By: Jenny R
"They provoked it"
Quick note: "nutter[s]" is not a blanket term for all pitbull owners. It is to indicate a type of pit owner that is fanatical, close-minded, and cruel about about their "advocacy". It is the people that refuse to read/hear anything that doesn't reinforce their views, or those who receive that information but choose to ignore it anyway, and continue ad hominem attacks on victims and safety advocates, refuse to respect the boundaries or grief of others and consciously continue to perpetuate danger myths, all the while doing their best to tear down the information groups that do not cater to them. It is abhorrent and dysfunctional behaviors toward others that defines a "nutter".
Nutters pathologically rally around to fabricate excuses for a pitbull attack, insisting the dogs were somehow provoked. They get so ridiculous about it, that an assembly of them responded to the article about the diabetic man who had his toes chewed off while he was sleeping. The asserted with the utmost certainty that he must’ve had an infection in the toes and the dog was actually helping him, saving his life, and is a hero. Because… you know… a dog’s mouth is the epitome of cleanliness. There was no evidence of infection whatsoever, but the nutters kept repeating it as fact. It is true that some dogs can sense infections and even cancer within the body, but it is untrue that the dog’s course of action to alert the owner or to manage it would be mauling the body. Many dogs—not pitbulls—detect cancer cells, and do not attack the patient over it. I wonder if they would like a pitbull to treat their next yeast infection? tummy-bug? or their child's ear infection? Of course not, yes?
The toe-thing is just as absurd, but exemplifies the distorted thinking of rabid pitbull advocates. Common sense issues that, if diabetic infection sparks pitbull aggression, there would be a strong and evident correlation between attacks and owner illness. The human body regularly goes through a smorgasbord of infection, yet, people are not explicitly onlymauled when suffering any of the thousands of acquired health afflictions. The only thing that would make the infection=assault theory even somewhat feasible is if it is a predator instinct (apex predators going after sick or wounded prey)... which flies in the face of every claim that a pitbull's behavior and aggression has no genetic/inborn component. That aggressive pitbulls are human-made only.
May 2011, Rochester Hills, NY; Family Pit Bull attacks it's owner while she wassitting at computer...Probably typing "Don't Blame The Breed"
Oct 2009, Woodbury, MN; Man mauled by his gripper as he watched TV
Pitbull aggression is idiopathic, meaning their aggression is random, sudden, dangerous, and unprovoked. This makes it unpredictable and absent in temperament testing. Passing a temperament test is not a true indicator of future aggression. It isirrelevant to danger potential.
Quick note: "nutter[s]" is not a blanket term for all pitbull owners. It is to indicate a type of pit owner that is fanatical, close-minded, and cruel about about their "advocacy". It is the people that refuse to read/hear anything that doesn't reinforce their views, or those who receive that information but choose to ignore it anyway, and continue ad hominem attacks on victims and safety advocates, refuse to respect the boundaries or grief of others and consciously continue to perpetuate danger myths, all the while doing their best to tear down the information groups that do not cater to them. It is abhorrent and dysfunctional behaviors toward others that defines a "nutter".
Nutters pathologically rally around to fabricate excuses for a pitbull attack, insisting the dogs were somehow provoked. They get so ridiculous about it, that an assembly of them responded to the article about the diabetic man who had his toes chewed off while he was sleeping. The asserted with the utmost certainty that he must’ve had an infection in the toes and the dog was actually helping him, saving his life, and is a hero. Because… you know… a dog’s mouth is the epitome of cleanliness. There was no evidence of infection whatsoever, but the nutters kept repeating it as fact. It is true that some dogs can sense infections and even cancer within the body, but it is untrue that the dog’s course of action to alert the owner or to manage it would be mauling the body. Many dogs—not pitbulls—detect cancer cells, and do not attack the patient over it. I wonder if they would like a pitbull to treat their next yeast infection? tummy-bug? or their child's ear infection? Of course not, yes?
The toe-thing is just as absurd, but exemplifies the distorted thinking of rabid pitbull advocates. Common sense issues that, if diabetic infection sparks pitbull aggression, there would be a strong and evident correlation between attacks and owner illness. The human body regularly goes through a smorgasbord of infection, yet, people are not explicitly onlymauled when suffering any of the thousands of acquired health afflictions. The only thing that would make the infection=assault theory even somewhat feasible is if it is a predator instinct (apex predators going after sick or wounded prey)... which flies in the face of every claim that a pitbull's behavior and aggression has no genetic/inborn component. That aggressive pitbulls are human-made only.
May 2011, Rochester Hills, NY; Family Pit Bull attacks it's owner while she wassitting at computer...Probably typing "Don't Blame The Breed"
Oct 2009, Woodbury, MN; Man mauled by his gripper as he watched TV
Pitbull aggression is idiopathic, meaning their aggression is random, sudden, dangerous, and unprovoked. This makes it unpredictable and absent in temperament testing. Passing a temperament test is not a true indicator of future aggression. It isirrelevant to danger potential.
