Morality of exterminating dangerous breeds of an otherwise tamed species?

[u/Hro20k]

Dangerous to people, and not just having a better build/jaw strength etc. And also this particular breed(s) are the only dog breeds to have a lobby protecting them in the west btw

[u/Fast-Front-5642]

Pitbulls are neither the most physically capable nor the most common breed involved in attacks either by total or per capita.

The only thing they top out on is the number of fatalities but only after the 80s. Prior to that they were not considered the dangerous dog breed. The so called "dangerous dog breed" changes over time based on what is popular with gangs and thugs. And the majority of pitbull attacks and subsequently fatalities are tied to gang/thug owners. Because they raise the dog with hate and violence, ofc it turns out aggressive and dangerous.

Exterminating based on breed is just dog racism. Racism is immoral. Murder based on race is immoral.

Go fuck yourself OP

[u/Rawr171 → u/Fast-Front-5642]

These people be talking about per capita attacks and fatalities and use that data to immediately push dog eugenics and breed bans and then (rightfully) immediately see the fallacy when people use the exact same argument in human populations and call them out when they are made

[u/johnnybeesknees → u/Rawr171]

They are extremely different categories and shouldn't be compared. It's extremely far off from human "races" vs dog breeds. I'm not condoning anything particular about dog breeds. But comparing it to race in humans is a massive categorical error that belies an extreme misunderstanding of the topics. There is no reason to conflate them. It's extremely pointless and does nothing but make the conversation less coherent.

[u/Rawr171 → u/johnnybeesknees]

I think it can be useful to identify obvious logical fallacies. Like the per capita incidents = breed inherently more dangerous fallacy. People are trained and will instantly identify this fallacy when applied to humans, but fail to identify and fall for it when applied to dog breeds. It's so easy to understand for humans how per capita is not the sole authority on whether something is inherently bad and things like culture, expectations, societal perceptions/expectations, and other factors play a role to paint a complex picture, but if the conversation is about pitt bulls someone brings up per capita rates as a conversation ender, says this is "all we need to know" to justify exterminating the breed and that nothing else even needs to be considered and there is no more complex picture and you're a terrible person for even suggesting the conversation could be more nuanced.

[u/johnnybeesknees → u/Rawr171]

No. The interspecies variance between selective controlled breeding is an entirely different category of thing than the hereditary differences that appear in nature. They are categorically extremely different and expecting people to use them as analogies is not a proper way of framing the topic. Dog breeds and human races are not comparable in any meaningful way, no matter whar your purpose or goal is in trying to compare them. You realize that some sick people use these same kind of ridiculous comparisona to justify racism as well? It's a categorical error that should not be given any serious consideration.

Whether dogs should be bred or ever selected for breed is a much better and separate conversation. And whether different dogs should be treated differently is another entirely separate conversation.

[u/Rawr171 → u/johnnybeesknees]

See, this kind of emotional reaction to pointing out a fallacy you believe in is exactly the reason why it is useful to call it out. Note that I did not make the argument that pitt bulls are not dangerous, should not be banned, or that their rate of higher attacks isn't a signifier of a legitimately more dangerous breed. All I did was point out that making that argument solely using per capita attacks and refusing to consider other factors is fallacious (which if you think about the matter logically for a moment is very obviously true), and pointed out that we all can see the fallaciousness when that argument is used in ways closer to us. Rather than contest my arguments on the merits, which you cannot do, all you can do is continue to attack the validity of the comparison/analogy and insist that it shouldn't even be considered and is totally non-analogous.

[u/johnnybeesknees → u/Rawr171]

No. I'm pointing out that the categorical difference makes the conversation entirely distinct. Using "per capita" in certain circumstances outside of specifically "how to treat or consider human beings" is not always fallacious and can be useful. Determining how to engage with specific information using per capita as a meaningful input does not directly map onto this question.

[u/New-Objective7803 → u/johnnybeesknees]

I think of this as a litmus test for being stupid enough to believe anti-black rhetoric and you cannot change my mind.

This is literally exactly the same thing as 13% assholes talk about. Complete lack of socioeconomic understanding in both cases

[u/Fast-Front-5642 → u/Rawr171]

The stupid part is that the actual statistics do not support their hate of bully breeds. And yes there is the low hanging fruit of statistics regarding human breeds.

Edit: and just to check off the list we can also make clearly defined analogies to things like communist revolutions etc the whole idea of "eat the rich" yadda yadda... so you get rid of all the wealthiest people... and now a new group of people are "the wealthiest" by virtue of being the ones left over... sometimes even having profited from the elimination of the previous wealthiest people. This has literally happened multiple times in history.

Same thing applies with genociding the "most dangerous" breed/species/race... once they're gone there will still be a most dangerous breed/species/race. Same bullshit, new target. It doesn't end.