That’s like saying driving a sports car is more dangerous than a regular car. In some sense, yes it is, but at the same time it’s not the cars fault that the driver irresponsible.
No, it’s like saying garbage trucks haul more garbage than normal vehicles. Because while people may transport trash in their vehicles, dump trucks were created for the specific purpose of hauling trash.
No they aren’t. They’re only a problem when not raised right. They DO need a firmer hand in training like literally every strong breed, which not all owners realise and take into account, but neglecting that isn’t their fault, it’s on the bad owners.
You pointed out the solution: nobody should be allowed to keeep a dog unless they can prove they know how to correctly train and keep a dog. If the owners are the problem, the owners should be held accountable.
Well, as long as we cannot be sure whether a dog owner has done their duty and properly trained the dog, we can never be sure whether a stranger’s dog is well trained or a purpously-trained killing machine. Or anything in between.
Come to think about that: to operate a car, motorcycle, boat or aeroplane you need to get a license, proving that you know what you are doing. Depending on vehicle and jurisdiction, you might even need to re-take tests frequently. All of these vehicles (in most jurisdictions) require frequent inspections and if they fail these inspections, you are no longer allowed to operate them.
Also, there are very stringent laws on how you are allowed to operate these vehicles, with really harsh fines for violations of these laws.
Looks like your stance on dog ownership is much more hardcore than mine, but I could get behind that.
Were you personally attacked by a pit bull, or was someone who’s close to you attacked? Your stance comes across as really paranoid, like you have a reason to fear dogs.
I was attacked multiple times by dogs and I don’t care what race they are. All dogs in public should be on a leash and muzzled.
And every time I was attacked I was just walking down the road and some random dog without leash or muzzle just attacked and bit me. And every time the owner was like “The dog has never done anything like that”. That totally makes everything better. I always felt so honored that I was the first one that dog hurt. I still got scars on my shoulder from that one time and that was almost 20 years ago.
I don’t think breed-based laws are a good idea, because they make it look like every other breed is not dangerous.
I think, all dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public and all owners should have to get a license that includes a test and yearly inspections first.
That’s extremely unfortunate. Of the many many dogs I’ve come across, big & small, including a few strays that I was unwise to approach so casually, I’ve never been bitten or attacked. Perhaps I was merely fortunate. Knowing what you’ve gone through, your stance is understandable, although I don’t entirely agree with it. Yes, all dogs in public should be leashed, although I find it unnecessary to put a muzzle on all but the largest dogs who have the actual strength to cause serious harm. I definitely don’t agree with any sort of licensing or routine inspection for dog owners, but I get why you would think this is necessary… perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree.
The issue is that for every good dog owner who trains their dog, puts it on a leash in public, picks up the dog shit and makes sure their dog can’t cause trouble, there is also some idiot who got a dog on a whim, mistreats it and doesn’t train it at all.
And most often the people who don’t care for training their dog are also the people who don’t care to secure the dog in public places.
I know that’s a generalisation and there probably are some counter examples. But a “don’t care” attitude generally runs through everything a person does.
And having a dog is a multiplier of what trouble that “don’t care” attitude can cause.
That’s why I am for licensing/inspections. For someone who does care it probably won’t change much. They already go to a training course with their dog. Just give them a license for completing the training/make that training mandatory if you don’t want to call it a license.
Any reasonable dog owner will be at vet in regular intervals anyway. Just let the vet not only check whether the dog is physically fit, but also if it obeys it’s owner and if it shows signs of abuse. And make that checkup mandatory. It’s better for the dogs anyway if they get their health checked regularly.
I see why you think it’s not necessary, because you might be the kind of dog owner who cares and then it’s just additional hassle. But, as I said, there are many who don’t care, even if in your bubble (and I don’t mean this word negatively) everyone cares for their dogs.
Man, I have to wonder, what are your thoughts on gun control? I mean the yearly dog inspector is great but like, what about social services? You think there is room in the budget to provide care for the less fortunate?
Social services don’t pay for your dog’s vet. Why should it pay for other dog expenses?
Regarding gun control, I luckily live in a country with decent gun control laws. So our death rate due to gun violence in peace time doesn’t resemble the civilian casulty rate in some war zones.
You can have a department for something like that. But it doesn’t have to be funded by the tax payer. That’s what license fees are there for. Works great for cars already (at least where I am from).
But seriosly, “but regulation costs money” is a pretty weak argument, because everything costs money.
Don’t get me wrong. You put in a dog licensing facility I am all for it. I just think, and please correct me, the amount of political capital people would have to invest could be spent elsewhere and provide much greater returns.
That makes sense what you are saying. The real question is how the majority of the population sees the issue.
Take for example smoking bans in restaurants and public buildings. In my county this was something the politicians didn’t want to do for a very long time because they feared the backlash of the smokers. But after a very successful public petition for enacting a smoking ban they did some surveys and found out that almost 70% of the population was for such a ban.
They then enacted the ban and all the smokers where like “The restaurants are all going to die”. Then the ban came and it was just business as usual. Nothing bad happened and actually, revenue increased because more non-smokers came to the restaurants.
I don’t have statistics on how many people would want stronger regulation of dogs, and that value might vary a lot between places. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. if it happens after a particularly gruesome dog attack) stuff like that might not even need too much political capital.
For example, after a pitbull killed a toddler who was just walking down the road, the city where I live enacted compulsory leashes in all public places. There was no shitstorm against it.
You mean those weird ass stats where they even agree that evidence is based off of looking at a picture where they admit they barely know it half the time?
Could you please provide those stats? Skimming thru the Wikipedia article on pit bulls, it seems there’s no clear evidence that pit bulls are significantly more dangerous that other dog breeds of similar size.
You mean these stats from a 32 your study of US and Canada from 1982 to 2009 that shows over 60% of dog attacks from from pitbulls? Here’s a collections of yearly reported dog attacks.
Training and keeping control of their dogs. Like any breed, pit bulls have needs in order to be happy and well-adjusted dogs. Relevant here is that, just like any strong dog with the possible exception of some of the gentle giants, they need extra discipline and a firmer touch in training.
A properly trained and socialised pit bull that’s treated well will not attack people or other dogs, whereas untrained and/or not properly socialised dogs of ANY breed are likely to develop problem behaviour, which can include aggression.
Any big & powerful dog with a strong bite like the pit bull has the capacity to seriously harm & potentially kill a person, and since you can’t count on every pit bull owner to responsibly train their pets, they do become a liability when in public. Pit bulls are also a popular breed in the illegal dogfighting scene, so violently dangerous dogs that have been bred to be violently dangerous are guaranteed to exist.
Even so, it’s rather unfair to treat every single pit bull like a menace when non-aggressive pit bulls that are affectionate towards strangers are not uncommon. Laws requiring big dogs to be muzzled should suffice; banning the entire breed from public (or, in some places, from even existing) seems excessive to me.
Edit: …well, at least in this comment, most of my points still stand. I should add that pit bulls are not only popular for dogfighting, but also a favorite of criminals in general, so much so that their demand is actively driving the breed to be even more violently dangerous than ever before. This has become such a serious problem that unaggressive pit bulls are nowadays unlikely to be purebred.
I guess it’s still unfair to treat every single pit bull (or, rather, every dog that resembles a pit bull) like a menace, but it’d also be unfair to blame anyone for treating them as such, so long as breeders continue to select for stronger, more aggressive, more dangerous traits.
If a big dog is calmly walking beside its owner on a leash & is well-behaved, why treat it like a menace, especially if it’s also wearing a muzzle? Otherwise, I’d agree that we all should be wary around any dog, regardless of size, that’s wandering on its own or acting strangely.
My friend’s pit bull got attacked by a Chihuahua and had no idea what to do about it except sulk all day after it was over. To me, blaming pit bulls for violence is like blaming BMWs for not using turn signals
Exactly! Labradors and German shepherds, along with pit bulls, were responsible for more severe dog bites than other breeds, yet I don’t see anyone demonizing labs & sheps like they do the pit bull. Its reputation is really undeserved.
I don’t think its undeserved at all. When it comes to fatal dog attacks, pit bulls are responsible for more than all the other breeds combined by a substantial margin. forbes.com/…/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-i…
I’ve never known a pit bull that wasn’t sweet but that doesn’t dismiss the fact that a breed that was bred for violence can be dangerous. Many dogs may bite when upset or feel threatened. Pit bulls are known for continuing the attack in a frenzy and thus have a disproportionate number of deaths associated with them.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, there is no shortage of data which refutes this, and that’s not even mentioning the methodological errors that studies which both support & refute the perceived dangers of pit bulls tend to have.
As someone else mentioned, fatal dog attacks overall are rare, accounting for 30 to 50 deaths per year in the US. For comparison, lightning kills on average 28 people per year in the US. Even when making the contentious assumption that pit bulls are responsible for most fatal dog attacks, such fatal attacks are still unlikely to happen.
Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. Pit bulls can certainly be dangerous as a breed, but when compared to other dog breeds of comparable size, strength, & temperament, their reputation for being exceptionally violent & attacking “in a frenzy” is not only undeserved, it obscures the real danger of a trait that is (afaik) unique to most (but not all) pit bulls: they don’t make overtly threatening gestures before attacking like other dogs do, and the subtle cues they do show are often missed, giving the impression that the ensuing attack is sudden & impulsive. While this trait alone does make the breed more dangerous & requires special consideration from owners, all the ignorance & fearmongering about pit bulls only serves to needlessly multiply this danger more and further polarlizes the issue.
I’d say the continuing existence & tolerance (and, in some places, full legality & acceptance) of dogfighting is the real issue, as the people involved are the ones who train/torture dogs until they become the vicious monsters that make headlines. Sadly, it is far easier to blame & persecute all the dogs from a few irreputable breeds than it is to uproot the entrenched criminal & inhumane activity that actively strives to make those breeds as dangerous as they’re reputed to be.
not real haha. Aside from “luck be in the air tonight” not being a phrase I’ve ever heard anyone say in any context, it doesn’t make sense as the solution because the “i” in “in” and also “tonight” is already revealed yet it isn’t for the word “air” (must admit I didn’t notice this, until I saw it pointed out).
What are you talking about? The ‘i’ in both ‘air’ and ‘tonight’ is not revealed. Just like it’s still hidden in ‘air’. Or am I misunderstood something…?
EDIT: Ah, you’re referring to the Snopes article you linked. I get it, but the rest of us are just commenting on the post and image here.
If you follow their link, you’ll see the original had the issue they describe. The one posted here seems to have been (further) photoshopped to solve the issue of the original.
Oh snap haha. Yeh I’m a dumbass. Nevertheless, it is definitely fake, which is something you can really determine just from context given the relative unlikelyness of this being missed and the fact that, “luck be in the air tonight” is not a phrase, but it’s good to know that this even exists in multiple forms out there meaning it’s definitely been manipulted.
This would be in the category “before and after” where the middle of the puzzle ends one saying and begins another. The solve would be “tuck me in” along with “in the air tonight”.
It’s a portmanteau of the lyrics “Luck be a lady tonight” and “I can feel it calling in the air tonight” which is why it feels just familiar enough to seem real, but not actually.
“Aww look everyone! It’s a cat! Upvote it and ignore that this is c/memes. It doesn’t belong here at all but upvote me anyway because none of you give a damn! I could have posted this two dozen other places where it would actually be relevant but I know you morons will upvote anything posted here, so give me my fake points!”
But shouldn’t that be something to work on, then? There are plenty of great posts made. It’s just that garbage often gets the same amount of attention as good content. Current thread presented as proof.
That alarms me. The Fediverse is inherently self-selecting to nerds. You’d expect to see a higher standard for memecraft. It’s like going to an anime con, and the artist’s alley isn’t full of fanworks that violate every known principle of anatomy. Or to a Sportsball match where they don’t slam-dunk the touchdown bases.
Of course, we’ll never top that picture which I thought for years was a deep-fried image of Hank Hill with the caption “E”.
TBH if you don’t restart then it’s going to take an hour before it lets you log in the next time you boot up. Just keep it going on Hibernate until you’re ready to let it update.
Great with almost 35 I’m finally starting to look like Keanu reeves. Who, I’m too lazy to look this up, is probably 20 years older than me on the picture on the right.
Which is important to note that he was 48 in that photo. And now he’s almost 60, and is likely a vampire, and he just was fat off matrix blood during that time
Look, it’s not that hard. All you need to do is lift weights six days a week, stop drinking alcohol, don’t eat anything after 7pm, don’t eat any carbs or sugar at all, in fact just don’t eat anything you like, get the personal trainer from Magic Mike, sleep nine hours a night, run three miles a day, and have a studio pay for the whole thing over a six to seven month span. I don’t know why everyone’s not doing this. It’s a super realistic lifestyle and an appropriate body image to compare oneself to
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.