Highlights: In a bizarre turn of events last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he would ban American XL bullies, a type of pit bull-shaped dog that had recently been implicated in a number of violent and sometimes deadly attacks.

XL bullies are perceived to be dangerous — but is that really rooted in reality?

  • Forester@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    The idiot I’m replying to believes that The genome of a animal directly correlates to that animals behavior potential for intelligence and general demeanor.

    Now where have I heard before that someone’s genetic makeup makes it so that they are not qualified to the same rights and privileges as the others. If this person believes that the parentage of a animal determines how a animal will live and act… That’s eugenics.

    Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,”

    • noride@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      To clarify, you are directly equating dog breeds with different races of humans so you can paint op as a eugenics apologist, and win an online argument about dogs? Did I get that right??

      • hiddengoat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Breed restrictions are a soft way of telling certain people that they’re not welcome by forcing them to choose between their pet and living in a given location.

        It’s redlining via an external factor that isn’t considered discriminatory. Some idiots look at a hard number “2,000 deaths in 30 years, OMG DANGER!” and refuse to accept the fact that per capita there are more dangerous dog breeds out there. But not by much, because the odds of you being killed by a dog are so preposterously low as to be irrelevant to your daily life.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dont see anywhere in the comment saying they’re making direct comparisons to specific human racial segregation. Just making an analogy using human racism as an example.

        I can see how someone might misconstrue that if they didn’t like the argument, though.

      • Forester@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am merely reading the man statements at face value. Quote" “It’s the owner not the breed.” And “Breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behavior in dogs.”

        Those statements just aren’t true. Dogs are specifically bred for certain physical and behavioral traits"

        If you do not see that as the definition of eugenics then I don’t know what to say in regards to your assessment.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          We have been practicing eugenics on animals for literal centuries via selective breeding. We have shaped the designs of many a farm animal this way. Did you think poodles existed in the wild?

          • Forester@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sweetheart I’m not the one saying that the genetics of a being make up the beings responses. That’s you and your buddy. I’m over here saying that genetics does not define the responses of a being. For the uninformed this means I do not believe in the false science of eugenics.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re missing the huge difference that humans arent selectively bred for specific physiological and behavioral traits reinforced over many generations. Theres no human race thats 10 times as small as they used to be with bulging eyes and breathing problems.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          mmm yeah really, 160cm isnt 1/10th of 184cm.

          compared to say, a chihuahua’s 3-6lb average weight up againt an American pit bull terrier average 30-60 lbs. Or 80 lb average North American wolf.

          • hiddengoat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            You really going to die on your braindead hill of “ten times bigger!” while ignoring actual evidence of you being an idiot?

            Sounds about right.

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              You playing a half role in deciding who you breed with for one generation and having your own preferences in a mate is not the same as an organization controlling both halves of breeding over many generations with a well defined and consistent list of genetic traits being bred for, which is clear in the major magnitude of variance amongst sizes of different dog breeds, compared to human races.

    • V17@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Calling other people idiots and then continuing with the rest of that message is not a good look.