is data without comparative context.
Even without that context, and absent the nigger factor, is a statement that if you owned a properly bred animal, you would face a 0.0012% risk of a fatal attack.
There are non-fatal numbers as well.
The problem becomes mixed breeds and uneducated record keepers in law enforcement and media.
For example, I own a Dogo Argentino; she is a Mastiff but because of her appearance, she is labeled pitbull, which is a Terrier.
They're not even remotely the same... But they look it, so it is.
We live in a fear based society based on willful and aggressively pervasive ignorance.
I'm not asking you to be a believer.
I'm asking you to acknowledge the possibility that public hysteria on the topic is as inaccurate and misplaced as it is in virtually every other regard.
I'm asking you to acknowledge that it is possible, perhaps probable, that the nigger connection has merit.
For example, most urban breeders of these dogs are nogs, who don't give a single fuck about breed standards, animal stability, or genetic purity; thus most urban rescue dogs are poorly cultivated crossbred animals.
The majority of attacks involve uncut dogs, most frequently mixed with Rottweiler, a very popular ghetto choice because of it's enhanced displays of aggression,
Where and how did the family source them?
It's not nuance, it's foundational to the resulting outcome.
And I'm saying that if you're curious, I can help show you where to look in order to determine if your preconceptions are accurate or not.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons -1 points 2.3 yearsMar 6, 2023 05:19:15 ago (+0/-1)*
Death is not the only danger. And one bite does not equal another. These are misleading metrics. The extent of damage done MUST be considered. The circumstances that led to the attack MUST be considered.
I have no preconceptions. I have no reason to be biased. I'm merely going by what I'm seeing.
Training matters, certainly. But so does nature. And the nature of this breed is that it was bred to pit fight against bulls. Hence the name. Hence why they go into a frenzy at the smell of blood, and sometimes even just at the sight of weakness. Hence why they go for limbs and throat, and latch on, and tear into the flesh, and refuse to relent even when ordered or injured. They were bred for carnage and death. These are fighting dogs, not family dogs. Niggers favor them because of their violent nature, not the other way around.
Ignoring their origin and consequent nature, and pretending it's all just because of how they are raised, is foolish and dangerous.
It is exactly the same as pretending nigger behavior is all just because of "socioeconomic circumstances", and not vice versa.
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 2.3 yearsMar 6, 2023 13:46:33 ago (+0/-0)*
I'd wager everyone on this forum has seen the videos people like you jerk off to.
It's irrelevant to my argument.
Further, you keep discussing Chihuahua's... No one cares... You're the only one trying to have that conversation.
You're not responding to the data I've presented and you're selectively arguing points that you feel safe defending.
You surely are biased - this entire conversation is you ignoring my time and efforts to have a discussion so you can repeatedly harp the same points.
You know your perspective is unchangeable, I know it is unchangeable... No one is buying what you're trying to sell.
No one is discussing training... That's still just you.
They were not bred for carnage and death, I've unlimited data illustrating exactly what they were bred for, when and where.
They're working dogs.
They're European dogs.
They're blue collar, white, family dogs.
So no, don't ignore their origin, look at it directly.
Don't ignore their nature, examine it empirically.
Stop pretending anything you're saying is true, I've literally provided actual sources that wholly disprove your faggotry.
You didn't read any of my posts or you couldn't make any of the stupid claims you're making - I never argued any of the bullshit you're shoveling.
You're a waste of my time and good will.
We're done here.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.3 yearsMar 6, 2023 18:37:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] jigganiggaboo
[ - ] jigganiggaboo 1 point 2.3 yearsMar 3, 2023 21:46:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 0 points 2.3 yearsMar 4, 2023 21:55:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.3 yearsMar 3, 2023 21:36:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ReincarnatedGoat
[ - ] ReincarnatedGoat 0 points 2.3 yearsMar 3, 2023 20:39:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] allAheadFull
[ - ] allAheadFull 0 points 2.3 yearsMar 3, 2023 20:22:59 ago (+1/-1)
https://files.catbox.moe/i4yt0u.png
https://files.catbox.moe/8z9pj7.webp