Seeing a pitbull and being scared is different than hearing about a dog-biting and thinking "pitbull." A pitbull may be more likely to bite you than other dogs, but because pitbulls are relatively rare, any given dog bite is unlikely to be a pitbull.
Not if you live in Bridgeport Connecticut. All I see is pit bulls and rottweilers. But I think human induced breeding programs for these dogs are the main reason for their aggressive pre-disposition.
<strong>Seeing a pitbull and being scared is different than hearing about a dog-biting and thinking "pitbull." A pitbull may be more likely to bite you than other dogs, but because pitbulls are relatively rare, any given dog bite is unlikely to be a pitbull. </strong><hr></blockquote>
When I hear about a fatal dog mauling, I automatically think of Pitbulls, Rotties, German Shepherds, Presa Canarios, etc. What do you think of? Pugs?
...Seeing a pitbull and being scared is different than hearing about a dog-biting and thinking "pitbull." A pitbull may be more likely to bite you than other dogs, but because pitbulls are relatively rare, any given dog bite is unlikely to be a pitbull.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well thinking it 100% of the time and being right most of the time fits for Philadelphia. I travel to Philly a lot, and almost all of their news reports of dog attacks are by Pitbulls.
At home I hear about Shepards, Dobermanns, Pitbulls and others attacking people. But I can understand how some people would have a Pavlovian response to hearing about a dog attack.
How come nobody seems (or wants) to remember my James Traficant, John Travolta, Anna Nicole Smith, Geraldo Rivera or Robert Downey, Jr. threads and ONLY seem to recall any and all Sharpton, Michael Jackson or Rodney King-related ones?
Go back and check the archives: I tear into the first group of people just as much (hell, probably MORE just because I'm not afraid of getting LABELLED by some of you) than any thread where you might think I'm doing "that thing I do".
I'm an equal opportunity dinger.
If you're in the public eye and you say or do something funny, silly, stupid, moronic, dangerous, lame, inflammatory, idiotic, gross, vile, wrong, disgusting, etc., chances are I'm going to comment on it.
I can't help the race/gender/sexual orientation/social status of the person involved.
<strong>This is a sad and disgusting story (they were beaten to death with bricks inside the van?), and look at how petty all of you are acting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh woe is you!
We're discussing serious matters here. Move along. We're discussing genetic predisposition and racial profiling and all sorts of juicy topics you can't seem to stomach. It doesn't seem petty to me.
<strong>Michael Jackson isn't human, let alone black.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, you're about right. He's kinda an "it" at this point. Not quite male, not quite female, not quite a child, not quite grown. Not quite black, but not really white.
<strong>This is a sad and disgusting story (they were beaten to death with bricks inside the van?), and look at how petty all of you are acting.</strong><hr></blockquote>You're right. I'm ashamed of the way we've all been behaving. Will you ever forgive us?
Yeah, you're about right. He's kinda an "it" at this point. Not quite male, not quite female, not quite a child, not quite grown. Not quite black, but not really white.
WHAT is he? Oops...what is it?
Nothing petty going on in this thread, Brad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Their names are being withheld until notification of next of kin, and police are waiting for the results of autopsies to determine the causes of death."
Eeerrr, death by bricks and stones?
Look, the whole country is in a heat wave. Things such as these become part of the frustration and stress in these conditions. Not condoning this, but right now our country is in a state of suspended chaos...since 9|11....and it will continue until we get some sort of "satisfaction". Maybe it's the media, but certain circumstances (kidnappings, rapes, outright gun fests and this story) seem to be more and more routine...sad, eh? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
What differentiates this breed of people in your mind? Race? Socio-economic status?</strong><hr></blockquote>
DNA? What separates a Pitbull from a Chihuahua? Not much. Different human 'breeds' still exist. My physical build, appearance, odor, etc. = very different from Shaquille O'Neal's or Ozzy Osbourne's, yes?
If *everybody* interbred and we all became a uniform race with very little genetic variability, then it would make less sense.
Is it socio-economic status that makes West African long distance runners so dominant? When you think of Asian weewees, do you think small or large? What about black weewees? If there's a physical difference, isn't there a potential for a mental difference?
Look I really do feel for those drivers and the perps will have to pay for their crime.
Blacks are definitely more likely to act in a violent matter in my opinion. Whethere it's "Nature or Nuture" I don't know. One thing that I prefer is that in dealing with Blacks you know if they don't like you from the get go. I haven't known many Blacks to be scheming or conniving criminals, hence the low numbers of Blacks in crimes of Pedofilia, Serial Murders and other crimes.
One only has to look at the poorest areas of our country and look at the living conditions to realize why crime is rampant. The disparity in wealth of this country is huge.
Right, hmurchinson, but I'm just pointing out our whacked standards. Plenty of people will be quick to say Pitbulls are born aggressive and dangerous, but when it comes to people...oh no...the sanctity of humanity precludes such a horrible idea!
The problem with the dog analogy is that it isn't accurate. The physical differences between a pit bull and a chiwawa aren't anywhere near proportional to the physical differences between blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, etc.
Also, the "violent pit bull" analogy is also a stereotype based on high profile media coverage of brutal dog attacks, and does not take into consideration how the dogs were raised. Most of the dogs involved in those maulings were conditioned to be agressive and violent by their owners. People who want dangerous and threatening dogs will obviously gravitate to the larger and more powerful breeds to train; no one would train an attack chiwawa, so of course you'd never hear of a chiwawa rushing out of a house to rip a neighbor's throat out. Raised in a caring environment, as most pets are, pit bulls can be as gentle and playful as any other dog breed. (I have a friend that raises several, and his children play with them all the time.)
Back to people and racial profiling. While we may be able to look at crime statistics to compare crimes committed by one race vs. crimes committed another race, the problem with statistics is that they may predict future trends in general, but they have NOTHING to do with predicting the behavior of an individual person. To predict that more blacks will be convicted of auto theft than whites based on previous crime statistics is one thing; to accuse the black guy driving a 'Benz down the highway of being a car thief just because he's black is something completely different. (The words, "insulting," "inflamitory," and "racist" come to mind.)
[quote]The problem with the dog analogy is that it isn't accurate. The physical differences between a pit bull and a chiwawa aren't anywhere near proportional to the physical differences between blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, etc.<hr></blockquote>
And yet they are as genetically close to each other as it gets. Proportionality? What about skin color? Isn't that a drastic difference? Size-wise, the differences are measurable anyway.
As a dog owner, I know a bit about my dogs. The dog I raised from puppydom is a German Shepherd. he is most definitely predisposed to be aggressive towards strangers that encroach on his property. I did not train him this way. In fact we tried very hard to make him more docile whenever strangers come onto the property -- the pool man, court cleaners, gardeners, utilities technician, etc.
Every breed has a stereotypical temperament. Jack Russell Terriers are loud, obnoxious, and think they're the size of Mastiffs. Golden Retrievers are very playful. Bull Terriers are probably the most stubborn dogs on the planet. German Shepherds, Poodles and Border Collies are very trainable while other dogs are not.
Profiling will always exist, whether it's racial, socio-economic or whatever. Everybody does it. IRS audits, security checks, selling controlled substances.
I can see it now...age profiling protests at the supermarket.
[quote]If there's a physical difference, isn't there a potential for a mental difference?<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, but I don't think it really applies to this particular situation.
There are too many negating factors to simply say; "Oh well it's in their nature."
Physical features as determined by DNA are rarely influenced by anything else and is unaffected by anything as complex and fickle as psychology.
A long string of proteins and amino acids says to build a small penis, but a long string of proteins and amino acids can't say to build a violent criminal in the same way.
I'm a dog lover myself, I'm a big fan of Rottweilers and I think pitbulls are, for the most part, taught to be violent.
To say "it's in the DNA" is to write off what is, arguably, a more important factor: the mixture of circumstance and previous teaching.
I would contend that it's a socio-economic factor moreso than a race factor.
I'm reminded of the guys down here who beat a boy nearly to death for not taking the Bible seriously. They're white.
So what explains their behavior? circumstance and previous teaching. Not race, not socio-economics and certainly not DNA.
Comments
Not if you live in Bridgeport Connecticut. All I see is pit bulls and rottweilers. But I think human induced breeding programs for these dogs are the main reason for their aggressive pre-disposition.
<strong>Seeing a pitbull and being scared is different than hearing about a dog-biting and thinking "pitbull." A pitbull may be more likely to bite you than other dogs, but because pitbulls are relatively rare, any given dog bite is unlikely to be a pitbull. </strong><hr></blockquote>
When I hear about a fatal dog mauling, I automatically think of Pitbulls, Rotties, German Shepherds, Presa Canarios, etc. What do you think of? Pugs?
<strong>Yeah, that is pretty un-pc.
...Seeing a pitbull and being scared is different than hearing about a dog-biting and thinking "pitbull." A pitbull may be more likely to bite you than other dogs, but because pitbulls are relatively rare, any given dog bite is unlikely to be a pitbull.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well thinking it 100% of the time and being right most of the time fits for Philadelphia. I travel to Philly a lot, and almost all of their news reports of dog attacks are by Pitbulls.
At home I hear about Shepards, Dobermanns, Pitbulls and others attacking people. But I can understand how some people would have a Pavlovian response to hearing about a dog attack.
Lassie come home.
Oh, not you TOO, BRussell? Just kidding.
Jeez.
How come nobody seems (or wants) to remember my James Traficant, John Travolta, Anna Nicole Smith, Geraldo Rivera or Robert Downey, Jr. threads and ONLY seem to recall any and all Sharpton, Michael Jackson or Rodney King-related ones?
Go back and check the archives: I tear into the first group of people just as much (hell, probably MORE just because I'm not afraid of getting LABELLED by some of you) than any thread where you might think I'm doing "that thing I do".
I'm an equal opportunity dinger.
If you're in the public eye and you say or do something funny, silly, stupid, moronic, dangerous, lame, inflammatory, idiotic, gross, vile, wrong, disgusting, etc., chances are I'm going to comment on it.
I can't help the race/gender/sexual orientation/social status of the person involved.
<strong>This is a sad and disgusting story (they were beaten to death with bricks inside the van?), and look at how petty all of you are acting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh woe is you!
We're discussing serious matters here. Move along. We're discussing genetic predisposition and racial profiling and all sorts of juicy topics you can't seem to stomach. It doesn't seem petty to me.
<strong>Michael Jackson isn't human, let alone black.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, you're about right. He's kinda an "it" at this point. Not quite male, not quite female, not quite a child, not quite grown. Not quite black, but not really white.
WHAT is he? Oops...what is it?
Nothing petty going on in this thread, Brad.
<strong>This is a sad and disgusting story (they were beaten to death with bricks inside the van?), and look at how petty all of you are acting.</strong><hr></blockquote>You're right. I'm ashamed of the way we've all been behaving. Will you ever forgive us?
<strong>
Yeah, you're about right. He's kinda an "it" at this point. Not quite male, not quite female, not quite a child, not quite grown. Not quite black, but not really white.
WHAT is he? Oops...what is it?
Nothing petty going on in this thread, Brad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A grey? They're described the same way.
[quote]People talk about how certain dogs have predisposed aggression, Pitbulls, Presa Canarios, etc. They are born with it. Disagree?
Why can't this apply to humans? Or is that too politcally incorrect?<hr></blockquote>
Not so much un-PC as it is simply illogical.
What differentiates this breed of people in your mind? Race? Socio-economic status?
Eeerrr, death by bricks and stones?
Look, the whole country is in a heat wave. Things such as these become part of the frustration and stress in these conditions. Not condoning this, but right now our country is in a state of suspended chaos...since 9|11....and it will continue until we get some sort of "satisfaction". Maybe it's the media, but certain circumstances (kidnappings, rapes, outright gun fests and this story) seem to be more and more routine...sad, eh? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>Definitely a grey.
Not so much un-PC as it is simply illogical.
What differentiates this breed of people in your mind? Race? Socio-economic status?</strong><hr></blockquote>
DNA? What separates a Pitbull from a Chihuahua? Not much. Different human 'breeds' still exist. My physical build, appearance, odor, etc. = very different from Shaquille O'Neal's or Ozzy Osbourne's, yes?
If *everybody* interbred and we all became a uniform race with very little genetic variability, then it would make less sense.
Is it socio-economic status that makes West African long distance runners so dominant? When you think of Asian weewees, do you think small or large? What about black weewees? If there's a physical difference, isn't there a potential for a mental difference?
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
Blacks are definitely more likely to act in a violent matter in my opinion. Whethere it's "Nature or Nuture" I don't know. One thing that I prefer is that in dealing with Blacks you know if they don't like you from the get go. I haven't known many Blacks to be scheming or conniving criminals, hence the low numbers of Blacks in crimes of Pedofilia, Serial Murders and other crimes.
One only has to look at the poorest areas of our country and look at the living conditions to realize why crime is rampant. The disparity in wealth of this country is huge.
Also, the "violent pit bull" analogy is also a stereotype based on high profile media coverage of brutal dog attacks, and does not take into consideration how the dogs were raised. Most of the dogs involved in those maulings were conditioned to be agressive and violent by their owners. People who want dangerous and threatening dogs will obviously gravitate to the larger and more powerful breeds to train; no one would train an attack chiwawa, so of course you'd never hear of a chiwawa rushing out of a house to rip a neighbor's throat out. Raised in a caring environment, as most pets are, pit bulls can be as gentle and playful as any other dog breed. (I have a friend that raises several, and his children play with them all the time.)
Back to people and racial profiling. While we may be able to look at crime statistics to compare crimes committed by one race vs. crimes committed another race, the problem with statistics is that they may predict future trends in general, but they have NOTHING to do with predicting the behavior of an individual person. To predict that more blacks will be convicted of auto theft than whites based on previous crime statistics is one thing; to accuse the black guy driving a 'Benz down the highway of being a car thief just because he's black is something completely different. (The words, "insulting," "inflamitory," and "racist" come to mind.)
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: jesperas ]</p>
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: jesperas ]</p>
And yet they are as genetically close to each other as it gets. Proportionality? What about skin color? Isn't that a drastic difference? Size-wise, the differences are measurable anyway.
As a dog owner, I know a bit about my dogs. The dog I raised from puppydom is a German Shepherd. he is most definitely predisposed to be aggressive towards strangers that encroach on his property. I did not train him this way. In fact we tried very hard to make him more docile whenever strangers come onto the property -- the pool man, court cleaners, gardeners, utilities technician, etc.
Every breed has a stereotypical temperament. Jack Russell Terriers are loud, obnoxious, and think they're the size of Mastiffs. Golden Retrievers are very playful. Bull Terriers are probably the most stubborn dogs on the planet. German Shepherds, Poodles and Border Collies are very trainable while other dogs are not.
Profiling will always exist, whether it's racial, socio-economic or whatever. Everybody does it. IRS audits, security checks, selling controlled substances.
I can see it now...age profiling protests at the supermarket.
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
Absolutely, but I don't think it really applies to this particular situation.
There are too many negating factors to simply say; "Oh well it's in their nature."
Physical features as determined by DNA are rarely influenced by anything else and is unaffected by anything as complex and fickle as psychology.
A long string of proteins and amino acids says to build a small penis, but a long string of proteins and amino acids can't say to build a violent criminal in the same way.
I'm a dog lover myself, I'm a big fan of Rottweilers and I think pitbulls are, for the most part, taught to be violent.
To say "it's in the DNA" is to write off what is, arguably, a more important factor: the mixture of circumstance and previous teaching.
I would contend that it's a socio-economic factor moreso than a race factor.
I'm reminded of the guys down here who beat a boy nearly to death for not taking the Bible seriously. They're white.
So what explains their behavior? circumstance and previous teaching. Not race, not socio-economics and certainly not DNA.