That’s not a valid argument, since it can be used elsewhere. Using that argument would confirm any racist or sexist stereotype as well, since you know what they mean. Just because someone has heard let’s see, that Jewish people are lizard aliens who drink blood and adrenochrome from babies doesn’t mean there’s some truth to it.
I’m not using the above as an argument against pit bulls having aggressive natures; I mostly stay out of that argument (though the one pit I remember was a lovely pup). I am saying that as an argument backing up the aggressive claim, it’s a bad one to use.
You might want to adjust your thoughts on the second. Studies have shown that pit bulls are associated with black people, and that people who have unfavorable views of black people, especially as being violent, also have a correlation to negative views of pit bulls. You can find one such study here:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11213322/
Question: “If you had to guess, do you think Black people or white people are more likely to own the following dogs?” Source: Pooled Lucid Surveys, June-July 2020, August 2021.
Not everyone dislikes based on racial association, but to claim there is none only illustrates that your argument is both invalid and uninformed.
Studies have shown that pit bulls are associated with black people, and that people who have unfavorable views of black people, especially as being violent, also have a correlation to negative views of pit bulls
Not OP, but - this has nothing to do with racism, WTF are you talking about?
“Studies have shown”… My god, studies have shown that a breed created for violence and bloodthirst has a higher probability of being violent and bloodthirsty than those that weren’t, that’s literally all the context there was!
My comments and the links were all about the stereotypes part,not really the pitbulls. This particular comment reply chain, at least where I got involved, was just about how stereotypes alone isn’t a basis for truth. A counter argument was made that such a judgement doesn’t count for dog breeds, and the study shows that it indeed can count.
That may be true in the US. Here in the UK there is no such correlation, and yet pitbulls here still cause more injuries and deaths than all other breeds combined. Odd, that.
My argument wasn’t that it cancels out any studies showing pitbulls being aggressive; as I stated before, I wasn’t interested in participating in that argument. My argument was that stereotypes aren’t a valid argument that something is true. They then stated that dogs aren’t political, u like other stereotypes to which I demonstrated that yes, dogs breeds can be associated with political biases. I
Do you think that stereotyping applies here, then? You seem minded to agree that pitbulls are more dangerous in fact than other breeds, given you won’t participate one way or the other. So if pitbulls are in fact more dangerous then if would be reasonable, rather than irrational stereotyping, to be more wary of them, and to label them as more dangerous.
Well racism and people’s perception of stereotypes often aren’t backed up by actual statistics.
The study isn’t saying pitbulls are more often owned by black people, it says people think that to be the case regardless of evidence.
It’d be like a study asking what race you think are the worst drivers, even if “most” people say “Asian” because of the common trope, it doesn’t mean that is true statistically, it just means that stereotype is commonly believed by the study’s participants.
That’s not a valid argument, since it can be used elsewhere. Using that argument would confirm any racist or sexist stereotype as well, since you know what they mean. Just because someone has heard let’s see, that Jewish people are lizard aliens who drink blood and adrenochrome from babies doesn’t mean there’s some truth to it.
I’m not using the above as an argument against pit bulls having aggressive natures; I mostly stay out of that argument (though the one pit I remember was a lovely pup). I am saying that as an argument backing up the aggressive claim, it’s a bad one to use.
Why are you comparing Jewish people to dogs??? That’s a bit antisemetic
Stereotypes about groups of humans are politically motivated. Not true of dog breeds.
You might want to adjust your thoughts on the second. Studies have shown that pit bulls are associated with black people, and that people who have unfavorable views of black people, especially as being violent, also have a correlation to negative views of pit bulls. You can find one such study here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11213322/
Question: “If you had to guess, do you think Black people or white people are more likely to own the following dogs?” Source: Pooled Lucid Surveys, June-July 2020, August 2021.
Not everyone dislikes based on racial association, but to claim there is none only illustrates that your argument is both invalid and uninformed.
Not OP, but - this has nothing to do with racism, WTF are you talking about?
“Studies have shown”… My god, studies have shown that a breed created for violence and bloodthirst has a higher probability of being violent and bloodthirsty than those that weren’t, that’s literally all the context there was!
You kneejerked answered without even reading the linked study, didn’t you?
Of course I didn’t read the study, because it’s off topic.
Pitbull kills white dog trainer.
Pitbull of a black dog trainer kills another dog
Race of the human has nothing to do with the fact that the fucking dogs were designed to maim and kill, dude.
My comments and the links were all about the stereotypes part,not really the pitbulls. This particular comment reply chain, at least where I got involved, was just about how stereotypes alone isn’t a basis for truth. A counter argument was made that such a judgement doesn’t count for dog breeds, and the study shows that it indeed can count.
Exactly my point. Nobody is talking about any stereotypes.
If the discussion was about how “X people tend to get Pitbulls”, I’d agree that talking about stereotypes makes sense.
But the discussion was about Pitbulls being bloodthirsty and dangerous. It’s not a stereotype, it’s a biological fact.
That may be true in the US. Here in the UK there is no such correlation, and yet pitbulls here still cause more injuries and deaths than all other breeds combined. Odd, that.
It’s because of your bias towards drug dealers /s
My argument wasn’t that it cancels out any studies showing pitbulls being aggressive; as I stated before, I wasn’t interested in participating in that argument. My argument was that stereotypes aren’t a valid argument that something is true. They then stated that dogs aren’t political, u like other stereotypes to which I demonstrated that yes, dogs breeds can be associated with political biases. I
Do you think that stereotyping applies here, then? You seem minded to agree that pitbulls are more dangerous in fact than other breeds, given you won’t participate one way or the other. So if pitbulls are in fact more dangerous then if would be reasonable, rather than irrational stereotyping, to be more wary of them, and to label them as more dangerous.
“If you had to guess” sounds like you are relying on hearsay there bud
Well racism and people’s perception of stereotypes often aren’t backed up by actual statistics.
The study isn’t saying pitbulls are more often owned by black people, it says people think that to be the case regardless of evidence.
It’d be like a study asking what race you think are the worst drivers, even if “most” people say “Asian” because of the common trope, it doesn’t mean that is true statistically, it just means that stereotype is commonly believed by the study’s participants.