I want my, I want my, I want my blue lacyyyyyyyy

[sataniscooler]

I've spent the last few days being very pissed off at redneck breeders. one in particular seems to think that this breed is *special* and wouldn't get along with cats even if introduced while young, because hunting is so "in their blood", and that they wouldn't be happy if they weren't hunting or trailing or doing some sort of work running around

Comments

[sataniscooler]

first of all, "pit bull" is an ambiguous term that can refer to many different breeds and mixed breeds of dog having similar physical characteristics, so any sweeping generalizations about "pit bulls" are basically meaningless.

most of the breeds to which that term nebulously applies were NOT, in fact, bred for fighting. note the addition of the word "Terrier" to most of those breeds' names-- those were originally bred to kill vermin. Dogs that WERE bred for fighting were bred specifically to be non-aggressive to humans-- in fact, human-aggressive dogs in general are not selected for breeding.

I think a lot of this breed stigma comes from the fact that dogs commonly called 'pit bulls' have traditionally been bred for strength. owning an animal, you inherently own the risk of your animal snapping and injuring or killing a human, but a dog bred for strength is going to do a lot more damage when they do snap. find me some statistics saying that 'pit bulls' are more likely to be human-aggressive than chihuahuas and we'll talk about breed-specific violence. 'pit bulls' (and rottweilers, and dobermans, etc.) get a bad rap because they are strong and cause a hell of a lot more mayhem when they go bad than a bitchy toy poodle.

I think it's funny that you believe the much more recently developed breed-specific traits would override the pack mentality of dogs in general, going back thousands of years.

anyway, we'll see. I'm sure my dog will be miserable and tear up my house and my cats due to breed-specific instincts, just like that redneck breeder said, and contrary to what many blue lacy housedog owners have said as well.

[knightofbob]

"Pit bull" is used pretty much exclusively to refer to the American bull terrier, which was bred to combine the strength of a bulldog with the never give up attitude of a terrier, so that they could better kill other dogs. From the UKC site: "Sometime during the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland, and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between Bulldogs and Terriers, looking for a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the Bulldog." "Gameness" is a dog fighting term. Even the one agency trying to legitimize them inadvertently acknowledges their origins.

Dogs are predators. The oldest, basest instinct they have is to kill things so that they may eat them. The packing came later, I doubt anyone would argue that pack instinct didn't evolve from killing instinct.

Millions of years of pack instinct, by the way, thousands of years of breeding. And, over the course of thousands of years of forcing one dog to impregnate another which, often, it would rather not, yes, many of those instincts have been overridden. For instance, retrievers work better as individuals, don't generally try to kill things, and don't eat dead things when presented with them in unprocessed form. Hounds track and corner prey, as a group, even, but don't act further than that.

I think it's funny that you keep bringing up pack mentality. I fail to see the relevance. You don't want to be part of your dog's "pack." If your dog sees you as alpha, as some trainers insist you should try to encourage, then they see you as the one to challenge when they decide they're tired of being subordinate. Even worse, they'll see themselves as equal to people, and occasionally want to establish themselves in the hierarchy over smaller, weaker ones. Usually children.

I love how you pull out two logically fallacies at once in your last paragraph. I've obviously touched a nerve here.

[sataniscooler]

"Pit bull" is used pretty much exclusively to refer to the American bull terrier

nope. commonly refers to American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, to name a few. most anti-pit bull legislation includes at least those three. Bull Terriers look like this.

anyway, I don't understand what your point is in all this arguing. if you're trying to say you can't override breed-specific instincts, you're just wrong, plain and simple. plenty of dog owners can testify to that. plenty of people have collies that don't herd, beagles that don't hunt, rottweilers that don't fight, and lacys that don't work, and they obey their masters and live normal, happy lives. quibble over 'normal' and 'happy' if you want, but in the end, you're still wrong.

the relevance of pack mentality is that that is how these animals think, and is the reason for their obedience to humans. fear of harm, anticipation of reward, and respect for pack leader are the motivators for dog behavior. if you're not a part of your dog's "pack", they don't give a shit about you at all except as a potential threat or food source, and they certainly aren't going to listen to you or try to protect you, as most dogs do.

if I've committed fallacies, feel free to point them out. or by all means, continue to make shit up that's in total defiance of common knowledge about dogs and act like it's absolute truth.

[knightofbob]

"...Contrary to what many blue lacy housedog owners have said as well." = confirmation bias and arguing from authority.

Many problem dogs come from homes where their owners are part of "the pack." Dogs do act on fear of harm and anticipation of reward, true, but so does any sentient organism. And most non-sentient ones, as well. However, dogs do not respect a pack leader. Every dog wants the alpha position. In the wild, the alpha is the alpha because he or she proves him or herself to be a badass by fighting and usually killing the previous alpha. The rest of the pack follows out of fear, but each watches for an opportunity to take the position for him or herself. A dog who is allowed to think of humans as part of the pecking order will do what it takes to assert itself in any position but the bottom, and will bite. Further, the act of giving food, to a dog, is an act of subservience, so an owner acting as alpha, yet feeding their dog, is definitely confusing things.

"...I don't understand what your point is in all this arguing."
Well, a) I'm bored, b) it's the old nature versus nurture debate, isn't it? You're down there screaming "nurturenurturenurture!!!" I'm just trying to say it's both. Though I was more hoping to lead you into a compromise by taking the extreme opposite position, that way it would look like I was sacrificing my position when I took the middle ground. Terry Pratchett needs to hurry on his next book, too much Dawkins makes me look at everything as a conflict.

[sataniscooler]

except I'm NOT screaming nurturenurturenurture; come on, I studied biology! I have a fantastic book called 'Nature via Nurture', which is definitely where my beliefs fall. I'm challenging your notion of nature, which you are basically saying makes 'pit bulls' particularly fighting/killing machines that could snap on a human at any moment, while neither history nor statistics support that idea. I'm also saying that for dogs particularly, it is part of their nature to let humans override other parts of their nature through training. Instinct as not as strong as you may think when it comes to things not directly related to survival.

I also don't know where you're getting your ideas of what is right and wrong in dog training based on pack mentality. I can't find a single canine behaviorist that falls in line with what you're claiming. I also don't know how a dog would be able to tell the difference in whether you considered yourself the 'alpha' or not. either way, you do what works with the dog, and what usually works with dogs is what most people call 'being a pack leader'. whether or not dogs actually think of us as they would think of an alpha dog, I don't know, but there are enough similarities that we choose to use that nomenclature.

(btw, just to nitpick, confirmation bias is not a logical fallacy.)

[knightofbob]

I thought confirmation bias qualified when an argument was drawn from it.

Like I said, I was taking an extreme position. My big problem with pits is more with the kind of people who generally own them (any breed popularly labled "dangerous" tends to be an asshole magnet). However, when one makes the news for killing someone, it tends to be "the really nice dog that all the neighborhood kids played with every day and loves cats and would never hurt anyone ever" except that it did. People usually say the same thing when a serial killer is outed, too.

I can't imagine it's all sensationalism, however, personal experience dictates that there's more to it. Yes, statistically the attacks per capita are no more than any other breed. I've read that over and over. I've also known a couple people with really sweet, people-loving pits who, when I went to visit and asked where their dog was, had to explain that it got out of the yard and mauled someone and had to be put down (well, one did, the other charged a cop and got shot). I've never heard of, for instance, a lab having a change of personality like that.

And you are staying firmly on the "nurture" side. You acknowledge that natural tendencies are there, yet then all but claim they can be overcome 100% of the time with no side effects and no risk of regression with proper training. I'm not making the claim that genetics trumps all, but you can't dismiss it out of hand.

[knightofbob]

I was thinking about this, and I realized my saying "down there" could be considered an insult. I was speaking geographically, and meant nothing by it. In a way, it could be considered a compliment: we're supposedly vulnerable to a snowstorm or two this week.

[sataniscooler]

oh, I think I figured out what these "fallacies" were, so I'll address those:

1) "redneck breeder" has nothing to do with the fact that he's wrong. he happens to be a redneck, and even if he agreed with me, he'd still be a redneck. he's not wrong because he's a redneck; he's wrong because there exist many dogs in the world that prove his way of thinking wrong.

2) "lacy housedog owners said so" is not appeal to authority, because that fallacy only applies when the authority is not a legitimate authority on the matter in question. I would say lacy housedog owners know enough about whether lacys make good housedogs to be considered sufficient authority on that matter, assuming they're not lying.

anyway. obviously I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine, but really, beyond my specific dog, I don't care all that much. I don't intend to try to completely suppress his working instinct in any case-- he will be running with me daily, and I plan on putting him in agility training as well, so he'll get plenty of exercise. if he seems bored or unhappy with that level of activity, I'll go from there.

at any rate, I'm confident that I can get what I want out of this dog and that he'll be a happy and well-adjusted and live in a land of unicorns and sunshine. :)

[knightofbob]

Any appeal to authority is an argument from authority. No matter their credentials, the word of an authority is not evidence in itself.

[sataniscooler]

quote, because I'm lazy:

"There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."

what I'm doing is not saying that blue lacy dog owners are infallible or by definition correct. I'm implicitly, and reasonably, trusting them not to lie about the dogs they own. not a fallacy.

[knightofbob]

Actually, and maybe this is the vodka, but "arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true" is "claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism." At least as far as said assertion goes.

[sataniscooler]

...yeah, it's the vodka. saying something is true and it's backed up by people who'd know is definitely not the same thing as saying those people who'd know could never be wrong.

if I said, hey, that thing Dawkins goes on about, evolution, is true-- that isn't argument from authority, because I don't assume it to be true just because he said so and he can't be wrong; it's true independent of whether he says so or not.

however, if I say that roofers say x is a good material for roofs, that's considered evidence provided by experts and is generally trustworthy, but it's not made more probably true by the rules of informal logic. informal logic is mostly useful in abstract arguments or differences of opinion wherein factual evidence is of little to no use. so if it makes you feel better, you can consider what I said an argument from authority by the rules of informal logic, which are basically useless in an argument of facts, because if you don't believe the evidence experts provide, well, there's not much to argue.

[knightofbob]

Well, now, bringing Dawkins into it is interesting, because, and I'm paraphrasing because I'm lazy, he has said many times that there are no authorities in science. There are experts better trained in fields other than your own, and you accept their word on your own time because they have that better training in that discipline than you, but you can't present their word as evidence in itself.

"Somebody says" is anecdotal and never considered evidence by any stretch of the imagination. Even in a court of law, possibly the most informal form of debate in the country, it's called hearsay and is inadmissible. "Somebody says, and they know more about it than you," is arguing from authority.

"...If I say that roofers say x is a good material for roofs, that's considered evidence provided by experts and is generally trustworthy..."
Actually, no, because you never take the word of someone trying to sell you something. Stainless steel is quite possibly the best roofing material, but most roofers will avoid talking about it altogether because it's almost completely maintenance free, and they'd be out of a job if everyone had it. I'd bet 100% of Cadillac dealers would agree that the CTS-V is the greatest current production sedan on the market. They're certainly experts, so by your reasoning, it must be true, or at least likely. BMW dealers would disagree, so they must be wrong, right?

[knightofbob]

And, btw: six years in South Carolina. You really think I'd be bothered by the derogatory use of the word "redneck?" Hell, the only reason I don't use it is that most people you apply it to take it as a compliment.