• Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Behavior is influenced by genetics as well as environment. Certain individual animals are more genetically predisposed towards violence than others. Certain breeds of particular species tend to have more of these individuals than others. So, it is possible to have a breed that is violent in that: if you take a random sample of that breed where the individuals are subjected to an identical rearing process more of those individuals will be more violent than average than the average breed has individuals who are more violent than average. (I realize that sentence is probably difficult to digest, but I’m not going to spend 20 more minutes working on this).

    Given the data that we have on pit bulls, I think they’re a violent breed. Not all pit bulls are violent, but a pit bull is more likely to be violent than a golden retriever when the two are raised in the same environment.

    • CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But you can train a dog to not act on their instinctual prey drive. Pitbulls are way more likely to be abused than golden retrievers so I don’t see how your point is relevant. Why are pitbulls the problem instead of shitty dog owners?

      Edit: you can be damn sure if a golden retriever or any dog grew up the way violent pitbulls grow up, they would be just as violent. Golden retrievers are easier to train though, I’ll give you that.

    • CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Using statistics without context is not right. Especially when talking about people or other living things that have unique personalities and life experiences.