i agree partly
where as any dog is dangerous if not raised properly, some races are more likely to get aggressive. however, where to draw the line, what about rottweilers? what about german shepards?

"In fact, the only reason you would own a pit bull is to have a guard dog, like meth lab owners, or to massage your ego by owning an aggressive breed."

lol, you're such a moron. there are plenty of personal reasons to have a pitbull, just because you're too idiotic to think of more, doesnt mean they dont exist.

as for the disproportionate number of dog bites they have, if you keep killing off the most prone dog, you will have to kill off all but 1 dog species; one species has to be at the top.

wait......why not human genocide?

it's probably the best thing that could happen to the human race.  going at the rate we're going we will probably run the planet into the ground.  by keeping our numbers in check we will assure our survival.  bio 101 going on here, every biome has a carrying capacity, if it is reached and breached then some sort of mechanism must bring population back to a manageable level, and because there are no natural forces doing that, we must do so ourselves

anyone?

That would mean a Star Trek society would die out?

> esa wrote:

> That would mean a Star Trek society would die out?

Nah, probably not.  I would theorize that, at some point, a population would reach a "minimum tolerance level" of sort, after which the government would start taking action to raise population growth.  A good example would be Russia, where the government has taken efforts to encourage reproduction.  Various cities have been literally holding contests to encourage extra children (there was a contest where someone won a refrigerator if they had a kid on a certain holiday).

In addition, I would theorize that nontraditional childbearing methods would be utilized by the government at that time.  Perhaps, for example, a more benign "Brave New World" style raising system might be created, where laboratory-grown fetuses were then raised in government education centers of sort.

However, there's another possibility: a trend reversal.  Technology allows efficiency of production to grow exponentially.  For example, a Neanderthal may have to track their prey for days in order to catch up with it and wrestle it to the ground (no tools used), the development of a bow and arrow would shorten that time by putting range into the equation.  This could be applied to any technological advance.  Just compare your 40-hour work week to the work times of peasants 200 years ago.

Now, if technology allows individual work times to decline, then it means the strain working puts on the individual will steadily decline.  That means the conflict between work and child raising reduces, allowing adults to raise more children.  At the same time, however, the technology growth would also increase the biome capacity through efficiency of production, reducing the strain on the biome itself.

um...

Yes, you can "develop" a developing nation.

Exhibit A: South Korea
Exhibit B: Singapore
Exhibit C: Hong Kong
Exhibit D: Taiwan
Exhibit E: Japan

Need I go on?

in the UK the dangerous dogs act makes pit bulls illegal. only problem is pit bull types are not a proper breed- so it can take a vet a lot of time to determine what is a pit bull type. cross-breeds etc make it confusing.

> i agree partly
> where as any dog is dangerous if not raised properly, some races are more likely
> to get aggressive. however, where to draw the line, what about rottweilers? what
> about german shepards?

You can teach a poodle to rip someone apart. It wont be as effective, but it'll sure rip the
shreds out of toddler.

It isn't the breed thats important, its the owners responsibility of care. If a dog is savage,
the owner needs to be punished.

ofcourse i agree that the owner should be punished.
however, if equally trained, a pitbull is still more likely to attack someone than say a labrador.

> however, if equally trained, a pitbull is still more likely to attack someone than
> say a labrador.

Based on what facts? [I think the majority of pitbull owners are more aggressively
treating and training their dogs. Different conditions, which would skew the statistics.]

As an example i had a neighbor once that had a pitbull. It, as far as i know, never
bit anyway -- it certainly wasn't aggressive towards me. They never gave particular
attention to training it, either. Its all about the upbringing.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/#scale

"5. Male. Male dogs are several times more dangerous than female dogs. Unneutered
male dogs are the worst."

So since male dogs are several times worse, should we prevent anyone but breeders from
having male dogs?

> Face it, a guard dog is the best security when you are not at your place as they are right
> in the area that needs to be guarded, and have the ability to take down any intruders.

In Australia if your dog bites someone, it gets put down. Period.

Your dog is not a personal security system. This kind of mentality is a big part of the problem...

I think the thing that gets me here is that being racist is "wrong" and yet treating one dog breed differently from another is just an analog of racism, and yet people have no problem doing that.

> Well I'm sorry that in Texas it's legal to kill people who trespass on your property =]

Thats a little extreme for my taste... .

> it has to be proven that they are trespassers/intruders or w/e you want to call them.

So if you kill someone defending yourself on your property then its okay?

Thats more or less what i think Australia should allow. Although i'm not talking 'property' in
the sense of hectares of land.

> It's because they ARE diffrent from one another.

Dogs don't cry and bitch about racism.