Cool Guides
Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community
1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.
2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.
3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.
4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.
5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.
6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.
Community Guidelines
-
Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
-
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
-
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
-
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.
By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!
view the rest of the comments
Would you look at that, pitties pass at a higher rate than GSDs, Goldens, and most other highly popular dogs besides labs.
Yet somehow they're inherently evil or something asinine like that
I think a lot of the problem is two things:
A certain aggressive portion of people DO think that pitbulls are violent dogs, so they take them on and train them to be aggressive dogs
Pitbulls are strong as hell, so when they do act aggressively they cause a lot of damage
The real answer is to do something about the bad owners, because they give the whole breed a bad reputation. Continually saying that pitbulls are not a problem ignores this point.
Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. If the bad owners are giving the breed a bad reputation, then the problem isn't the breed. It's the owners. What point does that miss?
I'm clearly saying that the owners are the problem. I'm not sure if you read it clearly.
the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog's handler in various ways without the dog reacting> Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It's not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says "in the face of a threat." Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.
Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn't step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren't able to save them from injury.
That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.
You didn't even quote a full sentence, so yes it's out of context. That's how quoting things out of context works.
You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.
It’s one sentence. Just read the entire sentence you snipped those four words from. You come to a completely different conclusion with that full context.
Theirs is not a legitimate interpretation. They are trolling. You cannot reach their conclusion by reading that full sentence, which is why they took four words out of context.
You are running away because you can’t admit that reading the entire sentence (including the mention of a real threat) deflated everything you were trying to imply about pitbulls.
Real weird to waste your time online making up lies about a dog breed, dude.
Not a single one of your comments actually defends your interpretation or explains how it justifies viewing pit bulls as dangerous. Instead you've just been pretending to not understand a single sentence and insulting me.
Case in point. Still can't defend any of the bullshit you've been saying, still stuck insulting me instead. You have no point of view to defend here, just trolling.
You have never been able to defend what you said or quoted. Not once.
You never even tried. You got called out and immediately shut down and started insulting people.
You should probably actually go read what the rest is bud
I think the results are a bit skewered because based on what I could find out these tests are done voluntarily by the owner. And obviously, if you own a "dangerous" breed and they are misbehaving you aren't going to take the test.
I highly doubt 95% of randomly selected Belgian Malinois would pass the test. They require a ton of training and without that they wouldn't pass.
With Golden Retrievers you will have more people undertake the test without undergoing proper training of their dog. Because they seem fine in daily life.
Pitbulls are the most abandoned dog breed. Without proper training they are a danger to others. German shepherds are similar and many people underestimate them but Golden Retrievers are most often fine even with suboptimal training.
The reason many of us want to ban pitbulls is because there are too many bad owners. It's the same reason many of us want to ban guns. There are too many people who shouldn't own guns or dogs. And ofcourse compromises are welcome, such as requiring certificates to own certain dog breeds. I think it would even be ideal to require it for every breed.
I honestly had assumed most of the ban pit peeps were conservatives. Interesting to see so many on the left supporting this.
Avoiding maulings is a bipartisan issue.
Pointer: bred to point, naturally will point birds with 0 training
Heeler: bred to corral, naturally tries to corral things with 0 training
Retriever: bred to retrieve, naturally compelled to retrieve with 0 training
Terriers: bred to kill small animals, will go sicko mode on rats with 0 training
Pitbulls: bred to fight dogs, oh it's just how they are raised little hippo would never ever oh no why is there blood everywhere who could have foreseen this
Pittbulls were bred to fight bulls and other large animals for sport or hunting. This required quite a lot of special training. The infamous locking jaw is an adaptation to allow them to hold onto a bucking bull. The dog fighting happened after baiting large animals was outlawed long after the breed was established.
So after they weren't bred to fight bulls and bears, what were they bred to do?
Depends on what type of pitbull you are talking about (there are multiple pitbull breeds). Ratting is a big one, which is where their terrier parts come from. In frontier America they were used as all purpose dogs for hunting boar, ratting, guarding and herding. In the early 20th century they were primarily bred for companionship as they were seen as a breed that encompassed American values and were largely seen as a mascot for America up until around ww2. You'll see pitties as a very common occurrence in most 19th and early 20th century american media, from ww2 properganda to little rascals to the personal pets of Helen Keller, Roosevelt, Mark twain and Edison.
In the 70's and 80's was when their reputation for fighting dogs emerged following its illegalization in America and how common the dog was as a stray (because they were the popular "all american dog"). But since it was already illegal it wasn't exactly the best breeders doing the breeding, so they weren't really very good at selecting for specific traits, nor did it really last long enough to really take off. Breeding a dog to be a dog fighter is a little like breeding a horse for the glue factory, its not really something a serious dog breeder would waste their time on.
See my comment https://lemmy.world/comment/1885470